The Trump nbC Post

So much mis-information you post here. Hopefully other readers aren't fooled. As a correction, please start from the following:

"Jurisdiction" in relation to US citizenship at birth, translates most closely to "allegiance" in the intention of terminology of the authors of the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment, both written in 1866.

Kamala Harris was born a citizen of Jamaica and India, per the respective regulations of those nations in 1964, which is the basis of her divided and foreign "allegiance" (relative to the USA).

The terms of student visas issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(15)(F) in years 1952-1965 recognized this status, where they specified that applicants retained their permanent residence in the countries of their origin, meaning applicants retained "allegiance" (without being required to hold status as diplomats). This foreign "residence" is also where the status of the parents in 1964 differ from the terms of the decision of Wong Kim Ark of 1898, which invalidates application of that decision to the circumstances pertaining to the 1964 birth of Kamala.

The 1873 and 1884 court rulings also established that the standard for "jurisdiction" required under for US citizenship (per the 14th Amendment) was "exclusive" and could not be shared with another sovereignty (whether an Indian tribe, or another nation or nations, as it is in this case). Credit to Eastman for this point, aside from your attack via ad hominem.

Accordingly, as Kamala was under the "jurisdiction" of Jamaica and India at the time of her birth, she erroneously received US citizenship via the immigration fraud committed by her parents (which is also revocable per statute). As evidence, you can see Kamala's "revised" birth certificate, in the linked documents.

The attempted application of Plyler v. Doe of 1982 here is erroneous, where it re-defines jurisdiction, contrary to the original legislative intentions of the authors of the 14th Amendment of 1866.

Your idea of a requirement of "repatriation," is too absurd for comment.

Kamala Kancel Website (downloadable PDF available via link)

Kamala Kancel Twitter Site (twitter login required to view)

"Jurisdiction" in relation to US citizenship at birth, translates most closely to "allegiance" in the intention of terminology of the authors of the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment, both written in 1866.

Citation? The court cases cited thus far disagree with your particular take.

Kamala Harris was born a citizen of Jamaica and India, per the respective regulations of those nations in 1964, which is the basis of her divided and foreign "allegiance" (relative to the USA).

Why should the laws of other nations have any bearing on who America decides should count as an American citizen? For example, the Vatican could declare that all professing Catholics worldwide are henceforth citizens of Vatican City; would that therefore imply that all Catholics are therefore of divided "allegiance"?

The terms of student visas issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(15)(F) in years 1952-1965 recognized this status, where they specified that applicants retained their permanent residence in the countries of their origin, meaning applicants retained "allegiance" (without being required to hold status as diplomats). This foreign "residence" is also where the status of the parents in 1964 differ from the terms of the decision of Wong Kim Ark of 1898, which invalidates application of that decision to the circumstances pertaining to the 1964 birth of Kamala.

This section does not prove that Kamala Harris wasn't subject to American jurisdiction whilst her parents were here on F-1 visa. As far as I'm aware, foreign students on F-1 visas did not possess diplomatic immunity. They were still subject to all of our laws, lacking such immunity by virtue of merely being students from Jamaica or India.

This is also notwithstanding that you would have a hard time proving in court that Shyamala violated the terms of her visa because she ended up marrying Donald Harris (consider: a foreign student arrives in America for the "sole" purpose of obtaining an education in 1958 on an F-1 visa, but then ends up marrying someone who she didn't meet for the first time until 1962, and did not get married to until 1963 (which was not civilly dissolved until 1973, ten years later); framing this as "Shyamala broke her promise to the USA" in your website's PDF dossier would require you to document and prove that Shyamala intentionally applied for a student visa with ulterior purposes beforehand, as compared to what most logical and reasonable people would determine to be a change in circumstances after the fact, especially given the length of time between Shyamala's first arrival and her first encounter with Donald Harris).

The 1873 and 1884 court rulings also established that the standard for "jurisdiction" required under for US citizenship (per the 14th Amendment) was "exclusive" and could not be shared with another sovereignty (whether an Indian tribe, or another nation or nations, as it is in this case). Credit to Eastman for this point, aside from your attack via ad hominem.

