One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Who Is a “Natural Born” Citizen? --
Page 1 of 2 next>
Nov 22, 2022 22:13:16   #
thebigp
 
THE QUESTION OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP. by Steve Byas--JBS
Many today claim that any person born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen. Is this what the Founders, and the authors of the 14th Amendment, intended?
Vice President Kamala Harris is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is thus ineligible to ever serve as president of the United States, or even to continue in office as vice president. That is the contention of a lawsuit filed in federal court in California by the Constitution Association, Inc. and presently under review by that court. Regardless of the outcome of that case, it is almost certain that the losers will appeal, and because of its importance, it will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case was filed while Harris was a candidate for vice president, with the argument in the brief with the court asserting that “at the time of the birth of [Kamala] Harris, the Father of Harris was in the United States as a temporary visitor on a student visa and was not otherwise a lawful permanent resident, and was not, and never has been a citizen of the United States.” The Constitution Association (CA) further argues that Harris’ mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a “citizen of India at the time of the birth of Harris, the mother of Harris was in the United States as a temporary visitor on a student visa and was not otherwise a lawful permanent resident, and was not a citizen of the United States, however, many years after the birth of Harris, the mother of Harris did apply and was granted United States citizenship.”
Who Is a “Natural Born Citizen”? What does the Constitution itself say regarding the requirements to be president or vice president? Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, states:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Steve Byas is a university professor of history and government and the author of History’s Greatest Libels. AP Images the Question of Birthright Citizenship Eligible? Is Vice President Kamala Harris constitutionally eligible to serve in her current position or as president? www.TheNewAmerican.com 35
One can safely assume that if Native Americans were excluded from citizenship because they were not under the jurisdiction of the United States, despite their families being on American soil for several generations, a person born of parents physically present in the United States on a student visa would not be considered a citizen, either.
In its court filing, CA noted that there is considerable “confusion” over the meaning of “natural born citizen,” and that the Supreme Court has never adjudicated the question. Rather than meet CA with constitutional arguments, opponents of the lawsuit have chosen to charge the plaintiffs with r****m and of being “conspiracy theorists.” The plaintiffs argue that the Constitution requires the president of the United States (or the vice president, by extension) to be a “natural-born citizen.” While the Framers of the Constitution did not define “natural-born citizen,” the plaintiffs note that they “clearly required different levels of allegiance” for president and vice president than they required for holding office in the House of Representatives (a minimum of seven years as a U.S. citizen), or in the Senate (a minimum of nine years as a U.S. citizen). There is no natural-born citizen requirement in the Constitution to hold office in either house of Congress, but there is for president or vice president.
They quote famed 19thcentury Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution that the natural-born citizen requirement “cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for office; and interprets a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments.”
There is little doubt as to why the Framers inserted the requirement of being a naturalborn citizen into the Constitution, rather than just any sort of citizen, such as a “naturalized” citizen — a person who is a foreigner who goes through a process to become a citizen of the United States. They wanted there to be no doubt as to the undivided loyalty to the United States of the chief executive of the U.S. government — the president — who serves as the commander in chief of all armed forces of the country.
Often passed over in this consideration is the additional requirement that a person have resided in the United States for at least 14 years before being eligible to serve as president. In short, a person could be a natural-born citizen of the United States, but if he had lived little of his life inside the borders of the country, he may have become divided in his loyalties. The requirement that a person be a natural-born citizen is not intended as a slight to naturalized citizens — many of whom are excellent citizens. The purpose of the requirement that a person be natural-born and have lived in America for at least 14 years is to decrease the chances that a person serving as president would put loyalty to any other country above that of the United States.
Over the course of American history, the issue of whether a person is a natural-born citizen, and is therefore qualified to serve as president (or vice president) of the United States, has arisen. For example, Chester Alan Arthur was elected vice president in 1880, on a Republican Party ticket led by James Garfield. Since Arthur’s father was a traveling Free Will Baptist minister who often crossed the border into Canada to preach, it was uncertain if Chester Arthur was born on the soil of the United States or was born in Canada, while his father was preaching there. In the end, the matter was dropped.
Another instance that this question arose involved Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the Republican nominee for president in 1964, who was born in Arizona while it was still a territory, not a state. But U.S. territories have always been recognized as part of the United States, and both of Goldwater’s parents were U.S. citizens. Mitt Romney’s father, George, was born in Mexico while his parents were Mormon missionaries there, and John McCain was born while his father was stationed in the Panama Canal Zone.
