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.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry, i've been busy.

Go back and reread the Naturalization Act – it specifies born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States. Which obviously means it doesn’t apply to those born in the United States.

Hmm... I am seemingly unable to get the salient point across to you. Perhaps I can express it mathematically?
X = Born on the Soil. (Jus Soli)
Y = Born to citizen Parents. (Jus Sanguinus)
Z = Article II "Natural born citizen" status.

We have a couple of equations. For example,
we know that X + Y = Z, because the Supreme court told us so in Minor v Happersett.

We know that 0 + Y = Z, because the 1rst Congress told us so in the "naturalization act of 1790.

We can use two simultaneous equations to solve for "X".

X + Y = Z 0 + Y = Z _________ X + 0 = 0

Conclusion?

X = 0.

Apparently the "X" part of the equation doesn't matter to the Z status.

[DiogenesLamp]

English common law has been clear that “born in the ligeance of the King” is natural born.

"that all those that were born under one natural obedience while the realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural born subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright,"

To my understanding, this could mean either of two things, neither of which is good for your argument.

1. "born under one natural obedience" means owing "obedience" by the character of your nature, (born to people who are already the property of the king) or
2. being claimed by the King as a subject through the process of "naturalization" at birth without regard to the will of yourself or your family.

The First explanation means that you have no other nation from which you may claim allegiance anyway. (Therefore you ARE naturally an English Subject.)

The Second explanation means you are claimed by the King through a process outside of natural law, and therefore contrary to the principles which we asserted to throw off the King's claim on US.

Remember, according to the common law, we were not permitted to throw off the King's authority. You are arguing that the King's law should be kept, though it serves none but the King's benefit.

A further analogy which I just thought up is like that of a cow that births a calf on your neighbors property, all to be claimed by your neighbor. The cow may be free to go back to it's rightful owner, but the calf is now being claimed by the neighbor as his own. (To a kingdom, cows and people occupy the same theoretical footing. :) )

Is this natural law when applied to cows? If it doesn't make sense when applied to cows, I don't know why you think it makes sense when applied to people. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

They did, because like many phrases in the Constitution from common law, “natural born” comes from common law.

It is strange that you assert this, because by the common law we couldn't be free of England. Anyway, you might want to look at what I discovered.

The Naturalization Act extends “natural born” beyond the long time common law definition to include those born abroad. It does not replace the original meaning.

So you are saying congress "modified" the term? I thought we were in agreement that congress could not change the meaning of any constitutional term?

I have no doubt Vattel is mentioned at places, he was an important writer on international law. However, as Justice Scalia mentions, much of our Constitution is founded on common law. Or do you think Scalia doesn’t know what he is talking about?

Much of our principles and procedures of law are based on the common law, but we did in fact specifically throw off aspects of it which were not compatible with the existence of our newly declared nation, and those regarding what constitutes a British subject vs an American Citizen were pretty much the entire point of the War of Independence, and the War of 1812. As for Vattel, I just ran across this last night. You might find it interesting. Also you might peruse the ubiquity of Vattel to the founders by looking here as well.

Which we have discussed before. Slaves were omitted because they were property. Indians were omitted because they were considered sovereign nations inside the US. You’ve been shown them before, do I have to again find the quotes showing that?

So would Slaves or Indians born in England be "subjects" or not? Since you seem intent on maintaining consistency with English laws, this is an interesting question. It seems likely you will have to violate one of your premises regarding either English law or American law whichever way you answer the question. :)

[Squeeky]

Just what I thought. I give you a coupe of days, and still no analysis of Wong Kim Ark by YOU. Here is how your refusal to outline and analyze Wong Kim Ark hurts you, from above:

ME: Out of context on Gray quoting Waite. YOU provide the context of the statement, please, if you are able.

EDGE919:There’s nothing out of context. You’ve seen the Gray citations of Waite several times now and you’ve been proven wrong over and over on your belief.

Yes it is out of context. I could very easily cut and paste from one of my Internet Articles and prove it. But you need to do your own homework on YOUR theory. If Judge Gray truly quotes Waite, and for the purposes you say, then you have helped back up your Theory a little.

I will give you a hint. It is in Section V of Wong Kim Ark.

Plus, you will notice how Leo Donofrio’s argument that Minor v. Happersett is the case to quote, and the Liberty Legal Foundation case also quotes Minor v. Happersett.

IF the Wong Kim Ark case affirmed those words from Minor v. Happersett, why then aren’t they quoting the later case of Wong Kim Ark in their Internet Articles and law suits??? Sooo, apparently even your own Vattle Birther big wigs realize that Wong Kim Ark does not read Minor the same way you are, as being affirmed.

This is why YOU need to analyze Wong Kim Ark sooo you can understand this stuff for yourself. If you try it and get stuck, then I will help you. But first you have to put forth some effort on YOUR Theory.