"Ad hominem"? How is pointing out the inaccuracies of the historical information he relied upon for his argument in his famous Newsweek op-ed (namely, regarding the children of Mexican guest workers for the bracero program) equivalent to 'attacking the messenger'? It's pointing out a weakness in his own argument, unrelated to who he is as an individual: the exact inverse of ad hominem.

Accordingly, as Kamala was under the "jurisdiction" of Jamaica and India at the time of her birth, she erroneously received US citizenship via the immigration fraud committed by her parents (which is also revocable per statute). As evidence, you can see Kamala's "revised" birth certificate, in the linked documents.

The 14th Amendment lists no provisions regarding the jurisdiction of other countries; only that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are henceforth citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside. Your claim that Jamaica and India had jurisdiction over Kamala (granted for the sake of argument) does not necessitate that America's jurisdiction was therefore 'partial' or less than total upon Kamala Harris.

The attempted application of Plyler v. Doe of 1982 here is erroneous, where it re-defines jurisdiction, contrary to the original legislative intentions of the authors of the 14th Amendment of 1866.

Citation for the idea this was a "re-definition", as compared to keeping in line with active statute or court precedent?

Your idea of a requirement of "repatriation," is too absurd for comment.

On the contrary, per section 1481 of Title 8 ("Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions"), subsection (a)(1), quote:

----

From and after the effective date of this chapter a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by-

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday...

----

End quote.

This would be rather critical to your understanding of "allegiance"; did Kamala Harris ever attempt to renounce her American citizenship or become a citizen of Jamaica/India? Is there any proof? Any at all?

But then again, your little PDF dossier also implies that Kamala Harris had to register as an alien per sections 1302 and 1306 of Title 8, even though she wasn't an alien by definition (i.e. not a citizen or a national in light of Section 1101(a)(3) of Title 8 from 1964). Why? Because in spite of what your PDF dossier tries to imply per the following...

...it falls on its face for one simple reason: Kamala Harris could not have possibly "accompanied" or "followed" her parents in the sense as stated in the statute ("(15) The term "immigrant" means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens-...(F) (ii) the alien spouse aid minor children of any such [alien as described in subsection (F)(i)] if accompanying him or following to join him").

Why? Because she had not yet been born.

You can't accompany or follow someone to a place if you have not yet begun to exist.

Focus on refuting Kamala Harris's policies or positions; it'll be a more productive use of your time.

The issue here is, your arguments are more illogical than accurate.

Start with the actual text and terms of the 1101(a)(15)(F) Student Visa, as enacted in 1952 and in effect throughout the year 1964:

"The term 'immigrant' means every alien except an alien who is within one of the classes of non-immigrant aliens - (F) (i) an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning, who is a bonafide student qualified to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study..."

Changing this sworn "sole" pursuit of study, to the purpose of evading an arranged marriage in India by instead arranging a marriage and having a child within the USA, constitutes a violation of student visa status on the grounds that the original entry to the US was on the basis of an act of immigration fraud. They granted the applicant "non-immigrant" status (not "immigrant" status as you describe), and recipients were alien "non-resident" relative to the United States (which exempts them from the three classes of limitations per Wong Kim Ark of 1898).

This non-resident status alone, is sufficient to deny birthright citizenship to a child of alien parents like Kamala Harris, per a long line of statutes dating back to the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which required US residence for conferring citizenship, either via birth or naturalization).

This lack of residence, also affects "jurisdiction," meaning "allegiance" per the 1866 language, and "exclusive" allegiance per the 1873 and 1884 court rulings (credit on the facts: Eastman), which conflicts with how the parents of Kamala Harris retained "allegiance" to Jamaica and India per their entry via the terms of the 1952 student visa statute. Again, your mis-use of the term "jurisdiction," outside the intention of immigration law, is why you are stuck in your confusion here.

The added requirement of admission of the "Asia Pacific Triangle" racial background, was why the Harris' committed additional immigration fraud in late 1964 through early 1965, to evade the January 1965 requirement for registration of a US birth of their child Kamala who was a foreign national. (At that point, the Harris' would have otherwise deserved deportation). You can continue to read the rest of the dossier, to see how that fraud was the basis for the later cover-up

The bigger question for you to answer is: Would it be acceptable to have a prospective President who has a documented history of perjury and fraud, when the office is responsible for the enforcement of all US laws?

