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.

[bushpilot1]

James Ho penned the article.

[sometime lurker]

You are claiming Meese had nothing to do with the book? He’s listed as one of the authors. Citation or link, please.

[sometime lurker]

James Ho penned the article.

Are you claiming the editors did no oversight for accuracy? That others who participated had no say? Allowed their name to be put to something they thought inaccurate?

[sometime lurker]

Your response to the clear statement in Rogers v. Bellei?

[bushpilot1]

Professor we wish you would get it together when you post in this forum. Your mistakes continue to astound.

You stated:

I notice you do not address what Reagan’s attorney general wrote:

“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. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President ...”

Tue Sep 20 2011 05:11:57 GMT+0800 375 of 378
sometime lurker to edge919

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2775081/posts?page=375#375

Meese did not write the article! Democratic political operative James Ho was the author.

[sometime lurker]

Meese did not write the article! Democratic political operative James Ho was the author.

Typical - ad hominem attacks on those who show you are wrong. James C Ho, who you describe as a dem political operative, was chief counsel to Senator Cornyn, clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and was in the Justice Dept under George W. Bush. Think of any of them are hiring dem operatives? Your tinfoil hat is showing.

[sometime lurker]

For that matter, do you think the Heritage Foundation is hiring dem operatives to write their material? More tinfoil.

[sometime lurker]

And you still haven’t answer about Rogers v. Bellei.

[bushpilot1]

[Squeeky]

Still no analysis of Wong, section by section, by you.

Then you asked: “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.”

I know why the Wong Kim Ark judges used that quote. Do you??? I have already written about that elsewhere. I coud simply copy and paste it. But I am tired of spoon feeding you. This is YOUR theory and YOU have the responsibility to do YOUR homework. What are you, a liberal who is used to having everything handed to you on a silver platter???

I want to see YOU doing some work for a change, not everybody who disagrees with you working their tails off to show YOU where YOU are wrong. Instead, YOU start showing us where you are right. Start by analyzing Wonk Kim Ark, section by section. Don’t write a book, unless you want to. Just quotes from each section and a recap of how the court summarized those findings in your own words.

Next, on Minor, you are dodging another inconsistency in YOUR theory. You say Wong Kim Ark used and affirmed the so-called NBC language. I asked why, if that is true, did not Donofrio and the Liberty Legal Foundation use Wong Kim Ark to support their theories and LLF to support their case, instead of Minor, by itself. WKA is 23 years later, and that would be appropriate, if YOUR theory was true.

I bet you have been used to popping into a forum, spouting off YOUR conclusions, and then watching everybody else work their tails off to prove YOU wrong. Which we all do. Which you continue to ignore. Maybe that dynamic needs to change and YOU need to be a big boy and start proving YOUR theory, and maybe YOU need to start explaining the inconsistencies YOUR theory encounters in YOUR words. Maybe that way, YOU will have to start THINKING about what you are saying. That sounds fair to me.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

This is what you call a response? Seriously, I expected something better. As for what Attorneys say, I don't give a D@mn. As for what Early American legal scholars say, you've only got one on your side of which I know; Rawles. I think you also try to claim St. George Tucker, but I think my side quotes him a lot too. Just to counteract those 1-1/2, we've got Dr. David Ramsey and Chief Supreme court justice Marshall for Rebuttal. Roger v Bellei tells us that someone born as an American citizen can lose their citizenship unless they are a natural born citizen which cannot. It demonstrates that one can be a "born" citizen without being an article II "natural born citizen."

[sometime lurker]

You seem to have left the key phrase out of your highlighting -

...foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States but will include every other class of persons

These are the standard and longstanding exceptions both for "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen."

You also may have missed this from Senator Trumbull, chairman of Judiciary,

The senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of the child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment so as to make citizens of all the people born in the United States, and who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might, perhaps, be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'that all persons born in the United States, and owing allegiance thereto, are hereby declared to be citizens;' but, upon investigation, it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily residing in it whom we would have no right to make citizens [p572 of the Congression Globe on the debates over the fourteenth amendment]

To break it down for you:

• They wanted to make citizens out of everyone who owed allegiance to the United States (similar to the English "born in the ligeance of")
• They realized that even a foreign ambassador temporarily resident, and thus his newborn child, owes a sort of allegiance to the country where he temporarily resides
• They understood they had no right to make the children of foreign diplomats or ministers into American citizens
• They changed the language so they did not do so.

Which you refuse to understand, and try to read in different meanings than what was intended.

[sometime lurker]

You never do like what I post when it disagrees with what you'd like to believe.

As for what Early American legal scholars say, you've only got one on your side of which I know; Rawles. I think you also try to claim St. George Tucker, but I think my side quotes him a lot too.

William Rawle, St George Tucker, James Kent

As for David Ramsey, have you bothered to read his "A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States? If you are just relying on a few clipped quotes, I urge you to follow the link and actually read it. His dissertation deals with whether those colonists who were deceased at the time of the Declaration of Independence could pass on American citizenship to their (nonresident) children or their minor children. (His conclusion was no - the children must "acquire that privilege in their own right." If you are relying on Ramsay to make your case, you have a very weak reed, since he is dealing with those alive at the time of his writing. Good try.

