The requirements for Vice-President is the same as President. Nice try.
Also, they are posting on X that Harris doesn’t even qualify as an anchor baby, because her father was a Jamaican citizen at the time and that country has a strict citizenship law claiming the children of a Jamaican citizen are citizens of Jamaica. Parents were both on student visas in the US. Seen as temporary residence, not a principal residence.
A true anchor baby becomes a citizen by birth, but is still not eligible to be VP or President because parents are not citizens. To be a Natural Born Citizen is to have US citizen parents.
The fact that Jamaica may have automatically granted Jamaican citizenship to a child of Jamaicans living abroad does not negate that the person may also have another citizenship, including US citizenship.
Every country has their own laws on whether or not a person can hold citizenship in two or more countries. Jamaica accepts dual nationals. Persons interested in becoming citizens of Jamaica should first check to see if their country allows for dual nationality.
As it is, (kek) I think you are dead wrong on this issue, as any and all research that I can do on this even in a short time says that you're wrong.
The laws might be bad, and maybe need to be changed, but just asserting that she's disqualified from being president because her parents had Jamaican citizenship when she was born, aka "an anchor baby", and/or that she herself had Jamaican citizenship at her birth = she does not qualify as a natural born citizen, well, I can find NO basis for that claim in legal cases, SC content, the Constitution or elsewhere.
There is a reason why DJT is a president of law and order, and why law and order are important. Also, the founders set up the constitution so that the representatives of the People would be the ones creating law on behalf of the People. The fact that congress and the government have experienced infiltration and corruption doesn't mean we have to throw out the law.
It means we need to remove the corruption, and then change bad laws.
In my view, the "Harris is ineligible to be President" narrative is disinfo, promoted by clickbaiters who are NOT interested in the facts or research, but rather, in prompting people to react emotionally without really thinking and basing views on evidence. It's a distraction.
This case is quite different to the Obama one, as far as I can see, because there is evidence that Obama's actual citizenship by birth was faked.
The facts around Harris are not disputed. What is disputed is what "natural born citizen" means, and that, as far as I can see, is clear as far as law and precedent go.
There are far more productive and grounded issues to focus on, imo. Far better reasons why Harris isn't qualified to be President. She's eligible. Just not qualified.
The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen" and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its exact meaning.
All this stuff reeks of disinfo and distraction to me. Obama is a different case, because there is a fair amount of evidence that his citizenship was actually faked.
But Harris is different, and anyone asserting that "an 'anchor baby' = NOT a natural born citizen" is making an assertion, nothing more.
A natural born citizen refers to someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth, and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life. Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”1 All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
One tell tale sign that all this fluff about Harris being legally ineligible for the Presidency is disinfo and distraction is this:
"Make sure this is shared everywhere"
Seriously, anons. Sometimes I feel like this board has been dumbed down to marxist dumbness levels. We're better than this.
Okay, I went ahead and did some research into this. It's somewhat ambiguous and will likely need to be an issue taken to the Supreme Court. They need to definitely rule on if a "Naturally Born Citizen" includes those in this particular situation where they would be born with dual citizenship.
The reason WHY the framers made the requirement a "NATURAL BORN Citizen," and not merely a "citizen" was because the entire POINT was that Prez should have no dual allegiance.
The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual nationality is “a status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact that he [sic] asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other” (see Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 [1952] ).
The fact that the SC recognizes the validity of dual citizenship implies that the SC also thinks that dual citizenship does not specifically disqualify a natural born US citizen from being President.
A natural born citizen refers to someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth, and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life. Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
Looks like this is still very much in dispute. The arguments that a natural born citizen is one who is born of parents who are citizens, regardless of where they were born, and that simply being born in the US doesn't qualify one as being a "natural born" citizen, only in being a citizen.
This particular explanation makes the most sense to me, BUT I think it's noteworthy that there is wide dispute and/or disparity in views on the topic.
Thanks for this: Here is the argument in a nutshell with counter arguemnts to some of the common counters:
The True Definition
Given the significant reliance of the Founding Fathers on Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations for understanding and defining various legal and constitutional principles, it is reasonable to assert that Vattel’s definition of "natural born citizen" was the Founders' definition of the term.
Pre-Counters
Modern Legal Consensus: Legal consensus, even among scholars and judges, does not have the authority to change the original meaning of the Constitution. The true test of constitutionality lies in adherence to the original text and intent of the framers, not in contemporary consensus.
