Unless proven with court documents, at the time of Kamala’s birth, her parents were not U.S. citizens. They were foreign students. At the time of her birth, she was the daughter of non-citizens. This makes her an anchor baby. She is not eligible to hold the office of President.
(media.greatawakening.win)
💊 RED PILL 💊
I gave +1 for the research. I think the Great Awakening principle is that we are going back to Founding principles. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was a 14th Amendment citizenship case, and I think the direction of judicial philosophy we need to go back to includes natural law — The Law of Nations as written by Emer de Vattel, published in 1758. ”The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” ____The 14th Amendment did not alter this constitutional requirement which had a clear purpose as understood by the Founders when the Constitution for the United States of America. Vattel, “The Law of Nations” Book 1, chapter 19, section 212 ____ Link to online book: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/whatmore-the-law-of-nations-lf-ed
James Kent, author of “Commentaries on American Law” vol. 2 (pp. 18ff in pdf link) did not intend to exclude “of parents who are citizens” from his definition of natural-born citizenship, and neither did Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” volume 3, sections 211-213. Each author merely focussed on the aspect of the territory of birth, but their discussions do not imply that we should neglect Vattel and his complete definition. ____ Kent: https://lonang.com/wp-content/download/Kent-CommentariesVol-2.pdf. Key statement p. 22 The staute of 7 Ann., c. 5. was to the same general effect; but the staute of 4 Geo. II. c. 31. required only that the father should be a natural born subject at the birth of the child, and it applied to all children then born, or thereafter to be born. Under these statutes it has been held, [28] that to entitle a child born abroad to the rights of an English natural born subject, the father must be an English natural born subject, the father must be an English subject….” ____ Kamala is not a natural-born citizen, it appears based on Vattel and Kent.
Additional, Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries: on the Laws of England” p. 239 “ To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2, that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England; and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants.(a) But by several more modern statutes(b) these restrictions are still further taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers (or grandfathers by the father’s side) were natural-born subjects, are now deemed to be natural-born subjects themselves to all intents and purposes….” ____Difficulty: does the USA follow the Continent— Vattel (Swiss)— or English on this subject? Blackstone p. 239 The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects,15 and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.(c)16 ____ link http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2140/Blackstone_1387-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf. ____The Dissent in Wong Kim Ark knew that some Congressional promoters of the 14th Amendment intended to make it so birth on US soil would confer citizenship, but Chief Justice Melville Fuller and Justice John Marshall Harlan” did not agree with the majority opinion and some of the 14th Amendment promoters in Congress.