But, in all of these cases, it was held that clearly both parents of these men were U.S. citizens. Historically, citizenship has been a matter of who one’s parents are (especially the father), not The author: Senator Jacob Howard (R-Mich.) authored the “Citizenship Clause” of the 14th Amendment. He argued for including the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” One can safely assume that if Native Americans were excluded from citizenship because they were not under the jurisdiction of the United States, despite their families being on American soil for several generations, a person born of parents physically present in the United States on a student visa would not be considered a citizen, either. where one was born. Bible readers might recall that the Apostle Paul was a Roman citizen because his father was a Roman citizen, not because he happened to be born inside the Roman Empire.
The intent of the Founders was not to diss those who would come to the United States from other places on the globe. They specifically expected that would happen. Their concern was the fragility of liberty in world history, and they desired that the chief executive of the government — who would be in command of the armed forces of the country — be unquestionably loyal to the United States. While it would not ensure such loyalty, a person who was a citizen at birth would be less likely to be infected with the political doctrines of the Old World — the Old World from which Americans had seceded in 1776.
It is clear that the Founders intended that a person who would become president or vice president be a citizen at birth, and not a naturalized citizen. But is a person automatically a citizen just because he or she is born on U.S. soil? In other words, if foreign nationals have a child in the United States, is that child a U.S. citizen? This is the real issue of whether or not politicians such as Kamala Harris are actually eligible for the office of the presidency. Many Americans today believe in the doctrine of birthright citizenship — the idea that being born in America automatically confers citizenship. But is this what the Founders intended?
The 14th Amendment and “Birthright Citizenship” The 14th Amendment, adopted on July 9, 1868, is often cited as making someone a U.S. citizen simply because that person happens to be born on U.S. soil — i.e., “birthright citizenship.” Actually, the 14th Amendment says no such thing. It requires that a person be born under the jurisdiction of the United States in order to be a U.S. citizen at birth. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
When interpreting any amendment to the Constitution, one should read it in its historical context. Each amendment was added to the Constitution to address some perceived problem that had arisen since the adoption and ratification of the original language in 1789. The 14th Amendment is no exception. With the abolition of s***ery (via the 13th Amendment), the legal status of millions of former s***es was a serious question, specifically their citizenship status, along with all of the legal rights they would have if they were citizens.
The 1857 Dred Scott ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court had held that s***es could not be citizens of the United States. Considering that a person was considered a citizen if one’s parents were citizens (this is how most countries in world history have determined citizenship), none of the former s***es could be considered citizens. To address this problem, Congress initially enacted the 1866 Civil Rights Act to make all former s***es’ citizens of the United States, allowing them to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship, such as legal rights. But concern over the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, combined with the fear that a future Congress might opt to repeal the law, led to the adoption of the 14th Amendment.
To accomplish their purposes, the amendment’s authors decided that any person born in the United States, and not subject to the jurisdiction of any other country, would be a citizen at birth. This would be in addition to those who gained birthright citizenship by having parents who were U.S. citizens. One could make the argument that this amendment is now superfluous, as all persons it applied to in the 1860s are now dead. After all, the minor children of naturalized citizens become naturalized citizens themselves when their parents’ become citizens. The authors of the 14th Amendment did not, however, intend to make the children of foreign diplomats, tourists, and those here on student visas citizens simply by virtue of having been born on U.S. soil.
Regarding American Indians, the amendment’s authors maintained that they could not be citizens at birth, because they were not under the jurisdiction of the United States, but rather were subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal Making them citizens: The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenhsip to former s***es — they were born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. It was never meant to apply to every person born on U.S. soil, no matter the nationality of the parents. Of course, many became citizens via naturalization, or later laws passed by Congress.)
In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on this very issue in the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins case. John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born and raised on an Indian reservation but later left to live with w****s and renounced his tribal allegiance. Upon registering to v**e on April 5, 1880, he was denied by City of Omaha fifth ward registrar Charles Wilkins. Wilkins’ reasoning for refusing Elk’s registration was that Elk was born on an Indian reservation, and thus was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States — and not a U.S. citizen. He would have to be naturalized. The Supreme Court ruled in Wilkins’ favor, i.e., that Elk was not a U.S. citizen. According to the Court:
The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly s***es or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306. This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
One can safely assume that if Native Americans were excluded from citizenship because they were not under the jurisdiction of the United States, despite their families being on American soil for several generations, a person born of parents physically present in the United States on a student visa would not be considered a citizen, either. If American Indians in the 19th century were not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, then how could people from Europe or elsewhere meet this requirement? The short answer is that they can

