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?
As you and others have been confusing the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark term "Citizen" for meaning the exact same thing as "Natural Born Citizen", I think you are now confusing "Legal Deportation" with "De Facto Deportation." The Central point of this thread was that Obama SHOULD HAVE faced De Facto Deportation had Stanley and Barack Sr. Stayed together. They actually DID in the case of Lolo Soetoro.
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.
The arguments are exactly the same. YOUR side argues that Citizenship materializes at birth. The Abortion supporters argue that "Legal Person" status occurs at birth. (An artificial man made boundary.)
"Natural Born Citizen" advocates argue that Citizenship is inherent in the child. Pro-Lifers argue "Life" is inherent in the child.(a concept consistent with Nature.)
If you are pro-life, and you understand the pro-life argument, you cannot argue that it is correct in the case of life, but wrong in the case of citizenship. Your position is inconsistent with the pro-life argument against abortion. If you are pro-life, you will have to chose one argument or the other, you cannot have it both ways.
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?
I've explained this above. You either believe the pro-life argument, or you don't. The Pro-Life argument is inconsistent with the Jus Soli argument. If you are pro-life, you must chose whether to give up being pro-life, or give up supporting Jus Soli. They are incompatible philosophies.
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?
No. Bushpilot1 has come up with an example that indicates there are many such examples. Apparently children DID get deported.