Forgive me for being ignorant. Why is she not eligible? Supposedly she was born in Oakland CA which makes her a naturalized citizen. Unless her birth is shady like Obama, born in Kenya, is there something I am missing here? Even if Obama was born overseas, Constitutionally, as long as his mother was still a US citizen Obama has US birthright citizenship. So I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. Harvard Law Review - On the Meaning of āNatural Born Citizenā
The U.S. Constitution states that the president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Per Cornell University Law, 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.
Per Harvard Law Review, a ānatural born Citizenā means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has confirmed that natural born citizens are persons born either within the USA or abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
To have become a naturalized citizen, either one of Kamala's parents would need to have resided in the United States as a lawful permanent resident for at least five years... and then completed the naturalization paperwork and process. They didn't before she was born. Her mother came to the U.S. in 1960, and her father in 1961. Kamala was born in 1964. It takes 5 years of residency within the U.S. to apply for citizenship, and both of her parents were here on visas when she was born. She is not a natural born citizen of the U.S..
Trump can let Kamala be selected as the Dem candidate at their convention in August, and then immediately challenge her candidacy to the Supreme Court. She doesn't meet the definition, and is therefor ineligible.
The 14th Amendment states: āAll 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.ā
In the landmark case of Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court held that a person born in the United States to resident aliens (i.e., parents who are not US citizens) is still a natural-born citizen.
The CRS Report (2015) states: āThe child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father.ā
The Attorney Generalās clarification (as quoted in the 2006 report) emphasizes that children born in the United States to alien parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are therefore natural-born citizens.
In summary, based on the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, and legal analyses, people born in the United States to alien parents are considered natural-born citizens. Only one of her parents needed to be here legally and even if not, I do not believe it matters based upon established jurisprudence. The prevailing legal consensus is that children born in the United States, regardless of their parentsā immigration status, are U.S. citizens. If that were not the case, then foreign parents would not spend all kinds of money just to have their children born in the US and pregnant illegals would not jeopardize their lives to make it across the border before they give birth. So frankly, I think that in the case of Harris, there is no case at present bringing her eligibility into question. However, I do agree that these laws need to be changed to take away the anchor baby situation but that is something Congress has establish and I do not see that happening any time soon.
Read the 1898 Supreme Court decision again. She is a natural born citizen under that ruling. Not saying itās right, but unless things are challenged again and the Supreme Court clarifies the definition of natural born citizen unfortunately current president says she is
Forgive me for being ignorant. Why is she not eligible? Supposedly she was born in Oakland CA which makes her a naturalized citizen. Unless her birth is shady like Obama, born in Kenya, is there something I am missing here? Even if Obama was born overseas, Constitutionally, as long as his mother was still a US citizen Obama has US birthright citizenship. So I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. Harvard Law Review - On the Meaning of āNatural Born Citizenā
The U.S. Constitution states that the president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Per Cornell University Law, 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.
Per Harvard Law Review, a ānatural born Citizenā means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has confirmed that natural born citizens are persons born either within the USA or abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
To have become a naturalized citizen, either one of Kamala's parents would need to have resided in the United States as a lawful permanent resident for at least five years... and then completed the naturalization paperwork and process. They didn't before she was born. Her mother came to the U.S. in 1960, and her father in 1961. Kamala was born in 1964. It takes 5 years of residency within the U.S. to apply for citizenship, and both of her parents were here on visas when she was born. She is not a natural born citizen of the U.S..
Trump can let Kamala be selected as the Dem candidate at their convention in August, and then immediately challenge her candidacy to the Supreme Court. She doesn't meet the definition, and is therefor ineligible.
Specifically:
The 14th Amendment states: āAll 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.ā In the landmark case of Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court held that a person born in the United States to resident aliens (i.e., parents who are not US citizens) is still a natural-born citizen. The CRS Report (2015) states: āThe child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father.ā The Attorney Generalās clarification (as quoted in the 2006 report) emphasizes that children born in the United States to alien parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are therefore natural-born citizens.
In summary, based on the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, and legal analyses, people born in the United States to alien parents are considered natural-born citizens. Only one of her parents needed to be here legally and even if not, I do not believe it matters based upon established jurisprudence. The prevailing legal consensus is that children born in the United States, regardless of their parentsā immigration status, are U.S. citizens. If that were not the case, then foreign parents would not spend all kinds of money just to have their children born in the US and pregnant illegals would not jeopardize their lives to make it across the border before they give birth. So frankly, I think that in the case of Harris, there is no case at present bringing her eligibility into question. However, I do agree that these laws need to be changed to take away the anchor baby situation but that is something Congress has establish and I do not see that happening any time soon.
Citizen, , ,maybe; but not natural born. There is a difference.
Read the 1898 Supreme Court decision again. She is a natural born citizen under that ruling. Not saying itās right, but unless things are challenged again and the Supreme Court clarifies the definition of natural born citizen unfortunately current president says she is