Reply
Nov 22, 2022 22:44:38   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
If she was removed the Democrats would insist i***t Joe not run in 2024.

Reply
Nov 23, 2022 01:23:57   #
robertv3
 
I read approximately the first half of the Original Post.

Kamala Harris was born in the U.S. That's basically all there is to it.

She was not born someplace else.

Has anyone attempted to argue that her birth wasn't "natural"?

I think almost all the argument (in the first half of the Original Post, and probably all of the Original Post) is silly. There is one part I noticed that might be interesting: the part about the Native Americans. That Native Americans were not regarded as U.S. citizens, and the reason or reasons they were not regarded as U.S. citizens, doesn't have much to do with Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris was born here and grew up here and was already experienced working in law here before she became Vice President. The part about Native Americans is _interesting_ but not because it has anything to do with Kamala Harris.

If the Founders or the Constitution wanted to specify requirements about the PARENTS of an applicant to office, then they or it could have said so! What they said was about where the applicant to office was born, and that's all there is to it, and it's just devious or silly to try to make it more complicated than that.

I _wish_ the _Founders_ and the _Constitution_ had specified something about experience or knowledge as a requirement for holding high office! Then we wouldn't have to endure a president who never had experience working in the government and might not even pass a basic civics comprehension test. I hope you understand which president I'm talking about (it isn't the current one, obviously). It's Trump. I care relatively less about where he was _born_. And I do find his loyalties questionable. A lot of the original post's logic was about loyalty.

Similarly I wish the Constitution said something that would preclude a Mitch McConnell from denying a Supreme Court nominee even a confirmation hearing -- a confirmation hearing such that there could be a normal v**e about the nominee. But instead of trying to foresee and outlaw all the tricks and loopholes that politicians (such as McConnell) can think up, the Founders and the Constitution had to assume some modicum of decency, or "virtue" similar to what's described here: "What the Founders meant by ‘virtue,’ and how it could save our politics now": https://www.penncapital-star.com/commentary/what-the-founders-meant-by-virtue-and-how-it-could-save-our-politics-now-friday-morning-coffee/

I think it has been left up to the v**ers to exercise judgment in v****g for candidates of such kind of virtue. Unfortunately, because of the e*******l college and gerrymandering and v**er-suppression, it takes about two-thirds of the v****g citizens to get an actual virtuous candidate elected these days (by v****g in such numbers as to overcome the unfairnesses of the e*******l college and gerrymandering and v**er-suppression), even though many people think it happens by a simple majority v**e, which nominally it would be (according to most people's understanding of what kind of government we're supposed to have: a "democracy" with wins by getting more v**es than an opposing candidate gets).

Reply
 
 
Nov 23, 2022 01:33:01   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
You were almost sounding sensible for a minute, but you couldn’t walk away from the dumbass talking points. Please tell us the virtue of Biden or Harris. The redrawing of districts is done by both sides and is legal. I guess you’re o.k. When your side does it. V**er suppression. What a typical wussy complaint. Citizens in other countries have been known to walk through mine fields to v**e. So standing in line or getting an I.D. Is too tough for democrat pussies? You make me sick.

robertv3 wrote:
I read approximately the first half of the Original Post.

Kamala Harris was born in the U.S. That's basically all there is to it.

She was not born someplace else.

Has anyone attempted to argue that her birth wasn't "natural"?

