The Trump nbC Post

"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.

It would appear that you do not know the meaning of "political jurisdiction" and are unaware that this claim was explicitly presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, and lower courts, and was held to be without merit.

In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. 382, 386 (1896)

The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States must be controlling upon the question presented for decision in this matter, irrespective of what the common-law or international doctrine is. But the interpretation thereof is undoubtedly confused and complicated by the existence of these two doctrines, in view of the ambiguous and uncertain meaning of the qualifying phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which renders it a debatable question as to which rule the provision was intended to declare. Whatever of doubt there may be is with respect to the interpretation of that phrase. Does it mean “subject to the laws of the United States,” comprehending, in this expression, the allegiance that aliens owe in a foreign country to obey its laws; or does it signify, “to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States,” in the sense that is contended for on the part of the government? This question was ably and thoroughly considered in Re Look Tin Sing, supra, where it was held that it meant subject to the laws of the United States.

In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Federal Reporter 905, 906, Circuit Court, D. California, September 29, 1884

The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that "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." This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This ex-territoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents.

Wong Kim Ark

Brief to Scotus on Behalf of the Appellant (U.S. Government) (THE LOSING SIDE)

At page 39: [boldface added]

To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrares its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation — a right of all aliens — yet he was not born subject to the "political jurisdiction" thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector,
Respectfully submitted.
GEORGE D. COLLINS, Of Counsel for Appellant
HOLMES CONRAD, Solicitor-General.

We know the Government lost that one.

Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693-694 (1898)

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
"independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations."
Ex.Doc. H.R. No. 10, 1st sess. 32d Congress, p. 4; 6 Webster's Works, 56; United States v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 83 U. S. 155; Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a; Ellesmere on Postnati 63; 1 Hale P.C. 62; 4 Bl.Com. 92.
To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.

Wong Kim Ark at 688:

The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange; and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words, "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States," as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
These considerations confirm the view, already expressed in this opinion, that the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.

Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 155 (1830)

The rule commonly laid down in the books is that every person who is born within the ligeance of a sovereign is a subject, and e converso that every person born without such allegiance is an alien. This, however, is little more than a mere definition of terms, and affords no light to guide us in the inquiry what constitutes allegiance and who shall be said to be born within the allegiance of a particular sovereign — or in other words what are the facts and circumstances from which the law deduces the conclusion of citizenship or alienage. Now allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship — first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly birth within the protection and obedience, or in other words within the ligeance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also at his birth derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to the sovereign as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons and which indeed illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance, for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.

Birth within the territory of a sovereign, i.e., within the ligience of a sovereign, invokes the protection of that sovereign, and consequently the child owes obedience or allegiance to the sovereign.

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.

As with the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark was not restricted to a child of parents who were residents.

The Constitution sets forth the qualifications required to be eligible to the presidency and vice presidency. You have not referenced any case in which either parent was charged, tried or convicted of any crime; not that it would matter.

The qualifications include the person who would be President being a natural born citizen, being 35 years old, and having been a resident of the United States for fourteen years. No further qualifications may be added, except through a constitutional amendment.

The Constitution says not a word about parents or their status. Even if everything you said were true as to the status of the parents of Kamala Harris, it is irrelevant to whether Kamala Harris is eligible to be Vice President or President.

The claimed residence exclusion for the Harris' parents in no way could make Kamala Harris a non-resident. She was born in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and has been a natural born citizen since birth.

https://kamalakancel.com/

Her birth certificate evaded her nationality, in violation of the "India Quota" that was in effect in 1964. Is Kamala's "claimed" US citizenship valid (legally)?

Kamala Harris was born a citizen of the United States.

You seriously believe that a child born in the United States is subject to an immigration quota? Was her mother's womb the sovereign territory of India? Where do you fantasize she immigrated from?

Shyamala G. Harris violated US immigration policies, including using a variety of names (on official documents).

If true, so what? How does that have anything to do with whether Kamala Harris was born in the United States and subject to its laws?

