Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Steely eyed killer of the deep

“Kamala Harris was born October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California”

Won’t convince the birthers.


3 posted on 06/28/2019 6:26:13 AM PDT by FewsOrange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: FewsOrange

It is not a question of citizenship.

It is about the meaning of natural born citizen stated in the constitution. You know that old faded piece of parchment that was the production of the convention?

And it is supported by the naturalization act.

The issue is undivided loyalty. A thing few ComDems could accept.


10 posted on 06/28/2019 6:32:05 AM PDT by Texas Fossil ((Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: FewsOrange

> “Kamala Harris was born October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California” <

I know that some folks argue that “natural-born” must somehow involve the parents. But sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one. Harris was born a citizen of the United States. Therefore, she is a natural-born citizen. I can’t see how it could be otherwise.

By the way, this is one area where I wish the Founders had been more restrictive. If I could go back in time and advise them, here’s what I’d suggest:

To be eligible for the presidency, a person must be born in the United States, of parents born in the United States.

This would eliminate - or at least greatly reduce - the possibility of foreign influence on the president. (And yes, I know this would make Trump ineligible because his mother was born in Scotland. Ouch.)


29 posted on 06/28/2019 6:45:37 AM PDT by Leaning Right (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: FewsOrange

Where does not matter if both parents were not citizens at the time of birth.

So unless both parents were somehow fasttracked through the process she is not a NBC, because they were both not citizens at the time, nor were Cruz or Obama NBC for the same reason.


44 posted on 06/28/2019 7:06:49 AM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: FewsOrange

“Won’t convince the birthers.”

“Birthers” was meant to be a smoke screen, and it worked amazing well in the case of Obama.

Truth is, Obama could have been born in Time Square, and it would not have changed his NBC status.

Obama’s father way Kenyan, which at the time was a British Royal Colony. Which meant his father was British.

Do we really believe that the founders meant for a British son to become the president? That post independence, that we would have allowed the love child of King George and an American woman, to be president? Of course not.


65 posted on 06/28/2019 7:26:56 AM PDT by walkingdead (By the time you realize this is not worth reading, it will be too late....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: FewsOrange

Birtherism” is the greatest Alinsky ever perpetrated.
Those who use the term assist in the denigration of the Constitution
They have gotten the American people to reject one of the most valuable safeguards bequeathed to us by the founders.
The natural born citizen clause served us well until we allowed it to be ignored.
Barry Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama should be proof enough of the wisdom of the founders when they tried to prevent him from being President by requiring someone who could only be a US citizen and nothing else.
Born here of citizen parents.
Naturally a US citizen because there is no other possibility.
One cannot be anything else and also be a natural born citizen.

It does not matter if he was born in Hawaii if his father was a foreign national.
Children of foreign nationals inherit the nationality of their foreign national parent(s).
Natural born citizen means born here of citizen parents.
People born with divided loyalties, allegiance and citizenship are not naturally Americans.
The children of foreign nationals are precisely who the founders were excluding from the office.
Only when one cannot be anything else can one be a natural born citizen.

No foreign birth.
No foreign parent(s)
No foreign citizenship(s)
No foreign influence on the Presidency is what John Jay stated in a letter to George Washington as the reason for insisting on a natural born citizen.

Obama told us he was born a British subject.

Who believes Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Jay, Monroe, Madison, etc. would have found him to be a natural born citizen?

Who believes they would have thought the recently deceased King of Thailand was eligible to be President?
He was born in Cambridge MA.

Usurpation Day, January 20, 2009, happened with the complete cooperation of both parties.
They want the Constitution changed without the hassle of amending the Constitution.
Confuse people about the clear meaning of a three word phrase and voila, every anchor baby and Winston Churchill is eligible.

The bench was the reason the GOP went along with the fig leaf resolution for McCain that was used by the Democrats as cover for Obama.
Jindal, Rubio, Haley, George P. Bush and Cruz were all up and comers and the future of the party and ineligible.

The truth of the Kenyanesian Usurpation will never see the light of day because both parties cooperated in the violation of the Constitution


89 posted on 06/28/2019 7:57:01 AM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here Of Citizen Parents_Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: FewsOrange

The citizenship of her parents at her birth is the question.


127 posted on 06/28/2019 9:49:03 AM PDT by arthurus (ccc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson