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 ...
Did you yammer about something? Sorry, wasn’t paying attention. Please continue...
Threadjacking, yet again. I have already said it’s a moral issue, and morally, I believe in life. So that’s the end of your trying to distract and muddle legal issues of deportation and jus soli with abortion.
We are discussing the legal definition of deportation, and whether a citizen child was indeed ordered deportated. I will no longer respond when you try to change the subject.
You imply I think lib justices are "smart." There have been lots of (IMHO) dumb decisions. That isn't the point we're arguing.
It is an article of faith among conservatives that Liberal Judges are WRONG,(not dumb) and that they shouldn't even BE on the courts. The point that I am making in a roundabout way, is that you hold peculiar ideas for a supposed conservative. Whether you realize it or not, I am trying to garner evidence for a zot. Say enough stuff that makes people think you're an agent provocateur, and lighting strikes.
Now you may be what you would seemingly have us believe; a conservative with a disagreement on this particular issue, and an indulgence for Liberal Judges on the courts, perhaps even pro-choice, but these are peculiar positions to hold for any conservative of which I am familiar with. It is axiomatic to my mind that if you are not even a conservative, then you merely serve to waste our time.
If you ARE a conservative, then I intend to show you the inconsistency of your philosophies, and help you seam them back together again.
I agree. I am uncomfortable with non-original cites. We shall all have to look for it. Supposedly said in May of 1868, most likely in the congressional record. I'm going to look for it right now.
But it begs the question. YOUR concern for it implies that you regard it as a game changer. I could not be more delighted. :)
Not so. I do not regard it as a game changer, merely another piece of information. I have already posted quotes from Senator Trumbull that would contradict this, but I like to get as much information as possible. I respect and agree with your desire for original sources.
I’ve seen lots of this - if you don’t agree with the “natural born” crowd you’re a lib, a traitor, part of the conspiracy etc. It’s a new one to me that “jus soli = abortion.”
You want to zot me on that basis, go ahead. It won’t change the fact that you’re wrong about jus soli, as shown by previous SCOTUS decisions. It also won’t change that you’re wrong about legally deporting those born on American soil.
Anyway, there are some ways you can spot when somebody is doing this, and you hit either 2 or 3 of them in just one thread, depending on how you look at it. Maybe more.
Correct. Illegal alien children born in the US were routinely deported for 70 to 80 years after the Wong Kim Ark 1898 SCOTUS opinion.
Dr. Eastman who testified before Congress about on the issue of birthright citizenship states below:
"According to Eastman, the real shift in popular perception began to take root in the late 1960s, when the idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status.
“I have challenged every person who has taken the opposite position to tell me what it was that led to this new notion,” he said. “There’s not an executive order. There’s not a court decision. We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough.”
Eastman attributes some of it to our nation’s loss of an intrinsic understanding of the language that the framers of the 14th Amendment spoke and used in that era, ergo a century later the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” has been watered down in the collective American consciousness to require little more than an adherence to traffic safety laws. "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2509715/posts
Eastman believes this loss of understanding is forgetting the meaning of the 14th Amendment. It is, but the reasons are sinister, which has been in play for 30 to 40 years since the Democrat party decidedly went far-left after the 1968 Dem presidential convention and when Nixon in 1972 destroyed ultra-liberal McGovern by 23 percentage points taking every state but Massachusetts .
After losing huge, the Dems went looking for manufactured voters and their votes for the obvious selfish reasons of perpetual incumbent power by having self induced amnesia, and they have successfully steered future executive branches to ignore the law by conflating the Wong Kim Ark opinion to include the illegal alien children as citizens. We all know how good the Demo Party is at choosing and picking which laws to enforce or not when they are in government. See the Obama Admin. for countless examples.
Eastman echo's my opinion about government acquiescence of their duty to enforce immigration laws.
" Eastman said. “The dynamic has changed now, and what we have done by having very low quotas on legal immigration and turning a blind eye to massive illegal immigration is to create this subclass and create this extraordinary drain on our social services that is bankrupting most of the state and local governments that are in the path of this migration wave. You foster an entitlement mentality but also an ignoring of the rule of law.” "
The children born within the territorial limits of the U.S. (with very limited exceptions of children of diplomatic personnel)are natural born citizens. The situation I am describing is NOT suing a state for custody. The state is not a party to the action. These are guardianship or conservatorship documents which are filed with the courts to ensure their enforceability and legitimacy for 3rd parties, such as schools. This is required for any child who is being cared for by a non-parent, no matter the situation. The theory being espoused on this thread that if a parent is deported, then their natural born citizen child must leave with them, is just flat out false.