Re: 63 - so, what’s the endgame?

Have you contacted a Congressman to sponsor legislation that comports with your definition of NBC? If so, when? What was the result?

And also to you - what’s the endgame?

What legislation have have you asked a Congressman to sponsor that comports with the definition of NBC you believe the Constitution intends?

"Endgame" here is, Kamala Harris must resign.

Online pushback, which includes the sort of disinformation being posted here, can be anticipated. Therefore, some additional supporting documents which have been acquired are being withheld from public release (for now), in favor of official actions towards that goal.

Details of efforts will also be withheld until releases are appropriate, in support of further progress.

Therefore, some additional supporting documents which have been acquired are being withheld from public release (for now), in favor of official actions towards that goal. Details of efforts will also be withheld until releases are appropriate, in support of further progress.

So in other words, "trust the plan"?

That worked marvellously with QAnon. /s

Future developments will be announced via

Kamala Kancel Twitter Site (twitter login required to view)

and

Kamala Kancel Website (downloadable PDF available via link)

and associated sites.

Given that your particular scheme to prove Kamala is ineligible necessitates proving that fraud was committed by her parents (not merely alleging), how are you planning to get around the statute of limitations for crimes involving immigration fraud?

Just to make my point clear: the crimes you're alleging that Kamala Harris's parents committed would fall under the following section of Title 18 as of 1964. Quote (bold is emphasis mine):

----

§ 1546. Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other entry documents.

Whoever, knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, or other document required for entry into the United States, or utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or receives any such visa, permit, or document, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured by means of any false claim or statement, or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained; or
Whoever, except under direction of the Attorney General or the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or other proper officer, knowingly possesses any blank permit, or engraves, sells, brings into the United States, or has in his control or possession any plate in the likeness of a plate designed for the printing of permits, or makes any print, photograph, or impression in the likeness of any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit or other document required for entry into the United States, or has in his possession a distinctive paper which has been adopted by the Attorney General or the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the printing of such visas, permits, or documents; or
Whoever, when applying for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, or other document required for entry into the United States, or for admission to the United States personates another, or falsely appears in the name of a deceased individual, or evades or attempts to evade the immigration laws by appearing under an assumed or fictitious name without disclosing his true identity, or sells or otherwise disposes of, or offers to sell or otherwise dispose of, or utters, such visa, permit, or other document, to any person not authorized by law to receive such document; or
Whoever knowingly makes under oath any false statement with respect to a material fact in any application, affidavit, or other document required by the immigration laws or regulations prescribed thereunder, or knowingly presents any such application, affidavit, or other document containing any such false statement—
Shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

----

End quote.

Now, with regards to this particular section, it does not designate a specific statute of limitations (as sections 1541 thru 1544 do with regards to offenses involving passports; their statute of limitations referenced in section 3291 of Title 18 is ten years from the date of commission); therefore, by default, the statute of limitations is designated in section 3282. Quote:

----

§ 3282. Offenses not capital.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.

----

End quote.

Every single offense you've alleged regarding Kamala's parents is past the statute of limitations.

Since proving that one or both parents committed fraud is key to your attempt at overturning Kamala Harris's claim to be a birthright citizen...how do you get around these limitations for prosecution? (Serious question.)

And just to provide one more cherry on top of this legalistic sundae, just to showcase why I think your time and energy could be spent on more worthwhile endeavors: in 1966, the SCOTUS case "Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Errico" involved the following (bold and italics are emphasis mine). Quote:

----

Section 241(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which exempts from deportation an alien who obtained a visa and entry to the United States by fraud and misrepresentation where the alien is the spouse, parent, or child of an American citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and was "otherwise admissible at the time of entry," is construed, in the light of its humanitarian purpose of preventing the breaking up of families, to save from deportation such aliens who misrepresented their status for the purpose of evading quota restrictions.