I think almost all the argument (in the first half of the Original Post, and probably all of the Original Post) is silly. There is one part I noticed that might be interesting: the part about the Native Americans. That Native Americans were not regarded as U.S. citizens, and the reason or reasons they were not regarded as U.S. citizens, doesn't have much to do with Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris was born here and grew up here and was already experienced working in law here before she became Vice President. The part about Native Americans is _interesting_ but not because it has anything to do with Kamala Harris. If the Founders or the Constitution wanted to specify requirements about the PARENTS of an applicant to office, then they or it could have said so! What they said was about where the applicant to office was born, and that's all there is to it, and it's just devious or silly to try to make it more complicated than that.

I _wish_ the _Founders_ and the _Constitution_ had specified something about experience or knowledge as a requirement for holding high office! Then we wouldn't have to endure a president who never had experience working in the government and might not even pass a basic civics comprehension test. I hope you understand which president I'm talking about (it isn't the current one, obviously). It's Trump. I care relatively less about where he was _born_. And I do find his loyalties questionable. A lot of the original post's logic was about loyalty.

Similarly I wish the Constitution said something that would preclude a Mitch McConnell from denying a Supreme Court nominee even a confirmation hearing -- a confirmation hearing such that there could be a normal v**e about the nominee. But instead of trying to foresee and outlaw all the tricks and loopholes that politicians (such as McConnell) can think up, the Founders and the Constitution had to assume some modicum of decency, or "virtue" similar to what's described here: "What the Founders meant by ‘virtue,’ and how it could save our politics now": https://www.penncapital-star.com/commentary/what-the-founders-meant-by-virtue-and-how-it-could-save-our-politics-now-friday-morning-coffee/

I think it has been left up to the v**ers to exercise judgment in v****g for candidates of such kind of virtue. Unfortunately, because of the e*******l college and gerrymandering and v**er-suppression, it takes about two-thirds of the v****g citizens to get an actual virtuous candidate elected these days (by v****g in such numbers as to overcome the unfairnesses of the e*******l college and gerrymandering and v**er-suppression), even though many people think it happens by a simple majority v**e, which nominally it would be.
I read approximately the first half of the Origina... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 23, 2022 01:41:00   #
robertv3
 
JFlorio wrote:
You were almost sounding sensible for a minute, but you couldn’t walk away from the dumbass talking points. Please tell us the virtue of Biden or Harris.


Neither one of them publicly insult a lot of people the way Trump did. And both of them behave reasonably because they're not too proud to cooperate with other experienced people in government (unlike Trump, who was uncooperative and impetuously went against his advisors' advice too often and too much).

That's some virtues right there.

JFlorio wrote:

The redrawing of districts is done by both sides and is legal. I guess you’re o.k. When your side does it. V**er suppression. What a typical wussy complaint. Citizens in other countries have been known to walk through mine fields to v**e. So standing in line or getting an I.D. Is too tough for democrat pussies? You make me sick.


That's okay (you being sick).

Reply
Nov 23, 2022 07:54:48   #
American Vet
 
robertv3 wrote:
I read approximately the first half of the Original Post.

Kamala Harris was born in the U.S. That's basically all there is to it.

She was not born someplace else.

Has anyone attempted to argue that her birth wasn't "natural"?

I think almost all the argument (in the first half of the Original Post, and probably all of the Original Post) is silly. There is one part I noticed that might be interesting: the part about the Native Americans. That Native Americans were not regarded as U.S. citizens, and the reason or reasons they were not regarded as U.S. citizens, doesn't have much to do with Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris was born here and grew up here and was already experienced working in law here before she became Vice President. The part about Native Americans is _interesting_ but not because it has anything to do with Kamala Harris.

If the Founders or the Constitution wanted to specify requirements about the PARENTS of an applicant to office, then they or it could have said so! What they said was about where the applicant to office was born, and that's all there is to it, and it's just devious or silly to try to make it more complicated than that.

I _wish_ the _Founders_ and the _Constitution_ had specified something about experience or knowledge as a requirement for holding high office! Then we wouldn't have to endure a president who never had experience working in the government and might not even pass a basic civics comprehension test. I hope you understand which president I'm talking about (it isn't the current one, obviously). It's Trump. I care relatively less about where he was _born_. And I do find his loyalties questionable. A lot of the original post's logic was about loyalty.

