Some Questions for Kamala Harris About Eligibility

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Yep, we're going here again.

 

Quote

 

So before we so cavalierly accept Senator Harris' eligibility for the office of vice president, we should ask her a few questions about the status of her parents at the time of her birth.

Were Harris' parents lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth? If so, then under the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark, she should be deemed a citizen at birth—that is, a natural-born citizen—and hence eligible. Or were they instead, as seems to be the case, merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act? If the latter were indeed the case, then derivatively from her parents, Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers—Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother—and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood.

Interestingly, this recitation of the original meaning of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause might also call into question Harris' eligibility for her current position as a United States senator. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that to be eligible for the office of senator, one must have been "nine Years a Citizen of the United States." If Harris was not a citizen at birth, we would need to know when (if ever) she became a citizen. Her father's biographical page at Stanford University identifies his citizenship status as follows: "Jamaica (by birth); U.S. (by naturalization)." But there is some dispute over whether he was in fact ever naturalized, and it is also unclear whether Harris' mother ever became a naturalized citizen. If neither was ever naturalized, or at least not naturalized before Harris' 16th birthday (which would have allowed her to obtain citizenship derived from their naturalization under the immigration law, at the time), then she would have had to become naturalized herself in order to be a citizen. That does not appear to have ever happened, yet without it, she could not have been "nine Years a Citizen of the United States" before her election to the U.S. Senate.

I have no doubt that this significant challenge to Harris' constitutional eligibility to the second-highest office in the land will be dismissed out of hand as so much antiquated constitutional tripe. 

 

https://www.newsweek.com/some-questions-kamala-harris-about-eligibility-opinion-1524483

 

He even makes sure to put a footnote (and an edit prefacing with the footnote 😂) saying it isn't birtherism. I mean, I understand the desire to provoke interesting discussion and he does make somewhat clever points about the two criteria to satisfy, but this is not even remotely a question. He's a Republican, and if he has any questions, he can ask fellow Republican Ted Cruz who was born in Calgary like two of my children (very same hospital), and not in a US consulate or on a US base, but as a child of someone working for the oil and gas industry in Alberta, how applicable his points are. He's clearly mangling the point behind jurisdiction.

 

 

[Dashinka 24,791]

53 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Yep, we're going here again.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/some-questions-kamala-harris-about-eligibility-opinion-1524483

 

He even makes sure to put a footnote (and an edit prefacing with the footnote 😂) saying it isn't birtherism. I mean, I understand the desire to provoke interesting discussion and he does make somewhat clever points about the two criteria to satisfy, but this is not even remotely a question. He's a Republican, and if he has any questions, he can ask fellow Republican Ted Cruz who was born in Calgary like two of my children (very same hospital), and not in a US consulate or on a US base, but as a child of someone working for the oil and gas industry in Alberta, how applicable his points are. He's clearly mangling the point behind jurisdiction.

 

 

He even misses that unmarried qualified children under the age of 21 derive citizenship from their parents after naturalization, not 16.  Regardless, it doesn't matter, she was born here and even if her parents were here illegally, she is a natural born citizen under the US definition of Jus Soli the US follows unless of course her parents were foreign diplomats which I don't think is the case.  Hopefully this is given little credence.

[yuna628 9,712]

There's somewhat a movement online to get him removed from teaching because they found his viewpoint to be inherently wrong and damaging if he ever tried to convince his students of this. 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

Does it really even matter, other than legally. Her birthright to run is credible enough to have been made a running mate. Much ado about nothing ...

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

He even misses that unmarried qualified children under the age of 21 derive citizenship from their parents after naturalization, not 16.  Regardless, it doesn't matter, she was born here and even if her parents were here illegally, she is a natural born citizen under the US definition of Jus Soli the US follows unless of course her parents were foreign diplomats which I don't think is the case.  Hopefully this is given little credence.

Right? It is nice to provoke thought, and I don't think anyone provoking thought, even if it's one that can be destroyed in a million different ways, should be punished in any way, but I can also see the way this not-even-remotely-necessary-question is used as a springboard (by the media and co) trying to elevate it to the status of Obama-esque birtherism which was a beast of its own. There's also some indication that establishment Republicans, who aren't well known NeverTrumpers, trying to sow this seed of idiocy as a tactic to scare off independents and moderates, Lincoln Project type tactics.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,791]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

There's somewhat a movement online to get him removed from teaching because they found his viewpoint to be inherently wrong and damaging if he ever tried to convince his students of this. 

I would support that if it also applied to all the professors teaching Marxist viewpoints.  

