Obama should have been deported with Barak Sr.

Garbage. I admitted an error (you have several but won’t admit them) so you are making the same composition fallacy, and assuming that one human error means all statements are erroneous. In a previous discussion Diogenes Lamp made an error, I pointed it out and he correctly acknowledged it. SO are you saying you’ve never made an error? Or just that you never acknowledge your errors?

If I recall correctly, the only thing that comes to mind is the time I cited plaintiff's argument in a court case (Barry v Mercein, I think) as being from the court. As this is what someone else had alleged, my mistake was not checking them for accuracy. Plaintiff's argument was still useful though because plaintiff's attorney would not have made such an argument unless he thought it had merit according to the laws of that time.

The court cases are clear - the child is a natural born citizen, but that doesn’t affect the status of the deported parent. The child is free to stay in the US with a different guardian, or to return later.

If a child did not have a guardian available in the US, it would of necessity have been compelled to go with it's parents; A Defacto deportation, but let's get to the nub of it. Are you in favor of Anchor babies? Even if you believe this to be the law, do you believe this to be a good law?

A little test for you - how intellectually honest are you? Diogenes Lamp had a mea culpa here, and also thought a proposed bill to "carry into execution" the 14th amendment was actually passed (it wasn't).

As before, I cannot comprehend why you see that as relevant. The fact that it was printed at that time indicates that it was the dominant perception of the law, regardless of whether it was discussing the actual 14th amendment, or a bill to enforce it. Your point is irrelevant to the issue. The Dominant view was that which was written in that Article.

"A child born within the United States, of Parents who are not Citizens, and who do not reside in the United States, and who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, shall not be regarded as citizens thereof,

This is the Article in Question:

Scroll down post #166 to see it. So will you say that DL can't tell Mickey from Donald, too? Or are you not intellectually honest? Errors from your co-believers in your version of "natural born" are fine, but anyone else's errors are not?

Again, if you have a point, I cannot fathom what it is supposed to be.

Are you in favor of Anchor babies? Even if you believe this to be the law, do you believe this to be a good law?

Once again, you are trying to distract from the issue at hand, and change the subject. The answer is no, and no, so get back to the real issue on this thread - the court did not order the children deported. It only said that the citizenship of the children (acknowledged by the court to be "natural born") would not affect the decision to deport the parent.

You make the mistake of thinking that those of us trying to tell what the law actually is are arguing in favor of it. Instead, we're trying to explain that the law is what it is, and you claiming it's not is tinfoilish. Example: Adultery is wrong and repugnant but in many states, the law allows it. But to claim it doesn't in a state with no law against it, is nuts.

It was directed more toward bushpilot1 than you, but I pinged you out of courtesy.

My point is simple. You made an error. It was an error in research, but I do not consider it to discredit everything you ever posted. I asked bushpilot1 if that error from you will be treated the same as an error from me. He hasn’t replied.

A question for you - do you see the difference between Edge919’s truncated quote and the real quote? Or will you claim no difference since he’s your co-believer against jus soli?

I think I am wasting my time pointing out to you that this is both argumentum ad vericundiam and argumentum ad populum. The Sun does not rise and set by what any of these people believe either singularly or together.

The sun doesn't rise and set by it, but US law sure does. I refer to this fallacy list.

Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Vericundiam) – note cases in which it is not fallacious. (IR) Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Vericundiam): Not always fallacious. This form of argumentation is fallacious when an appeal to an inappropriate authority figure is used to gain acceptance of a claim.[emphasis in original]

So when it comes to US law, I don't consider SCOTUS an inapproprate authority figure. And when it comes to the Constitution, I don't consider James Madison an inappropriate authority figure either, do you?

Nor does the fact that the SCOTUS didn't decide to hear the case prove that it has no merit. There are 4 idiots on the supreme court, and 1 nitwit.

Yes, but there are 4 good justices, and only 4 are needed to agree in conference for the case to proceed.

Yes, the recognition by the law for unborn children is just crazy talk.

Claiming that knowing the law of the land is jus soli and having you say that's tantamount to aprroving of abortion is crazy talk.

You continue to amuse me. I have difficulty determining whether you are intellectually dishonest and intentionally misleading or just exceedingly stupid.Read trhe entire first paragraph you you realize there is only a single issue being addressed by SCOTUS in the Minor case. As seems to be your habit, you slice and dice quotes and take them out of context. The language you like to butch and serve up from Minor is most definitely dicta and has been treated as such by every court.