Naturalization oath sworn in 1981 (when Kamala Harris was age 17). Proof her father not a US Citizen (at the time of her birth)!

Again, a big so what?

William Arthur emigrated from Ireland to Canada, not the United States. William Arthur migrated to the Province of Lower Canada on date uncertain, circa 1819-1820. Lower Canada would now be in the Province of Quebec. Chester Arthur's mother Malvina met his father while William Arthur was living in Canada.

Chester Arthur was born in 1829. His father, William Arthur, was naturalized 31 August 1843, fourteen years later. Chester Arthur became Vice President and then President in 1881.

Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe had non-citizen parents, accounting for 8 of the first 9 terms of the Presidency. The grandfather clause that allowed the early presidents to assume office had nothing to do with parentage. Parentage has nothing to do with the qualifications to serve as President.

Arthur and Obama had non-citizen parents, accounting for three more terms as President.

Kamala Harris makes the 12th time someone born to an alien parent has been inaugurated and has served in the office of President or Vice-President.

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

The Immigration Act of 1965, was not in effect until December 1965, and was not retroactive.

From your own citation of Look Tin Sing:

"The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive."

Emphasis here is on the word on "exclusive" because at the time of her birth, Kamala Harris was under the jurisdiction of the nations of Jamaica and India through her birthright citizenship of those foreign nations.

Your attempts at confusing the issues is noted, however the documented fact is that in October 1964, Kamala Harris was born as a non-resident alien (and not as a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution requires).

Immigration fraud committed by her parents (and colluded with by Kamala), is why we are having this discussion today.

The Immigration Act of 1965, was not in effect until December 1965, and was not retroactive.

I think you meant to refer to me, not woodpusher.

The point is that documented case precedent, both before and after the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, has held that US-born children of aliens (regardless of residency status) are held to be American citizens by birth, so long as their parents are not actively employed by a foreign government, are not foreign royalty, or are not otherwise possessing some form of diplomatic immunity.

The case of Hintopoulos v. Shaugnessy, previously cited and decided in 1957, showcases this in full: "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. [Footnote 1] In November, 1951, their child was born; the child is, of course, an American citizen by birth. In January, 1952, petitioners voluntarily disclosed their illegal presence to the Immigration Service and applied for suspension of deportation under § 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917..."

"As to the issue of suspension of deportation, the Hearing Officer, while finding petitioners eligible for such relief, denied the request, stating as follows: ""Both respondents have applied for suspension of deportation on the ground of the economic detriment that would befall their minor son in the event they were deported. . . . Both disclaim having a criminal record anywhere, and both allege that they have been persons of good moral character. Evidence of record would tend to corroborate their testimony in this respect. Their only income is from the employment of the male respondent on two jobs. . . . Their joint assets consist of savings in the sum of about $500 and their furniture and other personal property, which they value at $1500. While it would seem that their son . . . would suffer economically if his parents should be deported, it is not believed that, as a matter of administrative discretion, the respondents' applications for suspension of deportation should be granted. They have been in the United States for a period of less than one year. They have no relatives in this country other than each other and their son. To grant both this form of relief upon the accident of birth in the United States of their son would be to deprive others who are patiently awaiting visas under their already oversubscribed quotas. It is noted also that neither respondent reported his and her presence in the United States at any time until January, 1952, when they filed applications for suspension of deportation just two months after the birth of their child. . . .""

The cited Footnote 1, by the way, reads as follows: "Under certain conditions, alien crewmen are permitted to enter the United States for periods not exceeding 29 days. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1281-1287."

Neither of these alien seaman would have been considered resident aliens under the criteria you've provided. That they would have been considered non-residential non-immigrants can scarcely be denied. Yet the American citizenship of their child was nonetheless taken for granted.

Your understanding of what it means to be subject to American jurisdiction, insofar as it relates to birthright citizenship, has little to no support: both before and after Kamala Harris's birth. The sources you've cited are either inapplicable, misapplied, or otherwise utterly overwhelmed by the available Federal/State court cases that can be mustered relative to the subject.