Similarly I wish the Constitution said something that would preclude a Mitch McConnell from denying a Supreme Court nominee even a confirmation hearing -- a confirmation hearing such that there could be a normal v**e about the nominee. But instead of trying to foresee and outlaw all the tricks and loopholes that politicians (such as McConnell) can think up, the Founders and the Constitution had to assume some modicum of decency, or "virtue" similar to what's described here: "What the Founders meant by ‘virtue,’ and how it could save our politics now": https://www.penncapital-star.com/commentary/what-the-founders-meant-by-virtue-and-how-it-could-save-our-politics-now-friday-morning-coffee/

I think it has been left up to the v**ers to exercise judgment in v****g for candidates of such kind of virtue. Unfortunately, because of the e*******l college and gerrymandering and v**er-suppression, it takes about two-thirds of the v****g citizens to get an actual virtuous candidate elected these days (by v****g in such numbers as to overcome the unfairnesses of the e*******l college and gerrymandering and v**er-suppression), even though many people think it happens by a simple majority v**e, which nominally it would be (according to most people's understanding of what kind of government we're supposed to have: a "democracy" with wins by getting more v**es than an opposing candidate gets).
I read approximately the first half of the Origina... (show quote)


ELWNJ rant from a mental defective.

Reply
Nov 23, 2022 07:56:53   #
American Vet
 
robertv3 wrote:
That's some virtues right there.


Here are more FJB biden 'virtues': Care to talk about them?

Unprecedented inflation rates (just “temporary”)
Southern border crisis – flooded with i*****l a***ns and f******l
Sending billions to Iran
Afghan debacle – leaving American allies and equipment to the Taliban
Return to energy dependence – having to beg the Saudi’s to produce more
Sending our oil reserves to China
Crime surge
War on parents
Crazy l*****t policies (“birthing people”)
Pathetic foreign policy – weapons sent to Ukraine ending up on the black market
Wanted to have a “Ministry of T***h”
Looks for dead Congress critters

Reply
 
 
Nov 23, 2022 08:43:04   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
robertv3 wrote:
That's okay (you being sick).


Typical progressive answer. Could not debate my points. Do you even know what virtuous means? Having high moral standards. Biden and Harris? Your bar has been set at ground level. Don't default to Trump either. I've never said he was virtuous.

Reply
Nov 23, 2022 08:44:22   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
American Vet wrote:
Here are more FJB biden 'virtues': Care to talk about them?

Unprecedented inflation rates (just “temporary”)
Southern border crisis – flooded with i*****l a***ns and f******l
Sending billions to Iran
Afghan debacle – leaving American allies and equipment to the Taliban
Return to energy dependence – having to beg the Saudi’s to produce more
Sending our oil reserves to China
Crime surge
War on parents
Crazy l*****t policies (“birthing people”)
Pathetic foreign policy – weapons sent to Ukraine ending up on the black market
Wanted to have a “Ministry of T***h”
Looks for dead Congress critters
Here are more FJB biden 'virtues': Care to talk ab... (show quote)


They can't debate the points made so they always default to Trump. We need some smarter progressives if there is such a thing.

Reply
Nov 23, 2022 09:18:01   #
American Vet
 
JFlorio wrote:
They can't debate the points made so they always default to Trump. We need some smarter progressives if there is such a thing.


LOL - Yep: The 'progressives' seem to be long on rhetoric but short on facts and common sense.


Reply
Nov 23, 2022 13:12:56   #
Radiance3
 
I had brought Kamala Harris a number of times on this issue. She could not be considered a Natural born citizen. She was chosen by Barack Obama to be the VP for her race and for her g****r. They want a black woman as VP.

But Kamala Harris born in California when her two parents were both on Student Visas. They were not permanent residence. Her mother was an Indian citizenship and her father was from Jamaica. Therefore Kamala is not a natural born, though born in the US. If that demented and liar Biden is impeached, I don't want Kamala take over. She was not a natural born. I think the first one to be impeached must be Kamala, for dereliction of her duties. She was assigned as Border Czar but she never considered even going right into the border to check the problems going on there. She has done nothing, an embarrassment every time she goes on abroad. All she does is cackle and giggle like an "h".

