Posted on 09/08/2018 10:23:35 AM PDT by EagleUSA
Senator Kamala Harris’s staff has refused to answer any questions regarding the citizenship status of her parents when she was born. The normal path to becoming a naturalized U.S. Citizen takes five years. Kamala Harris was born in 1964. Her father emigrated from Jamaica to the USA in 1961. Her mother emigrated from India to the USA in 1960. Thus there was not sufficient time for either of Kamala’s parents to become naturalized U.S. Citizens. Kamala’s father eventually became a naturalized U.S. Citizen per his bio. It is not known at this time if Kamala’s mother ever became a naturalized U.S. Citizen. She moved to Canada with Kamala when Kamala was about seven years old. It is possible that Kamala’s mother might have naturalized at some point as a Canadian citizen. Kamala Harris’s mother is now deceased. As I said in the first sentence, Senator Harris is not being transparent on this issue and her office staff has refused to answer any questions on this subject. Given Kamala Harris’s year of birth, and her parents emigration years, she was born in the USA to two foreign nationals and thus inherited their respective birth nation’s citizenship when she was born, in addition to being a basic Citizen by being born in the USA to aliens legally domiciled here. Thus Senator Kamala Harris was born with citizenship and required allegiance at birth to three countries.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
Can you imagine her and Booker on the same ticket? Talk about being in BIG trouble!!!
“I’m more concerned that she’s one of the dumbest, if not THE dumbest US Senator and a full-blooded Bolshevik. “
She’s a contender along with Whitehouse, Booker, and 46 other democrats.
I might suggest that Ill-I-noise’s Carol Mosley Braun was the dumbest senator, but that was 20 years ago.
I think its fair to say that the RATS see her as "the magic negro" part two.
Time for Harris to be vetted. Get her out of the way now so the media cannot hide it in 2020.
Lotsa valid points in this thread.
“Obama, Act 2”, anyone?
Patriots please note, there is no constitutional requirement for US senators to be a NBC.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States [emphasis added], and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
So what am I overlooking?
Tilting at windmills.... which the DEMOCRATS specifically did, with Pelosi’s help (and moron Biden as well)... by going OUT of their way to pass a law to the effect that John McCain was a “natural born” American (having been born in the Panama Canal Zone— US Territory). Propaganda wise AS IF that would ever come up with his natural born true American parents— to de-focus:
From. obamaumao.... who quite clearly (except to those who continue to accept proven false documents, and reality of personal history- to wit, his mother certifying him as being one Barack Soetero, as a muslim, and an Indonesian citizen— thereby making him no longer ANY kind of US “citizen” at that point and thus— ineligible to run or be President of the USA. Therefore needing the false “live birth document” created in a State that has created false legends for known communist agents, and many other “cover” documentation for foreign agents, coupled with a completely bogus SS# from Connecticut, which still will not pass e-Verify). This is still not acceptable.
And... uh— still consider the entire unnecessary McCain “legitimization” to be part of this foreign op, made possi le by his Hanoi imprisonment and brainwashing, and possibly/probably done by the permanent US “state”. It being not too extreme to say who did this op using this permanent “govt.” apparat. We’ll have to wait until US Navy sealed records are released (and hell freezes over).
“According to the interwebs, she was born in Oakland, California, and as much as we might like to disown it, it was and is still part of the United States of America.”
Section I Amendment XIV only dates back to I think 1868.
The “natural-born citizen” bit dates back to 1787.
The 1787 Constitutional clause has to be interpreted by 1787 standards.
Yes, she is a undoubtedly a citizen of the US, but a “natural-born” citizen?
Witness the idiotic agit-prop and public attack by Alex Jones on Marco Rubio, in front of major news media live mic. In which he mutters (have touched Rubio more than 3 times on the shoulder and back) “back to the bathhouse with you”.
Rubio, like him or not had reason to be plenty pissed off, as he knows Alex Jones to be what he is— a disinformation operative masqueredin as a pro trump person. How do we know this?— Because Alex backed away from the Podesta paedophile so called “hoax”. why? because he was going to be “sued”, and he then apologized.. and the entire thing was a whitewash by his handlers.... from the “resistance” deepers. So it’s simple... foolish with rubio, and true powers make sure Jack Dorsey understands who is in control- now.
So this is said, anyway.
No, but they may be sweeping up the orgy photos from Willie Brown’s (and her own) collection. This is one putrescent amoral, anti-constitutional.... horizontal engineer.
Not the old GOPe ones... maybe the new “non ruling party” inside the Beltway trough eating types, who may win this Nov. they might.
In today’s world they would call her an “anchor” baby.
he SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution with regard to POTUS eligibility. But in SCOTUS cases wherein they have given a definition of what a NBC is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Wong Kim Ark vs US, Perkins vs Elg,) they defined an NBC as a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents don’t have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.
