Obama should have been deported with Barak Sr.

700 f2d 1156 diaz-salazar v. immigration and naturalization service ^ | October 9, 2011 | edge919

[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.

[DiogenesLamp]

Discovering that it was the decision of a Carter appointee PROVES it cannot be correct!

I've seldom seen such a clear-cut example of the ad hominem fallacy. Readers take note: this is what the term really refers to, not just insults.

You are FUNNY! Even when you try to argue logically, you pick the WRONG FALLACY to accuse me of! :) The correct Fallacy to accuse me of is the "fallacy of false authority." What I said was a clear cut example of that. In this case, the Ad hominem aspect of it was directed at Jimmy Carter. Are you now concerned with defending him?

Jimmy Carter was the worst President in History till the current one. He was an idiot. If he made a correct decision it was an accident. He was virtually the perfect "reverse barometer." If you did the exact opposite of everything he thought was right, you couldn't have done worse than he did. In any case, it is not an Ad hominem when it's true. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

Remember your flow chart for Birther responses to caselaw that rebuts Birther claims.

Caselaw: From a state court.
Birther Response: Unacceptable because it’s not from a federal court.

Caselaw: From a federal district court.
Birther response: Unacceptable because it’s not from a federal appellate court.

Caselaw: From a federal appellate court.
Birther reponse: Unreliable because the judges who penned the opinion was not a Republican appointee.

Caselaw: From a Republican appointee on a federal appellate court.
Birther response: Unreliable because it’s not from the Supreme Court.

This, boys and girls, is what is known as the "Straw Man" fallacy. They accuse someone (The bugaboo birther strawman) of saying or believing something that they have not actually said, then proceed to beat the stuffing out of the fake "straw man." That is why it is called the "straw man" argument. It doesn't resemble the real thing, and it doesn't fight back. :)

My position has always been that the Founding Document is the Highest legal authority, not the courts which it created. The courts can, and far too often Do, get it wrong. (Kelo)

It helps to remind you how few Birthers have any sort of real legal education. No serious lawyer would ever argue to a court that precedent is unreliable based on the partisan affiliation of the President who appointed the judge who wrote the opinion.

But it would be the truth, non the less. One only need look at how many 5/4 decisions are all the result of a partisan split. In any case, this comment reminds me of the Claims by Democrats regarding how valuable it is to elect people with experience in Government. It has been repeatedly pointed out that if "experience" governs thus, Amateurs could do no worse!

Another pot shot at the legal system. If the laws are made by Amateurs (Non lawyer legislators) then why should "professionals" be required to "interpret" what the Amateurs wrote? Hmmm?

[Red Steel]

Ad hominem attack on me, and still does not refute what I said.

I know what you are after reading your posts for 2 years or more. It's no ad hominem - It's an observation lib.

you want to argue that since one of the judges involved was appointed by Carter, that whole ruling is discredited (three judge panel). Which doesn't address the other case cited, where the judge was appointed by President Nixon.

Cudhy interjected the illegal alien's lawyers opinion in the court's opinion of this little and forgotten case, until it was resurrected on the Internet by OBots some 30 years later. I seriously doubt that the other judges on the panel cared enough about that little interjection because it was meaningless dicta, and that they only agreed on the outcome between them in a sea of cases that were likely on their dockets to give a care.

It sure won't help get a real conservative elected, just get people thinking you like the tinfoil too much.

Like you really care about conservatives getting...naw I don't think so.

[edge919]

You *do* realize that in neither of these two cases were the CHILDREN issued a deportation order?

The second case wasn't about deportation but the denial of a requested extension ... and no one said anyone was issued an order to be deported. I said the law wasn't going to protect the self-identified "natural-born citizens" from deportation by showing that a) there would be no hardship incurred (notice there's no appeal to preserving the sanctity of the children's citizenship rights) and b) the second court cited a policy of basically ignoring attempts to exploit marriages and children for immigration purposes. Again, there's nothing here to encourage these children to stay in the United States. Such policies would have resulted in Obama and his mama being sent packing back to Kenya with his papa had his mother been a faithful wife to her alleged husband.

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.

The claim of being "natural-born citizens" isn't supported by any legal reference of justification. Like I explained the courts simply accepted these claims at face value. And I've already point out TWICE that the court expressed an expectation that Diaz-Salazar's children would move to Mexico with their father. IOW, this is a poor justification for believing that being an anchor makes someone a real natural-born citizen. It doesn't.

Lolo Soetoro tried to claim similar hardships to get his two-year requirement waived so he could get his student visa extended. His request was denied and SAD and Barry Soetoro ended up moving to Indonesia. As a bastard child, Obama wouldn't be personally deported, but a real natural-born citizen would never be in this situation to begin with.

[DiogenesLamp]

The original poster seemed happy to rely on these cases when he thought they supported his position. Now that's refuted, you want to argue that since one of the judges involved was appointed by Carter, that whole ruling is discredited (three judge panel). Which doesn't address the other case cited, where the judge was appointed by President Nixon.