Other comments:
The fact that Senator Kamala Harris has just been named the vice p**********l running mate for presumptive Democratic p**********l nominee Joe Biden has some questioning her eligibility for the position. The 12th Amendment provides that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." And Article II of the Constitution specifies that "(n)o person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of President." Her father was (and is) a Jamaican national, her mother was from India, and neither was a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of Harris' birth in 1964. That, according to these commentators, makes her not a "natural born citizen"—and therefore ineligible for the office of the president and, hence, ineligible for the office of the vice president.

Barack Obama has questionable citizenship as well. Massive reports indicate he was born in Kenya. His grandma and brother testified that. He also admitted he was born in Kenya.
His BC proves that he was born in Kenya.



Reply
 
 
Nov 23, 2022 13:57:32   #
JuristBooks Loc: North Carolina
 
A good attempt at showing ‘why’ Kamala is Not eligible to hold her office, nor office as president.
You cite her foreign birth parents. That’s essentially all the facts you need .
As regards the 14th amendment and ‘being born within the jurisdiction of the United States,’ I believe the precise definition of “within the United States” means inside the District of Columbia.
Take the mile by mile ‘Walking Tour’ around D.C.
Notice the stone ( or metal) BOUNDARY MONUMENTS every mile. Standing inside DC it reads “Jurisdiction of the United States.”
Look on the other side. It reads Jurisdiction of Maryland, or Jurisdiction of Virginia.”
1) the little 10 square miles of DC IS THE UNITED STATES of America.
2) that is ‘why’ 99 percent of all Americans are Citizens of a state of the Union. Which is a fact, and the lawful reason there are so few U.S. citizens. Very distinct from United States citizens, from inside/ within DC
3) that will be all the facts needed to get rid of Kamala.
4) the fee for todays civics lesson will be either 3 years food storage from My Patriot Supply, or Mountain House,
Or 10,000 rounds of Match .22 LR ammo.

Thank you and have a great Thanksgiving.

Reply
Nov 23, 2022 14:45:54   #
Radiance3
 
JuristBooks wrote:
A good attempt at showing ‘why’ Kamala is Not eligible to hold her office, nor office as president.
You cite her foreign birth parents. That’s essentially all the facts you need .
As regards the 14th amendment and ‘being born within the jurisdiction of the United States,’ I believe the precise definition of “within the United States” means inside the District of Columbia.
Take the mile by mile ‘Walking Tour’ around D.C.
Notice the stone ( or metal) BOUNDARY MONUMENTS every mile. Standing inside DC it reads “Jurisdiction of the United States.”
Look on the other side. It reads Jurisdiction of Maryland, or Jurisdiction of Virginia.”
1) the little 10 square miles of DC IS THE UNITED STATES of America.
2) that is ‘why’ 99 percent of all Americans are Citizens of a state of the Union. Which is a fact, and the lawful reason there are so few U.S. citizens. Very distinct from United States citizens, from inside/ within DC
3) that will be all the facts needed to get rid of Kamala.
4) the fee for todays civics lesson will be either 3 years food storage from My Patriot Supply, or Mountain House,
Or 10,000 rounds of Match .22 LR ammo.

Thank you and have a great Thanksgiving.
A good attempt at showing ‘why’ Kamala is Not elig... (show quote)

===================
Within the United States includes the US territory. So Senator McCain could be president even if he was born the Panama Canal under the US Army territory. McCain is a natural born.

Reply
Nov 23, 2022 14:47:08   #
Big Kahuna
 
robertv3 wrote:
I read approximately the first half of the Original Post.

Kamala Harris was born in the U.S. That's basically all there is to it.

She was not born someplace else.

Has anyone attempted to argue that her birth wasn't "natural"?

I think almost all the argument (in the first half of the Original Post, and probably all of the Original Post) is silly. There is one part I noticed that might be interesting: the part about the Native Americans. That Native Americans were not regarded as U.S. citizens, and the reason or reasons they were not regarded as U.S. citizens, doesn't have much to do with Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris was born here and grew up here and was already experienced working in law here before she became Vice President. The part about Native Americans is _interesting_ but not because it has anything to do with Kamala Harris.

