Posted on 08/15/2020 2:35:33 PM PDT by Ennis85
Well, that didn’t 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 Biden’s 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 Constitution’s Article II requirement that this country’s 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 Eastman’s article and later declaring Harris’s eligibility an “open question.” So we are left to assume that the president’s reelection campaign is on board with this line of inquiry, which is reminiscent of President Trump’s 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 ...
I’m not sure what a “birther” is, but from the context, I am guessing it is someone who cares about the Constitution. Am I close?
“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.”
You are correct. You might be WRONG!
You are right that Harris is Not suitable to be President. Not eligible.”
But not for those reasons.
U.S. citizenship is governed by THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
It doesn’t matter what Jamaica, India, Israel, Canada, or the British Empire do.
IT CAN NOT AFFECT YOUR U.S. citizenship or eligibility for president/vice president. It would take an overt act on your part such as enlisting in a foreign country’s army or OFFICIALLY (paperwork involved) renouncing your U.S. citizenship.
The “idea” behind not being eligible and so called dual citizenship, of having “foreign loyalties”, is correct, BUT in practice, we refer to the Constitution of the United States. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. It says NOTHING about dual citizenship.
The citizenship of the PARENTS (plural) (at the time of your birth) governs. If not “U.S.” citizenship, you are ineligible.
I wonder what happens if the father is unknown.
SO WHAT? I have written that it does matter. Just some guy’s OPINION.
“...You sure the key words aren’t “that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States” aren’t the key words?...”
***********************************************
Speaking of “key words”.... are the children, born overseas to two American citizen parents, legally subjects of America at the time of their birth?
mlo can reply also should he/she so desire.
“In this example, which I think is bad policy and not what was meant to happen under the 14th Amendment, the baby could lose US citizenship if he were taken back to his parents country and did not live in the US for a given amount of time. But I think that can happen even to someone born in the US to two citizens.”
___
Nope. By definintion—no way. Those who are born here to two citizen parents need not concern themselves in the least that their citizenship will lose even an ounce of its zotch due to copious amounts of time spent as expatriates. With a few notable exceptions, as Biden would say, such individuals rarely if ever make the mistake of “over-exposing” themselves to rabid anti-Americanism while overseas. They know it’s wrong, they can feel that it’s wrong, and their hearts will not be in it. Sure, we lose a few to the siren song occasionally, some of whom are then recruited and initiated into the globalist clique, but there are good reasons why NBCs who live for long stretches overseas are not seen as flight risks.
“Anchor babies” are even doubtful as citizens. But that’s for a Supreme Court with another couple conservatives to decide.
Hello woodpusher.
“When the child is born on US soil the citizenship of the parents is irrelevant.”
Look, you are uninformed.
Here is where you can find out EVERYTHING there is to know about “natural born citizen”.
I studied it for about two years. You could spend a small portion of that time at this website and LEARN.
https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
yes indeed. “deliberately ignorant” when they know better to begin with, so its all a lying act and THIS is what I detest the most, deliberately misleading the people of USA
Iffinegan. When are you going to get around to the part where you explain that the fact of Chet Arthur’s father lacking U.S. citizenship at Chet’s birth was not uncovered until after the 2008 election. The public was clearly deliberately kept completely ignorant of this essential fact, and was treated at the time instead to a circus high-wire act of a spectacle in which the question of the country of his birth was (duplicitously) raised and kept artificially active for decades despite there never having been any basis for it in fact or even well-founded rumor.
Which is supported by the 14th
“Jurisdiction”
And 1st Congress...
JUST ONCE I'D LIKE TO SEE A FREAKING FAR-LEFT LIBERAL DEBATE THIS QUESTION WITHOUT BECOMING ALL VERKLEMPT.
Holy freaking cow. People debate whether anchor babies are citizens so why can't we debate whether CamelHo Harrass is a "natural born citizen"?
You lie. Of course it does. She is NOT a natural-born citizen.
You LIE!
Am waiting for KH to use BO’s eligibility in court as an example. Would be great timing to expose HIM too
To frauds don’t make a white-wash
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.