I go further than that. As far as I'm concerned, the whole Judicial barrel is rotten. It yields mostly rotten fruit. You have to pick around in it for awhile to find a Scalia, or a Rehnquist, or a Thomas.

Eisenhower was said to have remarked about Earl Warren: "Biggest damfool mistake I ever made. "

[sometime lurker]

No serious lawyer would ever argue to a court that precedent is unreliable based on the partisan affiliation of the President who appointed the judge who wrote the opinion.

Very true. But even the opinion is from the Supreme Court and the majority were appointed by Republicans, they still claim the "offending" judges were lib appointed. For Rogers vs. Bellei, see a recent thread, post #166.

[edge919]

Read the assertion from the original poster that the children were deported, then look at our posts and the case itself.

I didn't say the children were deported. I said the ruling did NOT protect them from being deported and that the court expected the children to go with the father back to Mexico, which is why they wrote there was no hardship for the preschool children "involved in moving to Mexico." The second case wasn't about deportation. It was a denial of a request to waive the two-year requirement to go back home before applying for permanent resident status. In effect, it's LIKE a deportation, and the children would certainly be expected to go home with their father and mother. The stated policy had no concern that they might be U.S. citizens.

[sometime lurker]

Ah, then what it really comes down to, do you respect the law or not? Do you recognize that the law, imperfect as it is, is far better than anarchy and capriciousness in public life?

Because if you want a government of men and not of laws, you want a king and not elected officials.

[edge919]

Remember your flow chart for Birther responses to caselaw that rebuts Birther claims.

Caselaw: From a state court. Birther Response: Unacceptable because it’s not from a federal court.
Caselaw: From a federal district court. Birther response: Unacceptable because it’s not from a federal appellate court.
Caselaw: From a federal appellate court. Birther reponse: Unreliable because the judges who penned the opinion was not a Republican appointee.
Caselaw: From a Republican appointee on a federal appellate court. Birther response: Unreliable because it’s not from the Supreme Court.
It helps to remind you how few Birthers have any sort of real legal education. No serious lawyer would ever argue to a court that precedent is unreliable based on the partisan affiliation of the President who appointed the judge who wrote the opinion.

Unfortunately, nothing in this chart applies to the OP. There's no argument the circuit court rulings are unacceptable or unreliable. The argument is that these rulings, while regurgitating a claim of natural-born citizenship for a couple of children, did NOT show any respect to the alleged citizenship. The childrens were expected to go back home with their foreign-national parents. Is this what Obots and apologists think natural born citizenship is about??

[DiogenesLamp]

Read the assertion from the original poster that the children were deported, then look at our posts and the case itself. He claimed the children were deported. The cases don't say that. Refuted.

The COURT didnt' order them deported, it ordered the FATHER(s) deported. What happened is that the family went with him(them), and were "defacto" deported whether they were "legally" deported or not.

His argument is that it is silly to believe a "natural born citizen" can be forced into a foreign country for any reason. I concur. Imagine Abraham Lincoln being forced into Canada because his dad could have been a border crossing Canadian. :)

Because Judges so heavily regurgitate the expectorations of prior courts, the logic in the legal system can become quite twisted. "Precedent" is a combination of the Tu Quoque fallacy mixed with argumentum ad verecundiam." (Other people were treated that way, and it's always been done that way before!) :)

The badly written 14th amendment in conjunction with Wong Kim Ark did a lot of damage.

[sometime lurker]

I didn't say the children were deported.

No you didn't say they were, just that they would have been. A distinction without a difference to your argument. Your post is still there. It says

Following the guidance in this case, the children, despite the claim of being NBCs, would have been deported with their father.

In fact, the children would not have been deported, equally the wife would not have been deported. They had the option to accompany their father and husband or not.

You've butchered quotes to reverse their meaning, not understood that "we're not going to resolve the doubts" means the court didn't settle the issue, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised with your misinterpretation of these cases. The children were described as natural born citizens. They were not deported. They would not have been deported. As very young children, they might be expected to accompany their father, but they could equally have stayed in the US with their mother, or other relatives.

[DiogenesLamp]

Very true. But even the opinion is from the Supreme Court and the majority were appointed by Republicans, they still claim the "offending" judges were lib appointed. For Rogers vs. Bellei, see a recent thread, post #166.

I'm glad that lived in your head rent free for so long that you could find it again! I was wanting to take that back up but looked at my massive posting que in despair of ever finding it. There was actually an Image file in that thread that I wanted to repost in another. You know, the one where the New York Times article mentions that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to transient Aliens? I'm going to bookmark it now. :)

As for your point, Since Roosevelt, the entire barrel of potential judges has been contaminated. Republican Appointees have been often lousy, and only occasionally brilliant. Kennedy, Souter, O'conner, etc. were HORRIBLE. Don't you agree? :)

[edge919]

No you didn't say they were, just that they would have been.

