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 ...
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof is referring to the person born, not the parents.
I’m sorry but SCOTUS disagrees with your assertion. Probably over 100 million babies were born in the USA of migrant parents over the last 248 years. Are they and their descendants not American Citizens?
Then why is citizenship granted to them under USC 8?
8 FAM 300 U.S. Citizenship and Nationality
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes; and
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
That is NOT the text of the 14th Amendment. It IS the law governing ALIENS AND NATIONALITY.
And what section of what you posted makes you think what I posted is not correct?
Thank you for admitting, even in a backhanded manner, that the 14th Amendment doesn't have anything to do with naturalization and USC 8 does.
Yeah. Thought so.
You got nothing again.
BTW...all of that IS one section...1401.
I got your admission whether or not you realized you were giving it.
And yet she has held many elected offices
Let me rephrase. While I agree with you that temporary visitors were never intended to get 14th amendment citizenship for their children, the legal system has been behaving as if it does for at least half a century.
So far as the legal community is concerned, the 14th amendment granted her citizenship. As I said, I don't agree with that, I agree with you that temporary aliens should not receive citizenship for their children, only permanent residents should.
But again, the courts don't see it that way. They are wrong, but they hold the power, so they are going to claim that not only does this temporary residency on the part of Kamala's mother impart to her US Citizenship, the courts are going to hold that it is exactly the same thing as "natural born citizenship."
So this is where we are at. We have ignorant courts who believe ignorant things, and they won't bother to learn the error of their ways.
The one thing the 14th is not, is "clear." It is very unclear. What does "subject to the jurisdiction", mean? Well according to the people who wrote it, it doesn't mean what the courts thinks it means.
The people who wrote it intended it to mean "not owing allegiance to any foreign power", but the ignorant courts think it means "subject to American law", which is not the same thing at all.
Through a congressional statute. This did not make him a "natural born citizen".
Aldo Mario Bellei lost his US citizenship for failing to comply with the requirements congress set out in the naturalization law they created to grant such children as him, citizenship.
Natural born citizens don't have to meet any requirements for citizenship, and their citizenship cannot be taken away from them for failing to do something.
Lower elected offices are not
held to the “natural born”
requirement.
Kamala has usurped the office
of the vice president, as the
“natural born” requirement
applies there, also.
The Courts see it that way because they make a ruling based on the laws (USC 8) Congress enacted.
Obviously it’s not clear enough for some. However it says what it says and until amended or clarified by the Supreme Court it is the framework to which the law must adhere.
Non citizens are still subject to US laws while in country, with the exception of diplomats, with exceptions.
Your view on what the original intent was has not been established.
Not for the arrogant/ignorant courts, but it is well established for any man with eyes who can read.
You can *READ* the debates on the 14th amendment in Congress. They *TELL* you what they meant, and it is *NOT* what the courts think they meant.
My tagline is portion of a statement by John Bingham, who was the chief proponent of the 14th amendment in the House of Representatives.
Well said.
What they should be is not the same as what they are.
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.