No. 54, 349 F.2d 541 affirmed; No. 91, 350 F.2d 279 reversed. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari in these cases to resolve a conflict between the Second and Ninth Circuits on their interpretations of § 241(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The issue is identical in both cases and therefore lends itself to a single opinion.

...

The issue is whether the statute saves from deportation an alien who misrepresents his status for the purpose of evading quota restrictions, if he has the necessary familial relationship to a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Respondent Errico in No. 54, a native of Italy, falsely represented to the immigration authorities that he was a skilled mechanic with specialized experience in repairing foreign automobiles. On the basis of that misrepresentation, he was granted first preference quota status under the statutory preference scheme then in effect, and entered the United States in 1959 with his wife. A child was born to the couple in 1960 and acquired United States citizenship at birth. In 1963, deportation proceedings were commenced against Errico on the ground that he was excludable at the time of entry as not "of the proper status under the quota specified in the immigrant visa."

...

Petitioner Scott in No. 91, a native of Jamaica, contracted a marriage with a United States citizen by proxy solely for the purpose of obtaining nonquota status for entry into the country. She has never lived with her husband, and never intended to do so. After entering the United States in 1958, she gave birth to an illegitimate child, who became an American citizen at birth. When the fraud was discovered, deportation proceedings were begun, and a special inquiry officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service found her deportable on the ground that she was not a nonquota immigrant as specified in her visa. [Footnote 3] The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Board. 350 F.2d 279. The court agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals that a sham marriage contracted solely to circumvent the immigration laws would not confer nonquota status on an alien as the spouse of an American citizen. It also affirmed the ruling that Mrs. Scott was not entitled to relief under § 241(f) because she was not otherwise admissible at the time of entry, since her country's quota was oversubscribed. We granted certiorari. 383 U.S. 941.

...

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE join, dissenting.

The facts in one of these cases (No. 91) vividly illustrate the effect of the Court's interpretation of § 241(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The petitioner, a resident of Jamaica, paid for a sham marriage with an American citizen. A ceremony was held, but the petitioner and her "husband" parted immediately, and have not seen each other since. However, the pretended marriage served its purpose; the petitioner was admitted into this country as a nonquota immigrant upon her false representation that she was the wife of a United States citizen. After this fraudulent entry, she managed to become the actual parent of a United States citizen by conceiving and bearing an illegitimate child here.

...

----

End quote.

Although the dissenting Justices disagreed with the majority as to the matter of deporting Errico and his wife (the majority affirmed that their deportation order was to be rescinded; the minority dissented); none of the Justices questioned the birthright citizenship of the child born of aliens who committed fraud to enter the country, whether in the case of Errico, or in the case of the Scott proceedings cited as part of the opinion.

These are of direct applicability to your particular case with Kamala Harris's parents; even if all of your allegations regarding immigration fraud could be substantiated; they would not nullify Kamala Harris's status as an American citizen by birth.

This non-resident status alone, is sufficient to deny birthright citizenship to a child of alien parents like Kamala Harris, per a long line of statutes dating back to the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which required US residence for conferring citizenship, either via birth or naturalization).

This is simply false.

I invite you to 1 Stat. 102-103 (March 26, 1790), An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

If you see a definition of natural born citizen, quote it. In any case, this act of 1790 was repealed, in its entirety, in January 1795.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llsl//llsl-c1/llsl-c1.pdf

