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.

[Squeeky]

There is a difference between Common Sense Suspicious Birthers, which I was one of, and still have doubts, and these Vattle Birthers. Common sense suspicions DO NOT require a conspiracy. Just Obama’s grandmother and a crooked clerk and maybe $20 or more. Plus, even though I am not still as suspicious, it is NOT crazy to have doubts about a long form image that has a long form layer that looks like White Out got poured all over it.

The Vattle Birthers are different from that. There has to be a cover up conspiracy by conservative and Republican lawyers and judges. Plus, you have to not be able to read English to be a Vattle Birther. Not to mention just be stupid and illogical.

The worse thing that the original Birthers can ever do is to let themselves be connected to these Vattle Birthers. Who some may even be Obots trying to PUNK us. Which is why I beat them like carpets over a clothesline WITH LOGIC.

[ydoucare]

Edge, in addition to my previous response to you in post 460, read SAqueeky’s response to you in post 459. It is even stronger evidence that the WKA decision used the Constitution to define nbc.

Nice find, Squeeky.

[wintertime]

Personally, every measure should be taken to have the matter legally defined and fully clarified by the Supreme Court. That isn't being done. And the anti-Vattlers are not helping.

[wintertime]

Personally, every measure should be taken to have the matter legally defined and fully clarified by the Supreme Court. That isn’t being done. And the anti-Vattlers are not helping.

[DiogenesLamp]

The primary building block of US jurisprudence is British common law. That is a historical fact and there is no way around that fact.

Fine. It declares we must maintain perpetual allegiance to the Crown of England, and pay our tithes to the Anglican Church.

You need to read the text and plain language of the 14th Amendment. The first sentence of the amendment reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States...” There is zero language that limits the language or any provision of the !4th Amendment to slaves or slavery. In fact, it would be a liberal, activist judge who would read and interpret the language to the meaning you want. I suggest you read the entire opinion in the Wong Kim Ark v. USA case to fully understand this issue. SCOTUS takes the approach of Justice Scalia (a literalist, textual reading of the language of the law in question) in it's decision. It does not read words into the amendment that do not exist, such as you advocate.

You need to read the Debates on and leading up to the 14th amendment. It is becoming D@mned annoying constantly having to teach you people your history.

The Civil Rights Bill was debated on March 8 and 9. Representative John Broomall of Pennsylvania identified "the rights and immunities of citizens" as including the writ of habeas corpus and the right of petition.[50] Representative Henry Raymond of New York, the editor of the New York Times and a member of the Joint Committee, proposed an amendment to the bill declaring that all persons born in the United States are "citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such."[51] This formulation is similar to what would become the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Raymond explained:

"Make the colored man a citizen of the United States and he has every right which you or I have as citizens of the United States under the laws and constitution of the United States. ... He has defined status; he has a country and a home; a right to defend himself and his wife and children; a right to bear arms"[52] (emphasis added).

The PRIMARY purpose of the 14th was to accomplish the above. They had to resort to jus soli for former slaves because former slaves had no claim to jus sanguinus.

It appears that your problem is with the authors of the amendment and the broad language they used, rather than to the individuals who are charged by the US Constitution to apply the language to our country's jurisprudence.

Not so much. It is the fact that Judges are applying their own opinions and calling it law instead of trying to actually apply what was passed as law by the congress, and ratified by the states as an Amendment. Do you think a single congressman or state legislator thought they were voting for anchor babies or abortion or a Judicial war against religion? Add that to the fact that the 14 amendment was forced down people's throats at the point of a gun and you ought to be able to see why it should deserve some criticism. It is the source for much horrible mischief by the courts ever since.

It's intentions were good, it's wording and implementation sucked.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment and it's application, then your remedy is to organize to ratify an amendment to overturn the provision(s) you do not like, such as was done to prohibition.

And one goes about this by showing how people are misapplying it to the detriment of the nation and thereby convince people that it needs to applied correctly, or be replaced with something better.

The first thing to be done is to get people to understand it's purpose, and show how that purpose is being ill served by letting judges screw up the interpretation of it.

[sometime lurker]

As much as I would thoroughly enjoy it, It would be ungentlemanly of me to razz you over this,

Which I appreciate. It just shows me that I shouldn't post during brief breaks from work, but should wait until evening or post before work when I have time to look things over properly. Til tonight...