You Rogers. V. Bellei as evidence that Minor was cited in a citizenship case. Did you think I was not aware of that case? Minor is cited in Rogers, only it is cited in the dissent. That means it is part of the losing argument in the case. You appear to be a committed birther, so I am sure you are familiar with the concept of losing. BTW, in Rogers, WKA is approvingly cited in the majority opinion as one of the basis for its holding and ruling. Not surprisingly, the case you use in your post is another example that shows that the courts cite WKA when deciding on and ruling citizenship and particularly natural born citizenship rather than Minor.

You still cannot cite a case in the past 100 years that cites Minor in it's opinion, decision and holding regarding natural born citizenship. It is obvious that there is not a single judge, when presented with this issue in the past century who agrees with your convoluted and bogus theory, yet WKA has been approvingly cited thousands of times by all courts addressing the issue. Can you show me a single citizenship case that approvingly cites and uses Minor as a basis for it's ruling using the dicta language you keep parroting. Why have the courts for the past century been citing and quoting WKA instead of Minor when ruling on nbc. Could it be that not a single judge or court considers Minor to have any precedential value when it comes to the issue of nbc? I see another massive birther conspiracy on the horizon. LOL

Read trhe entire first paragraph you you realize there is only a single issue being addressed by SCOTUS in the Minor case.

Sorry, but your claim is the only thing that is intellectually dishonest AND intentionally misleading. I've cited several passages DIRECTLY from the decision that support what I've said. NOTHING is out of context. As I pointed out, Minor's citizenship takes up at least a dozen paragraphs in the decision. That you choose to ignore this only exposes your own dishonesty.

Minor is cited in Rogers, only it is cited in the dissent. That means it is part of the losing argument in the case.

This is just plain stupidity. Cases that are cited in the "winning" argument also get cited in losing argumenst. A couple of examples exist in the Rogers v. Bellei case: Afroyim v. Rusk is cited in the opinion of the court and in the dissent. Wong Kim Ark is cited in both. Second, I can easily cite where Minor is cited in a winning arguments, such as in Wong Kim Ark and Luria, the latter of which said:

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 ..."

Minor defined "natives" in satisfying Art II Sec I as those who are born in the country to parents who were its citizens. And sorry to spoil your challenge, but Luria was decided in 1913 ... still less than 100 years ago.

Why have the courts for the past century been citing and quoting WKA instead of Minor when ruling on nbc.

Nobody has shown that anyone is doing this. Rogers v. Bellei certainly doesn't cite Wong Kim Ark to define NBC.

Once again, you are trying to distract from the issue at hand, and change the subject. The answer is no, and no, so get back to the real issue on this thread - the court did not order the children deported. It only said that the citizenship of the children (acknowledged by the court to be "natural born") would not affect the decision to deport the parent.

You see it as a "distraction" and I see it as "evidence." Why on earth would anyone have made such a ridiculous and stupid law? The framers of the 14th were not idiots.

You make the mistake of thinking that those of us trying to tell what the law actually is are arguing in favor of it. Instead, we're trying to explain that the law is what it is, and you claiming it's not is tinfoilish. Example: Adultery is wrong and repugnant but in many states, the law allows it. But to claim it doesn't in a state with no law against it, is nuts.

Again you mistake the point. *I* don't care what legal morons *SAY* is the law, I care what is the law *ACTUALLY*. Just because a court, or even a series of courts takes a WRONG TURN, does not mean the rest of us should blindly follow their erroneous dictates. We should teach people what the CORRECT interpretation of the law is, and we should fight to eliminate WRONG interpretations of the law.

Your thinking reminds me of the "Thunder Birds" Air Force Demonstration team. All the team members are taught to look at the leader during dangerous maneuvers, and follow his lead. Some years ago, they did exactly that, and all of them flew into the ground.

On January 18, 1982, during a training flight four of Thunderbirds's aircrafts crash in Indian Springs, Nevada. The diamond tries to perform loop in a line abreast, when the leader's plane received mechanical break-down, which does not allow it to exit from loop. During the flights in such a closer formation (typical for most flying teams) all the pilots follows visually the leader and if they are on a one-plane distance from him they follow the plane between the leader and them and do not look out or to the panel.All the rest three completely trouble-free aircrafts follows the leader until he crashed to the ground, causing the deaths of all four Thunderbird's pilots.

Our Court system works by a like principle, with each court giving more credibility to the words of previous courts than they do to the people who actually CREATED the laws. *THIS IS WRONG.*

Laws are principles encoded in the poor medium of written language. Let us never forget that it is the principle which is important, not whatever interpretation can be wrung out of the words.

