Obama should have been deported with Barak Sr.

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

[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.

[sometime lurker]

From the government's case for denial of appeal

"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.”

The SCOTUS then denied petition for a writ of certiorari, Jan 10, 2011. She was not deported. She was in custody of her father, and he took her with him. INS defines deportation as

The formal removal of an alien from the United States when the alien has been found removable for violating the immigration laws.

So are you claiming (however much we may wish it so) that the child, born in the US, was in fact an alien? Especially since the court acknowledged the facts in the case that she was a "natural born citizen," and several times referred to her as a citizen?

[edge919]

I am not an immigration attorney, but I have prepared, filed documents and represented dozens of natural born citizen children in guardianship/conservatorship proceedings in state court to allow them to stay in the U.S. with 3rd parties (usually family or friends) when their illegal alien parents are being deported.

What you're describing are not natural born citizens. A natural born citizen wouldn't need a third party to sue a state for custody to keep the child in the United States. The fact that these people have to do this actually works to reinforce the point of the thread.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

The Judge did not directly address the definition of "natural-born" citizenship. The judgement was concerning deportation.

Exactly. The judgment was about deportation. The judge did not directly address the definition of "wife," "children," "job," or "Chicago," either. He accepted them as facts--just as he accepted the natural-born citizenship of the children as a fact. You may think he was wrong to do so, but to argue that he didn't do it at all is a little nuts.

[edge919]

Exactly. The judgment was about deportation. The judge did not directly address the definition of "wife," "children," "job," or "Chicago," either.

Actually, that's not entirely true. The judge did address the wife:

Diaz-Salazar in fact was separated from a wife and two children whom he had left in Mexico in 1974. Thus the woman with whom he lived in Chicago and by whom he had two children born here was not his wife, although he seems to have considered her so.

[bushpilot1]

You specifically claimed the SCOTUS said the following:

“SCOTUS said the child was not deported”

Again where did the SCOTUS say the child was not deported.

[edge919]

Gotta show some love for President Eisenhower in the case that this claim is true, plus an interesting quote from one of the authors of the 14th amendment:

In the 1930’s, 1940’s and 1950’s the United States deported trainloads, busloads, and shiploads of illegal aliens. “Operation Wetback,” ordered by President Eisenhower in 1954, charged the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) with deporting a million illegal aliens: men and women and their American-born minor children. Government agents did it then, and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not prevent them from doing it today.

- - -

Senator Howard said, in May of 1868, that the “Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents with the limits of the country.”

link to Daily Caller editorial

[bushpilot1]

“From the government’s case for denial of appeal

“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.”

This is not the SC stating the child was not deported.

Judge Smith is a Justice of the Supreme Court?

The Justice Department is a part of the Supreme Court?

My rooster knows the denial of a writ does not necessarily mean the SC is in agreement with the decision of the lower court.

[Squeeky]

I didn’t read the case or anything but did the government appoint a lawyer for the poor little kid, and was there a case number and stuff with her name on it??? Because I have typed stuff for my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq, a lawyer, and when a kid goes to court for anything, the kid has to have a lawyer if they can not afford one. Plus there is a separate case number thingy for each case which lists all the people in the case. Sooo this argument would be real easy to decide if there is a case number with her initials and a lawyer for her.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are incorrect regarding the ‘child would have been absolutely deported’ if both parents are illegal aliens. I am not an immigration attorney, but I have prepared, filed documents and represented dozens of natural born citizen children in guardianship/conservatorship proceedings in state court to allow them to stay in the U.S. with 3rd parties (usually family or friends) when their illegal alien parents are being deported. This is very common for children over ten years of age. I have also prepared the documents which allow children who left with their parents when young and wish to return to and live and attend school in the U.S. Similar to Obama’s situation. Although I have never looked into it, I would guess that his GP’s needed some sort of guardianship document to register him in school or to authorize medical treatment while he was a minor living with them.