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,382]

3 hours ago, yuna628 said:

There's somewhat a movement online to get him removed from teaching because they found his viewpoint to be inherently wrong and damaging if he ever tried to convince his students of this. 

Just imagine if we removed every wingnut professor who had a wrong viewpoint  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

13 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Just imagine if we removed every wingnut professor who had a wrong viewpoint  

Firings for wrongthink, free speech for rightthink!

 

[Orangesapples 1,954]

15 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Yep, we're going here again.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/some-questions-kamala-harris-about-eligibility-opinion-1524483

 

He even makes sure to put a footnote (and an edit prefacing with the footnote 😂) saying it isn't birtherism. 

You know, if a company says it's not a pyramid scheme, it is a pyramid scheme. If someone says they're not a birther, they are, indeed a birther. 

[Dashinka 24,791]

4 hours ago, Orangesapples said:

You know, if a company says it's not a pyramid scheme, it is a pyramid scheme. If someone says they're not a birther, they are, indeed a birther. 

So by that logic if someone says another is not a racist, it really means the first person thinks the second person is in fact a racist.  As to this whole thing, I have already weighed in, and I would expect most folks on a legal immigration self-help site would also understand more than this person from the OP article.  The thing that irritates me is the way this will be used to make Senator Harris out to be a victim.  It is the same play that Obama used, he was not upset with the whole birther movement, he could have quashed it in a minute, but of course that would not have served his political purposes of wanting to maintain victim status.  For all we know this is just another Democrat political tactic.  But sure, there will be people out there that believe this kind of stuff, heck, how many folks fell for the Trump/Russia collusion narrative created by the Democrats/Leftist media?  

Edited August 14, 2020 by Dashinka

[Neonred 3,647]

I'll have to admit that I moved here, over 33 years ago, from Louisville KY.  Before that I was in Columbia SC.  Actually worse heat and humidity in those locations than here, except here it just keeps on coming at us for a long time before we eventually get a reprieve sometime in October.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Neonred said:

I'll have to admit that I moved here, over 33 years ago, from Louisville KY.  Before that I was in Columbia SC.  Actually worse heat and humidity in those locations than here, except here it just keeps on coming at us for a long time before we eventually get a reprieve sometime in October.

But we have a breeze...

 

Edited August 14, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 hours ago, Orangesapples said:

You know, if a company says it's not a pyramid scheme, it is a pyramid scheme. If someone says they're not a birther, they are, indeed a birther. 

So are you a birther?

[yuna628 9,712]

5 hours ago, Dashinka said:

So by that logic if someone says another is not a racist, it really means the first person thinks the second person is in fact a racist.  As to this whole thing, I have already weighed in, and I would expect most folks on a legal immigration self-help site would also understand more than this person from the OP article.  The thing that irritates me is the way this will be used to make Senator Harris out to be a victim.  It is the same play that Obama used, he was not upset with the whole birther movement, he could have quashed it in a minute, but of course that would not have served his political purposes of wanting to maintain victim status.  For all we know this is just another Democrat political tactic.  But sure, there will be people out there that believe this kind of stuff, heck, how many folks fell for the Trump/Russia collusion narrative created by the Democrats/Leftist media?  

I think the biggest problem I have with the article.. not just that it's completely bonkers and wrong... is that the guy is a major hypocrite on such subjects in the past so I've no idea why he decided to even get himself into this kind of trouble. And.. he *should* know better, being a law professor. Maybe he's not a very good one, but still you'd think there'd be some understanding.

[Orangesapples 1,954]

6 hours ago, Dashinka said:

So by that logic if someone says another is not a racist, it really means the first person thinks the second person is in fact a racist.  As to this whole thing, I have already weighed in, and I would expect most folks on a legal immigration self-help site would also understand more than this person from the OP article.  The thing that irritates me is the way this will be used to make Senator Harris out to be a victim.  It is the same play that Obama used, he was not upset with the whole birther movement, he could have quashed it in a minute, but of course that would not have served his political purposes of wanting to maintain victim status.  For all we know this is just another Democrat political tactic.  But sure, there will be people out there that believe this kind of stuff, heck, how many folks fell for the Trump/Russia collusion narrative created by the Democrats/Leftist media?  

If you have to qualify something you say by asserting you're not something that the vast majority of people are not (without even being asked), then something is fishy. My employer never had to specify they're not a pyramid scheme, ever. Why? Because they're not. The vast majority of people never have to say they're not birthers because it's obvious they're not. 

 

Also, what victim? It's kind of obvious that the attacks in this case are racist. This doesn't make powerful people victims, of course but it does make the attackers look pathetic.