Posted on 10/07/2011 9:05:25 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at openjurist.org ...
The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States. It appears from the complaint that the Plaintiff and his wife have adapted well to life in the United States, have actively participated in the educational, civic and social work in this country and have made valuable contributions to the communities in which they have lived. The Plaintiff was originally in this country on an Exchange Visitor Program No. G-I-1, and in 1965, he was transferred to a classification under the Exchange Visitor Program No. P-I-655. His authorization to remain in the United States as a student was extended on several occasions, and on November 5, 1970, his petition for a sixth preference immigrant status was approved.
Here's the problem: "... under the Immigration and Naturalization Act [aliens] must return to their native land for a two-year residential period before seeking to apply for an immigrant visa, or for permanent residence ..." The plaintiff was trying to waive this requirement and the court said no. The problem then is that he AND his family were forced to return to their native country. In a footnote, the court said, after denying the plaintiff's petition:
As quoted in Silverman v. Rogers, supra, 437 F.2d at 106, the judiciary subcommittee stated: "It is believed to be detrimental to the purposes of the program and to the national interests of the countries concerned to apply a lenient policy in the adjudication of waivers including cases where marriage occurring in the United States, or the birth of a child or children, is used to support the contention that the exchange alien's departure from this country would cause personal hardship."
link
What these cases illustrate, is that the courts only take the claim of natural-born citizenship at face value. It's not based on an examination of what the actual legal definition of the term is. Second, in these cases, the children are NOT being treated as natural-born citizens. Children who are allegedly born in the country of nonimmigrant aliens, even those aliens who are legal, are not protected by the law from deportation. IOW, the law doesn’t look or treat these children as “natural-born citizens.” To call such children “natural-born citizens” is therefore nothing more than a wishful delusion.
Next, this shows that birth on U.S. soil to such an alien does not negate the child nor parents from being subject to a foreign power, since they are being forced to leave the United States and return to their native country. Not only then does this negate the idea that such a child is natural born, but it further invalidates any legitimate claim to 14th amendment citizenship.
When we apply these situations to Barry Soebarkah Soetoro Hussein Obama, we see that even if he could prove he was born in the United States, he would not have been legally considered to be a natural-born citizen. Had Obama’s mama gone to Harvard with her husband (instead of having a sham marriage), the whole family would have been sent back to Kenya when Barak's Sr.'s application for temporary stay was denied. And yes, kids, Barak Sr. was being denied the legal right to stay in the United States. See page 20 in the immigration files:
Natural-born citizens don’t get sent back to their father’s foreign country. Also, Lolo Soetoro's petition to waive the requirement to return to his native country for two years was denied. This is why his family was in effect forced to move to and live in Indonesia. This explains why Obama would have been considered to be an Indonesian citizen (he was most likely adopted and became an automatic Indonesian citizen anyway).
The other point that needs to be emphasized is that these examples illustrate how these children of aliens do not fit the concept of natural born citizen as John Jay wrote about to George Washington. Birth on soil alone would never be sufficient to provide the “strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government.” The law has treated these children of aliens as foreigners who needed to be sent back to their native country. As the child of an alien who was sent back to Kenya, Obama should have been deported along with him. The only thing that saved him was that his mom was evidently dumped before he was born or that there was never any marriage to begin with. Maybe this would make Obama a natural-born bastard. It does NOT make him a natural-born citizen.
Dad - overstays student Visa. Uses multiple dates of birth on paperwork.
Aunt - defies deportation order. Illegally obtains public housing. Illegally donates money to US election candidate.
Uncle - illegally assigned not one, but two social security numbers.
Barry - can’t question his documentation, that’s racist.
This tribe has a bad track record when it comes to records.
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria”
This has gotta be the BIGGEST NIGERIAN SCAM of all time, this potus.
“What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.”
I know you’re trying to make a point.
But in the Obama case, is it not true that he did not reside with his father, Barack Sr?
To say that a child should have been deported as his father was subject to deportation, if the child did not reside with that parent, is a problem.
In regard to an actual custodial connection, or parental connection, between Barack Sr and his child, my understanding is there was none, zip, zero, nada.
Young Barry resided with, and was raised by, others.
Yes, that is acknowledged, hence the word "should" in the thread title. Had Obama's mama been a faithful wife and followed her alleged husband to Harvard with his alleged child, they all would have been deported together.
BHO Sr. never acknowledged BHO II (not junior) until the 1964 divorce - at least in any paperwork that has been uncovered.
Key dates:
6/22/1962 BHO Sr. leaves Hawaii. No discussion or record of his ‘marriage’ or child in any reporting in newspapers.
9/17/1962:
Obama Senior writes extension request. In request he indicates his birth date is in 1936 and not 1934. He list ‘Married’ but no spouse name. List child ‘Roy’. At this point in time Obama wants to appear 2 years young than he is. Is 30 a problem for some reason? Indicates Married but no Spouse name listed. List Children as ‘Roy’ (no Obama II) page 26.
9/18/1962:
Lolo Soetoro comes to US.
9/20/1962:
Stanley Ann Dunham returns to Hawaii. Lives with parents.
Source:
http://www.michaelpatrickleahy.com/whatdoessarahpalinbelievechapter1.pdf
Note - interesting chain of events in 3 days in 1962....
6/6/1963:
BHO Senior writes extension request with birth date of 1936 instead of 1934. Form is mostly typed. Fields for Spouse and Child are blank. Hand written admin note and arrow to proper indicates ‘He is married’. Form does not list spouse or Child. Hand written note says - “He is married” with arrow to spouse field. Page 25. No acknowledgment of BHO II again. Indicates ‘he is married’ but is not specific who he is married to.