Judicial Precedent and Practice: Judicial decisions and precedents can be mistaken and do not override the original meaning of the Constitution. Historical examples, such as the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson, illustrate that the Supreme Court can err and be later corrected. The Constitution’s true meaning should remain steadfast, regardless of judicial misinterpretation.
Evolving Constitutional Interpretation: While the idea of a living Constitution allows for the application of its principles to contemporary issues, it should not permit changes to the meanings of its terms without formal amendment. This ensures that the Constitution is not subject to arbitrary reinterpretation, which could undermine its stability and integrity. Changes to the Constitution should be made through the formal amendment process as outlined in Article V.
Practical Considerations: Longstanding practices and societal acceptance do not confer constitutionality. Practices inconsistent with the original meaning should be corrected through the amendment process, not through gradual acceptance or reinterpretation.
Kamala Harris's Eligibility Under Originalist Interpretation
Based on this strict originalist interpretation, Kamala Harris, born to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth, would not qualify as a "natural born citizen" according to the definition understood by the Founding Fathers and Vattel’s work.
A large number of US lawmakers are dual-citizens (US and Israel) so good luck trying to get anywhere with an argument that Kamala's dual parents disqualify her.
A large number of government agencies are already making their own law interpretations so good luck trying to get anywhere with an argument that a government agency cant do that.
When we all have recently heard of the chevron doctrine being destroyed by the supreme court.
And just like the Chevron Doctrine scenario, this issue can be ruled on by the SC, and in the end remove all who violate the constitution in this regard. (if ruled unconstitutional)
Her parents being non citizen immigrants doesn't make her ineligible. If you believe this, please provide the evidence. US v. Wong Kim Ark doesn't make this case.
1. The Child Was Born in the U.S.: This is correct. The child must be born on U.S. soil to be considered for birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
2. Birth Parents Are Citizens of a Foreign Country: This is not entirely accurate in the context of the decision. The ruling in Wong Kim Ark affirmed that the child is a U.S. citizen regardless of the citizenship status of the parents, as long as the child is born in the U.S. and is subject to its jurisdiction. The parents’ citizenship status (foreign or otherwise) does not disqualify the child from U.S. citizenship.
what is ambitious is situations where the child is born with dual citizenship. This has never been ruled on, and would need the SC to rule on it.
Yep no problem. I'm sure it will be come to light. The writing has been on the wall for awhile about FJB and trump likely has plenty of dirt on all of them to play with.
Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence. Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after July 4, 1776.
Trumps mother was not a Natural Born Citizen:
Under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Birth parents are citizens of, and subject to the laws of, a foreign country*
This like for children of diplomats or some other statues where you are exempt from US jurisdiction. It doesn't apply to the vast majority of children born in the US.
Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence. Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after July 4, 1776.
Trumps mother was not a Natural Born Citizen:
Under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision ruled on this. Her parents were Chinese citizens and she was born in the USA and the court ruled in her favor. Not saying it cannot be overturned but that would take years. Only Congress can change this and that is not likely with a Democrat Senate and Democrat President!
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
“The Framers appear to have adopted the requirement that citizens be natural born citizens to ensure that the President’s loyalties would lie strictly with the United States. By barring naturalized citizens from the presidency, the requirement of being a natural born citizen, as Justice Story explained, protects the United States from ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elected monarchies of Europe.” Please see full article and explanation here https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/
Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence. Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after July 4, 1776.
Under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
So how was she allowed to be VP?
Because nobody challenged.
When lots of people challenged Barry in 2009, the judges were cowards and just dismissed all the cases without any evidence.
Wanna make the case for that? Or is this just an assumption on your part?
Obama's situation is quite different. The facts around Harris are not disputed, only the opinions.
The requirements for Vice-President is the same as President. Nice try.
Also, they are posting on X that Harris doesn’t even qualify as an anchor baby, because her father was a Jamaican citizen at the time and that country has a strict citizenship law claiming the children of a Jamaican citizen are citizens of Jamaica. Parents were both on student visas in the US. Seen as temporary residence, not a principal residence.
A true anchor baby becomes a citizen by birth, but is still not eligible to be VP or President because parents are not citizens. To be a Natural Born Citizen is to have US citizen parents.
Your welcome.
