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 ...
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Do you pay rent to your skull? Does your skull belong to someone else? Mine belongs to me, so I pay no rent. Sorry to hear it's otherwise for someone.
I remind you again what James Madison, Father of the Constitution, thought:
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States...
The first letter of the crossed out name could be "K" especially when it you compare it to the "K" in "Kenya" in the line above. What looks like the top of a "T" could just as easily be part of the lines crossing out the name.
BHO had a wife named Kezia back in Kenya who was mother of his son Roy.
He may have started to write "Kezia Obama" and then changed his mind and wrote in Ann.
It is a colloquialism. Aren't your hip? :)
You've never answered the Pro-Life question. To conservatives, it's like asking if you are a "(Insert major league football team here)" fan.
Are you?
Doubtful...she wasn't his 'mother' until she gained custody in March 1964. (I'm the wrong one to ask, I haven't seen any evidence that she had a child.)
Someone had a child - her name was Anna. Mary Toutonghi babysat for her in Seattle - when Mary's daughter, who was born in July 1959, was 18 months of age.
Foreign parents do not have "natural born" citizen children.... It is possible if born in the U.S. that they are citizens, but NOT "natural born" U.S. Citizens....
Oh, I just noticed. You said foreigner's natural-born child. The child can be natural-born, but not a natural-born citizen. It requires citizen parents to be that.
Really? Did they leave or stay?
It doesn't matter if they left voluntarily with their father or stayed in the US with other relatives. The United States did not deport them. The definition may help:
DEPORTATION, according to the U.S. IMMIGRATION and Naturalization Service (INS), is "the formal removal of an alien from the United States when the alien has been found removable for violating immigration laws."The children were not stated to be in the country illegally; to the contrary they were acknowledged in both cases to be natural born citizens. They were not formally removed by the INS or the court, which the father was. The case did not say they were to be formally removed. You are either arguing ridiculous viewpoints just to be contrary, or you truly have a reading comprehension problem.
What-ever makes you happy...he also wrote home to his family in Kenya and told them he had married a woman named Anna Toot and was working for an oil company. We can’t remove the cross-out so your observation is a valid as any.
He may have written the name of the wife from whom he later explained he was separated, who was living in the Philippines.
No, I’m not hip, and have no problem with not being hip. And I’m also not going to let you hijack the subject of the thread to distract from having to admit your errors. Admit your error and then we can talk about it.
It doesn’t make me happy or sad, I am simply examining the evidence.
It could be an H or an N or a K or any similar character.
The fact is, he had a wife in 1961 whose name began with a K.
Show me where they stated the children were "natural born citizens". They may have been stated as native citizens or simply citizens (by birth), but they are NOT "natural born" citizens (without divided allegiances).
The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Oh, I LOVE your term “the quote butcher”!!! Tee Hee! Tee Hee! ROTFLMAO!!!
Nope.
The case at the link did not say the court found that the children were natural-born citizens. It stated that the relevant facts “presented” to the court were (see below). Those are the facts as described by the attorney of the petitioner, not determined by the court. The court ruled on other matter.
“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.”
“The relevant facts placed before the court” sure sounds to me like the court agrees those are the relevant facts. And the second case supports that.
Glad you like it! When someone removed the “neither...nor” and claimed it didn’t change the meaning, it seemed appropriate.
Nope.
The case is written by the attorney. He presented the facts as he sees them. The case was not about “natural born” citizenship. The attorney miss-applies the term. The case was about deportation.
This is not a precedent of what a “natural born” citizen is.
—
There is only 1 way that BHO, Jr. can be a “natural born” U,S. Citizen. That is if someone other than BHO, Sr. is his father. (and that may not be relevant if BHO, Sr. is in fact established as his legal father). And that person was a U.S. Citizen at the time of BHO’s birth.
If, as some say, BHO, Jr.’s father is actually Frank Marshall Davis. He would be both a “natural born” U.S. Citizen and a “Natural Born Commie Bastard”.
Strawman argument - and I never claimed the case was about natural born. This case doesn’t need to serve as precedent, since others like WKA, Rogers V. Bellei, etc. already do. However, they did say those are the facts.
As did the judge in the second case.
But ask Edge919, not me, he brought it up in order to claim that the children were deported - which they weren’t.
your arguments are out of place here.
LOL!!! I caught one picking one sentence on the top of page 655 of a case, then getting another sentence from the bottom of page 702 and combining them like they are talking about one thing so they could prove Rubio is not eligible. I don’t know whether they are doing it on purpose or just copying some junk they find somebody else saying. But, what is really bad is that they will just come back and do it again. Thank goodness it is just maybe two or three cases or I would be over my head.
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.