The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner. Rep. Bimgham and Senator Jacob Howard were the principal authors of the 14th amendment. Here is a quote from Howard which clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Harris, Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
Whatever one thinks what the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 is, it is clear that the adoption of the 14th amendment did not alter it in any constitutional sense. How else can you account for the fact that the constitution only specifies for the office of senator and representative citizenship for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively, while the constitution requires the POTUS, to be NATURALLY born, owing allegiance to no other country? That is the ONLY constitutional provision for NBC. Obviously, there is a singular distinction with regard to that office. Under Jamaican and Indian citizenship law, for instance, It is conceivable that Jamaica or India could claim that Kamala Harris, thru her parents, is a citizen who owes allegiance to both of those countries FROM HER BIRTH. It was conferred upon her by those countries citizenship laws, just as valid as our own.
By the way, Ted Cruz (who I admire very much) made a very public demonstration of the fact that he was going to FORMALLY renounce his CANADIAN citizenship. What NATURALLY BORN US citizen has to do such a thing?
The framers of the constitution were patriarchs. (Yes I understand that is completely out of tune with modern sensibilities, but nonetheless it is true.) They believed that the citizenship of the FATHER was conferred upon his children. SCOUTUS incorporated in toto the ENTIRE 212th paragraph of Emerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations in their 1814 Venus merchantman case as they defined what an NBC is. Here is the money quote that Justice Livingstone that was cited when he wrote for the majority, “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
I suspect the reason that many do not want this issue formally examined is that they wish to foster and enhance the globalist influence on the office of POTUS. The NBC requirement was never intended to be a guarantee of allegiance, but a safeguard against undue foreign influence on the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The oath of naturalization requires a formal and legal renunciation of any prior national allegiances.
Jennie Spencer-Churchill, known as Lady Randolph Churchill, was a natural born US citizen, and a British socialite, the wife of Lord Randolph Churchill and the mother of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.
Under US citizenship law at the time of Churchill’s birth, despite the fact that his mother was a NATURAL BORN US citizen, she could not transmit her US citizenship on to young Winston owing to her marriage to a foreign national, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, who was Winston’s father. That would not be legally allowed until the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, well after Churchill’s birth in 1874. The Cable Act only confers citizenship, NOT NATURALLY BORN citizenship. It did not refer to, or alter the meaning of an Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 “natural born citizen” in any way.
Churchill was granted HONORARY US citizenship by an act of Congress on 9 April 1963. It was understood that his birth to a an NBC citizen US mother in Great Britain did not make him a citizen by law.
This is just one more indication of the fact that Obama, Cruz, Rubio OR Harris can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS. We need to have this issue finally adjudicated by SCOTUS for the first time in US history, and finally get a definitive answer one way or another.
We have enough naturally born anti-american, anti-constitutional cultural marxists in our country now who aspire to be POTUS. I say let’s eliminate all those who don’t even meet the basic Article II criteria. Winnow the opposition.
Constitutional standards is a strange choice of words but what is the Constitutional standard, or requirements, for candidates?
Congressman
Article 1, Section 2. - No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been SEVEN YEARS A CITIZEN of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Senator
Article 1, Section 3. -No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been NINE YEARS A CITIZEN of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
President
Article 2, Section 1. - No Person except A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
This creates a question for students of America’s Founding documents.
Why did the founders require that candidates for Congress only be citizens but a candidate for president must be a natural born citizen? Why?
Clue:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." .... John Jay letter to George Washington dated 25 July 1787
Many founders were concerned about a possible divided allegiance for a presidential candidate whose parent was a citizen of a different country.
Was she born in the United States and were her parents here as legal residents when she was born? It has been adjudicated numerous times and it is also the definition of Natural Born Citizen that if that were the case she would be considered a Natural Born Citizen as we have discussed here numerous times. This is not even debatable.
She’s a nutcase extremist and that is reason enough to oppose her - we don’t have to make up things like this to distract from her extreme record and allow her to rise above it as a “victim of a smear campaign.”
Kamala allegedly spent many years in Canada according to Wikipedia.
I would recommend a search of Canadian naturalization records.
“Oxford Dictionary”, Second Edition
Volume X page 245
“1709 Act 7 Anne c. 5...The Children of all natural-born subjects, born out of the Liegeance of her Majesty...shall be deemed...to be natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom.”
That 1709 law was I believe what the founders would have gone by. Anne was Queen of England in 1709.
So even if Obama was born in Kenya, he would be considered a “natural-born” citizen because his mom was.
And after the experience with Obama, we cannot let this happen again. No anchor babies, no one that doesn’t qualify. No to Harris, Halely, Rubio, Cruz, or al-Awlaki. All the same, unqualified.
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.