The USA allows dual citizenship.
https://au.usembassy.gov/dual-nationality/
The fact that Jamaica may have automatically granted Jamaican citizenship to a child of Jamaicans living abroad does not negate that the person may also have another citizenship, including US citizenship.
https://www.pica.gov.jm/citizenship/dual-citizenship
Do you even research, bro?
Thank you for the reply.
As it is, (kek) I think you are dead wrong on this issue, as any and all research that I can do on this even in a short time says that you're wrong.
The laws might be bad, and maybe need to be changed, but just asserting that she's disqualified from being president because her parents had Jamaican citizenship when she was born, aka "an anchor baby", and/or that she herself had Jamaican citizenship at her birth = she does not qualify as a natural born citizen, well, I can find NO basis for that claim in legal cases, SC content, the Constitution or elsewhere.
There is a reason why DJT is a president of law and order, and why law and order are important. Also, the founders set up the constitution so that the representatives of the People would be the ones creating law on behalf of the People. The fact that congress and the government have experienced infiltration and corruption doesn't mean we have to throw out the law.
It means we need to remove the corruption, and then change bad laws.
In my view, the "Harris is ineligible to be President" narrative is disinfo, promoted by clickbaiters who are NOT interested in the facts or research, but rather, in prompting people to react emotionally without really thinking and basing views on evidence. It's a distraction.
This case is quite different to the Obama one, as far as I can see, because there is evidence that Obama's actual citizenship by birth was faked.
The facts around Harris are not disputed. What is disputed is what "natural born citizen" means, and that, as far as I can see, is clear as far as law and precedent go.
There are far more productive and grounded issues to focus on, imo. Far better reasons why Harris isn't qualified to be President. She's eligible. Just not qualified.
Anchor baby is a political term, not a legal one.
Legally she is a natural born citizen and was eligible to be VP
Just as Nancy Pelosi signed a form that Obama was eligible, someone did the same for Kamala.
All this stuff reeks of disinfo and distraction to me. Obama is a different case, because there is a fair amount of evidence that his citizenship was actually faked.
But Harris is different, and anyone asserting that "an 'anchor baby' = NOT a natural born citizen" is making an assertion, nothing more.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen
One tell tale sign that all this fluff about Harris being legally ineligible for the Presidency is disinfo and distraction is this:
"Make sure this is shared everywhere"
Seriously, anons. Sometimes I feel like this board has been dumbed down to marxist dumbness levels. We're better than this.
What is the right time to play that card? Probably when the ballots can no longer be changed.
Oh, you mean the Trump Card?
After she is the official nominee, but also after it is too late for them to change.
A good time would be during the Trump-Harris debate.
Remember: Trump knows ALL ABOUT this law, which is why he was challenging Barry a few years ago.
Where exactly is that written? Sounds sketchy
Okay, I went ahead and did some research into this. It's somewhat ambiguous and will likely need to be an issue taken to the Supreme Court. They need to definitely rule on if a "Naturally Born Citizen" includes those in this particular situation where they would be born with dual citizenship.
The reason WHY the framers made the requirement a "NATURAL BORN Citizen," and not merely a "citizen" was because the entire POINT was that Prez should have no dual allegiance.
THANK YOU!!!! Tired of saying this.
Afaik, it was to protect the country from foreign influence, rather than more narrowly to ensure that potus has 'no dual allegiances'.
The Supreme Court appears to agree:
https://jp.usembassy.gov/services/dual-nationality/
The fact that the SC recognizes the validity of dual citizenship implies that the SC also thinks that dual citizenship does not specifically disqualify a natural born US citizen from being President.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen
Thank you for this insight.
Looks like this is still very much in dispute. The arguments that a natural born citizen is one who is born of parents who are citizens, regardless of where they were born, and that simply being born in the US doesn't qualify one as being a "natural born" citizen, only in being a citizen.
This particular explanation makes the most sense to me, BUT I think it's noteworthy that there is wide dispute and/or disparity in views on the topic.
This thread has been an education process for me.
Same
Sorry. I meant to include this clip (below) as the explanation that makes the most sense to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=h9PxdDvgQks
Thanks for this: Here is the argument in a nutshell with counter arguemnts to some of the common counters:
The True Definition
Pre-Counters
Modern Legal Consensus: Legal consensus, even among scholars and judges, does not have the authority to change the original meaning of the Constitution. The true test of constitutionality lies in adherence to the original text and intent of the framers, not in contemporary consensus.
