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. I haven't made an error yet that has been brought to my attention. As for Hijacking the thread, I assume you mean my pointing out that this issue shares ideology with the abortion issue? It is true. One is a proxy debate for the other.
Those people that believe Life (or citizenship) is inherent in the existence of a child are Pro-Life Conservatives, while those that argue that both "life" and Citizenship descend on a creature the moment it crosses the threshold of the birth canal, are Pro-Abortion Liberals.
I think everyone here at Free Republic would be very interested to know what sort of people are arguing on Behalf of Obama. If they are pro-life, then they must explain the dichotomy of their thought process. How can the argument against abortion not also be the argument against "birth" as the threshold for citizenship?
I consider these people to be my allies. Do you?
This thread is about whether 0bama should have been deported with his father. The "natural born" issue may extend to other questions on natural born, other persons (such as Marco Rubio) who some here question as natural born. I do not see that abortion plays into this. Someone else on another thread tried something similar - "you didn't denounce X! Therefore you are in favor of X!" Pointing out that I didn't support X but it was irrelevant to the conversation wound up in more acrimonious back and forth. Is this a tactic of those who argue that born on the soil isn't natural born?
To refresh your memory - my post:
Refute something, and they move on to a different (usually inaccurate) claim. The sad part is the next thread will be repeating the already debunked claims all over again.
You replied:
We could TEST your theory if you guys had ever managed to successfully refute anything, as that bridge has not been crossed yet, we may never know.
I have refuted something on this thread (and other assertions on previous threads). The claim was made that the courts had deported children of aliens, when the children were born on US soil and the court described said children as natural born in "the facts of the case."
I have refuted that. None of these children were deported. Can you acknowledge the error and refutation?