Posted on 10/07/2011 9:05:25 AM PDT by edge919
It has been claimed by Obama apologists that in relatively recent cases, circuit courts have given their opinion on the term "natural-born citizen" as meaning nothing more than being born in the country. Supposably this would presume that Obama, if it can be legally proven that he was born in the United States, as he claims, is a natural-born citizen in spite of being born of a foreign national father and NOT being born to citizen parents, as the Supreme Court defined NBC in Minor v. Happersett, etc.
One example of such a recent decision is Diaz-Salazar v. the INS (1982), in which it says:
The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
But, there's a problem. Following the guidance in this case, the children, despite the claim of being NBCs, would have been deported with their father.
In the case at hand, no special circumstances are presented sufficient to bring petitioner's situation within the extreme hardship standard. His children are still of pre-school age and thus less susceptible to the disruption of education and change of language involved in moving to Mexico. There are no unique reasons why petitioner, in comparison with the many other Mexicans in his situation now resident in the United States, will be unable to find employment upon returning to Mexico or why he or any member of his immediate family requires health care available only here. Thus, although we recognize the unhappy prospects which the petitioner faces, we cannot hold that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
(Excerpt) Read more at openjurist.org ...
Oh geez ... now the ? key is getting pounded by its irrational user.
I made some simple examples today on another thread with Minor Rabbit and Wong Kim Platypus. I thought they were pretty good. Putting stuff in those words made the Vattle Birthers look like they were talking nonsense.
No, it only reflected poorly on your ability to present a sensible point.
I am NOT irrational!!! I even have my very own Think Tank!!! Oh, and I put up a whole separate page called “A Place To Get The REALLY Right Answers About Natural Born Citizenship” and the WORLD has you to thank for it because you were the inspiration for a lot of the BAD arguments!!!
One is not evidence of the other.
Well, soon I am going to be doing a VERY IMPORTANT and GROUNDBREAKING Internet Article called “2012—The Year of the Birther” and I am not going to have a bunch of Vattle Birthers messing it up and embarrassing the rest of us.
Sooo, answer my earlier question. How many points did YOU score on the test??? Over 20, I bet???
As Judge Smith’s panel dissent emphasized, R.M.G. herself “was not arrested, detained, held in custody, or deported—she was with her father and with his consent.” Pet. App. 47a. Gallardo’s insistence that his daughter remain in his care does not transform the agents’ acts into a “detention” or “deportation.”So she was not deported, despite what the New York Slimes wrote. Since when do you believe the media unquestioningly?
The subject of this thread is how Obama would have gone back to Kenya had his mama been a faithful wife to her alleged husband and the alleged father of her alleged child. Real natural-born citizens don’t have issues such as the deportation of their fathers or adopted fathers to worry about.
1. This whine about ad hominem attacks is from the person who referred to me as “the quote butcher.” If you dish it out, you get it back in return, so man up.
2. Nobody has attempted to “wiggle out” of anything. I’ve met your arguments head on and exposed within them a combination of ignorant premises, oversimplification, distortion, dishonesty and gross errors, such as the fallacy you cling to about a “neither ... nor” phrase that I’ve shown has no impact on the core clause of the sentence.
Oh, and I guess the judges just messed up again and called the little kids “natural born citizens” because the 14th Amendment does NOT apply to people born in the United States to 2 citizen parents. And those poor stupid judges just didn’t know that. They were sooo dumb they thought the 14th Aendent applied to all of us. Oh my!! And it sure couldn’t be that PRETEND lawyers on the Internet are wrong. Oh no, its the judges and courts and lawyers and Mark Levin and Ann Coulter. But I am serious about one thing. You really ought to tell the whole world about your 14th Amendment theories because I am sure you will be the talk of the town. I promise, people will be talking about you!!! You will be FAMOUS!!! OH Tee Hee! Tee Hee! LOL!!!