[page 103]
Margin note:
Statute II.
March 26, 1790
Repealed by act of January 20, 1795, ch. 20.
Alien whites may become citizens, and how.
- - - - -
Chap. III. -- An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.(a)
Section I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the pro-
(a) This act was repealed by an act passed January 29, 1795, chap. 20.
The acts relating to naturalization subsequent to the act of March 28, 1790, have been: "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject," January 29, 1795, chap. 20. Repealed April. 14, 1802.
An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on the Subject, passed April 14, 1802, chap. 28.
An act in addition to an act entituled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on the subject," passed March 26, 1804, chap. 47.
An act relative to evidence in cases of naturalization, passed March 22, 1816, chap. 32.
An act in further addition to "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject," passed May 26, 1824, chap. 186.
An act to amend the acts concerning naturalization, May 24, 1828, ch. 116. Act of July 30, 1813, ch. 36.
[Page 104]
[Margin note]
Their children residing here, deemed citizens.
Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c.
Exceptions
- - - - -
ceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed. (a)
Approved, March 26, 1790.
(a) The power of naturalization is exclusively in Congress. Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259; 4 Cond. Rep. Ill.
A naturalized citizen, who in time of peace returns to his native country for the purpose of trade, but with the intention of returning again to his adopted country, continuing in the former, ayear after the war between the two countries, for the purpose of winding up his business, engaging in no new commer- cial transactions with the enemy, and then returning to his adopted country, has gained adomicil in his native country, and his goods are subject to condemnation. The Frances, 8 Cranch, 335; 3Cond. Rep. 154.
The various acts on the subject of naturalization submit the decision upon the right of aliens to courts of record. They are to receive testimony; to compare it with the law; and to judge on both law and fact. If their judgment is entered on record in legal form, it closes all inquiry, and like other judgments, is complete evidence of its own validity. Spratt v. Spratt, 4 Peters, 393. It need not appear by the record of naturalization that all the requisites presented by law, for the ad- mission of aliens to the rights of citizenship, have been complied with. Starke U. The Chesapeake Ins. Comp., 7 Cranch, 420; 2Cond. Rep. 556.
A certificate by a competent court, that an alien has taken the oath prescribed by the act respecting naturalization, raises the presumption that the court was satisfied as to the moral character of the alien, and of his attachment to the principles of the constitution of the United States. The oath when taken, confers the rights of acitizen. It is not necessary that there should be an order of court admitting him to be a citizen.
The children of persons duly naturalized before the 14th of April, 1802, being under age at the time of the naturalization of their parent, were, if dwelling in the United States on the 14th of April, 1802, to be considered as citizens of the United States. Campbell v. Gordon, 6 Cranch, 176; 2 Cond. Rep. 342. See also ex parte Newman, 2 Gallis' C. C. R. 11; Peters' C. C. R. 457.

That does not provide a definition of natural born citizen. It only establishes that births beyond sea to U.S. citizen parents may be natural born citizens at birth subject to conditions; and is inapplicable to births within the United States; i.e., the vast majority of natural born citizen births, including Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy. Not all natural born citizens are born beyond sea. A child of two illegal aliens, born in a detention center in the United States, is born a United States citizen.

The law of March 26, 1790 was repealed in its entirety on January 29, 1795. Why do you dwell upon a statute law that was repealed more than two centuries ago?

If the 1790 law is seen as defining citizenship today, then citizenship of persons born beyond sea is restricted to free white persons.

For domestic births, the relevant law is the 14th Amendment — that all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, are born citizens of the United States, your personal vision of current law notwithstanding.

The Act of 1795 includes:

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain, during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

The word "natural" was eliminated. As a natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, specifying "natural born" in this context was surplusage and could be omitted without change of meaning. Everyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen.

If any provision of the Acts of 1790 and 1795 conflicted with anything in 14A, then 14A struck down such provision. That equally holds for any statute law or any opinion of any Court.

The children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States gave rise to disagreement whether that meant children of two citizen parents, or one citizen parent. That has been resolved in favor of one citizen parent.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep401815/

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 816 (1971)

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under constitutional challenge here, primarily on Fifth Amendment due process grounds, but also on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, is § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 236, 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(b).
Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), defines those persons who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Paragraph (7) of § 301(a) includes in that definition a person born abroad “of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States” who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301(b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under § 301(a)(7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years. We quote the statute in the margin.

The Statute law in effect at this time is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (27 Jun 1952) P.L. 414; 66 Stat 163, as amended.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf

TITLE III—NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
CHAPTER 1—NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION
NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
[...]

In the Constitution:

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

In Federal Statute law:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf

The Statute law in effect at this time is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (27 Jun 1952) P.L. 414; 66 Stat 163, as amended.

