Posted on 09/20/2020 11:41:43 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
New documents have recently been obtained re Kamala Harris’ parents status in CA when Kamala was born there in 1964. They were not legally domiciled permanent residents of the USA. They were in the USA on temporary VISA’s. There is now doubt if Kamala Harris is even a 14th Amendment basic citizen, let alone certainly not a “natural born Citizen” since when she was born her parents were not under the full political jurisdiction of the USA. See copies of the documents recently obtained here: https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/09/19/do-these-documents-answer-questions-about-kamala-harriss-eligibility/
No, it doesn't.
"...So, although it means nothing to you, it obviously did to them. And, it is the law."
It means that a naturalized citizen can't be President. That has nothing to do with one's parents. Not does it have anything to do with "sole allegiance".
Untrue. It does no such thing.
Another thing birthers say that is false.
“Untrue. It does no such thing.”
Apparently, English is your second language.
However consider this: The Constitution specifies that Representatives must be “citizens” to be eligible for office, and it specifies that senators must be “citizens” to be eligible for office. Now, for the third and final elective Federal office, the president, it specifies that presidents must be “natural born citizens”.
Now, why on earth did they put that in there if it meant absolutely nothing? Every word in the Constitution was haggled over, argued over, including the punctuation.
Apparently I can read a statute without inventing things that aren't there, unlike birthers.
"Now, why on earth did they put that in there if it meant absolutely nothing?"
Nobody claims it means nothing.
“Another thing birthers say that is false.”
I sat in American history classes in the 70s, and was taught about natural born citizenship, along with the entire nation, long before the term “birther” was ever dreamed up. I doubt if it is taught now, because it is politically incorrect, just like the 2nd amendment is politically incorrect and is no longer taught.
“Nobody claims it means nothing.”
Okay, inform me. What does it mean?
You have fun with that. I am sure there are some dead-Enders that will follow you into battle on this.
Have fun storming the castle.
The 1790 Naturalization Act was totally repealed as being in error and replaced by the 1795 Naturalization Act and the words “natural born Citizen” were changed to just Citizen, since James Madison pointed out to the Congress that the 1790 Naturalization Act was in error in that wording. Adjectives mean something. Naturalization Law cannot create a “natural born Citizen”. Only Natural Law can do that via the person being born in the USA to parents who are both U.S. Citizens (born or naturalized), when their child is born in the USA. Such a child is at birth instantly born with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth to one and only one country. That was the founders and framers intent, meaning, and understanding in the selection of that term for the Presidential Eligibility Clause in our U.S. Constitution.
So did I, and nobody ever said "natural born citizen" required citizen parents. Wouldn't matter though, since nothing a high school teacher says creates law.
I already did. A naturalized citizen cannot be President. They can be a Congressman.
Well it brought you out into the open and onto the battle field. A castle is not taken easily but they do get taken if one is persistent. The truth will always win out.
Again, no. There is nothing about being a natural born citizen that requires you to have parents that are already citizens.
"That was the founders and framers intent, meaning, and understanding in the selection of that term for the Presidential Eligibility Clause in our U.S. Constitution."
Their intent was to limit the Presidency to natural born citizens. Their understanding of that phrase was the same as mine, not the same as birthers.
Here is the whole story ... The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How the “natural born Citizen” term got into the presidential eligibility clause U.S. Constitution. Read it. Download it. Print it out. Study it: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf
Also see my webpage for more information and resources on the subject: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
It’s defined in the law of nations by vattel. Our founding fathers were well versed in it. George Washington’s had checked the copy he used from the New York library. It has been overdue for over 230 years. I would hate to have to pay his library fines.
“A naturalized citizen cannot be President.”
No, naturalized citizen does not define natural born citizen.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 reads in part:
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
So, you take out the explanatory phrase and you have “And the children of citizens of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
No word about naturalization. If the Founders intended only that naturalized citizens could not be president, they would have said so.
OMG!
You people just don’t get it!
No matter how many times it has been explained to you, you still get it RIGHT for the WRONG reasons.
“Dual Citizenship” is NOT the issue. Usually the “reason” you have dual citizenship is the issue that makes you ineligible to the office of president and vice president, but not always.
In my case I was born with dual citizenship. My father was American my mother was French. France (NOT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) granted me FULL French citizenship until the age of maturity (I think it was 18) when I had to chose to become a French citizen, renouncing my U.S. citizenship. Otherwise my French birthright citizenship expired.
I can not be eligible for presidential office NOT because I was born a “dual citizen”, but because my mother was NOT a U.S. citizen when I was born. THAT is why! Dual citizenship has nothing to do with it. IF my mother had become a naturalized U.S. citizen (which she eventually did) BEFORE I was born, I would have been a “natural born citizen”, eligible to be president even though I was born a dual citizen.
U.S citizenship is determined by THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Sounds simple to understand, yet all you “dual citizenship” people somehow forget that and think that the United States would let some/any foreign country determine your U.S. citizenship status! THEY CAN’T. THEY DON’T.
ONLY YOU and the United States can determine that.
It is VERY difficult to renounce your U.S. citizenship. The government will only “take it away” for a few serious reasons like joining a foreign army fighting against the U.S.
Some countries grant birthright citizenship in some form to ALL the offspring/relatives of their citizens. Great Britain and Israel come to mind.
The U.S. can not PREVENT this. The U.S. can’t stop foreign countries from making you a “dual citizen”.
That’s why THEY DON’T CARE. That’s why “dual citizenship” is NOT the determining factor in eligibility for president.
It is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO simple.
Born ON U.S, SOIL to TWO citizen parentS.
That is what Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution means by “natural born citizen”.
All the founders knew that is what “natural born citizen” meant.
Because they were aware of and referred to The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758). Emmerich de Vattel.
Book 1, chapter 19, page 212.
Comma’la, is not eligible because BOTH her parents weren’t U.S. citizens when she was born. PERIOD! END OF STORY.
Will it matter? Of course not.
You are wrong. Whenever the adjective natural is used in a legal term it refers to Natural Law and not Man-Made Laws. The preeminent legal treatise of the founders and framers time period, and widely read by them (Franklin thanks Dumas for additional copies: https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html ), was Emer de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law”. In Volume I, Chapter 19, Section 212 he clearly defined what a “natural born Citizen” was “natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”. See his treatise for more details: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ The Law of Nations is even cited in the U.S. Constitution. See Article I, Section 8. And Vattel’s treatise was the preeminent legal treatise on that subject and was so for many decades during and after the founding of our nation, and framing of our Constitution.
My sister was born in the same hospital in Panama and under the same circumstances. She was not a citizen and found out when she went to register to vote. Dad was still in the Air Force at the time. It was a big mess but he got her naturalized and eligible to vote.
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.