Skip to comments.The birthers are back (Barf Alert)
Posted on 08/15/2020 2:35:33 PM PDT by Ennis85
Well, that didnt take long.
A non-White American citizen born right here in the United States has gotten a spot on the Democratic presidential ticket, and the birthers have come scurrying out from whatever rock they have been living under since Barack Obama left office.
Within hours of former vice president Joe Bidens announcement Wednesday of his history-making running mate, once-reputable Newsweek posted a story posing Some Questions for Kamala Harris About Eligibility.
The author, John Eastman, a conservative law professor, wrote that some are questioning whether Harris might be constitutionally ineligible to be vice president because, should she have to step into the presidency, she might not meet the Constitutions Article II requirement that this countrys chief executive be a natural born citizen.
Jenna Ellis, who appears frequently these days on cable television as a senior legal adviser to the Trump campaign, quickly embraced this nontroversy, retweeting a link to Eastmans article and later declaring Harriss eligibility an open question. So we are left to assume that the presidents reelection campaign is on board with this line of inquiry, which is reminiscent of President Trumps own leadership of the birther movement when it was first launched against Obama.
Harris is the daughter of immigrants. Her father (from Jamaica) and her mother (from India) were not citizens at the time of her birth in 1964. A birth that Have I mentioned this? Stay with me here, because this is important happened in Oakland, Calif., which was then and is now in the United States of America. That means Harris was a U.S. citizen from the first second of her life.
The theoretical and esoteric question of whether first-generation Americans are eligible to be president is booted around from time to time in law-professor circles.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Expect to see more of this in the months ahead.
“Harris is the daughter of immigrants. Her father (from Jamaica) and her mother (from India) were not citizens at the time of her birth in 1964.”
not eligible ... except to the J Roberts who PROVED he
cannot read AND has sold out to the DS long ago.
Playing the race card.
That convinces me.
Nevermind that kamala’s parents were not citizens
That citizenship of her parents has nothing to do with her eligibility.
Whaddya expect? Dems are trying to foist off another Halfrican into the Presidency... Say anything, they say!
Both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of your birth.
End of story.
Concepts like inherited nationality are difficult for people like Karen.
Actually, Newsweek is fast recovering their reputation lately. I have been pleasantly surprised by some of their most recent articles.
Too bad they backed down to the woke crowd on this one.
Based on what? Be precise!
Nope. That is not the law.
>>A non-White American citizen born right here in the United States
To non-citizen parents from 2 different countries with subsequent residency in Canada.
Just how many national citizenships does she have?
I could be wrong, but I think Harris was born a citizen of Jamaica, and a citizen of India, as well as a US citizen. That’s not a recipe for being a Natural Born Citizen. She has potential allegiance to three nations. Not suitable to be President. Not eligible.
And I, for one, have missed them.
There is no such requirement in the Constitution.
WashPoo points out she is non-white.
She is also non-African-American.
In every country on Earth a child born to two non-citizens is not a citizen, natural-born or otherwise. If my parents were vacationing in France the day I was born I would still be a U.S. citizen, and ineligible to be president.
That is the law regarding special citizenship called natural-born citizenship.
Since everyone who was a citizen at the time of adoption is dead we can remove the grandfather clause wording. We are left with “No Person except a natural born Citizen [...] shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
Why does the Constitution speak of “citizens” and separately of “natural born citizens”? Why is the word “natural” inserted? It is a matter of allegiance.
A person can be a “citizen” if they were citizens or subjects in some other country first but have come here and met the naturalization requirements. Also, if one is the offspring of a citizen and a non-citizen, then one is a US citizen. However, in both these cases it can be argued that the person might choose allegiance to their former country or to the country of the foreign- born parent or at least the allegiance might be considered divided. That is, there is no natural allegiance of the offspring to one or the other parent’s country. It is this divided or alienated allegiance that the Constitutional provision is designed to prohibit.
If, however, both of one’s parents are themselves US citizens at the time of one's birth, then one is a “citizen” as well as a “natural born citizen”. The “natural born citizen” is one who at birth has no natural allegiance to any other country and the Framers felt could be trusted to be loyal to the US and not act as a foreign agent. In short, a natural born citizen is one who cannot be argued to be anything but; there is no possible argument that he might be a citizen elsewhere. [footnote: Also, in their time, the rules of royal succession held sway throughout much of the world and the Founders wished to forstall any potential claims by the crowned heads of Europe or their scions to sovereignty in the US.]
Note that native born is not the same as natural born. Native born simply refers to the place of one’s birth, i.e., of one’s nativity. The term does not speak to the legal circumstances of a birth, merely to its location.
Yep the Dems are back with their same old garbage ,LOL
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.