From your own citation of Look Tin Sing:
"The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive."
Emphasis here is on the word on "exclusive" because at the time of her birth, Kamala Harris was under the jurisdiction of the nations of Jamaica and India through her birthright citizenship of those foreign nations.

Your legal nonsense indicates you need to spend more time in a Holiday Inn Express.

Kamala Harris was born subject to the laws of the United States and not anywhere else. She was in the United States and not anywhere else. She was exclusively under the laws of the United States, i.e. the jurisdiction of the United States.

In re Look Tin Sing, Circuit Court, D. California, 21 Federal Reporter 905 (29 Sep 1884), Field J. Justice Field became a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1863.

21 Fed. Rep. 905-906:

Field, Justice. The petitioner belongs to the Chinese race, but he was born in Mendocino, in the state of California, in 1870. In 1879 he went to China, and returned to the port of San Francisco during the present month, (September, 1884,) and now seeks to land, claiming the right to do so as a natural-born citizen of the United States. It is admitted by an agreed statement of facts that his parents are now residing in Mendocino, in California, and have resided there for the last 20 years; that they are of the Chinese race, and have always been subjects of the emperor of China; that his father sent the petitioner to China, but with the intention that he should return to this country; that the father is a merchant at Mendocino, and is not here in any diplomatic or other official capacity under the emperor of China.

21 Fed. Rep. 906:

The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that “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.” This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This ex-territoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents.

21 Fed. Rep. 909

With this explanation of the meaning of the words in the fourteenth amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it is evident that they do not exclude the petitioner from being a citizen. He is not within any of the classes of persons excepted from citizenship, and the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country.

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:

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."

In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. 382, 386 (1896)

The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States must be controlling upon the question presented for decision in this matter, irrespective of what the common-law or international doctrine is. But the interpretation thereof is undoubtedly confused and complicated by the existence of these two doctrines, in view of the ambiguous and uncertain meaning of the qualifying phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which renders it a debatable question as to which rule the provision was intended to declare. Whatever of doubt there may be is with respect to the interpretation of that phrase. Does it mean “subject to the laws of the United States,” comprehending, in this expression, the allegiance that aliens owe in a foreign country to obey its laws; or does it signify, “to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States,” in the sense that is contended for on the part of the government? This question was ably and thoroughly considered in Re Look Tin Sing, supra, where it was held that it meant subject to the laws of the United States.

Your attempts at confusing the issues is noted, however the documented fact is that in October 1964, Kamala Harris was born as a non-resident alien (and not as a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution requires).

If the "documented fact" is that Kamala Harris was born as a non-resident alien, then you should be able to produce an official document that says she was born a non-resident alien. I'll wait.

Immigration fraud committed by her parents (and colluded with by Kamala), is why we are having this discussion today.

No, the reason we are having this discussion is because you use words about whose meaning you are clueless.

The Kamala Harris birth certificate has a box for "color or race of mother." That is filled in "caucasian." Before alleging fraud, you would do well to expand your vocabulary to include the word caucasian.

Gopalan Shyamala had a claim to being causasian. One grandfather was Tamil, a Dravidian.

Caucasian includes not only "Hindu but some of the Polynesians, (that is the Maori, Tahitians, Samoans, Hawaiians and others), the Hamites of Africa, upon the ground of the Caucasic cast of their features, though in color they range from brown to black." Your case for fraud is non-existent. It is not fraud to correctly use the word caucasian.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/18/heres-kamala-harris-birth-certificate-end-of-debate/

Here’s Kamala Harris’ birth certificate. Scholars say there’s no VP eligibility debate
Harris set to accept VP nomination this week at Democratic convention
By DAVID DEBOLT | ddebolt@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: August 18, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. | UPDATED: August 26, 2020 at 5:13 a.m.
[...]
Here it is, a copy of her birth certificate, available to anyone from the public for a fee of $25, plus shipping since the county office is closed due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Harris was born at Kaiser Hospital Oakland at 9:28 p.m. on Oct. 20, 1964, according to the document. At the time of her birth, Harris’ mother who was from India and father who was from Jamaica had completed doctoral degrees from UC Berkeley and were working as academics. It lists her mother’s residence on Regent Street in Berkeley, an apartment building today.
Under the U.S. Constitution, a person born on U.S. soil who is at least 35 and a resident for at least 14 years is eligible for the nation’s highest office.
“Is Oakland U.S. soil? Yes, it is. That’s the full legal analysis,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School. “This isn’t something I would even ask on a law school exam because there’s nothing to argue.”

