Are You Comfortable With Kamala Harris, "a heartbeat from the presidency".

How is it that you don't understand your claim is bunk?

Harris is a citizen of the United States and has been since birth.
She was born in Oakland, California, on Oct. 20, 1964, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. Her parents were both immigrants — her father from Jamaica and her mother from India.
By virtue of her birth in California, Harris is a natural-born U.S. citizen.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment provides that "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."
And that's not dependent on their parents' citizenship. "Anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship," according to the Cornell Legal Information Institute.

Parental citizenship is relevant to an individual's citizenship status only if the individual is born outside of the United States.

If a child born abroad "has at least one parent, including an adoptive parent, who is a U.S. citizen by birth or through naturalization," then they are eligible to become an American citizen, too, per U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

 

How is that you don't understand your claim is bunk?

Being born on US soil does not make one a "natural-born" citizen, just a citizen. In order to be a "natural-born" citizen, you have to born on US soil to citizen parents, and Harris wasn't. Instead, she was born to a citizen of Jamaica, and to a citizen of India.

Furthermore, the Cornell site does not say what you say it says. I challenge you to give me the direct quote where it says this:

And that's not dependent on their parents' citizenship. "Anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship," according to the Cornell Legal Information Institute.​

If they do say it, it's total BS.

 

Here's a clue for those who want to know the truth about being a "natural-born" citizen. If your citizenship is derived from 8 U.S Code 1401, then you are not a "natural-born" citizen.

That's because all those classes of citizenship, and there are many of them, are derived from law; but a natural-born citizen is derived from being born on US soil to citizen parents, and not by law.

 

Then how do you explain this?

 

I would explain it as a very interesting reseach paper, but one that does not draw an accurate conclusion. The accurate conclusion being that the "natural-born" citizen statute of the US relies upon jus soli + jus saguinis; law of soil + law of blood = Born on US soil to citizen parents.

This was firmly established in an 1875 Supreme court ruling by Chief Justice Waite, who stated:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.​

For those who do not meet those qualifications, they are not natural-born citizens, but instead derive their citizenship by law, as established in US Code 1401.

I know I have written these same things before, but many seem to be quite head-strong in their denial of such basic principles as stated above.

 

I'm not a fan of Harris but there is nothing about her that would make her an incompetent president or especially scary.

 

If you include the rest of that quotation from the Supreme Court it then reads thus:

Just wondering which "authorities" those would be and what weight their opinion carries?

What are your thoughts on Lynch v. Clarke? It has influenced subsequent court decisions.

I know I have written these same things before, but many seem to be quite head-strong in their denial of such basic principles as stated above.

Maybe it is time for another court decision to clarify things?

 

It's been settled law since the Supreme Court decided the issue in 1898.
Fortunately internet conspiracy theorists don’t get to make decisions about US policy. Unless, of course, they live in the White House.

 

Kindly refrain from IMPOSING your own FAILURES onto others.

Sad!

 

I'm just curious: Would a child born in another country to two American citizen parents be a "natural born citizen"?

 

Question: Would a child born in the USA, before 1924, to Native American parents be considered a "natural born" citizen?

 

Then John McCain or Ted Cruz wouldn't have qualified. McCain was born in the Panama Canal and Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

 

Kamala Harris is going to make a beautiful, smart Vice-President.

 

Why is Kamala hiding? Joe’s hiding because he has dementia. What’s her excuse? What a disastrous duo! They want to win without doing any of the work—-typical Democrats....

 

I agree with that, along with some others as well. The Senate knew this as well when they passed a resolution in 1978 that made Panama a "US territory", for the subtle intent of making McCain a natural-born citizen, even though he was born there many years earlier when it wasn't a US territory.

Maybe if Republicans had come up with real natural-born citizen in 2008, they wouldn't have lost to Obama.

 

I also thought McCain's selection of Palin was rather stupid. But I voted for him anyway because I liked McCain and wanted him to become president.

As for Harris, she pretty much irrelevant as Palin was back in 2008. I want an adult in the White House, not some 74 year old man who acts and behaves like a spoiled four year old brat who's parent forgot to teach him any manners with all his temper tantrums and name calling. An adult who doesn't go around acting like a third grade schoolyard bully. Biden could have picked Genghis Kahn as his VP and I'd still be voting for the only adult in the room, Joe Biden.

 

Maybe she only looks like that next to Joe.

 

Yes! John McCain was one of those children.

 

Utter nonsense!

McCain wasn't even in any elected office until 1982 when he won a seat in the HOUSE!

It was 1987, almost a decade AFTER the Panama resolution, that he entered the Senate.

 

3 days, can't wait!

 

Do you really think Joe is going to show up?

 

Do you have anything better than a dumbass troll?

 

This question is being asked?.....When McCain was running he picked Sara Palin, completely unqualified and down right stupid.....I would take Harris in a heartbeat!

 

Harris
Courtesy of Willie Brown sperm & California Dynastic Politics.


Similar to Hillary who was a Senator & Secretary of State
Just keeping seats warm with no legacy!


To believe Harris is any way an improvement over Palin is ignoring the history. Or just



Moi
Californian
While S. Calif. voters outnumber the Bay Area
Yet the Bay Area Dynasties control both parties. Go figure!

DON'T ize
​

 

She is so immature. That cackling she does drives me crazy. She is a dangerous radical. I'm over all these socialist/communist types. I am totally baffled by the attraction of anyone who is attracted to the Biden - Harris ticket. Do the people not see what is going on in the cities? I just learned today that home invasions and robberies are up 100% in San Francisco. That has to be scary as we have a pandemic and many of these are being done while the people are home. Gun rights eroded, sanctuary cities for illegals, defunding police forces, politicians bailing out rioters, politicians paying off fines in a vote buying scheme, ballot harvesting, intimidation of peaceful citizens, burning down and looting businesses meanwhile all being supported by the Democrat party and Biden and Harris even more so.