Posted on 08/19/2018 10:24:18 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
New Article: Is Kamala Harris Eligible to be President? Junior CA Senator May Run In 2020, by Sharon Rondeau, at The Post & Email
(Aug. 19, 2018) — Given that California Sen. Kamala Harris’s Wikipedia biography states that she was born in Oakland, CA in 1964 to immigrant parents and speculation exists that she plans to run for president in 2020, Golden State citizen Gary Wilmott has been seeking information as to her citizenship status and whether or not she meets the constitutional requirement of “natural born Citizen.”
The Wikipedia entry states that Harris’s mother, Dr. Shyamala G. Harris, was from India, arriving in Berkeley, CA in 1960.
Dr. Harris passed away in February 2009. Her “Legacy” obituary states that she arrived alone in the U.S. at the age of 19 after having earned her undergraduate degree from Delhi University.
Kamala’s father, Donald Harris, is a retired Stanford University economics professor whose biography affirms that he arrived in the U.S. in 1961 as an “Issa Scholar” from Jamaica. It adds that he was born in Jamaica and naturalized in the U.S. but does not provide the year.
Neither parent reportedly was present in the U.S. as a legal resident for five years prior to Harris’s birth, a requirement to apply for naturalization, Wilmott observed in an interview with The Post & Email on Thursday.
After her parents divorced when she was seven, Wikipedia reports, Harris’s mother was granted full custody of her two daughters, after which they moved to Quebec, Canada. Dr. Harris’s obituary, reposted at SFGate on March 22, 2009, states that her medical research took her to McGill University in Montreal for 16 years. ... continue reading at the link: http://www.thepostemail.com/2018/08/19/is-kamala-harris-eligible-to-be-president/
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Statutory law can do just about anything. Not saying there is a third kind of citizenship, but a statute can assert any person is a citizen at birth.
See Rogers. v. Bellei. If the sole source of citizenship is statutory, even if citizenship attaches at birth, that person is naturalized without any ceremony.
Rogers v. Bellei and a host of other legal precedents run contrary to your conclusion.
Why did you go to the consular officer in the US Embassy, Moscow? Natrual born citizenship has no need for resort to any consular's office.
Now, I don't expect the courts to apply the law or constitution, but the precedents do say what they say.
If I read it correctly in that case the same statute that granted him citizenship also required he live five years in the USA before age 28, which he didn’t do. However in the case of someone born here their claim to citizenship is constitutional (the 14th amendment) not statutory. I know there is an argument about what “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means, but the most plain meaning would be the exclusion of children of foreign diplomats, who are not subject to our jurisdiction. Ordinary foreign citizens here are.
The history of the 14th amendment doesn't track that "ordinary meaning" of the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means.
Pretty good article, especially in that it looks to pre-14th amendment source of citizenship -- state law.
Ask yourself if the framers intended to be generous or stingy with presidential eligibility. Extend that into whether or not the proponents of the 14th amendment intended to allow native-born children of aliens to become president.
Not that the law is honest in application. It is not. it is based on trickery and sophistry to get the desired outcome. So, study of it is pretty much academic, except the part about how to use legal sophistry to appeal to a judge's emotions to get the result you want.
Rogers v. Bellei covered the special case of a child born abroad to a single US Citizen parent.
Why did you go to the consular officer in the US Embassy, Moscow?
For the (quite practical) reason that the children need US Passports. Again, the Embassy did not naturalize the children. The officer simply reviewed the (Russian) birth certificates (of the children) as well as our (parents) US Passports, and provided a document that states that "yes, these children are Americans", and subsequently accepted the forms for their passports. The document provided (CRBA) can be used in place of a US-state-issued birth certificate for any and all purposes.
Natural born citizenship has no need for resort to any consular's office.
If you believe this, I would suggest that you attempt to apply for a passport without any evidence of date/location of birth and/or parentage. You will not get very far.
So true, John.... The constitution doesn’t matter to dumbocrats, and sadly most of the electorate don’t care nor understand!
I think you are ignoring the fundamental difference between "born" and "naturalized". Take, for example, the wording of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment:
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.
I would take this to mean that birth and naturalization are mutually exclusive categories.
Hey, according to the media and the liberal elite, Obama was eligible. So that means just about anyone else is too...
