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?
The fact her parents were permanent residents and she was born on U.S. soil should mean there is no question about her being a natural citizen.
Oh my God! You have released the kracken!
Are you new here?
Sounds like an “Anchor Baby” to me - born in Oakland, CA, in 1964.
Since Trump and the Republican Party have done absolutely nothing to challenge the citizenship of Anchor Babies, I assume she will get a free pass.
First, let me say that I have no opinion on Kamala Harris.
We need to be careful defining NBC because we do not want an anchor baby as President.
Anchor babies are not NBC. There are avenues for citizenship when children are born here of foreign nationals. This does not make them NBC. NBC MEANS THEY CANNOT BE ANYTHING BUT AMERICAN.
My father - a Swedish immigrant - was NATURALIZED prior to my birth. I am NBC because Dad was naturalized (I believe for at least a 5 year period).
You are a fool to think that a Honduran illegal who has an anchor baby here and it could be eligible for POTUS. There are higher requirements for The Office. EOS.
Unfortunately, with the acquiescence of the eGOP, that ship has sailed by
the election of 44 and the nomination of McShitStain. The only thing
I also think Harris has no chance in getting the Democratic nomination.
The chief justice of the Supreme Court swore Obama into office not once but twice. He didn't recuse himself because he was conflicted by his duty to the constitution, he swore him into office and then did it again four years later.
If you think that's wrong, there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't matter. The precedent has been confirmed by the Supreme Court twice.
That is... unless you are going to have to get a constitutional amendment passed to change it. The Supreme Court won't protect us from Obama, Harris, Rubio, Cruz or the eventually candidate who is the child of illegal immigrants. (Maybe that one will get a look from the supreme Court, but I doubt it).
Start a movement to clarify eligibility for POTUS as a constitutional amendment and get it ratified. Until then, it's all just meaningless ranting on an internet forum.
(apologies to the spelling police.)
So Adolph and Eva's offspring would be eligible?
Do ya not see the logic?
OK.
Suppose your father was not naturalized.
What would you be?
Your choices are natural born, naturalized, or alien.
> A Natural Born Citizen is the child of 2 citizen parents. <
I agree that the Founders wanted to limit foreign influence of the president. That’s why a president cannot be born overseas. And I’m prepared to accept that parental requirement, if someone would just show me some evidence that it is what the Founders wanted.
The precedent has been confirmed by the Supreme Court twice. Pleas link me to cases.
when did the court do this. Swearing in the election winner after refusing 6 cases is not support, it’s cover up and complicity
a constitutional amendment will not make people follow the constitution if they don’t already follow it.
I might be Swedish if my father wanted that. Despite that I could have in fact chosen Swedish citizenship and been dual if I did so before (IIRC) the age of 15.
Is a Dual Citizen qualified for POTUS?
I wish that website hadn't been erased but you know why it was. The debate by the Founders wasn't a long one but they were firm in their insistence. I looked for another source but never found one.
may I ask Do you believe the founders wanted a president whose parents were british citizens after the wars of 1776 and 1812. Irrespective of those who fought against Britain and were considered traitors by britain.
Kamala Harris’s birth situation is precisely the same as the subject of the Wong Kim Ark vs Us SCOTUS decision of 1898. The court held that Wong Kim Ark was a CITIZEN (not a natural born one) by virtue of the 14th amendment, which did not exist in 1787 when Article II, Section 1, clause 5 was ratified. The 14th amendment does not refer to Article II or modify it in any way. He was born in California, and his Chinese immigrant parents were lawfully resident in the US.
When Harris was born, neither of her parents were US citizens, but were here on legal visas. That makes her citizenship identical to Wong Kim Ark. If the 14th amendment did not exist, then she would not even be a citizen.
Someday, we are going to get the SCOTUS to adjudicate this Article III matter for the 1st time in US history. That is, what exactly is an Article II Natural Born Citizen eligible to assume the office of POTUS?
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.