Replies

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1

[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]

8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION

c. Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth: Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a State upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (INA 101(a)(23) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (see INA 310, 8 U.S.C. 1421 and INA 311, 8 U.S.C. 1422). Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. (See 7 FAM 1140.)
d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:
(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

“Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:

Good Morning, and thanks for the supporting documents, (Extract above).

By any interpretation, Harris is a Citizen by birth only and not NBC, therefore ineligible to serve as VPOTUS or POTUS...Period.
As with obama, she is a shade of black and “deemed” qualified by Congress solely to avoid cities burning. “Deemed” does not qualify her...only our Constitution does.
To be elected to POTUS/VPOTUS requires:
1- 35 years of age
2- Lived in the US for 14 years
3- Parent(s) must be US citizen(s) at the time of birth

#3 applies...neither parent was a citizen when Heels was born in Oakland.

The dems have been playing fast and loose with the Constitution regarding eligibility so far, but that has to stop with Harris.
I don't believe she will be elected, but I didn't think biden would either...but here we are.
If they steal this election like they did in 2020, we will have crossed the Rubicon.
Enough of this charade...

Since around 1900, (SC) rulings have become less and less valid because SC has gradually moved away from basing their decisions on the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. But their ruling on NBC appear to be based on sound application of the Constitution.

In Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1938, the Court of Appeals noted as part of the basis for their decision that...

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, 1898 [found that] [W]hen the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.

It appears the Supreme Court in Elg (1939) agrees with Ark (1898).

(Both Marie Elizabeth Elg and Wong Kim Ark were born on U.S. soil to parents who were here legally but not U.S. citizens.)

Again, the Constitution is properly applied as written and ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD and intended. What matters is what the ratifiers of the Constitution considered an NBC was. The Supreme Court decisions based on the good-faith and sound finding of original understanding of NBC in the Constitution is, therefore, legal precedent concerning NBC.

Some argue that the term "NBC" is not specifically used in Ark or Elg, but these cases revolve around citizenship based on birth on U.S. soil, which is exactly what NBC is. An NBC is a citizen automatically because he was born on U.S. soil. He is “naturally” and automatically a citizen needing no further processing to become a U.S. citizen. He becomes a citizen under “natural” (birth) circumstances, exactly as Elg, Ark.

The key here is being born on U.S. soil to parents who were in the U.S. legally which excludes "anchor babies" whose parents are not in the U.S. legally.