Posted on 08/13/2020 1:47:22 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
"Donald Trump's campaign lawyer promotes 'birther' conspiracy theory that Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to be VP because her parents were immigrants".
The Trump campaign's Senior Legal Advisor Jenna Ellis pushed a so-called 'birther' narrative Thursday that Kamala Harris isn't eligible to be vice president because her parents weren't citizens when she was born in Oakland, California.
'It's an open question, and one I think Harris should answer so the American people know for sure she is eligible,' Ellis told ABC News.
Ellis' views on the issue came to light after she retweeted a link to a 'birther' op-ed published on Newsweek's website Wednesday written by right-wing law professor John C. Eastman.
Eastman pointed to how Article 2 of the Constitution says only a 'natural born citizen' can serve as vice president and president, but suggests there's some interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause that could exclude someone in Harris' situation.
He also argued that while the modern view of citizenship includes every person born on American soil, that belief started after Harris was born in 1964. 'Indeed, the Supreme Court has that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen,' he also wrote.
Eastman had run as a Republican in 2010 for California attorney general, but lost his primary. Harris ultimately won the position as a Democrat.
Eastman's op-ed received tremendous backlash, with many pointing out that it echoed the conspiracy theory pushed by President Donald Trump and others during President Barack Obama's tenure.
Josh Chafetz, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, called Eastman's interpretation of eligibility as 'racist nonsense,' in a FactCheck.org post on the controversy.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Say what? Do you have any inkling of the history of immigration in this country?
For the first 100 years post-ratification what percentage of children do you expect were born of parents of foreign birth?
By your logic they couldn't be citizens and couldn't bear citizens.
it’s a question to be argued if for nothing else than clarity for the future when a 35yo Major in the PLA from China runs for President of the USA because he was tourism-birthed here.
Logic clearly is foreign to you. I guess you never heard of naturalization.
And by the way, you did not address any of my points. Coward.
Great point. Such an obomanation could be whisked away back to Commie land and raised by commies as a commie to the age of 21, then waltz back here, run for a step ladder of political positions until the age of 35 or so, then be elected president or VP on his pandering to voters, personality and good looks.
That is exactly the kind of thing the Founders were trying to prevent by adding the natural born Citizen requirement.
John Sidney McCain III was born at the Colon Hospital, located at Avenida Melendez and 2nd Street, Manzanillo Island, City of Colon, Republic of Panama. The time of birth on the birth certificate issued by Panama Railroad Company (which owned the Colon Hospital) was 5:25 PM and the day and date of birth was Saturday, August 29, 1936.
At the time of John Sidney McCain III’s birth he was born an alien. That was because at the time of his birth, viz., August 29, 1936, the terms of Revised Statute # 1933 did not apply to that location in the Republic of Panama, because the island of Manzanillo was under the jurisdiction of the United States, but external to the territory of the Canal Zone.
From:
https://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain.html?m=1
The early Naturalization Acts didn't address children born here (they assumed they were citizens).
Under your logic they had no path to citizenship since naturalization wasn't available.
And by the way, you did not address any of my points.
Your "points" are just assertions, such as saying the plain language of the 14th has been misinterpreted. I disagree.
One votes for the ticket, does one not?
We don’t vote separately for POTUS and VPOTUS.
So people that plan to “pull the lever” for the Democratic ticket at least in part because they are all jacked up to vote for Harris are being presented with a choice that violates Trump’s right to not be forced to compete with non-NBCs.
Do you seriously think he can’t show harm?
October 2020.
I guess you got the Chronovisor working again. Good man!
Which proves your in-eligibility argument is totally worthless. And useless. And ineffective. Barack Hussein served 2 full terms, without a peep from the powers that be.
Better to attack Kamala Harris on her vulnerable issues instead of wasting energy on useless issues.
Other than comments made in dicta they haven't. They need to but you need to get a case before them first.
Let him try it and let's see.
Yes I understand both would need to be citizens thats why this one is so egregious. What next born of foreigners on foreign soil?!
There's that little "fourteen Years a resident within the United States" requirement that you seem to be forgetting.
You have done a fine job of setting out the issue; although arguably, philosophy and "240 years of removal" are not relevant.
If it is not then obvious, there is a question for the USSC as to whether the State Department's 1968-ish view of the 14th Ad can effectively amend Art 2. (Interestingly, there was relatively speaking perhaps as much active leftist, anti-MAGA anarchy in the streets in 1968 as there is today.)
Since the 14th does not address the issue at all, it should not take 9 competent jurists much time to decide the matter. Perhaps most helpful is the fact the Constitution carefully distinguishes between "Natural Born Citizen" and "Citizen" in the same sentence.