The 14th amendment was not cited in the claims that either of these children were "natural-born citizens." The only thing this shows is that the judges took the claim at face value, which I've already mentioned in the original post. If it were challenged, then there is legal precedent through Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark to show that these children are not natural-born citizens.
You believed the birth announcement in the Hawaii newspaper.
The Border Patrol confined a US citizen..deported her..with her alien father.
Was anyone fired or demoted at the Border Patrol? Suspended? Reprimanded? Nope.
This would not happen if both parents were US citizens.
Obama would have been sent with his alien father to Africa.
OK, all teasing aside, if you have gotten to the point where your legal theory makes you think the 14th Amendment does NOT apply to people born in America of two citizen parents, then that should be your wake-up call that something is wrong with your theory. Rather than just going all in on a pair of twos, this is when you start asking yourself, “Uh Oh, did I really say that??? OMG, what was I thinking???
Everybody in the universe has said stupid stuff before, and the best way out is just to admit it. I have been wrong about stuff before and the more I tried to cover it up, the worse it got. Just let yourself be a human being and get out out of this trap while you can. That is my advice.
What is with all the “legal theory” stuff?? I haven’t posed any theories. The SCOTUS specifically rejected a claim by V. Minor of being a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. If the court thought that it only took being born on U.S. soil to be a natural-born citizen, there was no reason for them to reject her argument, yet they did so UNANIMOUSLY. That’s not a theory. It is a fact and Justice Gray recognized it and mentioned in a couple of different ways in the Wong Kim Ark decision. That legal precedent is what kept him from declaring Ark to be a natural-born citizen.
You said: “The SCOTUS specifically rejected a claim by V. Minor of being a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment.”
Uh, if this was true, could it be because Virginia Minor was born BEFORE the 14th Amendment was passed??? Like in 1824. And the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. Sooo, Virginia Minor was ALREADY a citizen when it was passed???
This thread has nothing to do with the nonsense you are posting.
Oh, sooo dates of birth and dates of laws getting passed are nonsense??? I guess I must have made a very good point with those dates.
Absolutely. That could be the only reason they rejected her claim, but the court went further and said that women, not just Virginia Minor, did NOT need the amendment to be citizens.
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
A few paragraphs later, the court says of women:
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men.
That's kind of a curious thing to say, no?? The 14th amendment didn't affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. The premise would be those persons who would naturally be recognized as citizens are always going to be recognized as citizens with no affect from the 14th amendment.In case there's any doubt, it was expressed this way in the syllabus of the decision:
2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.
Notice that women who are born in the country of citizen parents are considered citizens as much SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment as before. These are persons who fit the definition of natural born citizen, and if that definition is as considerable since the adoption of the 14th amendment, then it means the amendment did NOT affect their citizenship. IOW, it means NBCs are excluded from the citizen clause, which is exactly what Justice Gray said in the Wong Kim Ark decision.
Why would the court say this if we have a so-called "fundamental rule" based on English common law of birth within the dominions or within the allegiance of the United States?? The answer is because the court considers this to be a different kind or different class of citizenship. It comes with doubts because you have to determine whether persons who are NOT born to citizen parents satisfy the subject clause. Such doubts don't have to be solved for those born to citizen parents. They are natural born citizens. Anyone NOT being born in the country to citizen parents would therefore NOT be an NBC. IF there's any doubts about the parents, then they get deported or have their extensions denied.
You said the judges said: “In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.”
True. (ALTHOUGH, if we use your logic, they didn’t specifically say they were NBCs.) But that still doesn’t mean that children born in America of foreigners are NOT NBCs because the court didn’t need to address that issue. Here is what they said:
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” [again they don’t specifically call them NBCs]
Sooo, what that means is:
a)Children born here of two citizen parents are NBC.
b)Children born here of one citizen and one alien are NBC.
c)Children born here of two aliens are NBC.
Which all came from Wong Kim Ark 24 years and there is nothing in this Minor one which contradicts that. Minor says A, and Minor leaves open B and C, which Wong Kim Ark settled.
This is NOT hard to understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.