In effect, that is what would have happened. It's why the court said "involved in moving to Mexico."

Your post is still there. It says

Following the guidance in this case, the children, despite the claim of being NBCs, would have been deported with their father.

Right. I stand by this because I said by "following the guidance." The expectation that the children were going move to Mexico with the father is right there in black and white (no offense to Obama). The point is that the court was NOT doing anything to protect the citizenship that was alleged.

They had the option to accompany their father and husband or not.

That's not suggested in the majority opinion. The dissent was trying to make a play on the hardship that was going to be created if the family chose to stay behind. The majority didn't buy that argument.

You've butchered quotes to reverse their meaning, not understood that "we're not going to resolve the doubts" means the court didn't settle the issue, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised with your misinterpretation of these cases.

Sorry, but nothing has been butchered here. You're using an fallacious appeal to an argument you've already been pwned on in other threads.

[sometime lurker]

"Precedent" is a combination of the Tu Quoque fallacy mixed with argumentum ad verecundiam." (Other people were treated that way, and it's always been done that way before!) :)

Precedent, used well or badly, is important to our legal system. It's been used since the founding of this country. Go tell over two hundred years of Supreme Court justices they were always wrong. Justice Scalia cites precedent, often going back to English Common Law.

As for the rest, you are reframing it as "defacto deported" rather than really deported. But that's not what was written by the original poster. And as for your examples, one can be a natural born citizen with a pedigree back to the Mayflower and still decide to leave with one's family.

Bottom line, the error of the original poster that the children would be deported was refuted.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ah, then what it really comes down to, do you respect the law or not? Do you recognize that the law, imperfect as it is, is far better than anarchy and capriciousness in public life?

I respect the "law" just fine. The people currently claiming authority over me, not so much. I only respect their authority when it is legitimate, not when it is won by trickery lying and double dealing. You offer me the false choice between respecting them or anarchy in seeming oblivion to the notion that choosing to respect them IS choosing anarchy.

Because if you want a government of men and not of laws, you want a king and not elected officials.

No, I want the government of laws. Men are fickle and capricious. That's why I insist on the highest possible standard of citizenship to qualify for the Office of the Presidency. That standard would have interdicted the Malignant incompetent now squatting in rule over us.

It matters not what a court nowadays thinks of Article II. It's legitimacy comes from the compact between states, and descends from what the Writers of the Constitution, and what the Ratifiers of the Constitution believed it to mean.

Courts do not decide truth. They just decide who gets the business end of the Law enforcement guns. Justice is done when truth coincides with their decision.

[DiogenesLamp]

Precedent, used well or badly, is important to our legal system. It's been used since the founding of this country. Go tell over two hundred years of Supreme Court justices they were always wrong. Justice Scalia cites precedent, often going back to English Common Law.

If "precedent" is superior to "first principles" why do Scientists always insist on arguing from "first principles" rather than "This is so because such and such great scientist said so." Sorry. Precision requires that arguments stand on their own, and not be based on the opinions of others. The entire concept of "Precedent" is a logical fallacy. It basically substitutes Habit for thought.

In any case, what is the "precedent" for a court decision regarding a person Knowingly born to a foreign male becoming President? I certainly don't know of one. " To "first principles! Robin! "

As for the rest, you are reframing it as "defacto deported" rather than really deported. But that's not what was written by the original poster. And as for your examples, one can be a natural born citizen with a pedigree back to the Mayflower and still decide to leave with one's family.

You certainly can, but willingly, not because the US government is forcing your illegal alien father out of the country. If this happens in every case, how is an anchor baby ever going to meet the residency requirement? :)

Bottom line, the error of the original poster that the children would be deported was refuted.

Really? Did they leave or stay?

[Fred Nerks]

funny...on the very same day, August 31, he crossed out the name of a 'wife' whose name appears to have begun with the initials 'H' and 'T' and then he wrote Ann S Dunham.

No child, August 31, 1961?

And on the VERY SAME DAY there's that memo, which ever so conveniently fills in all the blanks, name of child, date of birth, and where both the kenyan and the 'mother' are living.

If all that information was known and available to him then, why didn't he include it on the application?

It tricks me that there is no mention in the memo where the missing details came from. If you read the memo it's obvious imo that it served its purpose up to the word KENYA.

[Texas Fossil]

Maybe this would make Obama a natural-born Commie bastard.

[sometime lurker]

You are butchering the language again. If the father chose to take the children to Mexico, that does not mean the children were deported. If the court expected the family to stay together and all move to Mexico, that does not meant the children were deported. You can distort language all you like, but deported means deported. The children would not have been deported. Period.

[Fred Nerks]

...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...

IMO that is what explains the NEED for what I see as an ADDITION to the text of the memo dated August 31, 1961.