It was directed more toward bushpilot1 than you, but I pinged you out of courtesy.

My point is simple. You made an error. It was an error in research, but I do not consider it to discredit everything you ever posted. I asked bushpilot1 if that error from you will be treated the same as an error from me. He hasn’t replied.

If someone acknowledges an error, I grant them even more credibility than I otherwise would. Liars won't bother to admit when they are wrong, but Honest people will.

A question for you - do you see the difference between Edge919’s truncated quote and the real quote? Or will you claim no difference since he’s your co-believer against jus soli?

To be honest, I haven't the foggiest what you are talking about. Unless it is specifically directed at me, or especially egregious, I don't always read all of a long post from one poster to another. I've seen you and he discussing "neither/nor" but I never bothered to figure out what bit of language you were both quibbling about. It just didn't seem like a very important controversy to me. Sorry. :)

But to sort of answer your question, I will call out mistakes by my allies as well as my opponents. I have argued with Patlin, Mojitojoe, Fred Nerks, et al, when I thought they were wrong. I don't think Mojitojoe has forgiven me yet.

P.S. You want more proof that I will call out Allies as well as opponents? Check out the arguments I have been having with MSimon (Libertarian) for the last several years regarding drug legalization.

Here is the website: http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=8

My username is Diogenes.

The sun doesn't rise and set by it, but US law sure does. I refer to this fallacy list.

Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Vericundiam) – note cases in which it is not fallacious. (IR) Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Vericundiam): Not always fallacious. This form of argumentation is fallacious when an appeal to an inappropriate authority figure is used to gain acceptance of a claim.[emphasis in original]

What makes it a fallacy of Authority is that none of SCOTUS wrote the law, so they are only expressing opinions of opinions. Better to get it straight from the Horses mouth.

So when it comes to US law, I don't consider SCOTUS an inapproprate authority figure. And when it comes to the Constitution, I don't consider James Madison an inappropriate authority figure either, do you?

He's the only one you've got, and I consider his explanation inconsistent with the modern day meaning of his words. "Place" in context during his time, was synonymous with family and community. Indeed, his very next words are an appeal that Mr. Smith's ancestors were some of the earliest settlers of the colony.

Would he regard the son of a Foreign Man as "natural born"? I doubt it. Would he have accepted "Anchor Babies" as "natural born"? I doubt it.

Yes, but there are 4 good justices, and only 4 are needed to agree in conference for the case to proceed. Perhaps they fear the result if they did? Liberal Judges have no qualms about flipping off the great body of the public. (Forced busing?) Conservative Judges might not be so foolhardy. I don't know. It could also be that they don't know the truth because they've been taught the wrong law for so long. Too many people equate Wong Kim Ark as defining "natural born citizen" when it really doesn't. I do not know the reason why they chose not to take one of the cases, but one can not postulate a specific reason when NO reason is forthcoming.

Claiming that knowing the law of the land is jus soli and having you say that's tantamount to aprroving of abortion is crazy talk.

I'm saying both theories rest on the same foundation; That some "magical event" occurs at birth to bestow simultaneous legal rights and citizenship.

This is not what pro-life people believe. They believe that rights are inherent in the existence of an unborn child.

What’s the matter mouse? Lighting Kitty got your tongue?

You lose again. The Luria v. U.S. case is about a naturalized citizen and NBC is not an issue in the case. I have realized that you have a problem with reading comprehension but surely after reading the case you should realize the case is not about a NBC. You still haven't been able to cite a single case where a court uses your Minor dicta language to define NBC in a holding of the case.

In addition, the language you quote from Minor supports the fact that the Jus Soli doctrine applies to NBC. A native, one born in this country, is a NBC. The Jus Soli Doctrine!!

Sure a case can be cited in both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion. However, in the case you used as an example, Minor is is cited ONLY in the LOSING dissent.

Looking at your posting history, and seeing how long you and the birthers have been on the losing side of this argument, you should either figure out a different legal argument or remain doomed to repeat your failures.It is obvious all your arguments you have made on this thread are LOSERS.

Huh???

In addition to what I already posted previously in reply to you, Legal Dicta can be any number of paragraphs in a SCOTUS opinion. In fact a dozen paragraphs of dicta is not excessive by any standard of SCOTUS opinions. There is no rule that says that if there is a dozen paragraphs used to address an issue not relevant to the holding in a case means it cannot be Dicta.

