Now's the time, frens - Harris is ineligible to run for President because her parents were not US citizens at the time of her birth. Spread it far and wide!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (201)
sorted by:
Doesn't matter at least according to the 14th, the anchor baby being born here means she's a fucking American Citizen. Yay for our dumbass laws that have never cleared that up.
But not a "natural born citizen," that is, one whose both parents were citizens at the time of birth. That is the qualification for President.
AI search saying her parents were naturalized before she was born..
I don't remember where, but I read an article with what's supposed to be her birth certificate, and neither of her parents were citizens of the USA
Where is that definition of "natural born citizen" coming from?
We both know this to be the case. Sadly, it will never be made clear until the SCOTUS makes it clear.
The requirement is to be a "natural-born citizen." This was a term of art in international law of the time. It is defined as a citizen whose parents were U.S. citizens at the time of birth. Being naturalized is inadequate. Being born within the U.S. territory by non-citizen parents is inadequate. It is parentage, not territory, that counts.
That is not the case since 1898.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen#:~:text=A%20natural%20born%20citizen%20refers,Wong%20Kim%20Ark%2C%20169%20US.
Seems pretty clear
You did not give a link to source your quote.
It seems to date prior to the 14th Amendment.
If it applied to Harris it would have applied in 2020 when she was VP.
The reference admits that the application of the term to presidential qualification is not settled. The term follows the definition appearing in "The Law of Nations" (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. This would have been well-known to the writers of the Constitution.
Wow. That sounds an awful lot like “anchor babies”!
I wonder if anyone has been pushing narratives to bring that concept to the forefront and potentially maybe challenge that case in court?
It doesn’t seem likely we’d ever see a long-standing court ruling that’s been used to affect law get called into question and overturned, though.
Yeah it may be White Hats will use her anchor baby status to overturn the terrible Wong decision.
It doesn’t matter the DemonKrats do whatever they please.,🤬🤬🤬
I think that part is indisputable - she was born as an American Citizen. But does that fit the definition of "natural born"? Which is a requirement for the office of President. Simply being a citizen is not enough.
Anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This is a legal definition.
We should not waste our time trying to pursue this. There are other ways.
Actually, this might be part of the gameplan to have the Supreme Court make a ruling on it to set precedent for when it’s time to expose the Kenyan.
oooh that would be nice.
Look up a few comments
u/#kek
There is no birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment.
None
and yet, that is what they use to do all of this shit with anchors.
Indeed the American Indians weren’t recognized as citizens until 1920s through Congressional law.
It was the Indian Citizenship act of 1924.
An Indian even sued the Feds for rejecting his right to vote and he was denied by the SCOTUS.
They cited the 'under the jurisdiction of' clause on the 14th, saying that he was under the jurisdiction of his tribal government, not the Federal govt.
For as much as black people whine about being oppressed, they were citizens before Indians were granted those rights.