------------------------------------------------------
Posted on 08/15/2020 2:35:33 PM PDT by Ennis85
“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: Provided, that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . .”
the key words: “And the children of citizens of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
Obviously, they were granting the same status of children born of citizen parents as being natural born, no matter where they were born.
Notice the switch from natural born citizenship to citizenship in the last clause.
Communist Chinese tourist babies and Anwar al-Awlaki’s kids born in Yemen are natural born citizens eligible to President according to that one.
“If inside the US, the parents don’t matter.”
Then why did the first two hundred years of American history think it mattered? The natural born controversy in not knew. It came up, based on that historical understanding, in the late 1800s.
The “switch” is because it doesn’t matter. There aren’t different types of citizenship. There’s only how you got it. You either get it by birth, or by naturalization. Once you have it citizenship is citizenship. Only if you want to be President does it matter how you got it.
That’s quite a leap you made there. “natural born” says nothing about the citizenship of the parents.
Those two words say nothing about the child either unless they may have been born by c-section.
You’re a disruptive ass hat.
“That citizenship of her parents has nothing to do with her eligibility.”
If only you kept quiet, no one would know just how ignorant you are.
------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Constitutional troll.
Always shows up to advocate for citizens of the world being eligible.
Thanks for the ping!
When the child is born on US soil the citizenship of the parents is irrelevant.
So, Putin has a child born here somehow, and they’d be eligible?
Mmmmmm-kayyyyyyy......
We're NOT birthers, we're RACISTS! You knew that was coming.
It’s NOT a “LAW”, its the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
Vice President Article XII.
The term “natural born citizen was well known to the founders. They were aware of and believed in the definition in the book:
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
EMMERICH DE VATTEL
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19
Page 212, (in part)
“...natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens....”
IN the country, parent”S” (plural), who ARE citizen”S” (plural).
“...it was from Vattel’s The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America’s founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.”
“The majority of this essay will be devoted to reviewing the contents of Vattel’s The Law of Nations, and its documented impact on America’s founding fathers.”
https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html
For some “light” reading. /s
Not THIS court, we should wait until at least two more justices are replaced.
THIS court will find Obama and everyone like him eligible if only to cover their own perfidy.
It will be as soon as a patriotic American born by C-section runs for President!
Is Harris really Black with a capital B? Or perhaps she only qualifies as black with a lower-case b?
Harris’ relevant ancestry is West Indian. Are we expected to accept without questioning or scrutiny the notion that the average “Black” or “black” American citizen with deep family roots in this country, and/or who can trace their lineage to ancestors who were enslaved, feels anything more than a surface connection with Harris at this point, or that their connection with Harris though perhaps only superficial at this point will surely deepen once they get to know her better in the coming weeks?
Truth is, Harris and Biden are not fated to luxuriate much or for very long in the moral high ground when it comes to race. Trump has been no slouch in vying for the black vote while in office as POTUS. Likely as not, Harris will NOT end up delivering the black vote to race-weak Biden. On the other hand, Trump’s diligent and heartfelt efforts, and his demonstrated results in addressing the long-ignored needs and long-stifled desires of all american minorities, including most notably the black minority, are likely to pay off bigly in November no matter what Harris does or says between now and then.
Trump should not apologize for taking the fight straight to both members of the opposing party’s ticket. Nor need Trump concern himself overly much if Biden, Harris or the DNC try to play the race card against him to the hilt. If Trump keeps his cool, avoids taking the bait, and refuses to appear defensive or react in any way defensively on this issue, Biden and Harris are CERTAIN to become frustrated, and soon thereafter, desperate, and with that, prone to all kinds of mistakes and missteps, overreaches, etc., all to Trump’s direct benefit of course. Biden is already falling prey to this syndrome in spades.
The gloves should come off now, and they should stay off. Let Biden and Harris show us they can defend themselves while in the harsh glare of the spotlight.
Really? You sure the key words aren't "that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States" aren't the key words? Why not?
Obviously, they were granting the same status of children born of citizen parents as being natural born, no matter where they were born.
You are aware that this was long before the 14th Amendment, right?
polymuser wrote:
“
“That citizenship of her parents has nothing to do with her eligibility.”
Hmm...
http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/index.html
http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/kamalaharris.html
When both parents are citizens and the child is born on US soil then the children are natural born. When only one or neither parent is a citizen then the child is also only a 14th Amendment citizen with all the same rights as a Natural Born Citizen except that of the President.
Many people confuse the term Native Born with Natural Born. The meaning of the terms is quite different now. The meaning of Natural Born has never changed. The Native born meaning changed in 1866 with the adding of the 14th Amendment.
(Hat tip to LegendHasIt.)”
Courtesy ping to LegendHasIt
So, to respond to your questions:
“When did her parents become citizens?” - Doesn’t matter.
“Was her birth used in the parental citizenship quest?” - Doesn’t matter
How many of Kamala’s relatives secured citizenship after her birth?” - Doesn’t matter
Other questions that don’t matter- What was the weather like the day she was born (IN CALIFORNIA)? What was the Dow Jones at when she was born (IN CALIFORNIA)?
What does matter is that she was born in California and the US Constitution (14th Amendment), as affirmed by the Supreme Court (US vs. Wong Kim Ark) say that she is a citizen of the US.
As regards the whole natural born citizen language, the US Constitution is silent on what exactly this means. Without specific Constitutional language, we are left to try to ascertain the meaning. In the United States, the organization that has this responsibility is the court system. The courts have repeatedly addressed this issue (see Obama, Barack), not a single one found that the fact that he had a non-citizen parent made him ineligible to be president.
Given the history, I would think that this could be considered settled. Kamala Harris is a natural born citizen, by virtue of her birth in California, and is eligible to be the vice-president, and to be the president, if that becomes necessary. If you disagree, take that up with the Supreme Court, assuming they even deign to hear the case. Say hi to Orly Taitz when you see her.
“There aren’t different types of citizenship.”
That you Kamala?
If there are not different types of citizenship, in the Constitution, then explain:
The Constitution requires that a Congressional representative to have “been seven years a citizen of the United States.”
The Constitution requires that a Senator have “been nine years a citizen of the United States.”
When it comes to being president, it requires that the person be a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
Every word in the Constitution was examined by many, many people before its adoption. Why would the writers, all of a sudden, just for the hell of it, slip in the word “natural” if it had no meaning?
Now, the Naturalization Act of 1790 did not qualify what was written in the Constitution. The writers of the Constitution did not insert the concept natural born just to cover where, in the future, a potential candidate might be born overseas. And the writers of the Act of 1790 wanted to codify what was entirely logical, that someone born of American citizens was a citizen too, and natural born also.
“You sure the key words aren’t “that may be born beyond the sea...”
No they aren’t, because the term natural born was already part of the Constitution. The Act of 1790 was not newly applying the term natural born. It was merely expanding on its application.
And, as I must be required to repeat endlessly, the concept of natural born applying only to people born of citizen parents has been the understanding of Americans for hundreds of years, and is written into many court rulings.
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.