Skip to comments.California Constituent: Sen. Kamala Harris Not a Natural Born Citizen
Posted on 01/30/2019 4:35:47 PM PST by RichardMoore
click here to read article
I never wrote that he was: You’re ‘batin.
You never proffered any better references either.
Worthless exchange, but what I’d expect from a fish.
That defines mere citizenship, and even that position is flawed. Only foreign nationals here legally are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"
This was clearly not the intent of the author of 14A...see his writings.
The main ones left out are the newborn children of foreign ambassadors.
And illegal aliens.
Mexican "anchor babies" are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico.
>> according to the court, "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<<
-Chief Justice Morrison Waite, unanimous decision.
a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen
The parents are nevertheless required to be US citizens.
Exactly, but intelligent thought is too difficult for most folks. It’s much easier to just “imagine” there’s no heaven etc
I remember a movie staring Anthony Hopkins and Alex Baldwin. They crashed in Alaska and Baldwin just kept saying it was no use , they were doomed. Hopkins got them out. Never was heard a discouraging word. Hang in there things will get better, they just might get worse first. Thank God for Trump!
Your reference depended on Vattel. Nor is there any indication anywhere BUT Vattel that NBC might mean needing two citizen parents.
But birthers are not known for knowledge of history or looking at the law.
For every mention in Supreme Court cases:
The actual definition of an anchor baby is a term used to refer to a child born to a non-citizen mother in a country that has birthright citizenship which will therefore help the mother and other family members gain legal residency. It is a practice to get the child citizenship by birth so the parents can gain an advantage to their green cards without waiting in line for the naturalization process.
Chief Justice Morrison Waite, in the statement you wrote, was only describing children of those born to US citizens, not to those born of non-citizens on US sanctuary and he demised in 1888 before the 14th Amendment was written as the case you quoted, Minor v Happersett, was determine in 1875. Additionally, the US supreme court handed down its landmark Dred Scott ruling in 1857, declaring that no African American, whether free or enslaved, could be an American citizen. It is possible, however, that these cases were a major push to writing the 14th Amendment to clarify US birth right in 1868 as slaves needed to be qualified to be citizens if they were born here. And the anchor baby problem falls right into the determination as written.
The 14th amendment to the Constitution reads:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
There are no sub-entries as it does not limit the citizen status in any way as it legally applies both federal and state citizenship, in full.
Trump has already signed an executive order to stop the practice, but it is in the court system as we speak and due to the 14th amendment being used inconsistent with it’s intent, but legally, it won’t stand and is not in effect as we speak.
A measure pending in Congress would change the Constitution to deny citizenship rights to babies born to illegal immigrants. The proposed amendment is currently given little or no chance of passage but it certainly helps to focus attention on the nature of the problem.
But, in the meantime, and consistent with the 14th amendment, anchor babies, just be being birthed on US soil, have all the rights and privileges awarded to US citizen parents.
As for the privilege of running for president, Obama was a perfect example as his father was a foreign national and his mother was a US citizen. But as she resided outside the US territories for more than the length of time, 5 years, to make Barrack an automatic citizen he needed to be born on US soil in Hawaii, whether he was or not. Hence the question of his birth certificate.
2 wrongs do not make a right, yet you cite one egregious wrong in your logic elsewhere. Furthermore, a former POtuS could have enacted sweeping gun control - supported by a slanted SCOTUS - and your logic would also make that a right. Conflating “birtherism” with the unresolved issue of NBC demonstrates a clear bias. By way of your logic abortion is a “woman’s right”.
Very illuminating. Now you’ve gone ad hominem. Keep writing; this is entertaining.
Can I contact you for commentary before tomorrow morning’s constitutional? You were highly-effective today.
Obviously, no amount of facts is going to change your opinion, so I'll allow you to remain your own little STUPID BUBBLE, now,delusionally conjuring up idiotic, asinine, childish suppositions to explain things you don't know anything at all about.
Not according to Mark Levin.
anchor babies, just be being birthed on US soil, have all the rights and privileges awarded to US citizen parents.
Except to become the President.
As for the privilege of running for president, Obama was a perfect example as his father was a foreign national
That's a disqualifier right there.
But as she (Stanley) resided outside the US territories for more than the length of time, 5 years, to make Barrack an automatic citizen
She wasn't old enough for that to happen.
The Kenyan claimed he was born there. So did Mike....and his grandmother.
“Except to become the President.”
Where does it say that?
For one, in the Citizenship study guide, for those seeking naturalization.
Anchor babies are still citizens of another country, likely carrying loyalty to that foreign nation, like the LaRaza protestors burning our flag.
There are two rights afforded only to U.S. citizens: the right to vote and the right to run for federal office.
I have looked through the Citizenship study guide and it does not contain any reference to becoming president. It only stated the above about the question. Maybe this will help:
The U.S. Constitution
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution imposes only three eligibility requirements on persons serving as president, based on the officeholders age, time of residency in the U.S., and citizenship status:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
These requirements have been modified twice in history. Under the 12th Amendment, in 1749, the same three qualifications were applied to the vice president of the United States. The 22nd Amendment, in 1789, limited office holders to two terms as president.
There is no mention of any deviation in citizenship other than born on US soil as I have displayed in my posts from a number of sources.
This whole thing is a loophole in the 14th Amendment that has been used before. The intent of the 14th was not to say go or stop on running for president. It was put in to determine the citizenship of the freed slaves from the war from 1861 to 1865. Someone figured how to use it for the purpose of creating not only citizenship, but legally getting a successful presidential run like Obamas. And even though his birth is in question, officially he is a duel citizen of both the US and England who controlled Kenya at the time of his birth in 1961 until they were given their freedom in late 1963. But that birth certificate in England is still sealed so proving he wasn’t born on US soil is not going to happen.
I dont support it, but it is legal. And I can’t find any information that says a child born in US soil is not a citizen at birth for any reason, just the opposite.
And that’s what makes the Hawaiian certificate so suspect. There were many mistakes on it but it was put out and vouched for by Hawaiian workers in the offices.
I don’t question, at this point, whether the Hawaiian certificate was legitimate or not. It exists and Barrack’s father was never a US citizen. But Obama became president because he was born on US soil and it has never been proven otherwise. He became an anchor baby before they called it that.
The other side of the coin is that according to information we have access to now, she was living in Hawaii at the time of Barracks birth. If that’s the case, then why is there a sealed certificate in Kenya still under the control of the English who controlled documents from 1961? There would be no need for one if he was born in the US as written on the certificate in Hawaii. Too many questions that were never answered when the short and long form birth certificate was produced in Hawaii after he said, and it was backed by the records people, that it had burned up in a fire, and the courts threw everything out no matter what the proof was all over the US. (Liberal courts)
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.