>

https://www.timesnownews.com/international/article/how-kamala-harris-tamil-grandfather-influenced-her-mother-shyamala-and-his-two-grand-daughters/636528

How Kamala Harris' Tamil Grandfather influenced her mother Shyamala and his two grand daughters
[excerpt]
Kamala Harris was born to a Tamil mother (India-born) named Shyamala Gopalan and a Jamaican-origin father.

There were people who were Caucasian, but not considered white enough to be "white persons."

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep261204/

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923)

[209]
In the endeavor to ascertain the meaning of the statute we must not fail to keep in mind that it does not employ the word "Caucasian" but the words "white persons," and these are words of common speech and not of scientific origin. The word "Caucasian" not only was not employed in the law but was probably wholly unfamiliar to the original framers of the statute in 1790.
[210]
Aryan language was not spoken by a variety of races living in proximity to one another. Our own history has witnessed the adoption of the English tongue by millions of Negroes, whose descendants can never be classified racially with the descendants of white persons notwithstanding both may speak a common root language.
The word "Caucasian" is in scarcely better repute. It is at best a conventional term, with an altogether fortuitous origin, which, under scientific manipulation, has come to include far more than the unscientific mind suspects. According to Keane, for example, (The World's Peoples, 24, 28, 307, et seq.) it includes not only the Hindu but some of the Polynesians, (that is the Maori, Tahitians, Samoans, Hawaiians and others), the Hamites of Africa, upon the ground of the Caucasic cast of their features, though in color they range from brown to black. We venture to think that the average well informed white American would learn with some degree of astonishment that the race to which he belongs is made up of such heterogeneous elements.
[211]
The various authorities are in irreconcilable disagreement as to what constitutes a proper racial division. For instance, Blumenbach has five races; Keane following Linnaeus, four; Deniker, twenty-nine. The explanation probably is that "the innumerable varieties of mankind run into one another by insensible degrees," and to arrange them in sharply bounded divisions is an undertaking of such uncertainty that common agreement is practically impossible.
It may be, therefore, that a given group cannot be properly assigned to any of the enumerated grand racial divisions. The type may have been so changed by intermixture of blood as to justify an intermediate classification. Something very like this has actually taken place in India. Thus, in Hindustan and Berar there was such an intermixture of the "Aryan" invader with the darkskinned Dravidian." [214-15]
What we now hold is that the words "free white persons" are words of common speech, to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man, synonymous with the word "Caucasian" only as that word is popularly understood. As so understood and used, whatever may be the speculations of the ethnologist, it does not include the body of people to whom the appellee belongs. It is a matter of familiar observation and knowledge that the physical group characteristics of the Hindus render them readily distinguishable from the various groups of persons in this country commonly recognized as white. The children of English, French, German, Italian, Scandinavian, and other European parentage, quickly merge into the mass of our population and lose the distinctive hallmarks of their European origin. On the other hand, it cannot be doubted that the children born in this country of Hindu parents would retain indefinitely the clear evidence of their ancestry. It is very far from our thought to suggest the slightest question of racial superiority or inferiority. What we suggest is merely racial difference, and it is of such character and extent that the great body of our people instinctively recognize it and reject the thought of assimilation.

The nature and depth of the mis-information being posted on this thread, bears significant similarity to the subject of a Daily Wire article (about a program of disruption of conservative discussion sites) posted here on another thread:

"Biden Administration Used A Counter-Terrorism Grant To Fund Anti-Conservative Propaganda"

(This explains the persistent "trolling" of this thread!)

