Is Kamala Harris eligible to be Joe Biden’s VP?
No more than an American Indian born in W. Kansas (recently changed ownership to Indian tribes), or anywhere else within our nation’s boundaries. She was born of native-born of Indian-Jamaican parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time. This violates the Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett, which defined “natural born citizen”.
And Pelosi’s signature that Harris is qualified for POTUS should land her in jail for perjury.
This should be part of a Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement bill, missing since 1986 ONE TIME amnesty. Since that amnesty was granted already, a second amnesty is off the table. What remains is the enforcement the Democrats have disallowed since then.
The List of Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement, missing since 1986 goes like this -
1) southern barrier;
2) require eVerify to hire;
3) end all chain migration;
4) birthright per Minor v. Happersett (plural parents);
5) end work visas;
6) 10-year moratorium on all new applications for citizenship (40 years to allow workplace automation effects on downsizing population);
7) Set up an illegal aliens’ victim restitution fund.
Enactment of these provisions will motivate illegal aliens to SELF-deport, and remove colonizadors from our welfare rolls.
We need to pass these protections in order not to make out Democrats as liars who promised the protection in exchange for a ONE TIME AMNESTY. The Democrats got the amnesty already. Now its past time for the protections we were promised.
Nope. There is no such holding in Minor v. Hapersett, not the least of which because that issue was not before the Court. The Court only stated that there were "doubts" about "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents." It did not hold that those were not natural born citizens. Here is the actual paragraph:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
You only get to your conclusion if you ignore most of that paragraph and don't know what dicta is.