In a pinch, a birth certificate gets the job done.
In your closing argument or statement, you are confating fact of citizenship (can't get a passport without evidence of citizenship) with source of citizenship. Bellei (and your child) were made US citizens SOLELY by dint of statutory law.
If the statute didn't exist, if there was no US embassy in Russia, would your child be a natural born US citizen? You say yes. I say no.
I'm not going to discuss this further with you, my mind is made up, and so is yours. We will never agree on this subject. You get the last word.
She’ll be given a free pass and declared eligible, just like bammy was, and just like Ted Cruz wasn’t.
She is absolutely prohibited by the NBC Clause from being President.
Trouble is, many on the GOP side will let it slide because they have their own damaged goods whom they want to advance.
May never make it to full court
I'll leave you with one point: the Naturalization Act of 1790, the first statute dealing with rules for US citizenship, specifically provides that children born abroad to two US citizen parents are not only US citizens, but natural born US citizens...indeed the only time this term has ever used in statute. So, it seems that there may be room for more discussion around the argument that "natural born" == "natural law" citizenship, somehow.
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens
"Shall be considered as" is a phrase that denotes physical fiction, pretended to be legal reality, or in shorthand, a legal fiction. One modern equivalent is USPTO regulation which says a patent application is physically received at the USPTO the instant it is deposited at any US Post Office, if the conveyance is designated as Express Mail. Legally, the mailing is considered as received at the USPTO at that moment, even though it is not actually received at the USPTO at that moment.
-- I fully understand your argument about statutory citizenship. However, what I think you are improperly conflating ... --
As I said before, we are both entrenched. Debate and discussion is pointless.
No
And we all thought that the Birther movement was over. </sarcasm>
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States" has "born or naturalized" as your emphasis.
What about the following limiting clause? You see it, the one that reads "in the United States." Does that apply? If so, how does it apply?
No need to answer, just ponder that. I know the answer, having studied a good 20 or so citizenship and natrualization cases (and that with the "benefit" of a formal legal education).
I know you won't accept the logical reasoning, but I've said before that the constitutional definition is in the Preamble.
A natural born citizen is "ourselves and our Posterity" for whom "We the People... ordained and established this Constitution... in Order to form a more perfect Union."
"Ourselves," in the context of the Preamble, would be the randfathered citizens of the United States at the forming. "Our Posterity" would be the citizen children of citizen parents (We the People). Naturalized citizens become We the People, and then the Posterity of We the People are its natural born citizens.
We the People gave ourselves the power to directly elect our representatives to the House of Representatives in the United States Congress. If you cannot vote for a Representative, then you are NOT We the People. It is clear that Kamala Harris' parents could not vote for the House of Representatives, therefore they were not "We the People." This means that Kamala was not the "Posterity" of "We the People."
The "natural born citizen" clause was meant to secure the presidency. The presidency has the tighter requirement of "natural born citizen" in contrast to Congress which only required "citizen." In other words, "citizen" equaled "We the People," while "natural born citizen" equaled "Posterity of We the People." Otherwise, why use the phrase "natural born" at all in the Constitution? The Framers went through many alterations of the Constitution before settling on this language, so the distinction must have had a purpose. Can you offer one of your own, if mine is flawed?
The people of any nation have the right to choose who can join their nation. If they do not have the right to control their own citizenry, then they are at risk of invasion from outsiders.
There are two ways to join the nation: be the Posterity of its citizens, or become naturalized by laws passed by the representatives of the citizenry in Congress.
People who are not citizens of this country who birth children in this country take away the right of the citizens of this country to control who may become it's citizens. It is a de facto invasion from within by foreigners to take over the country without the consent of its native citizens.
-PJ
The 1790 Naturalization Act was totally repealed and replaced by the 1795 Naturalization Act due to the errors made in the language of the 1790 Naturalization Act. In particular the language “shall be considered a natural born Citizen” was removed. What citizen’s that Congress makes or attempts to make Congress can taken away. What citizens (natural born Citizens) per natural law by nature and nature’s God makes can never be taken away by Congress. See: https://libertyborn.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/new-evidence-1790-naturalization-act/
LOL
Now didn’t she also major in cutting the cheese?
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.