Posted on 06/13/2023 9:16:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You have done a very good job of not answering my questions, despite the fact that I have tried my best to enumerate them one by one. Please see the questions that I asked in post number 59. It will be helpful if you can answer them one by one.
Given that understanding, in what country is Kamala Harris a citizen, and where do her allegiances lie? Jamaica from her father, or India from her mother? Or do you ascribe to idea the state (US) owns foreign kids by virtue of being born here?
I ask because the Constitution framers were very serious over allegiance leading up to our Revolutionary War, which we seem to be Hell-bent on revisiting.
RE: You have done a better job of ignoring what you don’t want to acknowlege.
I acknowledge what REALITY IS in our current immigration laws. Whether I like what the reality is, is another matter.
RE: Given that understanding, in what country is Kamala Harris a citizen
I will give you a straightforward answer — WHETHER YOU OR I LIKE IT OR NOT, Kamala Harris *IS* a Citizen of the United States because she was born in Oakland California, and by our laws ( again whether you or I like it or not ), that makes her a US CItizen.
The USA ( again whether you or I like it or not ) follows the JUS SOLI system to determine citizenship. What this means is that whoever is born in the U.S. and is subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted U.S. citizenship.
It’s right there in the First paragraph of Section 1 in the 14th Amendment. To wit: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”
Do I like it? NO. Do I want it changed? YES. But as I said, it’s not a matter of whether I like it or not, its a matter of what the law AS GENERALLY ACCEPTED BY OUR GOVERNMENT is.
RE: and where do her allegiances lie?
By allegiance, do you mean loyalty or committment? Well, THAT I cannot answer for sure because I can’t read her mind. I can only judge her by her actions, which tells me that her allegiance is to a leftist cause, not to the betterment of America. Well, so is Joe Biden, so are many Democrats in Congress.
But that is besides the point. The larger point is does a person’s circumstances of birth qualify or disqualify him/her from being President?
RE: do you ascribe to idea the state (US) owns foreign kids by virtue of being born here?
I don’t understand what you mean by “own”. There are no legal slaves in America, so nobody owns anybody. But if by “own” you mean “legal status” — do I believe that foreign kids born in the US are US Citizens?
I will give you a qualified answer and not beat around the bush -— THE ANSWER IS YES ACCORDING TO OUR LAW.
Do I ascribe or support that idea? My answer is NO. But as I wrote above, my liking or not liking the law does not change the FACT of the law. I want it changed, but as it stands now, Kamala Harris was born an American Citizen BY LAW.
RE: I ask because the Constitution framers were very serious over allegiance leading up to our Revolutionary War, which we seem to be Hell-bent on revisiting.
That is why I believe, they used the term — NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
The issue at hand is this — Does being born an American Citizen ( as Kamala Harris was ), make her a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN?
There seems to be a different understanding between simply being born an American Citizen and being born a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN.
These are the possibilities:
* Being born an American, automatically means you are a Natural Born Citizen, i.e., an American Citizen born in the USA is NECESSARILY a Natural Born Citizen. This has come to be the DE FACTO understanding today ( again, whether we like it or not ).
* Being born an American, DOES NOT necessarily mean you are a Natural Born Citizen. You have to meet additional familial requirements to be considered Natural Born.
That is why I ask the questions in Post #59 above. Now please answer them so that I can see where you’re coming from.
Your arguments only work when you leave out the large type. The connective word 'and' makes it necessary to be true for the third clause to be true. Parents on passports should be the clue about jurisdiction, and you skipped it every single time.
Citizens are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They have addresses here.
Visitors have to ask permission. Like a visa.
It comes down to the McCain decision in previous post. A Natural Born Citizen is someone born of US citizen parents (who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof).
So, if a baby is born in the USA ( regardless of the baby’s parent’s’ citizenship ), is the baby subject to the jurisdiction of the government of the United States or not?
Jurisdiction as I understand it, means an area with a set of laws under the control of a system of courts or government entity which are different from neighbouring areas.
So, does a baby born here in the USA not deserve the protection of the US government?
Indeterminate without the citizenship of the parents. And the original question was regarding Natural Born Citizen status of US Presidents, so if the baby in question did not issue from US citizens, the baby cannot be a Natural Born US Citizen qualified to be President of the US.
It seems your problem is with the Cornell law reference to 'natural born', which left out the required "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I don't know if you could have picked a more 'woke' and 'broke' source for legal argument.
RE: if the baby in question did not issue from US citizens
1. You used the PLURAL. What if either father or mother are American Citizens at the baby’s birth ?
2. I did refer to “subject to jurisdiction” in my previous post, that is why we’re discussing it here. What exactly does jurisdiction mean in this context? When you are in the USA, in what way are you NOT subject to American jurisdiction? You must obey all American laws even if you are not from this country when you live here. Isn’t that being subject to American jurisdiction?
3. Let’s not conflate being born an American Citizen with being a NATURAL BORN American Citizen. The former ( in the case of Kamala ) is BEYOND DISPUTE. Kamala did not need to be naturalized because she was already a citizen at birth. Is she a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ? *THAT* is the issue that is still in dispute ( but not by anyone in leadership today ).
Then the child has mixed loyalties to its parents citizenship. The object of Natural Born Citizen requirement for office of President is to remove mixed loyalties so there is no question. Like Trump. Not like Obama or Harris.
Your second point is outside the scope of US President qualifications of Natural Born Citizen.
Your third point left out the consideration of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" yet again. So it, too, is outside the scope of US President qualification of Natural Born Citizen, so don't expect another reply.
RE: the object of Natural Born Citizen requirement for office of President is to remove mixed loyalties
That is NO GUARANTEE if personal loyalty to America. You can, like the American Taliban John Linda Walker, be a natural born citizen yet fight against your country. You can love this country and be loyal to it even if your parents were from another country. There is no guarantee either way.
And since Obama WAS PRESIDENT regardless of whether we like it or not ( I didn’t ), our discussion is simply academic.
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.