Correct, for once the X context is wrong. Harris must be an NBC to qualify, but since she is a dual citizen at birth by virtue of her parents she is not an NBC. That's the definition from The Law of Nations. Obama was also a dual citizen at birth, his campaign essentially admitted so.
Trump released his birth certificate in 2011 IIRC. His parents were both American citizens at his birth. Now Chester Arthur was a dual citizen at birth (Irish-American) but we can't fix that easily now.
Yes, Mary MacLeod Trump was naturalized 1942-03-10 and thus unqualified for the presidency; Donald was born 1946-06-14, so he had natural born citizenship at birth because no dual citizenship.
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.
I’m not sure how this would work. To be vice president you also need to be a natural born citizen and yet she holds the office. How would there be any sort of standing in court? It would be immediately thrown out.
There is a thread posted here yesterday that touched on what exactly the forefathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson, were citing when referencing natural born citizen.
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.
I know you knew this, and just made a typo, and it's pissing you off to high heaven lol.
Trumps mother was not a Natural Born Citizen:
I said nothing about a Natural Born Citizen being a person whose parents were also Natural Born Citizens. That a person be a Natural Born Citizen only required that that person's parents be Citizens. And this consideration of parentage was Paternal, not Maternal.
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”.
There is no birthright citizenship in the Constitution.
None.
If you say there is, then why were Indians denied the right to vote until at least 1924 when the Indian Citizenship act passed and much later as each state granted Indians the right to vote?
Could that be because of the fact that Indian Nations are considered not a State of the US but rather sovereign states dependent on and outside of the US?
We are talking the corporation here.
I guess this will be settled when, what Douglas Macgregor indicates, a new republic will/must be established with the bill of Rights as the cornerstone. After all, the Corporation is a thing of the past. And the compact was broken long ago. And the Declaration establishes the right of the people to institute new safeguards .... Not just as amendments to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES but a Constitution for the united States.
Oh what a tangle web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
So you are the final authority on what is and is not a Natural Born Citizen, and there is no room for debate on the subject? What an arrogant asshole'ish approach that is.
Actually the Supreme Court has never taken up the issue of natural born citizen. That is what it means.
In the law of nations Vattel wrote the definition: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
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”.
I think you, this site are misinterpreting what United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649 actually did rather they what the wording conveyed.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
In the link you referred to:
“The Constitution does not expressly define “natural born” nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled precisely upon its meaning. There is some uncertainty over whether a person that is born outside the U.S. but still becomes a citizen at birth through a statute is a natural born citizen. One example is U.S. citizenship that immediately passes from the person's parents.”
Vattel defines Natural Born Citizens as:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. This the definition the founders were referring too.
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”.
Im convinced that’s why this is being pushed so hard. For some reason everyone is jumping on this and refuses to accept reality. It’s been pushed constantly for three days and is a total distraction.
Laws require enforcement. Republicans could push for this..they had it easy with Obama and did nothing. Anyone wanna bet $1 the Republican use this, in any form? They’ll whine and complain tho. Write many strongly worded letters I’m sure.
Where the …. is the military? I hope to see some military uniforms in the next few months getting things straightened out. And I mean actually helping We the People, not lining us up for the deepstate.
No reference to Natural Born Citizen in Federalist Papers, but that does not mean their is no supporting reference. I did some research on this yesterday:
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”.
Juan O'Savin said that their strategy for placing ineligible Harris as VP, was that when Biden was fired, although she was VP, she would be found to be ineligible. The Presidency would then fall to the Speaker of the House--Nancy Pelosi. They can't do that now, of course.
I was gonna fight people on this but then found out Trump also raised the question, which was a nice bit of clarity. With that settled for me, I agree, we should push this angle every chance we get. It's a perfect boomerang
Under current understandings, she is eligible, but I think current understandings of "birthright" citizenship needs to be challenged and this is a GREAT way to do it. Anchor babies was NEVER the intent of birthright citizenship until leftists got involved.
According to everything I have read, anyone born in the U.S., regardless of who their parents are, is a "natural born citizen". If the person is born overseas, and at least one parent is not a U.S. citizen, then they would not qualify as "natural born". If born to two U.S. citizens overseas, I believe they still are considered a U.S. citizen, but I don't know if they are considered "natural born", but since noname was born in Panama to two U.S. citizens, and was considered eligible to run for President, that doesn't seem to matter. (but I think the whole "natural born" thing is moot at this point in history)
According to everything I have read, anyone born in the U.S., regardless of who their parents are, is a...
US citizen. Natural born citizen involves the parents citizenship. What I read said that Heels Up's father had dual citizenship with ??Jamaica??, and that is what the potential problem is.
Mixed answers come back to this question. I need a Constitutional scholar to provide the definitive answer (but of course, the leftists out there wouldn't care)
She was born in the us. By constitutional law just that much makes her a natural born citizen. Amendments or shifts in judicial view have to take place to controvert that. However, it's totally insane for a position like the presidency. But the law is the law.....