[sometime lurker]

You've now managed to completely muddle your point. First you argued that common law equals natural law equals Vattel, then you pointed out Blackstone (who clearly told you what Common Law was with regard to "natural born".) Now you are trying to use Blackstone to contradict what Blackstone has said. Very muddled, and does not support what you are trying to say.

You've managed to misunderstand what you've read:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

The exceptions are well known, and have been discussed before: children of ambassadors and foreign ministers, children of occupying armies. As for

A denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogative. A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may.

Read the first sentence again - a denizen is an alien born (not born in the dominions of of England). He says this specifically "an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions." So a denizen is an alien who has been (sort of) naturalized; the British version of this at the time was not like American naturalization.

Your discussion of expatriation is another straw man - as if I claimed that all common law was taken unchanged. What is clear is "natural born subject" was stated by many justices, legal scholars, etc. to continue to the colonies, to the Constitution, and down to the current day as "natural born citizen." You can wiggle all you want, but it's clear. You have no answer to Rogers v. Bellei who clearly state that we follow this

We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.

[sometime lurker]

Your math is lacking.
X = Born on the Soil. (Jus Soli)
Y = Born to citizen Parents. (Jus Sanguinus)
Z = Article II “Natural born citizen” status.

X = natural born; Early American legal scholars tell us so, Several Attorneys general tell us so, Rogers v. Bellei affirms that in this, the Constitution follows English common law.
Y = By statute, this was made equivalent to natural born.

[sometime lurker]

Remember, according to the common law, we were not permitted to throw off the King's authority. You are arguing that the King's law should be kept, though it serves none but the King's benefit.

And this is why your arguments are flawed.

You are using a strawman argument (claiming I say the King's law should be kept) and trying to say from that that the US does not use common law. Since it obviously does in many things, this argument goes nowhere.

You may not like the "born in the ligeance" phrasing when it applies to a king, but the US has used the same phrasing. WKA quoted an early American legal scholar, James Kent

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents

and

all persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.

for example.

[sometime lurker]

It is strange that you assert this, because by the common law we couldn't be free of England.

Same error I mention above. Because we did not adopt all of common law, you seem to argue we couldn't have adopted any. I remind you again we did not declare independence because we didn't generally like common law, but because the rights guaranteed by common law were being withheld from the colonists.

The Naturalization Act extends “natural born” beyond the long time common law definition to include those born abroad. It does not replace the original meaning. So you are saying congress "modified" the term? I thought we were in agreement that congress could not change the meaning of any constitutional term?

Ah, did you finally agree that Congress didn't change the meaning (as you claimed they did)? Pleased to hear it. No, Congress didn't "modify" the term, by statute they agreed that those born of US citizens overseas were also natural born. Since COngress had been granted the right to make rules of naturalization, I don't see this was illegal. Do you?

we did in fact specifically throw off aspects of it which were not compatible with the existence of our newly declared nation, and those regarding what constitutes a British subject vs an American Citizen were pretty much the entire point of the War of Independence, and the War of 1812.

We explicitly rejected the "no expatriation" idea. We did not reject "born on the soil" = "natural born" (usual exceptions).

So would Slaves or Indians born in England be "subjects" or not? Since you seem intent on maintaining consistency with English laws, this is an interesting question. It seems likely you will have to violate one of your premises regarding either English law or American law whichever way you answer the question. :)

Good try, with a touch of strawman thrown in. I have never been "intent on maintaining consistency with English laws," I have pointed out an area that the courts, early legal scholars, and Attorney's general affirmed that we follow English common law.

As for your example, since Somersett's case in 1772, there were no slaves in England - any slave was automatically free on entry into England. As to whether the English had a racial restriction, I can't answer, and don't have time right now to do the research. For Indians, the same would be true; if England had no racial restrictions, the child of an American Indian born in England would be a natural born subject. The reason that was not so in the US was because Indians were regarded as members of a separate nation that just happened to be located in the US.

[edge919]

You've now managed to completely muddle your point. First you argued that common law equals natural law equals Vattel, then you pointed out Blackstone (who clearly told you what Common Law was with regard to "natural born".) Now you are trying to use Blackstone to contradict what Blackstone has said. Very muddled, and does not support what you are trying to say.

I'm here to help you understand all that you obviously do not understand, so I'll simplify it for you. Vattel is a widely quoted authority on the natural law of nations, and Blackstone noted that the law of nations helped from the basis, but not the entirety of common law. It was a starting point. Subsequent legislation, as noted by both Vattel and Blackstone, took common law beyond the limits of the natural law of nations. What exactly is muddled to you about that?? Be specific.

Read the first sentence again - a denizen is an alien born (not born in the dominions of of England). He says this specifically "an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions." So a denizen is an alien who has been (sort of) naturalized; the British version of this at the time was not like American naturalization.

Use your brain lurky. What is a denizen PRIOR to receiving letters?? Answer: an alien. The issue of a denizen prior to denization (an alien) can not inherit and is NOT considered a natural born subject because of that.

Your discussion of expatriation is another straw man - as if I claimed that all common law was taken unchanged.

