Posted on 08/27/2024 11:35:04 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Aug. 27, 2024) — Well, whatta ya know. Yet another source – this time an established, tax-exempt IRS “527 Organization” rather than an individual human being – raises the issue of the likely compromised “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) bona fides of Kamala Devi Harris. The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (“NFRA”) has brought the issue back into the public square with its 39-page “Platform and Policy Document” directly questioning Harris’s constitutional eligibility.
As a preliminary matter, the story of the NFRA Platform and Policy Document appears in the online version of “The Independent,” a left-leaning media outlet based in London…., hardly a “go-to” resource for gaining accurate information about the nbC issue under the U.S. Constitution. For example, The Independent article erroneously claims that, under the NFRA policy document, U.S. presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison would be disqualified. Not so: the “Citizen-Grandfather” exception that the Framers included took care of that. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court considered the status of children who are born in the United States, of fathers who owe allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States. In both cases, the Court ruled that such children are not even citizens, let alone natural born citizens.
There's nothing stopping The Slave Party from pulling another switcheroo.
Problem is that the NBC issue has been violated or near-violated several times; at one point, the most talk of the GOP candidate was Trump, DeSantis and NBCs. I think Cruz would fall into the NBC list.
My undertsanding; a child born of citizen parents is a citizen (natural born). Irrelevant of where they were born. The parents could be naturalized citizens, as long as the naturalization took place prior to the child’s birth.
Surely they can't all be ambulance chasers, can they?
That fits my understanding.
The word “parents” is nowhere to be found in US Constitution. Therefore the job of defining NBC falls on SCOTUS to interpret what Constitution meant. My opinion or anyone else’s opinion is worthless.
“In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court considered the status of children who are born in the United States, of fathers who owe allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States. In both cases, the Court ruled that such children are not even citizens, let alone natural born citizens.”
___________________________________________________________
The US Supreme Court overturned Inglis in 1898 in the case of US vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
“Conclusion
Because Wong was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically makes him a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray authored the opinion on behalf of a 6-2 majority, in which the Court established the parameters of the concept known as jus soli—the citizenship of children born in the United States to non-citizens. Justice Joseph McKenna took no part in the consideration or decision of the case....”
“I do not stand here to cavil with men who are not read in the horn-books of the law; but I assert that every man born within the limits of the Republic, or under its flag at sea, of parents who were not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are, in the very words of the Constitution, natural born citizens”
John Bingham, framer of Amendment XIV that made Obama, Harris and Haley US citizens
from the Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862)
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=058/llcg058.db&recNum=64
Enter in 407, click Turn to image, and look at the end of the first and beginning of the second column.
Isn’t there some evidence that Kamala was somehow involved in her mother’s naturalization process?
That's where the word "natural" comes in. Nativity: the processes or circumstances of being born.
In a way the left tells us this all the time by using the phrase "Native Americans" to indicate that it's not related to who was born on U.S. soil. To them I, a white man of mostly Anglo-Saxon descent, don't meet the definition of Native American even though I was born in the U.S. The word "native" in that case means it depends on who your parents are.
The same with "natural born citizen". The "natural" part of that is the "process" by when you were born, not the location. For any presidential candidate it matters which parents did the "process" to create him.
“Natural Born Citizen” (87 pages which I glanced at) American University Law Review
It has a detailed discussion of the Constitutional Convention:
https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1992&context=aulr
You made two sentences. The first sentence is correct, somewhat. "Natural born citizen" is a term of art intended to be used in its full form, not truncated as you've done by using parenthesis. The second sentence is incorrect.
You need to read USC 8 Sec. 1401 (c)
Upgrade your understanding. Location of birth definitely matters under the law, even with two citizen parents.
You have the law at your fingertips and are yet ignorant.
There’s a 1730 British law which I don’t have the energy to track down.
It required the father to be a natural born citizen.
Since we are not into sex discrimination in the modern USA, Obama with his natural born American mom was not judicially barred by it.
Harris’ parents were migrants. Mom left for Canada with her offspring and daddy went back to Jamaica.
Circular reasoning. If there weren't differing opinions how could a question even be brought before the Supreme Court to decide, not interpret, the meaning of NBC?
Natural born citizenship can't be granted through laws or courts.
USC 8 Sec. 1401(c) has changed even that. See reply 13.
Isn't it peculiar that her mother's naturalization papers have never been presented to the public.
If “modern USA” didn’t update the wording of requirements then the existing wording still stands.
Just like towns that still have law or regulations saying you can’t walk your cow down Main Street or other ones that don’t really pertain to “modern USA”.
Assuming a change is ok does not make it so.
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.