Exactly. It is a subject that they don’t want to touch with a barge pole.
Anyone born with more than one nationality is not naturally an American.
Both parties want the Constitution changed without the hassle of amending it.
Precedent Obama was supposed to have settled it.
We should not let the Constitution go so easily.
Citizens of other countries are citizens of the world, not naturally Americans.
To be a Natural Born Citizen, one must be born in U.S. soil and both parents must be American citizens at the time of their birth.
That is birther B.S., but not citizenship law.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At 169 U.S. 688:
This sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law, as to each of the qualifications therein expressed—" born in the United States," "naturalized in the United States," and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof "—in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States. But it has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.The effect of the enactments conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of American parents has been defined, and the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion of the United States, notwithstanding alienage of parents, has been affirmed, in well considered opinions of the executive departments of the Government, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
At 169 U.S. 691:
"The child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father."The same principle on which such children are held by us to be citizens of the United States, and to be subject to duties to this country, applies to the children of American fathers born without the jurisdiction of the United States, and entitles the country within whose jurisdiction they are born to claim them as citizens and to subject them to duties to it.
"Such children are born to a double character: the citizenship of the father is that of the child, so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned, and within the jurisdiction of that country; but the child, from the circumstances of his birth, may acquire rights and owes another fealty besides that which attaches to the father." Opinions of the Executive Departments on Expatriation, Naturalization and Allegiance, (1873) 17, 18; U. S. Foreign Relations, 1873-74, pp. 1191, 1192.
At 169 U.S. 693-694:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. 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, 526; United States v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a; Ellesmere on Postnati, 63; 1 Hale P. C. 62; 4 Bl. Com. 74, 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.
- - - - - - - - - -
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html
8 FAM 300
(U) U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY
8 FAM 301
(U) U.S. CITIZENSHIP
8 FAM 301.1
(U) ACQUISITION BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(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.
The bogus birther blather was litigated to death in the Obama era.
A losing record of futility of 0-226.
https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%2520CASE%2520LIST.pdf
The BIRTHER SCORECARD lists all the cases, the result, and the result of any appeal. ALL cases were dismissed on pre-trial motions to dismiss. NONE even survived to a trial.
President Chester Arthur's father was an Irish citizen. Arthur was born in 1829 and his father was naturalized in 1843. It wasn't a problem for the past 177 years.
There is only DS/CIA disinformation that he was born in Kenya. We need to keep from taking hearsay as if was solid evidence, let alone conclusive proof.
Barry’s particulars have CIA written and scrubbed throughout. His (foster) mom, “gramps,” “Toot,” fake dad, and step dad all worked for the CIA, as did his later CIA handler, John O. Brennan.
Barry’s bio mom and sperm donor were prominent 13-families material. Awaleed bin Talal, whose family was beneficiaries of ARAMCO, related to AMOCO (think Rockefeller), recognized he could do a favor for himself and Barry’s bio dad’s family at the same time by fronting money for Punaho, Occidental and Haahvud. It was working for Alwaleed until Vegas and bin Salman made his move against corruption—with PDJT’s help.
Harris didn’t have such auspicious beginnings, getting her start by working on Wiliie’s staff. But the Dems’ implicit confidence that her non-natural-born status can be overcome literally reeks of Barry’s fingerprints.
The founders and even most politicians up through the first three fourths of the twentieth century would be aghast at the concept of anchor babies. Anchor babies are only improperly considered a citizen at birth because of the perversion of modern courts and politicians in treating the Constitution as a “living document” so that they can interpret it however they please. This anchor baby nonsense all started with Justice William J. Brennan’s footnote in Plyler v. Doe in 1982 and was pushed into high-gear USA-destruct-mode by the evil Ted Kennedy.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:
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. […]
Consider the following two unassailable points.
1) The text of Section 1 clearly states that it only applies to residents of a state. Illegal invaders or other temporary alien visitors and their spawn have no legal permanent residence in any state. They are trespassing aliens or are tourists, students, etc. whose legal permanent residence is in an alien land, not one of our states.
2) The subject of Section 1 is citizenship, so when considering jurisdiction, only political jurisdiction is relevant. The political jurisdiction of alien invaders, tourists, alien students and other temporary alien visitors and any spawn they might happen to drop is their home country. That is where they vote, and where they are citizens. The fact that they are subject to local criminal jurisdiction is irrelevant to questions of citizenship.
The Wong case holding applied only to aliens with permanent resident alien parents. Harris's parents were in the USA as temporary student visitors. Also, Wong's parents were prohibited by law from becoming citizens no matter how long they resided and worked in the USA. That may narrow the holding further. Most of what you quoted was irrelevant dicta, but nice try.
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.