Posted on 09/20/2020 1:07:26 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Sep. 19, 2020) — On Friday night the Twitter account @kamalakancel posted images of what it said were four documents appearing to show the immigration history of Shayamala Gopalan Harris, the mother of Democratic vice-presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris.
To date, Kamala Harris has not responded to questions about her parents’ citizenship status when she was born in Oakland, CA on October 20, 1964 and, more broadly, whether or not she qualifies to serve as a “natural born Citizen.”
Some interpret the Article II, Section 1, clause 5 requirement for the president and commander-in-chief to signify a person born in the United States without respect to his parents’ citizenship, while others point to the different standard for the nation’s chief executive as opposed to that of “a Citizen” for U.S. senators and representatives set forth in Article I.
While the Constitution is silent on vice-presidential qualifications, the 12th Amendment, ratified June 15, 1804, states in its conclusion:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States ... continue reading and see copies of newly obtained documents at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/09/19/do-these-documents-answer-questions-about-kamala-harriss-eligibility/
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Not only is she ineligible, I would bet my last nickel she knows it and her parents know it. I would bet her Dad says something about if he puts down the weed long enough. Since she is supposedly a Lawyer,she is Absolutely Perpetrating a FRAUD and should be Criminally Charged
As much as you want this to be significant it isn’t
She was born in the US
Constitution Day - 17 Sep 1787 - Revisit and Learn A Lesson From History. Simply being “born a Citizen” proposed by Alexander Hamilton was rejected. Read more at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3885996/posts
Explain the legal definition of “natural born citizen”.
Please include a legal decision confirming the definition.
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.
I’m eagerly awaiting the release of documents from the Cold Case Posse.
Any day now...Tick Tock, Bombshell, Boom!...
I don't think that's right. Do you have anything to back it up?
"In making his ambiguous proposals Jay seems to have been adapting British law to American conditions. British law had used the term "natural born subject," and sometimes "native," to apply to a person born within the royal domain or nation. However, various laws, including the statutes of 25 Edw. III (1350), 29 Car. 2, c. 6 (1676), 7 Anne, c. 5 § 3 (1708), 4 Geo. II, c. 21 (1731), and 13 Geo. III, c. 2 (1773), extended the status of "natural born subject" to the children of British parents born abroad and to the children of British fathers and grandfathers. Whether Jay intended to incorporate such supplementary provisions when he replaced the term "natural born subject" with "natural born citizen" has not been determined."
There's no mention of the parents' citizenship.
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.
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.)
The 14th Amendment discusses the status of those born here ("subject to the jurisdiction"), not their parents.
Harris was born here. Are you saying she's not subject to our jurisdiction?
Do you contend that she can't vote or get a passport?
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.
So now you're saying Kamala isn't even a citizen?
:-)
“Can you give me one or two practical implications of not being fully subject to political jurisdiction?”
I already gave one.
In the case of a prosecution for a capital crime, or even not so capital, the Consulate of the home nation could or would get involved to argue for fair treatment of their nationals.
Here’s another. When you apply for certain government jobs - or getting a security clearance from an agency of the United States - you will rapidly find out that you have disabilities since your allegiance is questionable. I can safely tell you that Kamala would have had serious issues getting federal clearances at certain levels. She has most likely never had to get them, or this would have already come up.
And as far as my analysis goes, it’s not a “post hoc” conclusion, it’s based on the Amicus Curiae submitted by John Eastman and Edwin Meese in the case of Hamdi, who was born under the same conditions as Kamala the Foreigner.
Hillarious. Cackle Harris may not even be an actual citizen!
How did Harris get to the position she is in?! She has zero principles, she laughs hysterically over nothing, she AIN’T BLACK, she’s short and built like a fire hydrant, she’s backs the domestic rioters.
Joe is demented, but this woman is a Leftist nutjob from the get go.
The Hodge Twins was selling a shirt that says “Pee pads and knee pads”. Guess they thought it a bit too far, because it’s not listed for sale any more.
I must be slipping. The Hodge Twins were selling a shirt. *sigh*
Appreciate the facts, thanks.
Maybe you should ask former President Baraq Hussein Obama.
That has nothing to do with jurisdiction.
Yes, a foreign nation would be more inclined to advocate for one of their citizens but, a) they aren't obligated to, and b) countries make pleas all the time asking other countries to treat people well regardless of citizenship.
I asked for a right or obligation associated with political jurisdiction and you haven't provided one.
When you apply for certain government jobs - or getting a security clearance from an agency of the United States - you will rapidly find out that you have disabilities since your allegiance is questionable.
BS.
If the only question about allegiance is based on having parents from allied countries who hadn't naturalized yet it wouldn't get a second look. Our intelligence services aren't that stupid.
And as far as my analysis goes, it’s not a “post hoc” conclusion, it’s based on the Amicus Curiae submitted by John Eastman and Edwin Meese in the case of Hamdi...
OK. You have a couple of bitter enders arguing that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided in 1898.
Compelling.
I have the entire judicial history since the 14th, including the popular and Congressional election of Obama.
I win.
My son was born in the United Kingdom and I most legally obtained his dual nationality of the UK and of his USA parents. I was working in the North Sea in the oil fields at the time but living in the UK. It was just a bit of paper work at the local post office with a copy of his birth certificate to obtain UK citizenship. I did the same at the American Embassy in London to obtain his American Citizenship. All quite legal. Oddly he could be Prime Minister of England though I think the English would not be that stupid. They have since modified their laws.
The reason I did this was to give him the ability to work in the UK and the EEC as an adult. As the UK is leaving the EEC I do not know how that will effect him relative to the EEC. But that is okay. He now lives in Texas but works for a Ukrainian company at a very handsome salary. He is high tech but not an engineer. He tells the engineers what they need to do to make the products that will sell to their clients.
I thought a person’s citizenship, when born in the U.S., is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
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.