People like their answers in black and white. There is something about "yes" and "no" that comforts the mind. However, the real world works in probabilities and percentages, and there is seldom solid demarcations. With that in mind, it is my custom (as it is most people) to characterize the most likely probabilities as certainties, and the least likely probabilities as irrelevancies.

Unless you can demonstrate that your above described circumstance occurs in the majority of cases, I have no interest in arguing your point. Also, postulating a support structure sans parents (especially regarding infants) is not a reasonable assumption. I certainly would have no such support structure in Mexico were the situation reversed.

Another issue with your post is that there is legally no such thing as a ‘de facto deportation.’ Do you have a statutory or case law citation to back you up for your statement?

You apparently do not comprehend the meaning of the term De Facto. It is by definition, not subject to case law or citation.

"De facto (English pronunciation: /diː ˈfæktoʊ/, /deɪ/[1]) is a Latin expression that means "by [the] fact." In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." "

[sometime lurker]

If they are not in agreement, why did they cite it as part of the argument?

Court after court has held that though the children are citizens, their status does not affect the deportation of the alien parent. Therefore, if the children are in custody of the parent, they go with the parent. If the parent makes other arrangements (as ydoucare has noted), the child may stay in the United States without the parent.

The courts have also held that the children themselves are not being deported, and may return to the US. And in fact, the two cases recently cited on this thread, of the infant and of the four year old, in both cases the child publicly and legally returned to the United States.

So, are you arguing that the children are not citizens? Since deportation only applies to aliens, you have two choices:
1. The children are not citizens and are deported as aliens
2. The children are citizens, but do not affect the status of the alien parent.

So which is it? DO you maintain that the children are illegal aliens themselves? Or do you believe that any citizen may be deported?

[DiogenesLamp]

Deport 4-year-old citizens? New guidelines, now

The only reason anyone thinks these children are US citizens is because of the foolishness of the Wong Kim Ark decision, and subsequent repetitions of this fallacy.

[DiogenesLamp]

This thread is about whether 0bama should have been deported with his father.

As you and others have been confusing the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark term "Citizen" for meaning the exact same thing as "Natural Born Citizen", I think you are now confusing "Legal Deportation" with "De Facto Deportation." The Central point of this thread was that Obama SHOULD HAVE faced De Facto Deportation had Stanley and Barack Sr. Stayed together. They actually DID in the case of Lolo Soetoro.

The "natural born" issue may extend to other questions on natural born, other persons (such as Marco Rubio) who some here question as natural born. I do not see that abortion plays into this.

The arguments are exactly the same. YOUR side argues that Citizenship materializes at birth. The Abortion supporters argue that "Legal Person" status occurs at birth. (An artificial man made boundary.)

"Natural Born Citizen" advocates argue that Citizenship is inherent in the child. Pro-Lifers argue "Life" is inherent in the child.(a concept consistent with Nature.)

If you are pro-life, and you understand the pro-life argument, you cannot argue that it is correct in the case of life, but wrong in the case of citizenship. Your position is inconsistent with the pro-life argument against abortion. If you are pro-life, you will have to chose one argument or the other, you cannot have it both ways.

Someone else on another thread tried something similar - "you didn't denounce X! Therefore you are in favor of X!" Pointing out that I didn't support X but it was irrelevant to the conversation wound up in more acrimonious back and forth. Is this a tactic of those who argue that born on the soil isn't natural born?

I've explained this above. You either believe the pro-life argument, or you don't. The Pro-Life argument is inconsistent with the Jus Soli argument. If you are pro-life, you must chose whether to give up being pro-life, or give up supporting Jus Soli. They are incompatible philosophies.

I have refuted something on this thread (and other assertions on previous threads). The claim was made that the courts had deported children of aliens, when the children were born on US soil and the court described said children as natural born in "the facts of the case."

I have refuted that. None of these children were deported. Can you acknowledge the error and refutation?

No. Bushpilot1 has come up with an example that indicates there are many such examples. Apparently children DID get deported.

[sometime lurker]

Again where did the SCOTUS say the child was not deported.