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Your statement is so fuzzy I can see three different possibilities in it.

I am sorry you had trouble with it. Here's what I was saying:

You argued that the historical situation had changed--that because we now have "loyalty lacking transients," we have to look at the Founders' historical context to determine what they really meant, rather than interpret what they said in light of changing circumstances. "It makes no sense to use a standard that had a very different meaning during a prior age," you wrote.

I'm just pointing out that this is exactly the same argument liberals often use against the RKBA. To wit, the arms the Founders were familiar with were muskets and single-shot pistols, so we should look at the context to determine what arms they meant people could own. "It makes no sense to use a standard that had a very different meaning during a prior age," they say to support their efforts to ban semiautomatic weapons.

So I was asking: do you agree with them? Or is the only principle you go by that of whether you like the result (and then try and call that the "conservative" position)?

[Squeeky]

I think it is defined pretty clearly, and nobody has any trouble understanding it except the Vattle Birthers. They are the ones making everybody look stupid. Take Mark Levin for example. He said real simple, Mark Rubio was born in Miami, he’s a NBC. No debate. With the legal stuff, there isn’t any REAl debate because it is sooo clear anybody can understand it. Sooo, why should anybody latch onto to what is a clear losing battle even since 1844.

But, common sense suspicious Birthers have a lot easier and sensible argument, even if you don’t agree with them. Obama has dodged court 90 times, and puts out a long form that is like a White Out commercial. I have never had any problem debating whether Obama should have released it, back before he did, and even now I have good arguments on why we are not a conspiracy theory.

I have always said that Birthers might be wrong, but we weren’t crazy. Plus, by staying away from all this ignorant Vattle stuff, it makes out other arguments stronger. I can just ask how someone can expect Obama to fix anything like a $14 trillion economy, when it takes him 3 years to cough up a $14 long form. . .and guess what??? People get it.

Then, I can argue that Obama is trying to screw with people by releasing a squirrely long form. Or he is stupid and incompetent. Which even on a Obot radio show, when I asked the question, the host had to admit the long form image was squirrely.

Sooo, I can’t stand these Vattle Birthers. They butcher the law, and make stuff up, and ignore common sense stuff and if we hang around them, we are going to look as stupid as they are.Plus, their stupid theory means people like Rubio and Jindal can’t run, and just who does that help??? Sooo, that is also why I wonder if some of these are Obots trying to punk us some more, because on one of their websites they just brag about how they forged stuff and punked people. But they are NOT punking me!!!

[DiogenesLamp]

If you can't pick up on the absurdity, that only demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole you've fallen.

Or alternatively, you're not very good at humor or sarcasm. I believe it requires wit or something.

I see. So the English phrase "natural born citizen" was well-understood to mean "born within a country's borders with two citizen parents" in 1787?

The French Phrase, outlined in the 1775 edition of Vattel's Law of Nations, which according to Benjamin Franklin "has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author." was "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens", which translates into English as " "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country,of parents who are citizens", or "Natural born citizens" for short. As most of the founders Spoke, Read, and Wrote French, (they were our allies during the war, you know.) it was not difficult for them to pour through this new blueprint for our nation. This is an image of the cover of the 1758 version of book that Franklin gave to the members of Congress which was reprinted in 1775. It was entirely in French.

So well-understood that the Founders deemed it unnecessary to simply state that the President must be born to two citizen parents? In that case, there must be a wealth of examples of the term being defined that way before 1787.

Actually, there are. Read through this thread and learn how ubiquitous Vattel's "Law of Nations" was during our Founding era. I would have thought you had already read it before you decided to pop off in your ignorance.

And it would mean that US legal textbooks after 1787 would have had no reason to express a differing interpretation.

Some get it right, some get it wrong. British Law influence was pernicious and constant. Here is an example of one that gets it right.

The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929)."

And here is another.

For most purposes, it is not necessary to determine the method by which citizenship has been acquired. But the problem of whether a citizen is natural born or naturalized is important in such areas as denaturalization, expatriation, and qualification for certain offices such as the presidency. (For a discussion of the distinctions made in expatriation, see pp. 739-42 infra.)

When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer. to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions and the citizen’s qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship. (See 5o Mich. L. REV. 926 (1952).)

Wonderful. Every time I think Birthers can't move the goalposts any further, you continue to amaze me.

I have little doubt that you live in a world of amazement.