TITLE III—NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
CHAPTER 1—NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION
NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Codified in the United States Code:

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2021/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-iii/part-i/sec-1401/

2021 US Code
Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality
Chapter 12 - Immigration and Nationality
Subchapter III - Nationality and Naturalization
Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
Sec. 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
8 U.S.C. § 1401
§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

14A made no substantive change to U.S. citizenship law, but acted only to place it beyond the control of Congress. The 14A provisions of the citizenshp clause for children born in the United States were the applicable citizenship before and after the revolution, and before and after the ratification of 14A.

At the Supreme Court:

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 662-63 (1898)

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1

[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]

8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION

c. Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth: Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a State upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (INA 101(a)(23) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (see INA 310, 8 U.S.C. 1421 and INA 311, 8 U.S.C. 1422). Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. (See 7 FAM 1140.)
d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:
[...]
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

In discussing a child born in the United States, the parents have no relevance whatever unless one parent enjoyed immunity from our laws as an accredited diplomat or visiting dignitary and was capable of passing on derivitative immunity to the child. If a child is born in the United States, and does not acquire derivitive immunity at birth, the child acquires United States citizenship at birth.

Your perceived legal points would require an amendment to the Constitution to even rise to the level of being a legal consideration.

"Endgame" here is, Kamala Harris must resign. Online pushback, which includes the sort of disinformation being posted here, can be anticipated. Therefore, some additional supporting documents which have been acquired are being withheld from public release (for now), in favor of official actions towards that goal.

Official actions? That could mean anything. And how do you know if additional documents have been acquired?

Details of efforts will also be withheld until releases are appropriate, in support of further progress.

Let me tell you how I read that - that updates of efforts may or may not be provided.

From Errico: "Petitioner Scott in No. 91, a native of Jamaica, contracted a marriage with a United States citizen by proxy solely for the purpose of obtaining nonquota status for entry into the country. She has never lived with her husband, and never intended to do so. After entering the United States in 1958, she gave birth to an illegitimate child, who became an American citizen at birth."

Which goes to illustrate your tactic of mis-information.

In Errico, one parent was a US Citizen. Kamala Harris was instead born to two non-immigrant, non-resident aliens, neither of whom were US citizens.

"These are of direct applicability to your particular case with Kamala Harris's parents; even if all of your allegations regarding immigration fraud could be substantiated; they would not nullify Kamala Harris's status as an American citizen by birth."

Not so. Unfortunately, it appears that some legal instruction that is out there is insufficient in reading comprehension or logic. A refresher course, may be in order.

"Let me tell you how I read that - that updates of efforts may or may not be provided."

They will be released when they are of most benefit within the election cycle. Until then, specious arguments based in mis-information circulated on a chat board, can wait.

Your arguments are more notable for what your selective edits overlook.

Wong Kim Ark (1898) referred to parents who resided in the US, the text of the terms for entry in the "F" Visa Classification of 1952 (in effect in October 1964) specifically excluded US residency for Harris' parents.

The State Department text, refers to procedures put in place after the October 1964 birth of Kamala Harris, and are not retroactive (with respect to citizenship).

"Jurisdiction" within the 14th Amendment, means "political jurisdiction" (more commonly referred to as "allegiance"), which did not apply to the Harris parents in October 1964.

When they violated US immigration law by birthing a child on US Soil, they were non-immigrant "aliens" who received a special non-resident tax designation and who were exempt from military service with the US (and could not serve on a jury). In other words, in exchange for a non-citizen status they were exempt from obligations of US citizenship.

Only through acts of fraud, was Kamala Harris "considered" a citizen (although a close examination of the documents, proves that is not so).

Kamala Kancel Website (downloadable PDF available via link)

Kamala Kancel Twitter Site (twitter login required to view)

Which goes to illustrate your tactic of mis-information...Unfortunately, it appears that some legal instruction that is out there is insufficient in reading comprehension or logic.

Accusing me that I'm somehow paid to do this won't do anything to help you get past the fact that the statute of limitations for the alleged fraud committed by Kamala's parents is well past the five year limit.

So again, I ask from post #70: "Since proving that one or both parents committed fraud is key to your attempt at overturning Kamala Harris's claim to be a birthright citizen...how do you get around these limitations for prosecution? (Serious question.)"

Also, the particular point of the cases previously cited was with regard to fraud committed on the part of the aliens who subsequently had children in America.

