Posted on 01/10/2019 6:25:52 PM PST by upchuck
Is Kamala a natural born American?
Is Kamala a native born American?
Doesn't matter because:
Her mother immigrated to the US in 1960.
Her father immigrated to the US in 1961.
Kamala was born Oct 20, 1964.
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Early_life_and_education
A person must be a resident of the US for five years before they can apply for citizenship.
Reference: https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/learn-about-naturalization
1964, the year of Kamala's birth minus five years is 1959. Neither of Kamala's parents were residents of the US in 1959. Thus they couldn't have qualified for the five years of required residency before Kamala was born.
Therefore Kamala could not have been a US citizen at the time of her birth because neither of her parents could have been US citizens at the time of her birth.
I agree but see this fight all uphill.
Do you really think Republicans in Congress are going to challenge the presidential eligibly of a woman who is half black and half Asian?
None of this matters.
She was born in Oakland, CA. She became a U.S. Citizen upon birth, she never had to wait for naturalization and she was never naturalized. Since we only have two classes of citizens, naturalize and citizens by birth, the only way for her to be declared ineligible for the Presidency, the Supreme Court would have to say so. This they will never do. No court will touch this with a ten foot pole.
you left out “natural born citizen” mentioned in the constitution.
Why aren’t the republicans standing up on this issue so we can get a USSC case?
Re: What to Expect from a Kamala Harris Presidency(pronounced comma-lah)
From DMZFrank | 12/22/2018 2:58:29 PM PST
The SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution with regard to POTUS eligibility. But in SCOTUS cases wherein they have given a definition of what a NBC (or a 14th amendment citizen in the case of Wong Kim Ark)is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Venus Merchantman Case of 1814) they defined an NBC as a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents don’t have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.
The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner. Rep. Bimgham and Senator Jacob Howard were the principal authors of the 14th amendment. Here is a quote from Howard which clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Harris, Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
Whatever one thinks what the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 is, it is clear that the adoption of the 14th amendment did not alter it in any constitutional sense. How else can you account for the fact that the constitution only specifies for the office of senator and representative citizenship for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively, while the constitution requires the POTUS, to be NATURALLY born, owing allegiance to no other country? That is the ONLY constitutional provision for NBC. Obviously, there is a singular distinction with regard to that office. Under Jamaican and Indian citizenship law, for instance, It is conceivable that Jamaica or India could claim that Kamala Harris, thru her parents, is a citizen who owes allegiance to both of those countries FROM HER BIRTH. It was conferred upon her by those countries citizenship laws, just as valid as our own.
By the way, Ted Cruz (who I admire very much) made a very public demonstration of the fact that he was going to FORMALLY renounce his CANADIAN citizenship. What NATURALLY BORN US citizen has to do such a thing?
The framers of the constitution were patriarchs. (Yes I understand that is completely out of tune with modern sensibilities, but nonetheless it is true.) They believed that the citizenship of the FATHER was conferred upon his children. SCOUTUS incorporated in toto the ENTIRE 212th paragraph of Emerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations in their 1814 Venus merchantman case as they defined what an NBC is. Here is the money quote that Justice Livingstone that was cited when he wrote for the majority, “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
I suspect the reason that many do not want this issue formally examined is that they wish to foster and enhance the globalist influence on the office of POTUS. The NBC requirement was never intended to be a guarantee of allegiance, but a safeguard against undue foreign influence on the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The oath of naturalization requires a formal and legal renunciation of any prior national allegiances.
Jennie Spencer-Churchill, known as Lady Randolph Churchill, was a natural born US citizen, and a British socialite, the wife of Lord Randolph Churchill and the mother of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.
Under US citizenship law at the time of Churchill’s birth, despite the fact that his mother was a NATURAL BORN US citizen, she could not transmit her US citizenship on to young Winston owing to her marriage to a foreign national, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, who was Winston’s father. That would not be legally allowed until the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, well after Churchill’s birth in 1874. The Cable Act only confers citizenship, NOT NATURALLY BORN citizenship. It did not refer to, or alter the meaning of an Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 “natural born citizen” in any way.
Churchill was granted HONORARY US citizenship by an act of Congress on 9 April 1963. It was understood that his birth to a an NBC citizen US mother in Great Britain did not make him a citizen by law.
This is just one more indication of the fact that Obama, Cruz, Rubio OR Harris can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS. We need to have this issue finally adjudicated by SCOTUS for the first time in US history, and finally get a definitive answer one way or another.
We have enough naturally born anti-american, anti-constitutional cultural marxists in our country now who aspire to be POTUS. I say let’s eliminate all those who don’t even meet the basic Article II criteria. Winnow the opposition.
This matter is SCREAMING for a definitive ruling on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, by the SCOTUS for the first time in the history of the US. It is revealing to note what Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president when he said that the high court is “evading” the issue. The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court’s budget in April of 2017. Thomas said that to Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
After two Obama terms, I think they are terrified of the implications of a ruling based on originalist constitutional intent and interpretation. That does not excuse the cowardice in refusing a grant of certiorari for those who wish to have SCOTUS exercise it’s Article III oversight on this matter.
This sh*t can only get sorted out AFTER CW-II....
It sucks, but this is the reality we live in...
There isn’t a practical way to handle the natural born citizenship clause other than to interpret it as “citizenship at birth”. Anything else is a complete waste of mental energy.
Through a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment all children born here are given citizenship.
However, the founders made the requirement natural born citizen.
They only required it for President.
Natural born citizens are NATURALLY citizens because they cannot be anything else.
ALL children of foreign nationals retain the nationality of their foreign national parent(s).
That same principle is how Ted Cruz claims American citizenship even though born in Canada.
He is not however a natural born citizen because he was also a Canadian citizen until 2014.
Natural born citizen have only ONE nationality.
Kamal Harris was born with THREE.
Why aren’t Republicans questioning this?
Because they already cooperated in the violation of the Constitution.
Therein lies the problem. That term has never been defined in the Constitution. You can come up with your own definition if you like, everyone else has done so.
Vattel was not available for comment.
“Citizen at birth” was specifically rejected by the founders as not restrictive enough.
Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
Many of the founders and framers expressed fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future serve as President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. This question of foreign influence was elevated when John Jay considered the additional power granted to the Presidency during times of war, that is when he serves as Commander in Chief of the military. Jay felt strongly that whoever served as President and Commander In Chief during times of war must owe their sole allegiance to and only to the United States.
Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President.
John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
At least she is a true Legal Anchor Baby, not a fake Illegal Invader Anchor Baby.
Then she grew up and discovered that taking care of Willie Brown’s magic Willie could get her a cushy State Job.
Natural Born Citizen, not so much.
Of course that doesn’t matter nowadays. Kim Jong Un’s Wife could come here and have a Baby and that Kid could become the Rat Nominee for POTUS.
Not much has changed in 242+ years. I have been waiting for the country to join me at insufferable. I'd like to get back to a country where the U.S. Constitution matters.
Some of this information is not accurate.
I posted information from another freeper and Agree the USSC should define. They skirted their responsibility when Obama got by scot free in a repairable dance of avoidance.
You have now admitted to the possibility of a third type of citizenship. The republicans should stand up en masse and delare Harris is not eligible and let’s get a court case going.
Indeed and think of Rubio. He knew he didn’t meet A2S1 and just decided to run anyway. What kind of citizen does that? What a POS
Won’t happen. The Courts have reached the conclusion that the voters will decide. They will never agree to hear a case.
in the immortal words of James Bond Never Say never. besides with someone so optimistic as you to leaqd us a case is inevitable.
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.