Posted on 01/11/2022 7:57:40 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Why didn’t you quote the Senate text?
There is, to my knowledge no evidence presented that Harris was not born in the United States and thus was a citizen of the U.S. at birth according to the 14th Amendment.
If Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. then his citizenship at birth would be in question. This has been raised several times. Raising the question at all has been deemed ‘racist’. I admit I fail to see how questioning his birthplace has anything to do with his race but then logic is a symptom of white supremacy.
File a quo warranto suit and then we can talk.
Do you think the Senate might refer to its own 'ruling' on the matter in a trial of the VP?
A quo warranto suit goes through the courts. If successful then the person is removed from office. It isn't an impeachment so the House and Senate aren't involved.
Certainly - 8 U.S. Code Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization. I can't guarantee that it's the complete list but it covers most conditions.
Apparently not.
A person “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a legal resident or a citizen—persons that are legally permitted to reside within a jurisdiction.
Actually 'subject to the jurisdiction' means that a person is bound by the laws of the country. A person visiting from Great Britain who breaks the law here can be arrested, can be tried, and can be jailed. If I visit the UK I'm subject the their jurisdiction as well. Exceptions to this are, as you pointed out, foreign diplomats who enjoy diplomatic immunity or foreign combatants. As such their children born here are not U.S. citizens.
In both the book and the movie there is a single, central, Earth-wide government. Rico is from Buenos Aries; whether an Argentina still existed isn't specifically mentioned.
Good Lord, troll, you will get better results when you match the term 'Natural Born' instead of 'natural birth'.
Do your own damn research. Or plagiarize leo dinofrio, who has researched and documented many legal cases on the topic. And stop wasting our time here.
And how did you miss Kamala's father's statement on her US citizenship after he immigrated to full US citizenship?
I am not a troll and I’m not saying how citizenship should be defined. I am merely making the case of how it is defined.
If someone says that Harris is not a ‘natural-born’ citizen, then it is not outlandish to ask him to cite why and to cite cases that back the claim up. People on this board claim that only a child born to two U.S. citizens can be natural-born, which is fine, and they cite English law and traditions, but never any U.S. court decisions to back their belief.
Others have stated that natural-born excludes those with dual citizenship, no matter where they were born.
Kamala’s father’s opinion on her citizenship is just as irrelevant as a Senate resolution. If she was born here, and her parents weren’t here on diplomatic passports, she is a citizen via the 14th amendment. Now, does she qualify as natural-born? I don’t know and neither does anyone else, since I know of no court ruling on the matter.
Again, I’m not saying how things should be, but rather how they are. Should the birth provision of the 14th be changed or challenged by Congress? Sure, but I doubt that that will happen and Congress does not have the power to contradict the clear language of the Constitution (except when it comes to the 2nd Amendment apparently). /s
Also if memory serves the book takes place about 700 years in the future and the single government was the result of veterans being fed up with World War after World War.
A troll typically repeats a lie
If Harris was born in the U.S., she is a citizen. She might well be a citizen of Jamaica and/or the UK and India as well, but neither negate the fact that she is a citizen if she was born here—are you saying or implying that she wasn’t born here?
Minor v Happersett (I did look it up after it was cited) has nothing to do with citizenship except how it relates to the right to vote.
So now you are stating that Harris is a diplomat with a Diplomatic Passport making your argument germane? ...
If Harris was born here, she is a U.S. citizen unless or until she manages to lose her citizenship or she renounces it. I’ve heard no one claim either.
I am curious. Can or will you state your opinion on the status of Kamala Harris’s citizenship and the reasons for you thoughts on the matter? Is she a U.S. citizen or not? Is she a ‘natural-born’ citizen (and thus eligible for her office) or not?
Please understand. The thought of this woman having any real authority in the government of the United States is a dreadful one. She was picked by Biden, or whoever is managing Biden solely because of her sex and the color of her skin, not because of any talent or expertise she might bring to the job.
try again.
any laws that do not align with the Constitution are irrelevant.
Please, cite the Constitutional amendment you believe gives citizenship-by-the-soil, regardless of parent citizenship status.
(if you’re going to cite the 14th, pay attention to the phrase ‘and subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States. Illegals are not.)
In what ways do these laws not align with the Constitution?
Please, cite the Constitutional amendment you believe gives citizenship-by-the-soil, regardless of parent citizenship status.
Fourteenth.
if you’re going to cite the 14th, pay attention to the phrase ‘and subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States. Illegals are not.
Do you even know what 'subject to the jurisdiction of' means?
I do. All you have to do is consider that illegal aliens do not use the same courts as US citizens do when dealing with their immigration, or 'citizenship' status. They use US State Dept administrative 'judges' because illegal aliens have embassies to represent them because they are subject to the jurisdiction of their country of origin.
Clearly the 'subject to foreign jurisdiction' includes the legal basis of citizenship. Ever hear of Matricula Consula identity card issued by foreign countries of illegal aliens here in the U.S.? Why would they do that if the illegal aliens weren't under their (foreign) jurisdiction for citizenship?
Which is because being in the U.S. illegally is a civil and not a criminal offense. Because it's a civil offense they have no constitutional guarantee to an attorney, there is no appeal from the judge's ruling. It's an administrative process to remove them from the U.S.
They use US State Dept administrative 'judges' because illegal aliens have embassies to represent them because they are subject to the jurisdiction of their country of origin.
Say an illegal alien, or even a foreign citizen who is here legally, commits a crime. Are you saying that the U.S. courts have no jurisdiction? That they cannot be arrested, charged, tried, or jailed?
Clearly the 'subject to foreign jurisdiction' includes the legal basis of citizenship.
I would like to see your source for this because I can point you to any number of legal dictionaries that define the term much differently.
Re-read my post about Matricula Consula ids and respond to that point. How could a country issue those if they had no 'jurisdiction' with the alien to do so?
Yet illegal aliens have a right to contact their Embassy to provide legal representation. Just as you do as an American citizen (assumed) when traveling in foreign jurisdictions.
And if you are going to claim a 'civil', as opposed to criminal, offense, you should cite the law you rely on.
Correct. This particular form of citizenship has been hallucinated into existence by a combination of SCOTUS footnote and intentional action by anti-nationalists.
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.