Posted on 08/21/2024 11:05:17 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Aug. 16, 2024) — On or about August 4, 2024, Zach DeGregorio, host of the program, “Wolves and Finance,” uploaded a video to his YouTube channel titled, “Who is Kamala Harris?” which, among other things, questioned whether Harris is a “natural born Citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for the president and commander-in-chief.
Harris became the presumptive 2024 Democrat presidential nominee almost immediately after Joe Biden on July 21 withdrew from the race and endorsed her. To that point, according to NBC News, Harris was the least popular person to hold the office since its polling began. On Wednesday, YouTube informed DeGregorio it removed his video on the grounds it allegedly distributed “misinformation” for questioning Harris’s eligibility. YouTube additionally placed a “warning” on his channel, DeGregorio told us in an email Wednesday, and informed him that another violation over the next 90 days would generate a “strike.” ... . . .
“I was taken completely by surprise,” DeGregorio, an accountant by trade and rising political commentator, told us. “This is a legitimate legal question that people should be allowed to discuss.” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Citizens and "natural born citizens" are not the same thing. As Kamala gets her citizenship *ONLY* through the 14th amendment, she is a naturalized citizen.
The 14th amendment grants her citizenship (through naturalization) from simply being born here of resident aliens.
But this is not "natural born" citizenship. It is naturalization. Indeed, the congressmen and senators who debated the 14th amendment in congress repeatedly referred to it as "naturalization."
Uh-huh. Just like shall not infringe in the 2nd Amendment has stopped gun control laws?
There were a lot more ways to naturalize than that. Anyone born under the conditions of Congress's naturalization statutes that was in effect at the time of their birth is naturalized.
Aldo Mario Bellei was naturalized by being born to an American mother in Italy. His case was handled by the Supreme court in Rogers v Bellei.
No it hasn't. The only thing that has been defined in such a manner is "citizen."
"Natural born citizen" has never been defined by the courts.
The 14th amendment does *NOT* use "natural born" in it anywhere. If you read the debates in congress regarding the 14th amendment, they constantly refer to it as naturalization.
The 14th amendment is a naturalization. It is *NOT* natural citizenship.
No it doesn't. It means anyone who is born a citizen without resort to statute. Statutes are man-made. "Natural born" refers to someone who does not need a law to make them a citizen.
They are a "natural" citizen.
If you have to have a law to make you into a citizen, you are not a natural citizen.
Congress only has the power of naturalization. They cannot through a law, cause a man to become a woman. They can make a law that says so, but this does not alter reality.
They also cannot make natural citizens, they can only make naturalized citizens.
She was granted her citizenship *ONLY* through USC 8 Sec. 1401.
She was born after the INA was passed in 1952.
Article 1, § 8, clause 4 and 18
Establish a uniform rule of naturalization
Make laws to carry out other powers
USC 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
Naturalization laws grant her citizenship. The 14th has nothing to do with it. Article 1 was written long before the 14th Amendment.
And here you even clarify that the 14th has nothing to do with naturalization. It's ALL about naturalization STATUTES.
And you go right back to contradicting your own previous statement about naturalization statutes.
In order for the 14th to be "a naturalization" it would have to be the entirety
of naturalization statutes in and of itself and be constantly Amended accordingly.
So it can’t be found and you like going against established court case rulings
You lose
Ah! A Roe v Wade fan. Who would have guessed.
You’re a jerk
I don’t have to like a court ruling to acknowledge that it is a court ruling
again, READ the ENTIRE first sentence of the 14th amendment.
tourists do not have residency nor are they under the jurisdiction of the US.
this is why the kids of illegals, which can be thought of as tourists that never left, are not US citizens
unless American soil is some form of magic pixie dust, it has zero impact on citizenship status.
being born to an American mother gave him US citizenship at birth, regardless where he was born.
only quest would be whether he chose American or italian, via his father
If you can read and comprehend....
In other words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” EXCLUDES individuals who:
Are citizens of another country (e.g., a foreign national visiting or living in the United States)
Are born in the United States to parents who are aliens (i.e., not U.S. citizens) and are still owed allegiance to their country of origin.
Kamala’s parents were foreign nationals in the US and not
subject to the jurisdiction of the state in which they
resided.
The language of the 14th amendment is clear.
People born in the US or its territories are considered a US citizen at birth, regardless of their parents citizenship status.
Without an amendment or Supreme Court decision clarifying the 14th that is the law of the land.
In order to change it, steps must be taken that involve more than histrionics on an internet message board.
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.