And you keep repeating that false accusation. The fallibility of the courts is directly related to this issue. Many of us argue that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided, and THAT is the linchpin of many of your arguments. If your side will admit that the court sometimes gets things wrong, then we could demonstrate how they got Wong Kim Ark wrong, and at the very least stop discussing the ridiculous subsequent cases based on the wrongly decided Precedent.
The issue isn't whether WKA or Rogers v Bellei is correctly decided. The issue is that they were decided a certain way, and as of now, that is the law of the land. When we think it's wrong we need to try to change the law, not claim it's what we want it to be.
We need to declare it wrong, and keep explaining WHY it is wrong, until the public eventually accepts the meme and demands that it be fixed. Constantly repeating that something is "correct" when it is in fact "wrong" does a disservice to the nation. With that goal in mind, the first step is to get the supporters of wrong decisions (that would be you and co) to admit that the courts will get things wrong.
What the Vattel "natural born" crowd seems not to realize is correct or not, "thems the rules." So when one of the Vattel crowd says that 0bama should have been deported with his father, they may be expressing a common wish of all of us, but not what the law has been held to be. So my question to you - do you recognize what the law is? Or are you assuming it is always what we want it to be?
I think that point is still valid. Had Stanley Ann and Barack Obama actually been a REAL couple, Stanley would have left with Barack, and took Barry with her. He could have grown up in Kenya where his idiocy wouldn't have been noticed. It is obvious that some years later Stanley Ann DID leave with Lolo Soetoro when he was deported, so the central argument of this entire thread is established as true beyond any doubt.
Now, to get back to the point which I want to establish (Whether or not your side is going to defend the court as Infallible) Do You believe Roe v Wade was correctly decided?
The other part of this that is critically important is that is the fact that the law in these cases is not respecting the claims of natural-born citizen children. They are basically saying, "These are your kids and they belong with you in their home country. Our laws discourage people like you from coming here and having anchor babies, so we're not going to treat them as natural-born citizens." Had Barak Sr. sued to extend his visa by citing his child as an NBC, they would have been on the next BOAC flight back to Kenya.
And you keep repeating that false accusation
Our conversation has gone something like this (slight - but only slight - exaggeration for effect):
"Legally, 0bama should have been deported with his dad!"
Discussion as to what the law actually says, and the fact that the law doesn't say that. Stanley Ann could have chosen to take baby Hussein and follow her sort of husband, but no law mandated that.
"Do you love abortion"?
"What are you talking about, this has nothing to do with the subject!"
"You didn't say no, so you must love abortion!"
"No, I am pro-life. Lets get back to the subject at hand." More discussion of WKA, etc.
"If you believe jus soli is the law of the land, you must love abortion!"
"No I don't! This is a ridiculous distraction! We're talking about the legalities of 'natural born' and deportation!"
More discussion, some pointing out that like it or not, this is currently accepted law.
"You sure you don't support murdering babies? I think you do!"
And you wonder why I say you're trying to distract. There are good court decisions and bad court decisions, and some flat out wrong and dumb. The way to change it is to change the law or change the Constitution. It is not to deny that the decision was made, deny that it exists, and deny that it is currently accepted law.
Agree 100%.
It is obvious that some years later Stanley Ann DID leave with Lolo Soetoro when he was deported, so the central argument of this entire thread is established as true beyond any doubt.
Nope. The central argument was that "Following the guidance in this case, the children, despite the claim of being NBCs, would have been deported with their father." That is incorrect. The children were not deported and would not have been deported. There was always the option of the child to stay in the US with a US citizen or legal resident.