The child always follows the allegiance of the father. http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/meaningofnaturalborn.html
Harris was born Oct. 20, 1964, and her father was a citizen of Jamaica at the time of her birth.
Specifically, Chapter 2 (entitled Citizenship) of the Jamaica Constitution, Section 3C states:
Every person born outside Jamaica shall become a citizen of Jamaica –
-
on the sixth day of August 1962, in the case of a person born before that date; or
-
on the date of his/her birth, in the case of a person born on or after the sixth day of August 1962,
if, at that date, his/her father or mother is a citizen of Jamaica by birth, descent, or
registration by virtue of marriage to a citizen of Jamaica.
This is often the general view. I (and others) consider this to be total bullshit.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1646&context=jcl
Why would we need "natural" in the wording? The Founders intended to mean someone who no statute made a US citizen, but who was naturally a citizen by birth.
Harris' parents were guests in this country when she was born. Not citizens. She might be American. But she is not Natural Born.
yes IIRC the supreme court has not really made it clear at all. There is a difference or should be a difference between native born and natural born. native is you were born here. but natural born means you have citizen parents even is you were born overseas. same thing with the anchor babies, that is total bullshit and arbitrary. just because some foreign even illegally here person give birth to you but on US soil that makes you an American? total bullshit. most other countries citizenship laws don't work like the US for good reason. On this point US citizenship laws are dumb and guarantee future problems (invasion by millions of enemy infiltrators loyal to foreign powers).
the whole point of the 'natural born' assuming by both parents as US citizens, is that the president would have no divided loyalties to foreign powers or at least distant as possible such as grandparents from some other country.
Our views are the same on this.
Salute.
That may be your view, but it is not backed by any kind of precedent or caselaw. Your interpretation would also mean that at least nine of our past US presidents were ‘ineligible’ for having foreign-born, foreign citizen parents.
So these nine Presidents had not a single parent who was American when they were born? Please name them.
Also, most caselaw made in the last one hundred years I consider to be complete horseshit written by Commies.
Firstly, that’s moving the goalposts. nowhere in any document or ruling does it say what you are claiming about one or both parents required to be citizens. You are in no way talking about law, but talking about what you wish was law.
Secondly, it is entirely your prerogative to ignore the last hundred years of caselaw, but that’s not the way the country works, or was supposed to work.
To be entirely honest, I find your disregard of the US Constitution and the supreme court to be quite… Liberal
My views stem from the Constitution and if I wasn't clear on the first post that "one parent must be a US citizen at the time of birth" then I will "clarify" it. No need to "move the goalposts".
Of course I mean that at least one parent must be an American at time of birth, and that the person must be born on US soil. The issue with "Natural Born" is what is meant by Natural Born. And the Founders had no concept of an "Anchor Baby". And neither should we. This interpretation of the 14th Amendment is perverted and wrong. The 14th Amendment was authored to be about Freed Slaves. Not whoever wanders onto our patch.
Kamala Harris is not Natural Born. For me she should have not been considered even a citizen, at birth.
And yes, it is my prerogative to disregard Commies telling us what the Constitution says. I agree. We are to interpret the Constitution as it is written, in an Originalist fashion. We are not to "evolve" our thinking or use modern language to interpret as we like.