So when pointing out the actual problems with your argument, as well as your own misunderstandings of the law and judicial precedents that you seek to use to make your case, your recourse is to label it all as "mis-information" and allude an equivalence with Biden-funded anti-conservative propaganda (therefore implicating in the minds of readers that anyone opposing you must therefore be the same, because the only reason anyone would dare disagree with you is because they're anti-conservative, right?).

In what universe does citing actual case precedent and historical documentation that refute practically all of your premises and presuppositions count as "trolling" or "mis-information"?

The obvious response is when you have no answer, so your only resort is ad hominem, and fallaciously appealing to motive.

(I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how you plan to get around the five-year statute of limitations for immigration fraud, which is utterly crucial for you to even move beyond the point of allegation.)

"In what universe does citing actual case precedent and historical documentation that refute practically all of your premises and presuppositions count as "trolling" or "mis-information"?"

I think what this really is called is "I don't like being challenged about the claims I make, so I will say that people who challenge my claims are trolling"

Law School 101:

Willful and provable fraud tolls statues.

Context is important!

"How The Biden Administration Used A Counter-Terrorism Grant To Fund Anti-Conservative Propaganda"

'Propaganda can also be used for socially beneficial purposes,' wrote government-funded 'media literacy' group

By Luke Rosiak, Daily Wire.com, Jan 17, 2024

Daily Wire Article

Re: 89 - And?

Willful and provable fraud tolls statues.

What does it mean for fraud to "toll" a statute? What are you talking about?

If you mean to imply that "willful and provable fraud" has no statute of limitations, that is blatantly incorrect. Charging and convicting someone of fraud implies that it can found both willful and provable in court; yet per section 3282 of Title 18, no prosecution shall be brought against such peoples for crimes not indicted or otherwise charged within five years:

----

§ 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.

----

No separate statute of limitations was indicated for crimes involving visa fraud, so the default is five years.

What principal or legal precedent are you relying on to argue that the alleged immigration fraud committed by Kamala's parents has no statute of limitations?

There are legal avenues, beyond the narrow scope which you have considered, which are available (but which will not be disclosed prior to their use).

There are legal avenues, beyond the narrow scope which you have considered, which are available (but which will not be disclosed prior to their use).

So in other words, "Trust me, bro".

Good luck with that.

IOW, not taking your bait.

Obama the Kenyan’s legitimacy was vetted by one person only. Nancy Pelosi was the Democrat who declared him eligible and that was that....

What "bait"? Do you honestly think I'm some sort of 'fed'?

You come across as delusional, if you honestly think that. You know why?

For one, all of the information you've provided on your website was ostensibly obtained via the Freedom of Information Act; what else is missing that would be applicable to your case?

Second, the statute of limitations may be delayed (or "tolled") by the rules of discovery if evidence or concealed or fraud was engaged...but the problem is, who would the ostensible plaintiff be in such a case against Kamala's parents? It would logically be the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice (which has sense been folded into the USCIS of the Department of Homeland Security); given that the INS had all of these documents available, how do you excuse the lack of due diligence that they as the plaintiff would need to demonstrate in order to pursue a case of fraud past the statute of limitations? (And if you intend to argue that you or some other collective of people are the "plaintiff", how in the world are you going to establish legal standing to prove that their alleged immigration fraud from over half a century ago caused an "concrete and particularized", "actual or imminent", "injury in fact" to you?)

Third, as noted with prior cases brought to your attention, particularly INS v. Errico ("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."...") and Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy ("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. In January, 1952, petitioners voluntarily disclosed their illegal presence to the Immigration Service and applied for suspension of deportation under § 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917..."), proving that Kamala's parents committed fraud or that their visa/residential status was in some way ineligible or fraudulent does nothing to undermine Kamala's status as a birthright citizen of the United States; in other words, trying to prove immigration fraud would not even provide redress your primary grievance.

Fourth, as I've more than made clear, I think Kamala Harris is an awful politician, and should not be President! Hence why I think you're honestly wasting your time pursuing a legal strategy that won't work for your intended purpose (namely, ensuring Kamala doesn't become President).

But go ahead and toil away fruitlessly if you so desire.

OPSEC