As for Justice John Marshall, do you mean this statement?

“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.” [OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES]

So Marshall clearly says a "native" citizen is distinguished only from naturalized by the Constitutional distinction. The only Constitutional distinction I'm aware of is the eligibility to run for president.

[edge919]

The Trumbull quote is talking about making citizens through the 14th amendment. It isn’t about natural-born citizenship. Persons who are natural-born do NOT need an amendment to make them citizens. This is what the Supreme Court told us an at least two occasions.

[edge919]

Justice Marshall quoted Vattel in the Venus in defining what "native" means, which is to be born of CITIZEN PARENTS:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

[edge919]

Shall we look at what Blackstone actually said on the specifics of children of aliens born in the dominions of England?

Yes it says "generally speaking." You understand that does NOT mean ALL children born of aliens??? Tell me you understand that.

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

Thanks. You're making my argument FOR me. The part underlined above is the point I was making. The only persons who are natural-born subjects if they are the "issue of a denizen" are those born in the country AFTER denization. The ones born IN THE COUNTRY before denization are still considered aliens. They do NOT have inheritable blood. A natural-born subject is one who has inheritable blood.

Children of aliens born within the ligeance are natural born subjects with all the rights of such, therefore they can inherit.

ONLY the ones born AFTER the denization of an alien. Read it again. The ones born before denization cannot inherit, which means they are NOT natural-born subjects. A denizen BEFORE denization is an alien, therefore the issue of this alien cannot inherit and is NOT a natural-born subject. Here's what Blackstone says about this again:

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.

#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.

No, the Supreme Court said this in WKA in the sentence that you have so much trouble understanding. I can teach you what it means, but I can't fix your intentional stupidity.

Except that Bellei clearly states in the opinion that we follow jus soli.

... in ONE area of law. Elsewhere in the decision it talks about citizenship at birth that does NOT follow jus soli. You're trying to make this mean something much broader than what the decision actually says.

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.

Sorry, but there is NO doubt for the persons who are natural-born citizens. That is completely clear in Minor.

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.

Minor was ABOUT citizenship in addition to suffrage. This was affirmed in Wong Kim Ark and in Ex Parte Lockwood. Selective ignorance does not help you here.

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.

Mr. Quote Butcher. You're dropping the CONTEXT again, which I quoted in Post #571 (not #561). Read what the decision says:

These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.

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

It was in the previous sentence in the decision (and as I've requoted it). It's why the part YOU quote says "Thus." Are you intentionally ignoring that for some reason??

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

The only person who is confused is you. You couldn't even get the post number right. We've just seen that you've ignored three specific points that completely debunk your belief in Bellei that is based on an out-of-context citation. That's either rampant stupidity or intentional ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty on your part.

[sometime lurker]

In some world only the “natural born” contingent inhabit, citizens mentioned in the 14th amendment are different than those mentioned in the original constitution. Pity for them, there is no explanation of that in the law, nor has SCOTUS agreed with them. You have nothing where SCOTUS specifies “14th amendment citizens have fewer privileges than ‘other’ citizens,” or that 14th amendment citizens are distinguished legally from others. Unless you butcher quotes, of course.

[sometime lurker]

He quoted Vattel at length in the Venus, a case about a ship taken by American privateer. I notice you don't quote Marshall introducing the Vattel quote. JUstice Marshall:

The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

What? He wasn't looking to define "natural born"? Oh the horror! Could Edge be trying to pull the wool over our eyes by pretending he was? (Yup, no surprise there.) So in a long quote on another issue, Vattel's definition which is not germane to the case is included. Not Justice Marshall's own words, mind, but a quote on another issue.

However, when it's Justice Marshall's own words, he says

“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.” [OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES]

Not surprising you perfer a quote that addresses a different subject to Justice Marshall's own words which contradict your ideas and undermine your arguments. Marshall's words make it clear he viewed "native" the same as "natural born."

[edge919]

The Constitution uses a term that the Supreme Court said was not defined by the 14th amendment, so it is what it is. The intent of the founders was to provide a strong check against the admission of any foreigner as the commander in chief. Such a check is rendered moot if the 14th amendment or statutory legislation provides the only criteria for establishing the citizenship of a presidential candidate. The Supreme Court said, “Yes, Viriginia, there is a difference” and explained why with a doubt-free definition.

[edge919]

I notice you don't quote Marshall introducing the Vattel quote. JUstice Marshall:

Are you REALLY this dumb in real life?? The part you quoted does NOT change that a) the Law of Nations was used as an authoritative source on NATURAL citizenship, b) the quote comes directly from Vattel and includes criteria that Obama fails to meet, and c) "natives" are defined as those persons born in the country to CITIZEN parents. IOW, once again, you're making my argument FOR me. Thanks.

What? He wasn't looking to define "natural born"?

You replied to what I said in post #655, which was about the term "native" as was bolded in YOUR post, #653:

He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction.

Marshall's use of native citizen here = natural-born, and his definition of "native" = Vattel's definition which means to be born in the country to citizen parents.

Marshall's words make it clear he viewed "native" the same as "natural born."

... and defined it as born in the country to citizen parents. You DO understand this, right??? Tell me you're not as stupid as you are pretending to be.