Posted on 01/21/2019 12:25:55 PM PST by research99
It’s self evident. See my analogy with our nation’s symbol up-thread.
#NotHard
IOWs, if there’s any doubt, you ain’t a NBC.
This old blog is pretty informative on the subject
https://nobarack08.wordpress.com/natural-born-citizen-defined/
One of the naturalization process rules:
“A lawful permanent resident of the United States for at least five years before applying for naturalization.”
The key word here is “before” applying
for naturalization. Kamala was born in
October of 1964. Her parents were legal
residents (not citizens) since August
1959. Which means they couldn’t apply
for citizenship until August 1964.
“While the USCIS processing time for the naturalization form is approximately 6 months, the complete process of applying for naturalization and becoming a U.S. citizen will take longer than 6 months.”
While her birth puts her past the 5 year
rule, it is well before the possible
completion of their naturalization
process. She is not eligible to run for
POTUS.
Widget Jr. -
FIRST: How DARE you claim that I used a PAC ??? I used the Ark opnion that is posted at the Cornell University Legal Information Institute web site.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649#writing-USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO
SECOND: From the opinion, which you probably haven’t read ... “The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ...”. Gee - NO MENTION OF BEING A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN !!!
THIRD: Show me ANYWHERE that SCOTUS has EVER equated “at the time of his birth a citizen” to being a natural born citizen. YOU CAN’T. Don’t try to put words in their mouths by stating, “ ... even if the court did not explicity use that specific langauge ...”. It just makes you look foolish and petulant when you try to make things fit your agenda.
I am not a troll. No conspiracy theory—and please don’t call anyone who disagrees with you a troll because that is acting like a democrat or fake news media trying to stop debate.
If she is allowed to run simply because she was born on US soil, then all the Chinese birth-tourist babies would be eligible when they reach 35 years of age. They are US citizens, but many legal scholars would have a problem if they are eligible — huge divided loyalties...Not founders intent
There is more to it than just being born on US soil...
Hey, I’m sorry about the pac thing. I got you confused with another freeper on this thread. I’m disagreeing with several on this thread and lost track of what I was arguing with who.
No court will disqualify her.
Sadly, you are probably correct, but still, it is worth the effort to do some research don’t you think?
The only reason to challenge it is to get it into the courts to determine the constitutionality of the existing law. Trump can do it thru an Executive Order or Congress can do it by passing a bill signed by the President. Only then will we know if we need a Constitutional amendment.
Yes, US Code provides the basis for birthright citizenship. It has been done millions of times. If you have a US birth certificate, you can get a passport, vote, etc. There are two ways to obtain citizenship, at birth or thru naturalization.
n Kamala Harris’s case, while her parents may not have been naturalized citizens at the time of her birth, they were in the process of becoming naturalized. That covers the jurisdiction issue. I don’t think any lawyer would want to argue otherwise based on how Ark has been interpreted.
you must be kidding what does it take to be naturalized? what is the process...i almost have my driver’s license..or my gun permit...
Harris is NOT qualified as a Natural Born Citizen constitutionally eligible for POTUS under Article II, Section 1, clause 5.
Admittedly, the SCOTUS has never ruled directly on the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” with regard to Article II and POTUS eligibility. But in all cases before the court bearing on citizenship wherein they offered a definition of “natural born citizen,” NONE of those definitions fit Harris’s birth provenence.
I want all those concerned about this matter to observe the near and actual hysterical demagoguery that will ensue and is directed against those of us who have the temerity to attempt to obtain “standing” so as to have the Court exercise it’s Article III oversight in this matter. What you hear will be quite instructive.
I remember well the fury directed at us because we asked questions about Obama’s birth provenance and his counterfeit birth certificate. This jive won’t be pretty either.
“The only reason to challenge it is to get it into the courts to determine the constitutionality of the existing law. Trump can do it thru an Executive Order or Congress can do it by passing a bill signed by the President.”
I really cannot see President Trump taking such a stance or action.
Cornell Law School is not the arbitrator of the Constitution. They are completely wrong when citing the 14th Amendment.
So Says a Cornellian.
There are only about 30 countries in the world that have birthright citizenship with most of them being in the "New World." The only developed countries to have it are the US and Canada. Mexico also has it.
“Natural born Citizen means born to U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil.”
Which part of the Constitution of the United States can I find that statement?
……………………………………………………………….
ANYONE who has studied The Law of Nations and the history of its influence on our Founders who wrote the Constitution fully understands the meaning of NATURAL BORN Citizen. It is a term used only once in the Constitution. As for ignorance as to the influence of The Law of Nations, please refer to Section 8 of the Constitution where the Law of Nations is cited. “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas and Offenses against the Law of Nations.”
Well said. I also am damned sick and tired of the defeatism expressed on this site. One would expect to find defenders of our American Culture, but one encounters far too often hypocrisy, sarcasm, and pure laziness.
“The only reason to challenge it is to get it into the courts to determine the constitutionality of the existing law. Trump can do it thru an Executive Order or Congress can do it by passing a bill signed by the President. Only then will we know if we need a Constitutional amendment.”
#nevermind
You’re not getting it at all. THERE IS NO LAW GIVING CITIZENSHIP TO CHILDREN BORN TO ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Nothing to challenge in the courts and we don’t want it in the courts. The POTUS enforces the law. He can do away with the bureaucratic created ‘birthright citizenship’(which was illegal) by the stroke of a pen.
Amendment? Jeeez, just stop.
LOL. Of course it will go to the courts. Everything goes to the courts today. It is why SCOTUS is so important to both parties. You don't end birthright citizenship without a court fight. Trump can't even end Obama's EO on DACA without having to fight it in court.
In the meantime in the real world where I live (in contrast to the fantasy world you live in) birthright citizenship continues on unhampered. Nothing you say or do will change that reality. You really have some mental health issues.
Like I said #nevermind.
When people on our side believe the courts are the final say—the final arbiters of what’s constitutional, then we may as well turn out the lights.
#loonball
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.