Posted on 06/13/2023 9:16:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen
Thanks for that link.
Thank you for posting. He is my Grump back up.
Yikes! Grump should be Trump.
I am starting to agree with that.
Irrelevant, she was born in the United States.....nothing else matters.
Vivek was born of parents here, but without a date of swearing in as US citizens,
Irrelevant, Vivek was born in the United States. Nothing else matters.......
Now let me ask my question again: Why wasn't the eligibility of the above ever challenged in court by barristers more knowledgable in such laws than you?
If you think you're so God damn smart on Constitutional law, then contact your Congressman and Senator and ask them why they were all allowed to run for the office of the President.
Till then, stop wasting your time trying to make an argument that has been proven false over and over again............Sheesh!
Time wasted, end of conversation.
RE: Parents born in India, and you cannot give date of US citizenship matriculation? Care to explain how and when they became US citizens?
I am unclear what your issue is… is it his being an American Citizen, or his being a NATURAL born American Citizen?
Vivek was born AMERICAN in Cincinnati, Ohio. He is a CITIZEN BY BIRTH.
Now, is he a Natural Born Citizen? There are various understandings of what that phrase means and there is no consensus as to what it really means unless we have a FINAL RULING on it that everyone can agree on.
If Kamala is eligible to be President, I don’t see why Vivek can’t be.
That he is the only one to go to the protest is telling, that he was the only one to say out loud how awful this was is a testimony to his character.
I'd love for him to join the Trump team, it will help Trump immensely to have him on his side.
As to VP, he may not get it but needs to be on the short list.
I hope he becomes an adviser.
too bad the constitution doesn’t say just citizen, but natural born citizen in who can run for president. They used those words for a reason. unfortunately many don’t get it.
As to your change the subject bot ploy, the barristers bear allegiance to King George, not to US citizens. As for the childish tantrum that followed, I'm wondering if that is a bot tool when confronted with overwhelming facts.
Let’s apply your Natural Born test to Kamala Harris. Does she qualify?
RE: They used those words for a reason. unfortunately many don’t get it.
Ok, what requirements must a person meet in order to qualify as Natural Born?
Asked and answered in post #40 above. In fact, Kamala's parents come from different countries. He comes from Jamaica, so Kamala claims she's 'black'. Her Indian family is from the most privileged class of society. White. Not born of US citizen parents, regardless of location.
It's staggering to contemplate where her allegiances lie. Or how quickly they could change in her mind.
Ok, since by the way you understand the term ‘Natural Born’, she doesn’t qualify, why do most of the country not question her eligibility to be one heartbeat away from being President?
Someone in power who agrees with your understanding ought to have filed suit preventing her from taking office.
I think I see the problem now.
To you “natural born” is actually a contraction of “natural born citizen”, when “natural born” has a separate, distinct meaning you should learn to distinguish. I’ve noticed a bot tac to confuse by your insistence on using the incorrect term to address the point in addressing a point I am making ...
If “natural born” does not equal “ “natural born citizen”
And “American” does not equal “American Citizen”, can you please clarify the distinctions between these terms via a formal definition?
The definition you present should clearly show the critical difference between one and the other.
Go ahead please, I’m waiting ….
Just follow your own link back to Cornell Law and their case of contract foreign workers from Asia birthing kids on the job site. They were 'natural born', but not of citizens of the US. At the time American Indians were also 'natural born' but not citizens. We had to keep the Indians (native born), but not the children of Chinese contract workers.
jus soli, jus sanguinis
By your definition any country can steal the kids born of people just passing thru who drop an 'anchor baby', known by the term jus soli; kids are citizens / belong to the state, not the parents.
The alternative, jus sanguinis, provides citizenship by 'blood' (parents). By your definitions any country can invade the US just by dropping 'anchor babies'. By my definition, children belong to their parents, not the country they may have been born in.
Given that understanding, in what country is Kamala Harris a citizen, and where do her allegiances lie? Jamaica from her father, or India from her mother? Or do you believe the state (US) owns foreign kids by virtue of being born here?
I'm guessing you will continue to promote the invasion of the US by 'birthright citizenship' of 'natural born'.
RE: By your definition any country can steal the kids born of people just passing thru who drop an ‘anchor baby’, known by the term jus soli; kids are citizens / belong to the state, not the parents.
Excuse me? Where in my post did I define anything?
I simply asked questions. You haven’t answered them. Let me repeat the questions I asked and please don’t try reading into my motives. My motive is simply to know what our laws and constitution says. Here they are again :
1. If a person is born on America soil, What does it make him BY LAW?
2. If a person is born on American soil, and both his parents are here legally but NOT America Citizens at his birth, is he a natural born citizen?
3. If a person is born on American soil, and at his birth, either one of his parents is an American Citizen due to naturalization, is he a natural born citizen?
4. If a person is born on American soil, and BOTH his parents are American Citizens at the time of his birth due to naturalization, is he a natural born citizen?
Those questions are pretty straightforward and a few can be answered with a YES or NO.
Answer those please and please don’t try reading into my motives regarding whether or not I support the status quo. Those are irrelevant to my questions. My current motive is simply CLARIFICATION.
Boy, you are desperate to control the conversation that leads nowhere given your skewed view of immigration. You conflated 'natural born' with citizenship without stating 'citizen' at least 4 times. So here's your answers.
1. Insufficient information to determine whether an invader, pretender, criminal, or possibly citizen of any country on the planet, or otherwise subject to a non-US jurisdiction (like the one that issued a passport or visa)
2. not likely
3. A naturalized US citizen passes their citizenship on to children born to them. This would be the case had Kamala's father naturalized his US citizenship before she was born. With some conditions.
4. Same as #3
Given that understanding, in what country is Kamala Harris a citizen, and where do her allegiances lie? Jamaica from her father, or India from her mother? Or do you believe the state (US) owns foreign kids by virtue of being born here?
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.