But fine: let's go further.

Florentino Contreras-buenfil, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, from 1983: "In May 1971, Florentino Contreras-Buenfil entered the United States illegally, leaving a wife and four children in Mexico. Contreras-Buenfil has resided continuously in California, living since 1975 with Flora Lopez. Together, they support two children--Flora's son, Jose, from a prior relationship, and a daughter, Carol, by Contreras-Buenfil. Flora also entered the United States without inspection. Both her children, however, are citizens by birth. Jose was five years old and Carol two months old at the time of Contreras-Buenfil's 1979 deportation hearing...Contreras-Buenfil appealed to the Board, arguing the Immigration Judge erred in refusing to consider his medical history, the hardship to the two citizen children, or the hardship he would suffer from the separation from his California family. The Board dismissed the appeal on the grounds Contreras-Buenfil had submitted no evidence he continued to require medical treatment and, except for his infant daughter, all his family ties were in Mexico." (Both parents were aliens, both of whom had entered illegally; the citizenship of the children born in America was not contested.)

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/813/400/240074/, from 1986: "Mrs. Dawodu, who is Nigerian, entered the United States in 1970 as the spouse of a non-immigrant student. She was authorized to remain in this country as long as her husband maintained his non-immigrant student status. She and her husband have had two children since they arrived, a son born in 1971 and a daughter born in 1974. Both children are United States citizens. In 1979, after nine years' continued residence in the United States, Mrs. Dawodu took her children back to Nigeria to visit her ill mother-in-law. The trip lasted sixteen days. In April 1980 Mrs. Dawodu's husband terminated his non-immigrant student status and returned to Nigeria. Mrs. Dawodu, who had separated from him earlier in 1980, remained in this country with the two children..."

Daniel B. Salameda and Angelita C. Salameda, Petitioners, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, from 1995: "Daniel Salameda and his wife Angelita came to the United States from the Philippines in 1982. Salameda had a student visa; his wife was admitted as the spouse of, and their two-year-old child, Lancelot, as the child of, a nonimmigrant student. The visa was for one year, and two days after it expired Salameda went to an office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in an effort to renew it. Whether he could have renewed the visa had he sought to do so before it expired, and whether he might have been eligible for some kind of discretionary relief after missing the deadline, are issues shrouded in legal and factual uncertainty; the parties have not addressed them; nor will we. The only result of Salameda's effort to renew his visa was to precipitate deportation proceedings against him and his wife. The proceedings dragged on in the usual manner until 1991, when the Salamedas appeared at a hearing before an immigration judge at which they conceded deportability but requested suspension of deportation under section 244(a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a) (1). The immigration judge turned down their request and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed...There is no doubt that the Salamedas will experience hardship as a result of being deported to the Philippines with uncertain prospects of ever being readmitted to the United States. Besides Lancelot, now 15 years old, who has lived in the United States since he was 2, the Salamedas have a child born in the United States (hence a U.S. citizen) who is now almost 7."

Whether the parents be illegal aliens, or nonimmmigrants here on student visa: the citizenship of their US-born children was not contested whatsoever.

(Also, on an unrelated note: did you know that students present in the United States on F-1 visa are *obligated* to pay federal and state income taxes on any non-exempt income earned? By contrast, diplomats are exempt from practically all taxes, and even nonimmigrant employees for foreign governments aren't subject to taxation if they fall within an applicable treaty.)

Your examples are irrelevant, as they post-date the events and statutes in existence on October 1964, which is the time that "citizenship" was claimed to have been conferred.

Additionally, IRS regulations regarding the tax procedures pertaining to "non-resident" aliens (like the parents of Kamala Harris) have also changed since October 1964.

If you wish to persist in posting mis-information, please try to argue that Kamala Harris received "derivative" citizenship from her father's 1981 naturalization, as that is more factually comparable to your speculative arguments.

"Accusing me that I'm somehow paid to do this..."

Again, mis-information, originating in your own post.

Where was this done (from this account)?

Your examples are irrelevant, as they post-date the events and statutes in existence on October 1964, which is the time that "citizenship" was claimed to have been conferred.

