Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NFRA on the Natural Born Citizen Issue
The Post & Email Newspaper ^ | 27 Aug 2024 | Joseph DeMaio

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anchorbaby; eligibility; kamalaharris; kamalaprops; naturalborncitizen; nbckooks; nbctrolls; nrfa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-190 next last

1 posted on 08/27/2024 11:35:04 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CDR Kerchner

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.


2 posted on 08/27/2024 11:44:07 AM PDT by South Dakota (Patriotism is the new terrorism .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CDR Kerchner
I guess the RINOs would rather run against Moochelle with two weeks left before the election than have Trump run against a beatable Harris.

There's nothing stopping The Slave Party from pulling another switcheroo.

3 posted on 08/27/2024 11:45:10 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

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.


4 posted on 08/27/2024 11:52:14 AM PDT by linedrive ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CDR Kerchner
I believe more and more each day that Congress, having numerous lawyers as members,
has the most ignorant group of lawyers in its chambers.

Surely they can't all be ambulance chasers, can they?

5 posted on 08/27/2024 11:56:32 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linedrive
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.

That fits my understanding.

6 posted on 08/27/2024 11:58:47 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: linedrive

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.


7 posted on 08/27/2024 12:06:26 PM PDT by Bobbyvotes (I will be voting for Trump/whoever he picks VP in November. If he loses in 2024, country is toast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: South Dakota

“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....”


8 posted on 08/27/2024 12:12:43 PM PDT by Bob Wills is still the king (Just a Texas Playboy at heart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CDR Kerchner

“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.


9 posted on 08/27/2024 12:14:26 PM PDT by Brian Griffin ("Why didn’t she do it three and a half years ago?”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linedrive

Isn’t there some evidence that Kamala was somehow involved in her mother’s naturalization process?


10 posted on 08/27/2024 12:16:29 PM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bobbyvotes
The word “parents” is nowhere to be found in US Constitution.

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.

11 posted on 08/27/2024 12:18:22 PM PDT by Tell It Right (1 Thessalonians 5:21 -- Put everything to the test, hold fast to that which is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CDR Kerchner

“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


12 posted on 08/27/2024 12:21:24 PM PDT by Brian Griffin ("Why didn’t she do it three and a half years ago?”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linedrive
My undertsanding; a child born of citizen parents is a citizen (natural born). Irrelevant of where they were born.

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)

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person No law can make someone a natural born citizen and USC 8 is law and treats the child's condition and situation. The child is a citizen, not a natural born citizen, through legislation enacted under Congress's Constitutional authority.

Upgrade your understanding. Location of birth definitely matters under the law, even with two citizen parents.

13 posted on 08/27/2024 12:25:22 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
See 13 as well and upgrade your understanding.

You have the law at your fingertips and are yet ignorant.

14 posted on 08/27/2024 12:27:11 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CDR Kerchner

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.


15 posted on 08/27/2024 12:27:35 PM PDT by Brian Griffin ("Why didn’t she do it three and a half years ago?”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobbyvotes
Therefore the job of defining NBC falls on SCOTUS to interpret what Constitution meant. My opinion or anyone else’s opinion is worthless.

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?

16 posted on 08/27/2024 12:33:15 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bob Wills is still the king
Wong Kim Ark was declared a citizen via the 14th Amendment, not a natural born citizen natural as law requires.

Natural born citizenship can't be granted through laws or courts.

17 posted on 08/27/2024 12:36:29 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin

USC 8 Sec. 1401(c) has changed even that. See reply 13.


18 posted on 08/27/2024 12:38:02 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane
Isn’t there some evidence that Kamala was somehow involved in her mother’s naturalization process?

Isn't it peculiar that her mother's naturalization papers have never been presented to the public.

19 posted on 08/27/2024 12:40:37 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin

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.


20 posted on 08/27/2024 12:42:10 PM PDT by b4me (Pray, and let God change you. He knows better than you or anyone else, who He made you to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-190 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson