Obama should have been deported with Barak Sr.

700 f2d 1156 diaz-salazar v. immigration and naturalization service ^ | October 9, 2011 | edge919

[BladeBryan]

“It matters not what a court nowadays thinks of Article II. It’s legitimacy comes from the compact between states, and descends from what the Writers of the Constitution, and what the Ratifiers of the Constitution believed it to mean.”

According to that compact, as written and ratified:

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” — U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section. 1.

[PA-RIVER]

Nice quote.

From the grave, both Ramsay and Pinckney, two founders, disqualify Soebarkah, our first Indonesian president.

[sometime lurker]

You butchered a quote. Admit it.

You’ve tried all sorts of gimmicks to say you didn’t, including claiming it was an independent clause (it wasn’t) and claiming your point is proved elsewhere in the case. If it was proved elsewhere, why did you need to butcher the quote?

[sometime lurker]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Follow the link I posted and you will see the quote I posted. The Supreme Court said the child was not deported. Go argue with SCOTUS.

[sometime lurker]

Do you plan on butchering more quotes?

Will you commit in the future to presenting quotes with all relevant parts present, instead of trimming them so they (appear to) say what you want them to say?

[bushpilot1]

Castro v United States.

Citizen daughter was detained, placed in a holding cell and sent with her alien father to Mexico.

The father wanted to take his daughter. The Border Patrol let him; against the wishes of her US citizen mother.

Both were placed on the deportation bus.

[bushpilot1]

“State officials instructed the Border Patrol that “the (alien) father had the right to the (citizen) child,” and that, absent allegations of harm to the infant, the Department was “not in a position to take the child away from the parent that had physical custody” and would not become involved in the dispute.”

Castro v United States

[bushpilot1]

” (alien)Gallardo was thus repatriated to Mexico accompanied by his (US citizen) daughter.”

Brief for the United States in Opposition. US Supreme Court.

Castro v US.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

The father wanted to take his daughter. The Border Patrol let him; against the wishes of her US citizen mother.

What that shows is that the Border Patrol prioritized letting the parent with (apparent) custody keep the child. The child was not deported; rather, the deported father was permitted to take the child with him. The baby, presumably, did not express an opinion.

This would not happen if both parents were US citizens.

That's because neither parent would be subject to deportation if they were both US citizens. Duh.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

The judge DID NOT call the children natural-born citizens.

As has been pointed out, the decision calls the children's natural-born citizenship status a "relevant fact." Are you seriously arguing that a judge would call unsupported allegations by one side's attorney "relevant facts which have been placed before. . .this court"?

[bushpilot1]

This means if baby Obama was living with senior he would be sent to Kenya with his alien father when his visa extension was denied.

[Don Corleone]

child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

Obviously not a 'Cesarean Section".

[DiogenesLamp]

I remind you again what James Madison, Father of the Constitution, thought:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States...

Yes, i'm quite familiar with your soundbite. It does not, however, sum up Madison's argument for Mr. Smith. It is if anything, and outlier in his point. Most of his argument deals with the Family being part of the community and how Mr. Smiths inherited lands are in South Carolina. Also, it has been pointed out by myself and others that When Mr. Smith was born, South Carolina operated under British Common Law, not American law.

Regardless, I have long conceded that quote from Madison to your side. Your side DOES have a few historical examples that support your theory. I've found far more that support mine, but any reasonable person has to admit your side has some. No doubt, not everyone got the memo that American Law revoked British Law on this issue.

[DiogenesLamp]

Really? Did they leave or stay?

It doesn't matter if they left voluntarily with their father or stayed in the US with other relatives. The United States did not deport them. The definition may help:

I sit here bemused at your notion that deporting the Father as an unwelcome alien is consistent with the idea that the son is regarded as a "natural born citizen." Too funny.

"Yeah, I was gonna run for President of the country that Deported my dad for being there illegally. " Nothing inspires loyalty more than that! :)

The children were not stated to be in the country illegally; to the contrary they were acknowledged in both cases to be natural born citizens. They were not formally removed by the INS or the court, which the father was. The case did not say they were to be formally removed. You are either arguing ridiculous viewpoints just to be contrary, or you truly have a reading comprehension problem.

You assert that a Child whose father is being deported as an unwelcome alien is a "natural born citizen", and you say *I* am arguing a ridiculous viewpoint? Project much? :)

[DiogenesLamp]

No, I’m not hip, and have no problem with not being hip. And I’m also not going to let you hijack the subject of the thread to distract from having to admit your errors. Admit your error and then we can talk about it.

I haven't made an error yet that has been brought to my attention. As for Hijacking the thread, I assume you mean my pointing out that this issue shares ideology with the abortion issue? It is true. One is a proxy debate for the other.

Those people that believe Life (or citizenship) is inherent in the existence of a child are Pro-Life Conservatives, while those that argue that both "life" and Citizenship descend on a creature the moment it crosses the threshold of the birth canal, are Pro-Abortion Liberals.

I think everyone here at Free Republic would be very interested to know what sort of people are arguing on Behalf of Obama. If they are pro-life, then they must explain the dichotomy of their thought process. How can the argument against abortion not also be the argument against "birth" as the threshold for citizenship?

I consider these people to be my allies. Do you?

[x]

The Border Patrol can deport citizen children of alien fathers and citizen mothers.

That's debateable, since the child ended up with her American mother on this side of the border.

It sounds like the girl was deported because everything happened so suddenly, and the law on this is in flux.

In any case, in the 1960s you probably wouldn't have seen a US WWII veteran's grandchild deported because his daughter had once been married to an African who overstayed his visa.

[DiogenesLamp]

"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument." You attacked the judge's cirumstances ("a Carter appointee") rather than addressing the statement. Perfect example. Sorry.

What do YOU think about Liberal Judges? It is a pretty consistent perspective among conservatives that Liberal Judges are simply wrong and should not be granted any assumption of legitimacy for their decisions.

What Kind of conservative are you who does not feel this way?

[DiogenesLamp]

However, the Tea Party effort will have to last about a decade to see a good changeover to the DC liberal culture...Cull a Senate Rino or 2 every primary election along with making many incumbent Dems fall every two years and we may see a few reversals to liberal laws. Eventually, the liberal judges as they retire would start to follow suit as Congress is right-shifted over the next decade or so.

I have a fear that no matter how conservative members of Congress are when they go to Washington, the corrosive atmosphere of the place will corrupt them. I have seen this effect time and time again. The problem is they are surrounded by Liberal culture everywhere they look or go in that town. All the People in Washington, and specifically the News media assume liberal beliefs are universal as a matter of course. I am reminded of John O'Sullivan's first law:

" All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing."

[bushpilot1]

There is a difference between a child born to an alien parent and a child born to citizen parents.

One can be placed on a deportation bus, the child of citizen parents cannot.

[DiogenesLamp]

According to that compact, as written and ratified:

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” — U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section. 1.

You misunderstand the point. The Constitution grants them the power to enforce their decisions, it does not grant them the power to be infallible. The Ultimate power lies with the people; Us.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We do not have to accept their faulty judgements. If we are true to the Constitution, we WILL NOT accept their faulty judgements.