Reading Minor once again, I find it impossible to believe anyone with a legal background can find the language you keep butchering, to be anything but Legal Dicta. If you have any doubt as to the sole issue in the case and holding in Minor, I direct you to last paragraph of Minor which like all SCOTUS cases contains the holding(s) in the case. It should be obvious to you that based on that last paragraph, that any discussion regarding citizenship is dicta and of zero precedential value.

In addition to what I already posted previously in reply to you, Legal Dicta can be any number of paragraphs in a SCOTUS opinion. In fact a dozen paragraphs of dicta is not excessive by any standard of SCOTUS opinions. There is no rule that says that if there is a dozen paragraphs used to address an issue not relevant to the holding in a case means it cannot be Dicta.

Reading Minor once again, I find it impossible to believe anyone with a legal background can find the language you keep butchering, to be anything but Legal Dicta. If you have any doubt as to the sole issue in the case and holding in Minor, I direct you to last paragraph of Minor which like all SCOTUS cases contains the holding(s) in the case. It should be obvious to you that based on that last paragraph, that any discussion regarding citizenship is dicta and of zero precedential value.

The Luria v. U.S. case is about a naturalized citizen and NBC is not an issue in the case.

Sorry, but it contains a direct citation regarding presidential eligiblity satisified with a specific mention of Minor v. Happersett. If I wanted to watch bad dancing, I'd turn on Dancing with the Stars.

In addition, the language you quote from Minor supports the fact that the Jus Soli doctrine applies to NBC. A native, one born in this country, is a NBC. The Jus Soli Doctrine!!

You're missing half the doctrine. I've given multiple quotes which specifically include having citizen parents. It's not just solely (pun intended) jus soli. Justice Gray mentioned the jus sanguinis criteria specifically in reference to Virginia Minor.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...

Wong Kim Ark was NOT born to citizen parents so it makes perfect sense as to why Wong Kim Ark was NOT declared to be a natural born citizen. He wasn't. He couldn't be. These decisions speak for themselves: all children born in the country TO PARENTS WHO WERE IT CITIZENS. These are the natives, or natural born citizens ...

In addition to what I already posted previously in reply to you, Legal Dicta can be any number of paragraphs in a SCOTUS opinion. In fact a dozen paragraphs of dicta is not excessive by any standard of SCOTUS opinions. There is no rule that says that if there is a dozen paragraphs used to address an issue not relevant to the holding in a case means it cannot be Dicta.

Are you trying to outdumb yourself?? Yes, we all know what legal dicta is, but it's completely inane to presume any court is going to waste its time writing pages and pages of irrelevant dicta. The dicta in Minor is relevant to the holding. I've shown this in the Wong decision where it specifically mentions Virginia Minor's citizenship as a product of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. The Minor case has been cited in subsequent decisions in relation to several issues NOT just ONE sole issue as you pretend. It has been quoted in relation to voting rights, privileges and immunities clause, presidential eligibility, natural-born citizenship, etc. NOTHING in the Minor decision has been butchered. I've given several quotes. You've shown none to be butchered or what even leads you to such a faulty conclusion (other than perhaps parroting sometimes lurker who I've thoroughly schooled several times). It's time you start showing some intellectual honesty. Moving goalposts, tapdancing and ignoring incovnenient facts do not serve you well, unless maybe you're auditioning for ABC's Wipeout.

You wrote:

“Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...”

Sooo, I want to pretend to be YOU for a minute and say, “But they didn’t declare her a natural born citizen!!! They just called her a “citizen” which means women can’t ever be President.

Which, NOW, that I am back to being ME, this is where you end up at when you read stuff the way a Vattle Birther does. Not to mention the fact that all the other stuff you said is just mangled up pieces of law you have crammed together. Again.

Sooo, I want to pretend to be YOU for a minute and say, “But they didn’t declare her a natural born citizen!!! They just called her a “citizen” which means women can’t ever be President.

This would mean something if the previous paragraph in Wong Kim Ark had not directly quoted Minor's definition of natural born citizen. Here are three very important paragraphs in succession from the Wong Kim Ark decision.

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),

reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. 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.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.

The second paragraph above is the last time in the decision that Justice Gray uses the term "natural-born citizens." From this point forward, he uses the term "citizenship by birth" which is a product of the 14th amendment, dependent on the parents having a permanent domicil and residence. Wong Kim Ark is rightfully NEVER declared to be a natural-born citizen. He wasn't. One doesn't need Vattel. The Supreme Court said it all in black and white: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. There is no higher authority than this and it has never been overturned.