It wasn't enough to spend three years saying that Obama could end everything by releasing his long-form birth certificate, and then forget that after he released his long-form. Simultaneously, I've seen Birthers argue for years that only a judicial decision could definitely settle the definition of "natural born citizen." Now I see that even a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court penned by a conservative Chief Justice can't convince Birthers that their armchair legal theories are wrong. You simply declare that the Supreme Court is wrong too. Maybe make up some conspiracy nonsense about the Justices being paid off or threatened, like Birthers have done so many times before.

Why you would think others speak for me, I do not know. As you seem given to false assumptions I must count this as merely another among them. The Birth certificate was merely the first part of this issue. (And I don't think we've seen a REAL ONE yet.) For years, I had heard that Obama was from Kenya. It wasn't until he started running for President that I heard differently, and we were all supposed to disregard what we had heard before? What a silly person you are to believe that we should harken to the latest lie proceeding from that obnoxious mouth. I'll not address your other points. I've already wasted too much of my time attempting to grow you up, and I have wasted too much of your time by trying to keep you from being a little child.

There really is nothing that can convince Birthers that they're wrong. Impossible standards of proof aren't the mark of rational people, you know.

"Nothing" can convince "birthers", and that is exactly what you bring. Nothing evidence, nothing arguments, and nothing but noise. When you get "something" you might try again.

[ydoucare]

You are still talking like a liberal activist judge. Rather than using the text and plain language of the amendment, you wish to take what one person said out of thousands who voted on the amendment in Congress and various state legislatures. Are you saying that everyone who voted to ratify the 14th Amendment failed to read it? If the only purpose of the 14th Amendment was as you state, why was such broad language used by Congress and the states when the amendment was ratified?

I am glad you have finally conceded that the 14th Amendment
incorporated the jus soli doctrine into the US Constitution. The authors could have easily limited the application of the 14th amendment to your claimed purpose, with one sentence, but they did not do so. SCOTUS has only the language to apply to the facts of a specific case.

Good luck with your project of overturning the 14th Amendment. I am a realist, so I wont hold my breath waiting for you taking your crusade from the internet to real life.

[Squeeky]

"I am glad you have finally conceded that the 14th Amendment incorporated the jus soli doctrine into the US Constitution."

Well, if he has done this, then it won't be long until he stops being a Vattle Birther.

[wintertime]

Since I am not an attorney, have not studied the issue, would not know how to evaluate the material even if I did, I surely would like the opinion of the Supreme Court on the matter.

Let” see?...Opinion of a Freeper? ....or...a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court?...( the Supreme Court wins.)

One reason to get this complete clarified for legal illiterates, such as myself, is that there is Jindal and Rubio being suggested as possible presidential candidates. Given the definition of some regarding natural born citizenship, the baby born in LA recently to the U.S. citizen mom and his drug lord Mexican dad, could re-enter the country at age 23 and then 14 years later run for president. I do NOT think that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Seriously! I don't. They wanted a president with NO NO NO encumbering allegiances to any other country whatsoever.

Even if it means a Constitutional Amendment to fully get this matter resolved then we must do this. Because I believe that our Founding Fathers did not want a person with any other allegiance to any other country in any form.

[ydoucare]

You are still talking like a liberal activist judge. Rather than using the text and plain language of the amendment, you wish to take what one person said out of thousands who voted on the amendment in Congress and various state legislatures. Are you saying that everyone who voted to ratify the 14th Amendment failed to read it? If the only purpose of the 14th Amendment was as you state, why was such broad language used by Congress and the states when the amendment was ratified?

I am glad you have finally conceded that the 14th Amendment
incorporated the jus soli doctrine into the US Constitution. The authors could have easily limited the application of the 14th amendment to your claimed purpose, with one sentence, but they did not do so. SCOTUS has only the language to apply to the facts of a specific case.

Good luck with your project of overturning the 14th Amendment. I am a realist, so I wont hold my breath waiting for you taking your crusade from the internet to real life.

[ydoucare]

You are still talking like a liberal activist judge. Rather than using the text and plain language of the amendment, you wish to take what one person said out of thousands who voted on the amendment in Congress and various state legislatures. Are you saying that everyone who voted to ratify the 14th Amendment failed to read it? If the only purpose of the 14th Amendment was as you state, why was such broad language used by Congress and the states when the amendment was ratified?