I am not too pigheaded to admit an error (unlike some). The statement was from the government case for denial, which I did not realize at first. However, SCOTUS accepted the government case and denied the writ.

Further, I found cases going back to the 1970's (I stopped there, probably goes further back) where court after court acknowledged the citizenship and citizenship rights of the child. In these cases the court said the citizenship of a relative does not affect deportation of the alien, and pointed out the child was free to return at some point. And as ydoucare pointed out, often these children DO stay, in custody of a nonparent relative.

This thread started maintaining "The law has treated these children of aliens as foreigners who needed to be sent back to their native country."Do you still maintain that is the law?

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course you are more expert on the law than the Supreme Court.

Nowadays, that's not so hard. The Four Liberal judges are obviously more ignorant of the law than virtually anyone you can find off the street regarding MacDonald v Chicago.

If they are so smart, why do they always get it wrong? Hmmm???

[sometime lurker]

I think you are now confusing "Legal Deportation" with "De Facto Deportation."

I am well aware they are not the same, it is your side that seems confused about this. "Deportation" is defined by the INS as

The formal removal of an alien from the United States when the alien has been found removable for violating the immigration laws.

None of the children involved were found to be aliens violating the immigration laws.

I've explained this above. You either believe the pro-life argument, or you don't. The Pro-Life argument is inconsistent with the Jus Soli argument. If you are pro-life, you must chose whether to give up being pro-life, or give up supporting Jus Soli. They are incompatible philosophies.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Pro-life is a moral issue for me. Jus Soli is a legal concept well established in common law, and explicitly stated to apply in the US by the Supreme Court in Rogers v. Bellei. I can be 100% in favor of the moral, and still recognize the law of land. This is a false construct on your part to bring in unrelated issues.

[DiogenesLamp]

Great find. That is a quote by Senator Howard which I had not seen before. It is unambiguous.

[Squeeky]

Thank you for covering two of the “red flags” in spotting Pseudolaw and Pseudo-lawyers. First, you used some “latin jargon” to and second, “the courts are wrong, not us Vattle Birthers.” Although probably your Latin stuff is better evidence of another “red flag” the one about: “On a similar note, pseudolawyers often misuse legal terminology, often because they do not have a full understanding of the concepts they are attempting to discuss.”

[sometime lurker]

The Four Liberal judges are obviously more ignorant of the law than virtually anyone you can find off the street regarding MacDonald v Chicago. If they are so smart, why do they always get it wrong? Hmmm???

Strawman argument, with a hint of ad hominem thrown in.

You imply I think lib justices are "smart." There have been lots of (IMHO) dumb decisions. That isn't the point we're arguing. To refresh your memory:

• The original post (seen in thread title) said that 0bama should have been deported with his father.
• Several of us have pointed out that children born in this country (same few exceptions as always) are citizens.
• In the two cases originally cited, in both the child or children were described as "natural born" in the decisions.
• In neither case was the child considered an alien who violated immigration laws, and deportation only applies to aliens.

[sometime lurker]

Please cite the original source of the Howard quote. I have googled and see it only on “natural born” type sites, which does not allow checking the context. Given previous out of context and butchered quotes, I will trust but verify. Citation?

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Pro-life is a moral issue for me. Jus Soli is a legal concept...

And the "legal" consequences are the murder of innocent children, which makes it a MORAL issue. Slavery was a "legal" concept, the consequences of which are the use of other human beings as property, which made it a MORAL issue. As one insightful commenter put it:

"Roe v. Wade is cut from the same cloth as Dred Scott v. Sanford: Certain classes of people are property.

well established in common law, and explicitly stated to apply in the US by the Supreme Court in Rogers v. Bellei. I can be 100% in favor of the moral, and still recognize the law of land. This is a false construct on your part to bring in unrelated issues.

The boundary you seem to want to impose between them is the false construct. Just saw this yesterday. Sums it up imo.

So how about answering the question? Are you Pro-Life, or are you Pro-Abortion?