Unfortunately, don’t we all see that the media would surely label this “Birther 2.0” and spin it 24/7 as racist and terrible? While I agree that we should absolutely pursue this angle, I fear the vast majority of the population is too stupid and dense to see it as anything other than “RaCiSsSS”
Kamala Harris is considered a natural-born citizen of the United States because she was born in Oakland, California, on October 20, 1964. According to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural-born citizen, regardless of the nationality of their parents at the time of birth.
Her parents were immigrants: her mother was from India and her father from Jamaica. However, their immigration status does not affect her citizenship status since she was born within the United States. This principle is known as "jus soli," or "right of the soil," and it guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., provided they are subject to its jurisdiction.
The constitution states that someone born here is a citizen. The constitution does not say anything about the parents. It just says that someone born here and subject to its jurisdiction are automatically a citizen.
So it is not about the parents it is about the child. Was she subject to the United States jurisdiction at birth?
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: 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.
Anything else including any laws that exist takes a back seat to the constitution.
Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment
Section 1. 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
I'm all for trying this, but the courts won't touch this. They will use the easy "no standing" excuse and kick it back. It will then be sent to SCOTUS for a decision. Can it all be done in a timely manner? I don't know, but it would be a thorn in the ass of the dems.
I honestly believe that this is the plan outside of the Harris camp and will happen someone before the convention so they can nominate Big Mike and Newsome
We need to learn to play their game. (sorry, ineligible)
Correct, for once the X context is wrong. Harris must be an NBC to qualify, but since she is a dual citizen at birth by virtue of her parents she is not an NBC. That's the definition from The Law of Nations. Obama was also a dual citizen at birth, his campaign essentially admitted so.
Wouldn’t Trump have also been a dual citizen under that rationale?
Trump released his birth certificate in 2011 IIRC. His parents were both American citizens at his birth. Now Chester Arthur was a dual citizen at birth (Irish-American) but we can't fix that easily now.
Yes, but his mother wasn’t a natural born citizen but was a foreigner.
Yes, Mary MacLeod Trump was naturalized 1942-03-10 and thus unqualified for the presidency; Donald was born 1946-06-14, so he had natural born citizenship at birth because no dual citizenship.
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.
NO STANDING!
NO INJURY!
Nowhere is natural born citizen defined, right?
I’m not sure how this would work. To be vice president you also need to be a natural born citizen and yet she holds the office. How would there be any sort of standing in court? It would be immediately thrown out.
There is a thread posted here yesterday that touched on what exactly the forefathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson, were citing when referencing natural born citizen.
And in the comments were actual links to Supreme Court findings that rendered a single woman’s hypothesis kind of moot
This was a comment I made yesterday:
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.
I know you knew this, and just made a typo, and it's pissing you off to high heaven lol.
Trumps mother was not a Natural Born Citizen:
I said nothing about a Natural Born Citizen being a person whose parents were also Natural Born Citizens. That a person be a Natural Born Citizen only required that that person's parents be Citizens. And this consideration of parentage was Paternal, not Maternal.
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”.
According to the eyes of the Supreme Court, any person born in the US, regardless of parental citizenship, is a natural born citizen.
birthright citizenship
It’s clear as day. People need to look it the fuck up or shut up.
Does it need to change, yes, absolutely. Most other countries don’t do it.
There is no birthright citizenship in the Constitution.
None.
If you say there is, then why were Indians denied the right to vote until at least 1924 when the Indian Citizenship act passed and much later as each state granted Indians the right to vote?
Could that be because of the fact that Indian Nations are considered not a State of the US but rather sovereign states dependent on and outside of the US?
We are talking the corporation here.
I guess this will be settled when, what Douglas Macgregor indicates, a new republic will/must be established with the bill of Rights as the cornerstone. After all, the Corporation is a thing of the past. And the compact was broken long ago. And the Declaration establishes the right of the people to institute new safeguards .... Not just as amendments to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES but a Constitution for the united States.
Birthright citizenship covers those born outside the US. A person born inside the US is a natural born citizen
Fair enough. She’s a citizen. Like it or not. All of these posts are fucking garbage and a complete waste of time. They make us look STUPID.
Yup
Oh what a tangle web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
So you are the final authority on what is and is not a Natural Born Citizen, and there is no room for debate on the subject? What an arrogant asshole'ish approach that is.
The harsh truth.
Actually the Supreme Court has never taken up the issue of natural born citizen. That is what it means. In the law of nations Vattel wrote the definition: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
See here:
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”.
They most certainly have.
link
I think you, this site are misinterpreting what United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649 actually did rather they what the wording conveyed.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
In the link you referred to: “The Constitution does not expressly define “natural born” nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled precisely upon its meaning. There is some uncertainty over whether a person that is born outside the U.S. but still becomes a citizen at birth through a statute is a natural born citizen. One example is U.S. citizenship that immediately passes from the person's parents.” Vattel defines Natural Born Citizens as: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. This the definition the founders were referring too.
Not true, quite spreading lies please:
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”.
Cool, I'm talking about the supreme court.
Is a citizen. I don't believe they said they were "natural born" citizens. Just citizens
A bit more info here, with the supreme court case linked
Im convinced that’s why this is being pushed so hard. For some reason everyone is jumping on this and refuses to accept reality. It’s been pushed constantly for three days and is a total distraction.