I am glad you have finally conceded that the 14th Amendment
incorporated the jus soli doctrine into the US Constitution. The authors could have easily limited the application of the 14th amendment to your claimed purpose, with one sentence, but they did not do so. SCOTUS has only the language to apply to the facts of a specific case.

Good luck with your project of overturning the 14th Amendment. I am a realist, so I wont hold my breath waiting for you taking your crusade from the internet to real life.

[ydoucare]

He states in post 465 that the authors of the 14th Amendment ‘resorted’ to the Jus Soli doctrine to make former slaves citizens. I don't think he realized what he admitted.

[ydoucare]

SCOTUS is not in the habit of wasting their time writing on issues that have been established and settled law in the US. If you are born in this country, (except children of diplomats) you are a natural born citizen. That has been the law for over the past century. I suggest you read the Wong Kim Ark v. US case from SCOTUS. It is the landmark case in this area of the law and has been cited in thousands of cases over the years from Immigration Court to US District Court to every Circuit Court of Appeals to SCOTUS.

Have you ever wondered why there is no credible conservative legal foundation (out of dozens) or an attorney, such as Mark Levin, have ever got involved in one of these Vattel birther cases. It is because there is zero legal merit to the Vattel Birther theory.

For an easier read on this issue, google the Ankeny v. Daniels case. It is from the 2008 election and the court held that Obama was eligible to be on the Indiana presidential ballot.

[edge919]

More gibberish and law butchering and mangling by you. Vattel is not quoted and his name is not even mentioned in that case.

Sorry, the only gibberish, butchering and mangling is by you. I never said Vattel was quoted. Helps to read what is there instead of argue something that isn't.

Wong Kim Ark was a long case because they went over the whole history of common law stuff, then had to answer the LOSING side on their stuff, then had to discuss the 14th Amendment, and all the Chinese law stuff, and then they finished, and toward the bottom wrapped it all together where anybody but a Vattle Birther would get it:

No one answered to a "losing" side of anything. And what "Chinese law stuff" are you referring to?? You're punting the question. If Lynch was a compelling legal precedent, what was the point in writing 32 more pages of decision?? I know why, but obviously you don't have a clue. Try again, squeezy. Think this time.

Also, the quote you grabbed and highlighted supports MY argument, not yours. This doesn't address natural-born citizneship. This is a discussion ONLY of the 14th amendment and the type of citizenship IT defines, which I've explained to you was called "citizenship by birth" by Gray. I showed you the dozen or so times he used that term and never tried to equate it with NBC.

[sometime lurker]

Madison embraces these very principles which he previously questioned with his "aye" vote for the "Naturalization act of 1790."

We've argued about this before - you claim the act applies to those born in the US, which of course it doesn't. It applies to aliens seeking to become naturalized, and those born overseas of American parents. Nowhere does it say it applies to those born on American soil.

The problem is not of laws, but how they are wrongly interpreted.

That well may be, but you won't change it unless you clarify the law. It may be your opinion, my opinion that cases are wrongly decided, but that won't change the existing decision. It took the first civil rights act and the 14th amendment to change the Dred Scott decision.

You have just NOW told me that you disagreed with Kelo.

I thought you were better at connecting the dots than that. I mentioned bringing up Kelo the way you keep bringing up abortion. Did you not take from that how much I disagree with the Kelo decision?

As for the solution to the problem, the first thing necessary is to DENOUNCE flawed and fraudulent decisions, not defend them as legitimate.

And this is where we disagree. The decision was made, therefore in the eyes of the law it's "legitimate." You can't pretend the decision wasn't made, or that it says something other than what it says. Instead, you need change the laws or part of the Constitution that allowed the erroneous ruling. Or work to get better judges on the bench. One more Conservative justice would have done it.

[edge919]

Edge, in addition to my previous response to you in post 460, read SAqueeky’s response to you in post 459. It is even stronger evidence that the WKA decision used the Constitution to define nbc.

... except that the term NBC is nowhere within that quote. I've already addressed this passage several times. Read post #302.

[edge919]

SCOTUS is not in the habit of wasting their time writing on issues that have been established and settled law in the US.

I agree. Good point. Now, maybe you can answer the question that squeezy punted. If Lynch v. Clarke was a compelling example of "established and settled law" in the U.S., why did Justice Gray write 32 more pages of decision after his third mention of the Lynch casein WKA?? I know why. Do you??