Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: CDR Kerchner
"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"

Nope. Still wrong. She was born in Oakland. Her parents were in the US. All three of them were under the jurisdiction of the United States. There is no partial "political jurisdiction".

6 posted on 09/20/2020 1:13:01 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: mlo

IF her parents were NOT US citizens at the time of her birth ... even on US soil, she is NOT and will never be a ‘natural’ born US citizen... What part of ‘natural’ is so hard for some to comprehend?


9 posted on 09/20/2020 1:16:00 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Psalm 2. Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mlo

She doesn’t “also” carry citizenship of her birth parents’ nationalities?


18 posted on 09/20/2020 1:24:13 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Joe Biden- "First thing I'd do is repeal those Trump tax cuts." (May 4th, 2019))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mlo

Sorry you are wrong


19 posted on 09/20/2020 1:25:16 PM PDT by al baby (Hi Mom Hi Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mlo

Nope, YOU are still wrong.
A person born in the UnitedStates, for example one born to a foreign diplomat assigned here, is NOT a natural born citizen.


32 posted on 09/20/2020 1:38:23 PM PDT by A strike (If you die we will report it as Covid unless you prove otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mlo

“All three of them were under the jurisdiction of the United States.”

How can you be so simple minded? Jurisdiction refers to citizenship, which is in the citizenship amendment for former slaves. The writers of that amendment stated that it was for former slaves.


35 posted on 09/20/2020 1:42:08 PM PDT by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mlo

“Her parents were in the US. All three of them were under the jurisdiction of the United States. There is no partial ‘political jurisdiction’.”

When the 14th Amendment was written the term “jurisdiction” referred to “citizenship” or “subject status.” Thus, if a parent was a legal citizen of another country, or a subject of another country, that would imply that that person fell under the jurisdiction of that other country. That has always been the weakness of the “anchor baby” argument.


37 posted on 09/20/2020 1:44:02 PM PDT by ought-six (Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mlo
She’s an anchor baby.
46 posted on 09/20/2020 2:03:53 PM PDT by liberalh8ter (The only difference between flash mob 'urban yutes' and U.S. politicians is the hoodies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mlo

We’ve explained it to you before.

There’s territorial jurisdiction, which covers EVERYONE: you’re subject to the laws of the country bounded by its borders.

Then there is political jurisdiction, which means what nation are you a subject of: the English nation, subjects of the King; the Chinese nation, formerly subjects of the Emperor; the Spanish nation, subjects of the King of Spain...which I most definitely am NOT.

It means, what Sovereign are you a subject of?

In the United States, the People are Sovereign...we have no King. Or Emperor. But the term “People” is a term of art within the law, that means the citizenry...not including aliens unnaturalized.

This is what the 14th Amendment referred to: “And Subject to the Jurisdiction of...”.

You have to be a citizen, or at least on your way to being a citizen, in the United States, to be considered under the political jurisdiction of that citizenry...or else you are NOT “Subject to the Jurisdiction of..”.

So in the case of Shymala whatever her last name was and Don Harris, they were under a) the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister of India and b) the British Crown, respectively.

The Indian case may be a bit more complicated since they are in fact supposedly a Constitutional Democracy. In that event, the populace may be said to be Sovereign similar to the United States. But Shymala was still subject to the jurisdiction of that people and that state, since that is what her declared nationality was. If she got into any kind of hot water back then, the Indian Consulate would be involved. THAT is the definition of someone who is NOT “Subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, even though they might be prosecuted for a crime IN the United States: only by treaty are certain Diplomats exempt from such things.


56 posted on 09/20/2020 2:23:40 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mlo

Uh, no.”All three of them were under the ‘full political’ jurisdiction of the United States”.

Her parents were under the jurisdiction, for purposes of citizenship, of their respective countries of origin that issued their passports. And both of those countries claim birth citizenship by blood (parents).

So you’re doubly wrong, again.


70 posted on 09/20/2020 2:39:32 PM PDT by RideForever (We were born to be tested)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mlo

\\\Nope. Still wrong. She was born in Oakland. Her parents were in the US. All three of them were under the jurisdiction of the United States. There is no partial “political jurisdiction”.///

Read the article, genius!


77 posted on 09/20/2020 3:23:19 PM PDT by heterosupremacist (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mlo

She’s a natural born citizen. That’s clear. So are Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump, even though their mother was not a US citizen. There are two types of citizenship, natural born and naturalized. That’s the only distinction. If you don’t have to go through naturalization, you are natural born.


85 posted on 09/20/2020 4:02:02 PM PDT by mak5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mlo

No, either you are under the jurisdiction of the US govt or you are not. If you are within the border of the US, yes, you are subject to our laws, just as you, as a US citizen, are subject to the laws of other nations when you are within their borders. At the time Kamala was born, Kamala’s parents were under the jurisdiction of the country of which they are citizens, and that was not the US.

If you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, that means, for instance, you are subject to the draft (if you are male), you can vote in US elections, your children are US citizens no matter where their mother gave birth, you are subject to US taxes, you can obtain a US passport. If you do not have a right to these things, or an obligation as the case may be, then you are NOT subject to juristiction of the US.

Subject to the jurisdiction means also that if you find yourself in some difficulty in a foreign country, the US consulate/embassy is available to you. As well, a foreigner in this country who is having difficulties here, can make use of his consulate/embassy.

There is no such legal status as partial jurisdiction. If you are in this country, you are subject to the laws of this country while you are here, and there are some taxes you may have to pay, but that is NOT NOT NOT the same as subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If you are a foreigner here in this country, and your child is born here, your child is not a citizen of this country, your child is a citizen of the country that you are.


88 posted on 09/20/2020 4:08:44 PM PDT by erkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mlo

Nope still wrong! Kamala and her parents were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. You are only subject to the jurisdiction of the US if you are a citizen. Indeed, Kamala and her parents were subject to the laws of the US just as we are when we travel to foreign countries. However, in that case, as citizens of the US and subject to its jurisdiction, we can appeal to the US consulate/embassy for assistance and protection. Kamala and her parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the country of which they were citizens. If they had difficulties of any kind here, they could appeal to their own country, the country of jurisdiction, for assistance.

The easiest way to understand this is simply this: If you are a citizen, then you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If you are not a citizen then you are not. (There may be some exceptions for legal residents in the process of obtaining citizenship. I’m not sure about that.)


89 posted on 09/20/2020 4:15:32 PM PDT by erkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mlo
There is no partial "political jurisdiction". .

Appreciate the facts, thanks.

96 posted on 09/20/2020 5:24:51 PM PDT by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson