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.
I am well aware they are not the same, it is your side that seems confused about this. "Deportation" is defined by the INS as
The formal removal of an alien from the United States when the alien has been found removable for violating the immigration laws.None of the children involved were found to be aliens violating the immigration laws.
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.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. Pro-life is a moral issue for me. Jus Soli is a legal concept well established in common law, and explicitly stated to apply in the US by the Supreme Court in Rogers v. Bellei. I can be 100% in favor of the moral, and still recognize the law of land. This is a false construct on your part to bring in unrelated issues.
Correct. Illegal alien children born in the US were routinely deported for 70 to 80 years after the Wong Kim Ark 1898 SCOTUS opinion.
Dr. Eastman who testified before Congress about on the issue of birthright citizenship states below:
"According to Eastman, the real shift in popular perception began to take root in the late 1960s, when the idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status.
“I have challenged every person who has taken the opposite position to tell me what it was that led to this new notion,” he said. “There’s not an executive order. There’s not a court decision. We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough.”
Eastman attributes some of it to our nation’s loss of an intrinsic understanding of the language that the framers of the 14th Amendment spoke and used in that era, ergo a century later the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” has been watered down in the collective American consciousness to require little more than an adherence to traffic safety laws. "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2509715/posts
Eastman believes this loss of understanding is forgetting the meaning of the 14th Amendment. It is, but the reasons are sinister, which has been in play for 30 to 40 years since the Democrat party decidedly went far-left after the 1968 Dem presidential convention and when Nixon in 1972 destroyed ultra-liberal McGovern by 23 percentage points taking every state but Massachusetts .
After losing huge, the Dems went looking for manufactured voters and their votes for the obvious selfish reasons of perpetual incumbent power by having self induced amnesia, and they have successfully steered future executive branches to ignore the law by conflating the Wong Kim Ark opinion to include the illegal alien children as citizens. We all know how good the Demo Party is at choosing and picking which laws to enforce or not when they are in government. See the Obama Admin. for countless examples.
Eastman echo's my opinion about government acquiescence of their duty to enforce immigration laws.
" Eastman said. “The dynamic has changed now, and what we have done by having very low quotas on legal immigration and turning a blind eye to massive illegal immigration is to create this subclass and create this extraordinary drain on our social services that is bankrupting most of the state and local governments that are in the path of this migration wave. You foster an entitlement mentality but also an ignoring of the rule of law.” "