Posted on 12/15/2020 10:14:58 AM PST by RideForever
Help Wanted.
I contacted my Congress Rep to raise interest in objecting to the Harris electors now 'certified' for Washington State. Now that we are in Art. II, or 'political' phase of the Presidential election, the Natural Born Citizen ('NBC') qualification found in the US Constitution may be addressed.
Sen. Harris' parents were here on visas issued for their passports from India and Jamaica. Both countries practice birthright by bloodline, in contradiction to US policy. Clearly they were subject to the foreign jurisdictions which issued their passports. Her father became a naturalized US citizen after she was born, and he states that his daughter is not a US NBC.
Now we have a small window to file objections as voters to record an objection with the Electoral College by way of a court case, according to WA election law.
Get it through your think skull Bozo. ANYONE born in the USA is a citizen of this country.
Wrong again. We are considering only the NBC politically defined in the US Constitution. And I am reacting to the state election law of how to present the objection as a voter. It can’t be done until the state’s electors are ‘certified’, and there is a small window to file the necessary case.
But facts are wasted on you, aren’t they? After all, Harris was born out of her parent’s country, wasn’t she? She is subject to both her parents citizenship laws, and therefore, SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN JURISDICTION, and DISQUALIFIED as a Natural Born Citizen.
sorry but your posting is legally incorrect, her parents have everything to do with it
(a “natural born citizen” is different than just a regular citizen that happens to be born here)
Harris is every definition of an Anchor Baby, which SHOULD be denied citizenship, but we have not yet been able to get that one over the finish line. As it stands now, Kamala Harris is a citizen, and eligible to be VP and President.
This dumb timesink of trying to challenge her over citizenship is not worth the time or effort to even consider.
Like Minor v. Happersett that supports my contention? What do you have to offer? More slurs and slander in place of fact and reason?
Bookmark
Harris was born in 1964. The Immigration and Naturalization act was passed in 1965. She is not even a citizen, let alone an NBC.
Did Nancy Pelosi use the same language in her certification to the states that she used for Obama? Just asking, as I’ve never seen the one for Harris, but it was a big deal for Obama, because Hawaii (who knew his background) had to have the constitutional statement on their certification of Obama for him to get on the ballot.
She is almost certainly a citizen. She is not a natural born citizen and thus is ineligible. They are very different!
Not relevant. She was born in the US.
Yes, "citizen" can include those that gain their citizenship later in life through naturalization, as well as those that have citizenship by birth. But since Harris was born in the US she wasn't naturalized. She is a natural born citizen.
Sorry but it isn't. It's the birther legal theories that are wrong.
"(a “natural born citizen” is different than just a regular citizen that happens to be born here)"
It isn't. Birthers have this wacky idea that the status of such a person's parents are what matters. It doesn't, as long as the parents aren't diplomats or invading soldiers.
By the currently-accepted legal definition of natural-born, she is. I argued these same things with you muttonheads back in 2008, too.
Work on changing that in the future, it is beyond pointless to try this nonsense now and backdate it.
Exactly right. I've been flamed for it many times before; might as well take some more.
Legal definition of a Natural Born Citizen derived from the …
FIRST CONGRESS. Sess. II CH 3. 1790 (approved March 26, 1790)
‘Natural Born’ citizen is citizenship inherited from the parents, NOT by statute. Which means her parents MUST be US citizens without dual allegiance/citizenship at the time of her birth and born within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
CHAP, II. - An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.(a) March 26,1790.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to ‘support the constitution of the United States,
which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling-within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed, (a)
APPROVED, March 26, 1790.
Uniform Rule of Naturalization of 1790 refereed to an implicit/self-evident meaning of ‘Natural Born’ when used in this Act. Natural Born meant within the Act that the parents MUST be ‘Citizens of the United States’...
“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...”
That simply meant that if ‘by situation’ a child is born to traveling US citizens beyond the jurisdiction of the US, the born child is subject to US naturalization law; and if the parents are citizens of the United States then that born child is recognized as having acquired INHERITED citizenship from its US parents and is considered as NATURAL BORN.
~~~~~~~~~
Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
Chapter 3 gives the provisions/conditions to acquire citizenship(naturalization) BY STATUTE, not inherited citizenship. Natural born artisanship is inherited, not acquired by statute.
~~~~~~~~
US Constitution - 14th Amendment
Section 1.
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.
All persons BORN (natural born)... OR... Naturalized (by statute).
~~~~~~~~
Kamala Harris is an ANCHOR BABY! An anchor baby is a baby born to a non-citizen mother under the jurisdiction of a country that gives the baby birthright citizenship under statute. The baby also has birthright dual citizenship passed by wedlock from the fathers nationality. 2 strikes against her!
Kamala Harris does not qualify to be VP... she IS NOT a native US citizen, aka: ‘Natural Born’ citizenship. She did not inherit her citizenship though her parents... neither of her parents were US citizens(they were foreign nationals at the time of her birth) and she became a US citizen by statute, birth right naturalization under US jurisdiction on US soil(aka: anchor baby, 14th amendment). To be qualified to be VP her US citizenship CANNOT be by statute naturalization.
Most US citizens are natural born, born to US citizen parents having no allegiance to another country or its jurisdiction. But Kamala is not!
So, by your reasoning, Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump are not natural born citizens since their mother was a Czech citizen?
I found this court case from California making the NBC objection to Sen. Harris -
... and subject to a foreign jurisdiction which you have yet to explain why it doesn't apply. In fact, you avoid the argument in all your posts. In fact, you seem to be factless in all your posts. Perhaps you should read more and post less. Start with Minor v. Happersett (SCOTUS).
Don’t waste your time. Harris was born in the US. She is a natural born citizen. Her parents have nothing to do with it.
Here we go again...of course she is a citizen, but she is not a NBC.
biden and Heels were selected by the dems, not elected by the people. Calling Heels out will embarrass the dems and force what we laughingly refer to as the “Supreme Court” to address once and for all. Make the Court sweat as well...
I would love to see her disqualified as ineligible. She is a skank and her disqualification would result in a much deserved dem meltdown.
Let pelosi pick up the pieces..
DO IT!!
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.