Posted on 06/29/2019 3:42:48 PM PDT by research99
Is Kamala Harris constitutionally eligible to be President if her father Donald J. Harris entered the US under a British Passport?
If not, should she be investigated by the FEC and others for soliciting campaign donations under a premise that can be shown to be fraudulent?
Documents appeared here, then developed an “issue” from that server (??)
If someone can suggest an alternative image-host, please provide a URL.
Obama: Lay off this Kamala Harris. She’s no more ineligible to run for president than I was.
Bttt.
5.56mm
Is a child of Russian parents born here an NBC? NO
Is a child born here of Japanese parents an NBC? NO
Is a child of a Jamacain and and Indian national an NBC? NO
You and everyone else here that doesn’t understand what this means ought to search out the info and become informed before you spew this crap. It is much more complicated than just saying that since she was born here she is eligible for POTUS.
> You will note that the US government recognized only two categories of citizen: “Natural born” and “Naturalized”. <
That is an excellent argument. And it should close the discussion. But it never will. Because some guy will come along and say, “Well, Thomas Jefferson once wrote a letter his barber implying that there were four categories of citizen.”
Then off we go, once again.
ZA Kid born to an Illegal Invader will end up becoming POTUS someday and nobody will bat an eye.
Fidelity to our Republic is no longer a requirement for Higher Office. Look no further than the twenty wannabe Stalin’s who were on TV last week spewing the Communist Manifesto.
Not an American Flag in sight on that stage either.
From DMZFrank | 12/22/2018 2:58:29 PM PST replied
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
They held an offshore bank account during her childhood.
If racial integration was a priority, could they have had the financial means to have sent her at that time to a private school in Berkeley (or nearby Oakland), instead?
Now instead of grasping at straws that are not, and reading between lines that do not exist, VOTE TRUMP 2020.
Bingo. The Office of President has specific requirements above and beyond just being an anchor baby.
Thanks for posting.
Are BOTH her parents US citzens?
Kamala Harris is a liar, and a dangerous fraud. But she is also a natural born citizen. She is not a naturalized citizen. She is not a resident alien. She was born here. She is a NBC.
I have mentioned that before. And I usually get snarky responses like “You don’t know your history.” Well, okay. I’m always open to learning something new. But such responses doesn’t teach me anything.
I wish someone would quote a passage from the Federalist Papers - or something like that - that tells just what a NBC is, if it’s not what I think it is.
> This question some have is if her parents were naturalized citizens at the time. <
I don’t see why that matters at all. Some countries confer automatic citizenship “by blood”. You are not automatically a citizen unless your parents were citizens at the time of your birth. The place of birth does not matter.
But the United States does not confer citizenship “by blood”. The U.S. confers citizenship “by soil”. Like it or not, if someone was born on U.S. soil, that person is automatically a U.S. citizen. A NBC.
There was a website in 2008, before the election, that posted the Founders discussion during the Constitutional Convention. It disappeared just before the election.
Irrelevant.
I had four grandparents, 3 born in the State of New York, one born in the State of Connecticut. Of their eight parents, six were subjects of the Emperor of Germany, two of Queen Victoria.
None of my four grandparents ever were naturalized.
As you see from the draft card image I posted above, the government recognized my grandfathers as either "natural born", "naturalized", or "alien" at the time of the 1917 Declaration of War.
That's all there is to it.
If they were NOT "natural born", and did not naturalize, then they were "aliens", and it must follow by your logic that my parents, born to them and never naturalized, were aliens also, so I must be too.
But I got MY draft card in 1968 which recognized me as a citizen, I registered to vote in 1971 as a citizen, I was employed by the US Post Office Department in 1969 as a citizen, none of which would have been possible if your "born in the US but not natural born" craziness was true.
Wrong. All of them are natural born citizens, just as my grandparents, born to foreign nationals, were.
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.