12/12/1963:
Kenya becomes independent. Obama Sr. (and possibly II) gains right to Kenya citizenship via Kenyan constitution.
1/20/1964:
Date Stanley Ann signs paper swearing to mistreatment - paper is filed in divorce. So after a year and a half of separation she is just now claiming ‘mistreatement’. More like abandonment.
1/23/1964:
Filing of Obama Stanley Ann Divorce
1/30/1964:
Obama signs for divorce papers. Divorce paper is first undisputed and verifiable record of Obama II. Before this time Obama Senior NEVER acknowledged Obama II in any government paperwork discovered so far.
4/21/1964:
Obama files extension request. DOB in own hand indicates he is born in 1936 (2 years different from fact) and form list Obama II as USC son who is 2 years old and list SAD as wife (untrue since divorce was final).
7/6/1964:
BHO Sr. leaves US after attempt for extention fails.
****************************************************************************
So BHO Senior never acknowledged a son until 1964 and he has a reason to - to try to stay in the US to avoid going back to a new country from the one he left.
He lies in the April filing that he is married (not now - he is legally divorced) and for the very first time acknowledges SAD and BHO II. Why?
Other than the dis-proven COLB and BC there is nothing else that validates the story of Obama II up to 1964. No other records, no other history. Nothing. His first legal, verifiable appearance in records that are not in dispute was in the divorce statement.
That divorce was used for something more than a normal divorce. What that is - who knows? But Obama Sr. tried to leverage it to say in the US. And SAD (or the Dunhams) got a verified father for a son (or grandson) at that point. So all the parties got something from it other than just ‘a divorce’.
...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.
I'm somewhat familiar with this case since it is cited in the conclusion of that absurd Indiana state case. It was a Carter appointed judge who cited the defense "as fact" in his opinion without any other credible reference. And as of consequence, goofy libs from coast to coast have repeat and rinsed the error in their arguments. the dicta didn't help the defense as I recall since the father stayed deported.
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.
Yup.
Young Barry resided with, and was raised by, others.
And was raised in Indonesia for many years and most likely adopted by his stepfather as an Indonesian citizen. If you Live by the Technicality, you Die by the Technicality! You are trying to argue that Obama met the "Spirit" of Article II Citizenship even if he didn't meet the letter. The Man shares citizenship in Three, possibly four nations. Kenya, USA, Indonesia, and Britain. He usually used underhanded legal tricks to win his elections. If anybody doesn't deserve a break on a technicality it is this guy.
Making stuff up again? Neither case says anything about deporting the foreigner's natural-born child. In fact, the Diaz-Salazar case specifically discusses the idea that his wife and kid might stay in the U.S. There's no basis for your conclusion that Obama and his mother would have been sent back to Kenya with Obama Sr.
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.
The expectation expressed says the kids would not be disrupted by moving to Mexico. Obama was also of "pre-school age" when his papa was told to return to Kenya. Again, had his mama and papa maintained a formal family unit, the whole family would have been sent packing.
You need to read more than just the parts you like. Certainly one possiblity was that the family would all move to Mexico. But the concurrent/dissenting opinion states, “It is obvious that the wife and children would become destitute and a charge upon society here, if petitioner is deported to Mexico and does not take his wife and children with him.” Clearly there was also the option for the rest of the family to remain in the U.S.
Reading Diaz-Salazar v. the INS (1982), nothing in that case says that the children had to be deported. You appear to be misinterpreting the claimed "disruption" of moving the family to Mexico as a court order to move the entire family to Mexico. Not surprising.
Same for Nwankpa V. Kissinger, where you have curiously underlined one significant fact, but left off emphasis of the most significant.
where marriage occurring in the United States, or the birth of a child or children, is used to support the contention that the exchange alien's departure from this country would cause personal hardship."No mention that the child is forced to depart, just the alien. There is somewhat of an assumption in these cases that families will follow to stay together, but the court does not say the families are deported.
Bottom line is clear - the court said these children are "natural born" citizens. Applying that to 0Bama, (or Senator Rubio) means they are natural born in the eyes of the court. Good try.
I’ve been using this slogan on FR for a few weeks:
DEFEAT BARAQ 2012
DEPORT BARAQ 2013
A liberal, Carter appointed judge citing an illegal alien defense lawyer about a deportation hearing. LOL.
Let us get to the heart of the matter. Are you pro-life?
And you as well. Are you Pro-life?
The three Judges on the case were Cudahy, Posner, and Weick.
Further, Judge Varner of NWANKPA v. KISSINGER was appointed by Nixon.
If you want to argue that judges appointed by Presidents Reagan, Eisenhower, and Nixon don't understand the law and the Constitution as well as you do, go ahead.
You *do* realize that in neither of these two cases were the CHILDREN issued a deportation order?
In both cases, the US decided to deport the father, and the father appealed on the grounds that his deportation would harm his children. Not because the children were being legally deported themselves, but because they would naturally follow their father. This is roughly the same sort of appeal that Lolo Soetoro made.
Good work, though, on sharing these two cases that explicitly state that the U.S.-born children of foreigners are “natural born citizens.” Particularly Diaz-Salazar, since it’s a federal Court of Appeals decision.
I personally think that if you threw out the verdicts of every Democrat Appointed judge, you would go a long ways to undo the damage to common sense and the rule of law which has been caused by such people.
Unfortunately, the Damage caused by Roosevelt/Truman stacking the courts for decades with Liberal Kooks cannot be ignored.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.