Yes, this is YOUR strawman. I didn't say ANYTHING about "all common law." Here's what I said:

There is also a clear principle explained by Blackstone that was completely rejected in the United States relating to natural-born and common law:

Does that say "all common law"??? Neither does the other challenge I made to your assumptions:

Now, why are we to presume that common law would comprehensively define citizenship in this country when we firmly rejected the CORE principle that was used by Blackstone to define "natural-born"??

Two quotes from me. Neither says NOR suggests anything about "all common law." No wonder you invented a strawman. You know I'm right.

You have no answer to Rogers v. Bellei who clearly state that we follow this

I addressed Rogers v. Bellei and debunked your misconceptions in Post #571, #375 and #364. Sorry, that's three strikes. You're out.

[edge919]

Just what I thought. I give you a coupe of days, and still no analysis of Wong Kim Ark by YOU.

Why are you ignoring post #572 as I already directed you to read?? You have a bizarre honesty problem. You should work on that.

Plus, you will notice how Leo Donofrio’s argument that Minor v. Happersett is the case to quote, and the Liberty Legal Foundation case also quotes Minor v. Happersett.

Why are you ignoring that the Supreme Court in WKA also acknowledged that Minor v. Happersett is the case to quote?? Again ... honesty. Try it.

[sometime lurker]

What exactly is muddled to you about that?? Be specific.

Oh, I will. But if you follow your usual pattern, it won't help because you refuse to see anything that contradicts your pet theory.

To start, you said:

Use your brain lurky. What is a denizen PRIOR to receiving letters?? Answer: an alien. The issue of a denizen prior to denization (an alien) can not inherit and is NOT considered a natural born subject because of that. Shall we look at what Blackstone actually said on the specifics of children of aliens born in the dominions of England?

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

What exceptions? Those born in the dominion of the king but out of the king's ligeance: children of foreign ministers or ambassadors, occupying troops.

He also says of denizens

A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may.

Let's break it down for you real sloooow.

• Blackstone states that those born in England, even of alien parents, are generally natural born subjects (the exceptions listed above, born out of the king's ligeance.)
• A denizen can't inherit English lands from his parent, because the parent is an alien.
• The issue of a denizen, (if not a natural born subject) can't inherit English lands
• Children of aliens born within the ligeance are natural born subjects with all the rights of such, therefore they can inherit.

A little tricky for you to follow, perhaps, since you are so determined to ignore Blackstone's clear statement that English born children of alien parents are natural born subjects.

I addressed Rogers v. Bellei and debunked your misconceptions in Post #571, #375 and #364. Sorry, that's three strikes. You're out.

You'd like that to be true, but your so-called "debunking":

• #364 you claimed "Right. Our "law" in this area follows English concepts, but natural-born citizen is EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment Funny, nothing in the 14th amendment says that.
• #375 you claim the Rogers v. Bellei decision recognizes a category of "citizen at birth" that was NOT based on jus soli. Neither your "jus soli" NOR the "citizen at birth" in Bellei fit the SCOTUS definiton of NBC ... which is: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Except that Bellei clearly states in the opinion that we follow jus soli. Which is a much clearer statement than the Minor case where the court is very clear that there is doubt and that the case won't resolve the doubt. If you can't accept the Rogers v. Bellei clear statement that the US follows England in jus soli because the case was not about a citizen born in the US, how hypocritical of you to claim that Minor's statement of doubt is controlling when that case wasn't about citizenship at all, but about suffrage.
• Your "debunking" in #561 consisted of "I like what I think they said in Minor v Happersett better!" in and claiming that Rogers V Bellei only applied to colonial statutes. A reading comprehension problem again, no doubt, when the opinion said

  We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.

  Funny, no mention that the Justices thought this only applied to colonial statutes.

If this is what you think debunks clear statements by SCOTUS, no wonder you are so confused about the issue.

[bushpilot1]

Professor..Henry the V.. "at honour would thee do, were all thy children kind and natural!"

[sometime lurker]

Which proves nothing. SCOTUS has been clear (Rogers v Bellei) that the US follows the English common law in this matter. There are statements by US Attorney's general and early legal scholars saying the same thing. Your bizarre idea that somehow the word "kind" negates legal opinions is just that - bizarre.

[bushpilot1]

[bushpilot1]

[bushpilot1]

[bushpilot1]

What does Ben Franklin mean when he is writing about increasing the future generations in 1755.

“it might be gradually sowed and overspread with one Kind only” ?

[bushpilot1]

Professor...what is a natural(kind) born Citizen?

[sometime lurker]

According to the SCOTUS case Rogers V Bellei,

We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.

English concept or jus soli means born on the soil = natural born (with usual diplomatic or occupying troop exceptions.) Perhaps simpler for you is the THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION, whose authors include President Reagan's Attorney General, Edwin Meese.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President.

[bushpilot1]

Get up top speed. It was debunked a long time ago Meese was the author.