I have looked closer a the scratched name in the 1964 doc. It definitely looks like Obama Senior started to write his Kenyan’s wife name. The first letter looks like a capital K for sure.
Other related item is just the date that the Obama Senior records were released - a few day AFTER the LFBC by the Boston Globe.
http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2011/04/journalism-fail-boston-globe-reporter.html
Why then?
It’s hard to reason with these wrongheaded knuckleheads after they get shown hard evidence that being born in the US does not necessarily make one a natural born citizen or even a US citizen. See post 188.
I'm still looking. Got tired of reading the Senate Debate so i've tried to find where the right wing articles got the info. Seems to trace back to an anti-illegal immigration group so far. A Former Patent Lawyer named Vincent G. Gioia might be the source. http://www.blogger.com/profile/06804918534714044518 Will get back to the Senate Debate later.
You're right, they did say that. At the same time, the sentence you quote apparently refers to the period of time when the children were born. By the time this case got underway, he had divorced his Mexican wife and married the woman in Chicago. So the "relevant facts" sentence, which is in the present tense, is accurate in simply saying "the petitioner has a wife."
I also note that, despite the fact that the mother was not his legal wife when his children were born, the judge still calls the children "natural-born." In other words, in this case at least, the offspring of an illegal immigrant by a woman he's not even married to have been labeled "natural born."
Sorry if you cannot follow the logic, it is after all axiomatic. The Axiom that "birth" is the requirement to establish Human rights, is the same requirement that you cite to establish "citizenship." Are you certain you don't see the connection?
You want to zot me on that basis, go ahead.
I want to figure out if you need to be zotted or not. Not quite the same thing. I am tolerant of dissent, just not agents provocateur. Pro-Lifers are not usually coy about their position.
It won’t change the fact that you’re wrong about jus soli, as shown by previous SCOTUS decisions. It also won’t change that you’re wrong about legally deporting those born on American soil.
Forgive me, but I don't adhere to the notion that "SCOTUS" decides truth. They just decide which way the guns point. *I* am arguing for what is true, not which direction to point the guns.
Sorry, still just gibberish coming through on this end.
This idea (that Democrat Administrations/Judges/Officials, etc. would ignore the law to build up their constituencies) has the ring of truth about it.
Were it not so wrong, I would like to see Republican Administrations use the law as a tool to wipe out Democrat businessmen, politicians, media, etc. in a like retaliatory fashion.
As it is, they commit so many crimes per their routine, just enforcing the law normally would seem like a pogrom against them. :)
“Sorry, still just gibberish coming through on this end.”
Well, YOU are certainly an expert on gibberish!!! Tee Hee!!!
Not at all. The two issues are intimately related, as is the issue of slavery.
I have already said it’s a moral issue, and morally, I believe in life.
Fair enough. How can you not see that the Jus Soli (birth) argument for citizenship is not the exact same argument to support abortion? ("It's not a child till it's born.")
So that’s the end of your trying to distract and muddle legal issues of deportation and jus soli with abortion.
They are not separate issues, they are connected by the same philosophy; That the Characteristics of a child are inherent in it's existence, not contingent upon having passed some "declared" boundary.
We are discussing the legal definition of deportation, and whether a citizen child was indeed ordered deportated. I will no longer respond when you try to change the subject.
Apparently according to the Daily Caller article, Thousands were deported, and the subjects are not different. They share a common philosophy.
No sorry, I don't. And it sounds like Justices Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia also don't see that same connection, or they would have taken one of the "natural born" cases.
Forgive me, but I don't adhere to the notion that "SCOTUS" decides truth. They just decide which way the guns point. *I* am arguing for what is true, not which direction to point the guns.
And that's where wires are getting crossed. In the perfect world where truth always wins out, there would be no abortion, no one could cross the border illegally, there would be no divorce, no homosexuality. But that's not what we're discussing - we're discussing what the law says, what the Constitution says. And SCOTUS most definitely decides the law, even when they're wrong, corrupt, or just plain stupid about it.
So if you want to discuss that kind of truth, this isn't the thread to do it and you're changing the subject. If you want to discuss whether according to law 0bama would have been deported, this is the place.
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.