Even if her father had naturalized, which i suspect would not have been above board either, it wouldn't do anything for any of his minor children. They still would not be citizens.
Even if she, somehow, legitimately became a citizen, it would be null and void by virtue of her allegiance to Somalia government over the Constitution.
There has never been birthright citizenship for non-citizens in our Republic. Our founding fathers never intended to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants. Nor to the children born to anyone not already a citizen, legal or not.
The fact that she is representing Somalia automatically makes her ineligible and unfit to hold office in the United States. You have to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign, and domestic. She is an enemy of the Constitution.
Illegal immigration has been weaponized by the Democrats to bring in a large group of subversives to destroy or Republic without firing a shot. It is an invasion, plain and simple. No matter how they try to spin it or gaslight.
For anyone wondering whether the President is interpreting the 14th amendment correctly in regards to birthright citizenship, please see the already published precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1884:
“The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 14 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. § 1992."
Even if her father had naturalized, which i suspect would not have been above board either, it wouldn't do anything for any of his minor children. They still would not be citizens.
Even if she, somehow, legitimately became a citizen, it would be null and void by virtue of her allegiance to Somalia government over the Constitution.
There has never been birthright citizenship for non-citizens in our Republic. Our founding fathers never intended to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants. Nor to the children born to anyone not already a citizen, legal or not.
The fact that she is representing Somalia automatically makes her ineligible and unfit to hold office in the United States. You have to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign, and domestic. She is an enemy of the Constitution.
Illegal immigration has been weaponized by the Democrats to bring in a large group of subversives to destroy or Republic without firing a shot. It is an invasion, plain and simple. No matter how they try to spin it or gaslight.
For anyone wondering whether the President is interpreting the 14th amendment correctly in regards to birthright citizenship, please see the already published precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1884:
“The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 14 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. § 1992."
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)