If the Founders or the Constitution wanted to specify requirements about the PARENTS of an applicant to office, then they or it could have said so! What they said was about where the applicant to office was born, and that's all there is to it, and it's just devious or silly to try to make it more complicated than that.

I _wish_ the _Founders_ and the _Constitution_ had specified something about experience or knowledge as a requirement for holding high office! Then we wouldn't have to endure a president who never had experience working in the government and might not even pass a basic civics comprehension test. I hope you understand which president I'm talking about (it isn't the current one, obviously). It's Trump. I care relatively less about where he was _born_. And I do find his loyalties questionable. A lot of the original post's logic was about loyalty.

Similarly I wish the Constitution said something that would preclude a Mitch McConnell from denying a Supreme Court nominee even a confirmation hearing -- a confirmation hearing such that there could be a normal v**e about the nominee. But instead of trying to foresee and outlaw all the tricks and loopholes that politicians (such as McConnell) can think up, the Founders and the Constitution had to assume some modicum of decency, or "virtue" similar to what's described here: "What the Founders meant by ‘virtue,’ and how it could save our politics now": https://www.penncapital-star.com/commentary/what-the-founders-meant-by-virtue-and-how-it-could-save-our-politics-now-friday-morning-coffee/

I think it has been left up to the v**ers to exercise judgment in v****g for candidates of such kind of virtue. Unfortunately, because of the e*******l college and gerrymandering and v**er-suppression, it takes about two-thirds of the v****g citizens to get an actual virtuous candidate elected these days (by v****g in such numbers as to overcome the unfairnesses of the e*******l college and gerrymandering and v**er-suppression), even though many people think it happens by a simple majority v**e, which nominally it would be (according to most people's understanding of what kind of government we're supposed to have: a "democracy" with wins by getting more v**es than an opposing candidate gets).
I read approximately the first half of the Origina... (show quote)


Quit whining, you got an illegal e******n s***ling dumb a$$ president residing in his make shift White House now. What more do you want other than an illegal Kenyan born president who is now running an illegal 3rd term.

Reply
Nov 23, 2022 16:25:08   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
I have written extensively on this subject. The rule is that if one parent is a US citizen, the child is considered a US citizen, no matter where they are born.
As to birth citizenship for the children of foreigners, the court has not ruled specifically on anything except that the children of permanent legal residents who are born here are citizens. A permanent legal resident is almost a citizen, and is a foreign national who can actually v**e here.
If "all persons born or naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were citizens, then Elk would have won his case, and there would have been no need for the Indian Citizenship Act of 1925, granting full citizenship to Indians who were born here of parents who were born here.
I******s cannot v**e (mostly) cannot serve in the US military with few exceptions, cannot receive citizen benefits, and cannot be tried for treason. The fact that they must obey the laws is not "subject to the complete jurisdiction."

The origins of this language are a bit hazy, but it must be recalled that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to correct the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857) and recognize citizenship for the newly-freed s***es (but not members of Indian tribes living on reservations). The language of the Citizenship Clause derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by the same legislators (the 39th Congress) who framed the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” (Emphasis added.) Foreign nationals resident in the United States, and children who become citizens of a foreign country at birth (by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) would obviously be excluded from this definition.

Granted, the language of the Citizenship Clause deviates slightly from that of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but there is no compelling evidence that the 39th Congress intended a different meaning. In fact, the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), stated that its language “is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” explaining that “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

The record of the debate in 1866 is illuminating. When Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, he responded: “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.”

There you have it. The actual words of the men who wrote the Amendment, and the meaning of the Amendment in 1868 when it was v**ed on and ratified. Attempts to justify "birth citizenship" simply because the mama gave birth on US soil is not grounds for citizenship as intended by the authors of the Amendment.

https://lawliberty.org/what-did-the-14th-amendment-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/civil-rights-act-of-1866-april-9-1866-an-act-to-protect-all-persons-in-the-united-states-in-their-civil-rights-an

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.