Laws require enforcement. Republicans could push for this..they had it easy with Obama and did nothing. Anyone wanna bet $1 the Republican use this, in any form? They’ll whine and complain tho. Write many strongly worded letters I’m sure.
Where the …. is the military? I hope to see some military uniforms in the next few months getting things straightened out. And I mean actually helping We the People, not lining us up for the deepstate.
Election laws are no longer followed. The people who should enforce them are the ones breaking them. The decay is shocking.
These "readers" who "facts checked" this X post need to go back to school, or actually read what the U.S. Constitution says.
Federalist Papers can be consulted…the old dead guys detailed things for just such an occasion.
No reference to Natural Born Citizen in Federalist Papers, but that does not mean their is no supporting reference. I did some research on this yesterday:
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”.
Totally agree. Let make to court settle this once and for all. Kamalamadingdong is an Anchor Baby.
It should be on her to prove she is eligible to be President, not for us to prove she isn’t. Things are backwards as usual.
I think this fits the bill nicely.
Ya but... she is also not eligible to be VP either if this is the case..
Juan O'Savin said that their strategy for placing ineligible Harris as VP, was that when Biden was fired, although she was VP, she would be found to be ineligible. The Presidency would then fall to the Speaker of the House--Nancy Pelosi. They can't do that now, of course.
The parents of a freshly born natural citizen cannot have visas or be subject to deportation because they are citizens.
https://KamalaKancel.com
I think the must follow the law and that's the law.
I was gonna fight people on this but then found out Trump also raised the question, which was a nice bit of clarity. With that settled for me, I agree, we should push this angle every chance we get. It's a perfect boomerang
Under current understandings, she is eligible, but I think current understandings of "birthright" citizenship needs to be challenged and this is a GREAT way to do it. Anchor babies was NEVER the intent of birthright citizenship until leftists got involved.
According to everything I have read, anyone born in the U.S., regardless of who their parents are, is a "natural born citizen". If the person is born overseas, and at least one parent is not a U.S. citizen, then they would not qualify as "natural born". If born to two U.S. citizens overseas, I believe they still are considered a U.S. citizen, but I don't know if they are considered "natural born", but since noname was born in Panama to two U.S. citizens, and was considered eligible to run for President, that doesn't seem to matter. (but I think the whole "natural born" thing is moot at this point in history)
US citizen. Natural born citizen involves the parents citizenship. What I read said that Heels Up's father had dual citizenship with ??Jamaica??, and that is what the potential problem is.
Mixed answers come back to this question. I need a Constitutional scholar to provide the definitive answer (but of course, the leftists out there wouldn't care)
How could she have been VP if that's the case? Part of the job is taking over if the president croaks .
it doesnt matter she isnt going to be the nominee
it will be Hil Dawg
Amen! Here’s to Montana dropping her name! I’d say Utah but it’s become liberal AF!
She was born in the us. By constitutional law just that much makes her a natural born citizen. Amendments or shifts in judicial view have to take place to controvert that. However, it's totally insane for a position like the presidency. But the law is the law.....
“By constitutional law just that much makes her a natural born citizen”
Care to cite that part of the Constitution?
I did. 14th amendment section one. I even gave a wiki link.
Where's the law that says that's the requirements, if we're going to redpill normies, we need the sauce
Unfortunately, don’t we all see that the media would surely label this “Birther 2.0” and spin it 24/7 as racist and terrible? While I agree that we should absolutely pursue this angle, I fear the vast majority of the population is too stupid and dense to see it as anything other than “RaCiSsSS”
Except she is a natural born citizen. Otherwise she wouldn't be VP.
From chatgpt.com
Kamala Harris is considered a natural-born citizen of the United States because she was born in Oakland, California, on October 20, 1964. According to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural-born citizen, regardless of the nationality of their parents at the time of birth.
Her parents were immigrants: her mother was from India and her father from Jamaica. However, their immigration status does not affect her citizenship status since she was born within the United States. This principle is known as "jus soli," or "right of the soil," and it guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., provided they are subject to its jurisdiction.
Fair, but chatgpt speaks with confidence always and frequently is absolutely wrong. I use it every day.
Im distancing myself from chatbot's opinion on this as chatbot doesn't respect natural law as founded in chaos.
Non-universal absolutisms are absolutely poison in the wrong dosage.
The constitution states that someone born here is a citizen. The constitution does not say anything about the parents. It just says that someone born here and subject to its jurisdiction are automatically a citizen. So it is not about the parents it is about the child. Was she subject to the United States jurisdiction at birth?
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: 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.
Anything else including any laws that exist takes a back seat to the constitution.
There is a difference between being a citizen by birth and being a natural born citizen. Notes is incorrect.
Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment Section 1. 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
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
birther 2.0
I'm all for trying this, but the courts won't touch this. They will use the easy "no standing" excuse and kick it back. It will then be sent to SCOTUS for a decision. Can it all be done in a timely manner? I don't know, but it would be a thorn in the ass of the dems.
I honestly believe that this is the plan outside of the Harris camp and will happen someone before the convention so they can nominate Big Mike and Newsome