Irrelevant, you say? This implies that the particular sections of title 8 that you're relying on to make your case have undergone an essential change since Kamala's birth, such that what would not have been recognized as citizenship beforehand would henceforth be recognized as citizenship after the fact.

Since you're making the claim, I'm sure you can point it out?

Additionally, IRS regulations regarding the tax procedures pertaining to "non-resident" aliens (like the parents of Kamala Harris) have also changed since October 1964.

And I'm sure you could likewise point out where and when such essential changes occurred? (Because not every change or amendment to the US Code is of such nature as to constitute an essential change, such that was once verboten or forbidden is now tolerated or sanctioned.)

If you wish to persist in posting mis-information, please try to argue that Kamala Harris received "derivative" citizenship from her father's 1981 naturalization, as that is more factually comparable to your speculative arguments.

Why should I? I think Kamala is an American citizen by birth, and that your convoluted and ill-suited means of approaching this issue don't actually accomplish anything meaningful with regards to stopping her from becoming President. (Still waiting to hear how you're going to get around the five-year statute of limitations for your allegations of immigration fraud.)

Also, just for the sake of additional completeness:

Dominador S. Perdido and Melva Pating Liguigan Perdido, Petitioners, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, from 1969: "This is a proceeding brought here pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a to review an order of deportation which was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals and is now final.1 Dominador S. Perdido and his wife, Melva P. Perdido, both 28 years of age, are natives and citizens of the Philippines. Dominador came to this country in June, 1964, as a student under the provisions of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a) (15) (J). Mrs. Perdido entered the United States as the spouse of a student in December of 1964, also under the provisions of 8 U. S.C.A. § 1101(a) (15) (J). They were later reclassified as an exchange visitor and the spouse of an exchange visitor, respectively, and authorized to remain in the United States until September 8, 1968. Since that time they have remained in this country without authority and are now under orders to leave...Since the Perdidos both entered the United States under the provisions of § 1101(a) (15) (J), they can no longer remain in this country and are required under § 1182(e) to spend two years outside the United States before they are eligible to return on a permanent basis. Section 1182(e) does contain a proviso allowing the waiver of this two-year requirement if it would "impose exceptional hardship upon the alien's spouse or child (if such spouse or child is a citizen of the United States or a lawfully resident alien)." The Perdidos applied for such a waiver, claiming that their two-year exile would cause an exceptional hardship on their two children who, because of their birth in this country, are United States citizens. The waiver was denied when the Immigration Service determined that no extraordinary hardship existed."

But you might claim 'this is still after October 1964, so it still doesn't count'.

So let's turn to a real interesting case: Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, from 1957:

"Petitioners, husband and wife, entered the United States in 1951 as alien seamen, and remained unlawfully after expiration of their limited lawful stay. In November, 1951, a child was born to them -- an American citizen by birth. In January, 1952, petitioners applied for suspension of deportation under §19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, which conditionally authorizes suspension of a deportation which "would result in serious economic detriment to a citizen . . . who is the . . . minor child of such deportable alien." The Board of Immigration Appeals found that petitioners were eligible for relief but, as a matter of administrative discretion, denied suspension of deportation, relying mainly on the fact that petitioners had established no roots or ties in this country. Held: there was no error in the decision of the Board...Petitioners are husband and wife, both aliens. Prior to 1951, both worked as seamen on foreign vessels. In July, 1951, the wife lawfully entered the United States as a crew member of a ship in a United States port. Being pregnant, she sought medical advice; subsequently, she decided in the interest of her health to stay ashore. A month later, on the next occasion his ship arrived in the United States, her husband joined her; he also failed to leave on the expiration of his limited lawful stay. In November, 1951, their child was born; the child is, of course, an American citizen by birth."

And from the same case, let's quote from the dissenting judges: "This case, on its face, seems to be an instance of a deportation which would "result in serious economic detriment to a citizen," as those words are used in § 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917. The citizen is a five-year-old boy who was born here and who, therefore, is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities which the Fourteenth Amendment bestows on every citizen."

The fact that the parents were illegal aliens mattered not a bit to these judges: the citizenship of their US-born child was taken for granted, and not disputed whatsoever.