Judicial Precedent and Practice: Judicial decisions and precedents can be mistaken and do not override the original meaning of the Constitution. Historical examples, such as the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson, illustrate that the Supreme Court can err and be later corrected. The Constitution’s true meaning should remain steadfast, regardless of judicial misinterpretation.
Evolving Constitutional Interpretation: While the idea of a living Constitution allows for the application of its principles to contemporary issues, it should not permit changes to the meanings of its terms without formal amendment. This ensures that the Constitution is not subject to arbitrary reinterpretation, which could undermine its stability and integrity. Changes to the Constitution should be made through the formal amendment process as outlined in Article V.
Practical Considerations: Longstanding practices and societal acceptance do not confer constitutionality. Practices inconsistent with the original meaning should be corrected through the amendment process, not through gradual acceptance or reinterpretation.
Kamala Harris's Eligibility Under Originalist Interpretation
A large number of US lawmakers are dual-citizens (US and Israel) so good luck trying to get anywhere with an argument that Kamala's dual parents disqualify her.
There are different requirements for being president vs being a congress person or governor.
Her parents being non citizen immigrants doesn't make her ineligible. If you believe this, please provide the evidence. US v. Wong Kim Ark doesn't make this case.
1. The Child Was Born in the U.S.: This is correct. The child must be born on U.S. soil to be considered for birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
2. Birth Parents Are Citizens of a Foreign Country: This is not entirely accurate in the context of the decision. The ruling in Wong Kim Ark affirmed that the child is a U.S. citizen regardless of the citizenship status of the parents, as long as the child is born in the U.S. and is subject to its jurisdiction. The parents’ citizenship status (foreign or otherwise) does not disqualify the child from U.S. citizenship.
what is ambitious is situations where the child is born with dual citizenship. This has never been ruled on, and would need the SC to rule on it.
Yep no problem. I'm sure it will be come to light. The writing has been on the wall for awhile about FJB and trump likely has plenty of dirt on all of them to play with.
Not quite correct as I see it:
Yes, but it was actually the first 7 presidents, not nine. George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson.
Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence. Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after July 4, 1776.
Trumps mother was not a Natural Born Citizen:
Under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Yep. Parents and spawn subject to jurisdiction of Jamaica, not the USA.
This like for children of diplomats or some other statues where you are exempt from US jurisdiction. It doesn't apply to the vast majority of children born in the US.
So this becomes the only factor for citizenship
Please try and not lead people down the wrong path.
Yes, but it was actually the first 7 presidents, not nine. George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson.
Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence. Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after July 4, 1776.
Trumps mother was not a Natural Born Citizen:
Under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Wong Kim Ark case is not relevant here.
Although the court used the term "natural born citizen," that was NOT the issue before the court.
Wong was not running for POTUS.
The issure regarding POTUS will have to be tried in the SCOTUS.
It never has, so far.
Everyone knew about Obama and it didn't matter
Perhaps Chevron will make this right.
Perhaps the DHS, ICE etc will be included in the three letter tax sucks.
They gonna do what they can get away with. We let Obama get away with it, why not kamala? We are not living by the rules anymore
If they let her be VP, what would stand in the way of President? Nothing, they DO NOT CARE.
She looks to be 1/1024th Cherokee...
She was raised in Canada. Not American at all.
Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision ruled on this. Her parents were Chinese citizens and she was born in the USA and the court ruled in her favor. Not saying it cannot be overturned but that would take years. Only Congress can change this and that is not likely with a Democrat Senate and Democrat President!
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Much to my disappointment, the POS Kamala is eligible to be president.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution establishes that people who are “born or naturalized” in the United States are citizens. Children who are born in the United States are entitled to United States citizenship, regardless of the nationality of their parents, or their immigration status. See https://citizenpath.com/citizenship-through-parents/#:~:text=The%2014th%20Amendment%20to%20the,parents%2C%20or%20their%20immigration%20status.
“The Framers appear to have adopted the requirement that citizens be natural born citizens to ensure that the President’s loyalties would lie strictly with the United States. By barring naturalized citizens from the presidency, the requirement of being a natural born citizen, as Justice Story explained, protects the United States from ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elected monarchies of Europe.” Please see full article and explanation here https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/
I beg to differ:
Yes, but it was actually the first 7 presidents, not nine. George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson.
Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence. Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after July 4, 1776.
Under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Let’s also never forget she has ancestors who owned slaves.
Don't hang your hat on this. She was made VP which has the same requirements and no one said shit or stopped her. Why would they now?