Posted on 08/11/2020 7:30:27 PM PDT by captain_dave
Is Kamala Harris qualified to be Vice President? Is Kamala Harris a "Natural Born Citizen"?
While she was born in California in 1964, both her parents were, at that time, recent immigrants. Her mother immigrated in 1960 and her father in 1961 (according to the bio in Wikipedia). So, there is a serious question whether she is a natural born citizen.
The old accepted understanding of "natural born citizen" is a person born of two citizen parents, so at birth has no other loyalties, or claims of loyalty.
I remember.
My son was born in England of American Parents. He is a dual national of both the USA and the UK and holding passports of each nation. He can hold any office in our nation with the exception of President or Vice President. Oddly he could be Prime Minster of England but I doubt they would be so foolish.
Marco Rubio was born in the US, but neither of his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth. So,according to you, he is also ineligible to be the US President.
Congratulations, this is absolutely correct and in an era when people respected the original meaning of the Constitution and the reasoning behind specific language that was commonly understood at the time the document was written. Since we now live in a time period when even people who consider themselves to be conservatives feel it is just fine to manipulate the meaning of the constitution to whatever they feel is most convenient... I guess that it currently no longer matters.
“Both parents would have had to have been citizens at the moment of her birth.”
Factually, neither parent needed to be a citizen at the time of her birth. This is the definition of an anchor baby. So it doesn’t make any difference if either was a citizen of the US as pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) a person born within and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States automatically acquires US citizenship, known as jus soli. She was born on US property, OPakland, CA, she’s a citizen whether they are or not. And as a citizen born on US property, she can even run and win the presidency at some point. God help us.
rwood
She is clearly not a natural-born citizen.
Marker
Ted Cruz and Marc Rubio were both NOT natural born citizens, and I railed against them during that time.
The natural born clause has been under attack by both sides for quite some time. We should all fear what we have been seeing for years. The natural born clause was one of the greatest protections left by the founders, we would do well to keep it.
Is there a definitive US court decision for a candidate for President?There seems to be
a lot of Ftuff. A fellow Vattel, a Swiss man, writing in French, about how the British system used to work.
“...She was born on US property, OPakland, CA, she’s a citizen whether they are or not. And as a citizen born on US property, she can even run and win the presidency at some point. God help us.”
*******************************************************
But what was the meaning of “natural born citizen” at the time the constitution was written? There are legitimate disagreements on that. ORIGINAL MEANING and that portion of the constitution has never been amended and, sadly, has never been DEFINITIVELY litigated.
An anchor baby’s citizenship is not the same quality as that of someone born here to citizen parents.
Is an anchor baby a citizen? Maybe, maybe not. If you think citizenship comes from the soil/nation where birth occurs, then yes.
If you think citizenship is an inheritance from one or both parents, then it doesn’t matter where the child is born.
But as a qualifier to be eligible to be POTUS, born in country to citizen parents is the gold standard.
It is pure, so to speak, and undiluted citizenship. Why would you want anything less for POTUS?
Native born to foreign citizens is simply not the same as native born to citizen parents.
But, in an upside down world where men dress like women and compete in women’s sports and that’s perfectly reasonable, truth is whatever a judge says it is even if it isn’t.
Bkmk
The founders and even most politicians up through the first three fourths of the twentieth century would be aghast at the concept of anchor babies. Anchor babies are only improperly considered a citizen at birth because of the perversion of modern courts and politicians in treating the Constitution as a “living document” so that they can interpret it however they please. This anchor baby nonsense all started with Justice William J. Brennan’s footnote in Plyler v. Doe in 1982 and was pushed into high-gear USA-destruct-mode by the evil Ted Kennedy.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:
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. […]
Consider the following two unassailable points.
1) The text of Section 1 clearly states that it only applies to residents of a state. Illegal invaders or other temporary alien visitors and their spawn have no legal permanent residence in any state. They are trespassing aliens or are tourists, students, etc. whose legal permanent residence is in an alien land, not one of our states.
2) The subject of Section 1 is citizenship, so when considering jurisdiction, only political jurisdiction is relevant. The political jurisdiction of alien invaders, tourists, alien students and other temporary alien visitors and any spawn they might happen to drop is their home country. That is where they vote, and where they are citizens. The fact that they are subject to local criminal jurisdiction is irrelevant to questions of citizenship.
Is she not an “anchor baby”?
The closest contemporary writing to the ratification of the Constitution on the subject of natural born citizens being of two citizen parents is Thomas Paine's 1791 book The Rights of Man, written just two years after ratification.
The following is from The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions. While it doesn't have the authority of the law (neither did Thomas Jefferson's 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptists that coined "wall of separation between church and state"), it is a window into contemporary understanding of "natural born citizen." It was written by a man widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person..
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection with the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Now compare Paine's understanding of a "full natural" citizen with the Preamble to the Constitution. The Preamble says that he Constitution was "ordained and established... to secure the Blessings of Liberty... to ourselves and our Posterity."
"Ourselves" means "We the People," the citizens of the United States who established the Constitution and delegated our powers to the states and the federal government.
"Our Posterity" means the children born to We the People, the citizen descendants of citizen parents.
Resident aliens are not "We the People," as they are not citizens and cannot vote for representation in the House of Representatives. Since resident aliens are expected to be here for a long time, it is reasonable to assume that they will have children. Their children may be born here, but they are not citizens descended via parentage, as their parents are still citizens of their home countries. Therefore, children of resident aliens are not the "Posterity" of "We the People."
If resident aliens choose to become citizens (become "We the People"), then their subsequent children will be the posterity of We the People, and will also be citizen descendants of citizen parents.
This is what Paine was speaking of when he wrote of "foreigners" and "half a foreigner." Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
This is why I also have postulated that "natural born citizen" wasn't meant to describe a kind of citizenship (Article I Section 8 gives Congress the power to define the rules of Naturalization), it was included as another qualification to be President.
Article II says that one has to be at least 35 years old and resided in the country for 10 years, too, to be President, but we don't say that "citizen over 35" is a class of citizenship just because it's in the same clause describing the President.
So how did "natural born" become a class of citizenship instead of just another narrowing requirement in Article II to be President? What's wrong with removing the phrase and claiming that to be President, one has to be descended from citizen parents, be over 35, and resided in the country for 10 years, without the "natural born" phrase being automatically assumed to mean class of citizenship? The intent of the clause remains unchanged. Note that the simpler term "citizen" is what is used as a qualification for Congress, but with lower age requirements. Why separate "natural born citizen" and ordinary "citizen" if both were to mean the same thing? Why hold the President to a higher standard than Congress if the words were synonymous?
I say that the reason "natural born" was placed into the Constitution in that specific location in Article II is that it was a "term of art," and everyone had a common understanding that it was meant as a qualification to be met in order to become President, along with age and residency. It is what separates the Executive from the Legislative. It is what gives power to the Preamble "to secure the Blessings of Liberty... to ourselves and our Posterity" by ensuring that the highest office in the land was held by citizen children of citizen parents.
Thomas Paine knew this when he wrote that chapter on Constitutions in 1791.
-PJ
Ten likes!!
When one is born in the USA to parents both of whom were USA citizens when one was born, one is by inherent nature born a USA citizen because no other citizenship outcome is possible. One's natural born allegiance lies 100 percent with the USA.
Kamala Harris was born with three conflicting citizenships and only a weak natural allegiance to the USA.
Ha
Recent immigrants,care to elaborate as to the parents citizenship status at the the time of the birth in 64?I’ll wait.
Words have meaning or the Constitution is an illusion.
These manipulators of simple language have an agenda to elect citizens of the world.
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.