Posted on 08/12/2020 8:35:00 AM PDT by Brown Deer
Anyone who cares about this issue will already be passionately opposed to her on a thousand others. Those who would even remotely consider voting for Biden won’t give a rat’s rear end about this issue. And no court will ever back you up.
We just got rid of an illegal alien with a phony social security number, phony selective service number, probably a phony degree and professorship (since no one has ever admitting to have been in any of his classes), etc.
I don’t think Kamanawanalaya has anywheres near that kind of criminal background.
Constitution? The hell with it.
8 years of fighting this with Obama...we won’t win. There’s plenty more to knock her down with.
Is Kamala Harris eligible to be Joe Biden’s VP?
No more than an American Indian born in W. Kansas (recently changed ownership to Indian tribes), or anywhere else within our nation’s boundaries. She was born of native-born of Indian-Jamaican parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time. This violates the Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett, which defined “natural born citizen”.
And Pelosi’s signature that Harris is qualified for POTUS should land her in jail for perjury.
This should be part of a Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement bill, missing since 1986 ONE TIME amnesty. Since that amnesty was granted already, a second amnesty is off the table. What remains is the enforcement the Democrats have disallowed since then.
The List of Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement, missing since 1986 goes like this -
1) southern barrier;
2) require eVerify to hire;
3) end all chain migration;
4) birthright per Minor v. Happersett (plural parents);
5) end work visas;
6) 10-year moratorium on all new applications for citizenship (40 years to allow workplace automation effects on downsizing population);
7) Set up an illegal aliens’ victim restitution fund.
Enactment of these provisions will motivate illegal aliens to SELF-deport, and remove colonizadors from our welfare rolls.
We need to pass these protections in order not to make out Democrats as liars who promised the protection in exchange for a ONE TIME AMNESTY. The Democrats got the amnesty already. Now its past time for the protections we were promised.
No
Not when parent(s) are citizens of foreign powers , no
Similar to that case, Mr Harris is born in the US to non-US citizens. In many ways, her case is nearly identical to to the Wong Kim Ark case.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems like Wong Kim Ark had the complication that China had a treaty with the U.S. regarding its citizens being used as temp labor for the railroads that influenced the citizenship of Chinese born here during that period. The more recent Minor v. Happersett set it right with the ruling of parents (PLURAL) who are citizens at time of birth determine citizenship of child, not location. Would an American Indian be able to qualify as POTUS based on where they were born? So why would an India-Indian have any different rules?
That’s what the Democrats are banking on. If Biden wins and steps down and Harris is ineligible, then that leaves Pelosi as President. That is the end game. Frightening!!
The unfortunate facts will not be reported by the MEDIA conglomerate...
If there is any mention, Trump & Pubbies will be mocked as conspiracy theorists...
And, if it ever went to the courts, well we all know how John Roberts would rule on this issue...
Cameltoe has enough baggage and negatives to expose; NBC would be a distraction, IMHO...
Consider the citizenship definition of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Although that definition applies to natural born citizens, the purpose of that section is to define citizenship requirements for non-natural born citizens.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In order to be born a US citizen, you not only need to be born on US-controlled soil, but you also have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And to satisfy being subject to the jurisdiction thereof, at least one of your parents has to be a US citizen.
The reason that we have so-called anchor babies is this imo. Since bona-fide citizens don’t want to vote for flunky, bully, desperate Democrats, Democrats struggle to stay in power partly by promising welfare for illegal aliens if illegals use their anchor baby status to vote for Democrats.
Also consider that decades of Democrats winning elections by unthinkingly promoting the murder of unborn Democrats has caught up with Democrats.
Corrections, insights welcome.
The media will make sure this question is not asked. bammy got a free pass, and so will harris. But if Ted Cruz runs for president, the media will be obsessing about this very same thing.
Ted Cruz has run and not much was said outside of FreeRepublic.
True. The Left protects themselves better than the mafia ever could.
I brought it up other places too.
Harris was born in Oakland, California on October 20, 1964, to an Indian citizen mother and a Jamaican citizen father.
*************
Clearly she is not a Natural Born Citizen.
But more important, if Biden and she win office, the issue won’t arise until a certain point in time, simply because the MSM will cover for her.
That point in time will be if Biden is declared no longer competent to serve. Then it will surface big time.
At that point even the Dems will declare she isn’t a Natural Born Citizen, and will declare that the Speaker of the House should be President.
Their thought is that if they can win the presidency, they will win the House and Senate.
Donald Harris, Kamala Harris' father, was a British Jamaican–born and became a naturalized citizen of the US.
(Citizenship and Naturalization)
This area of our Constitution is not it seems, enforced however, it is argued.
No. You need to focus on the win and stop handing the other side the ammo to use against us.
Conclusion
Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires a President to be a “natural born Citizen.” But, as the Supreme Court once observed: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”[415] The words appear not to have been used in any law in the United States for the past two centuries, and have not been used in any U.S. national law since 1790. To date, no one has offered a clear and persuasive account of the phrase’s original meaning. Original meanings are rarely ascertainable, but this case is a rare exception. The relevant historical evidence, which was exhaustively reviewed in this Article—Constitutional Convention debates, English common law, natural law, law of nations, canonical Anglo-American treatises like Blackstone’s and Kent’s, the 1784 Maryland Lafayette statute, the 1790 U.S. Naturalization Statute—all lead to the conclusion that the original meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II refers to a person either born in the United States, or outside it to a parent in government service or to a U.S. citizen father. This answer is faithful to then-universal natural law principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis, and to the material condition of the early United States as a new nation geographically distant from Europe but dependent on it for trade and commerce.
http://www.aulawreview.org/natural-born-citizen/
Nope. There is no such holding in Minor v. Hapersett, not the least of which because that issue was not before the Court. The Court only stated that there were "doubts" about "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents." It did not hold that those were not natural born citizens. Here is the actual paragraph:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
You only get to your conclusion if you ignore most of that paragraph and don't know what dicta is.
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.