Birtherism is back...in Kamala form!

[CitizenVectron]

Some Questions for Kamala Harris About Eligibility

 

Quote

The fact that Senator Kamala Harris has just been named the vice presidential running mate for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has some questioning her eligibility for the position.

 

The 12th Amendment provides that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." And Article II of the Constitution specifies that "[n]o person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of President." Her father was (and is) a Jamaican national, her mother was from India, and neither was a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of Harris' birth in 1964. That, according to these commentators, makes her not a "natural born citizen"—and therefore ineligible for the office of the president and, hence, ineligible for the office of the vice president.
 

 

 

 

After the column, Newsweek ran a second one basically saying "Wait that's not birtherism!"

 

Editor's Note: Eastman's Newsweek Column Has Nothing to Do With Racist Birtherism

[PaladinSolo]

I'm amazed that people don't understand this if you're born in the US you're a natural born citizen, parental lineage means nothing.

[Keyser_Soze]

From the comments

 

Quote

The author of this article stepped down as Dean at the Fowler School of Law to run for Attorney General and lost to Kamala Harris. Feels like that's an important part of this attack that is missing.

 

[SuperSpreader]

On Fox News they were arguing that she wasn't black enough so she can't claim being black

[GeneticBlueprint]

2 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

I'm amazed that people don't understand this if you're born in the US you're a natural born citizen, parental lineage means nothing.

 

Well, it does if your parents are American and you're born outside the U.S. Like presidential contender John McCain.

[PaladinSolo]

2 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Well, it does if your parents are American and you're born outside the U.S. Like presidential contender John McCain.

He was born on a US military base, so still US territory, but yes children of US a citizen born outside of the country can become US citizens if thats what the parents choose.

[GeneticBlueprint]

1 minute ago, PaladinSolo said:

He was born on a US military base, so still US territory.

 

Well, even if he wasn't, he'd still be a U.S. citizen because his parents were.

[marioandsonic]

Just now, PaladinSolo said:

He was born on a US military base, so still US territory.

And yet no one questioned his US citizenship.

 

I wonder why...

[SuperSpreader]

Just now, marioandsonic said:

And yet no one questioned his US citizenship.

 

I wonder why...

I did, deport Meghan! 

[mclumber1]

3 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

I'm amazed that people don't understand this if you're born in the US you're a natural born citizen, parental lineage means nothing.

 

Fighting words:

 

I don't believe the 14th Amendment actually grants birthright citizenship to people born here simply because they were born here. 

 

That being said, the way the Amendment is currently interpreted, it does grant birthright citizenship, therefore Kamala is eligible to be President.  

 

 

[CitizenVectron]

8 minutes ago, SlipperySlope said:

On Fox News they were arguing that she wasn't black enough so she can't claim being black

 

Yeah I saw this. I think the argument was that since her dad is from Jamaica, then she isn't African-American (since her ancestors weren't American slaves)...and therefore she isn't 1/2 black? It's very strange gate keeping and goes right to the heart of the racial kink that the right-wing has in the US for pure bloodlines (on either end of the white-black spectrum).

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Fighting words:

 

I don't believe the 14th Amendment actually grants birthright citizenship to people born here simply because they were born here. 

 

That being said, the way the Amendment is currently interpreted, it does grant birthright citizenship, therefore Kamala is eligible to be President.  

 

 

That's how the 14th amendment was written; it was the intention of the writers of the amendment if we actually cared about that

[CitizenVectron]

lol. The same author wrote the other side of the argument in favour of Ted Cruz:

 

 

Gee, I wonder why there is a difference... 😕

 

[PaladinSolo]

10 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Fighting words:

 

I don't believe the 14th Amendment actually grants birthright citizenship to people born here simply because they were born here. 

 

That being said, the way the Amendment is currently interpreted, it does grant birthright citizenship, therefore Kamala is eligible to be President.  

 

 

"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."

 

Its pretty fucking straightforward, maybe born meant something different in the English language in the 1860s.

[mclumber1]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

That's how the 14th amendment was written; it was the intention of the writers of the amendment if we actually cared about that

 

The intention of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship the several million recently freed black slaves - since they owed no allegiance to any other country. 

[Jason]

21 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

He was born on a US military base, so still US territory, but yes children of US a citizen born outside of the country can become US citizens if thats what the parents choose.

 

From what I recall, there's some legitimate debate about whether "natural born" requires you to have been born within the United States, and that being a citizen at birth because at least one of your parents is a citizen is potentially distinct from being natural born. 

[mclumber1]

5 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

"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."

 

Its pretty fucking straightforward.

 

My view is that a child born oof citizens of another country is subject to the jurisdiction of that country.  

 

If an American couple had an emergency birth in China, and China attempted to not let the baby go back to America, I'm sure the American government would protest this, as that child is an American and is subject to its jurisdiction. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

13 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

The intention of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship the several million recently freed black slaves - since they owed no allegiance to any other country. 

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=12

Spoiler

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect relates to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they should be citizens. We have declared that by law [Civil Rights Act of 1866]; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provisions in the fundamental instrument of the nation.

Please learn history outside of what you recall from high school history.

 

This amendment was written by the radical Republicans, they knew what they were doing.

[PaladinSolo]

20 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

My view is that a child born oof citizens of another country is subject to the jurisdiction of that country.  

 

If an American couple had an emergency birth in China, and China attempted to not let the baby go back to America, I'm sure the American government would protest this, as that child is an American and is subject to its jurisdiction. 

Thats nice, no one is saying the only way to become a US citizen is to be born here, lol.  The 14th amendment is clear that if you are born here you are a US citizen though and since you are born a US citizen you're naturally a US citizen, this also doesn't mean China can't also claim you're a Chinese citizen if you're born there, its entirely possible to be natural born citizen of multiple countries.

[SuperSpreader]

11 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

From what I recall, there's some legitimate debate about whether "natural born" requires you to have been born within the United States, and that being a citizen at birth because at least one of your parents is a citizen is potentially distinct from being natural born. 

No test tube babies 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, SlipperySlope said:

No test tube babies 

No C section babies. They're not natural born. 

[CitizenVectron]

Apparently Newsweek basically went bankrupt and their name and trademarks were sold to right-wing owners, and now they are a rag. Didn't know that! But it explains their content.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Apparently Newsweek basically went bankrupt and their name and trademarks were sold to right-wing owners, and now they are a rag. Didn't know that! But it explains their content.

Laundering bad/reactionary ideas through a formerly respectable institution

[SaysWho?]

Yay birtherism

[Mr.Vic20]

I’m staking out claim for her 2024 campaign slogan now: Keep Kamala, and carry on.

[Jason]

 

[CitizenVectron]

Also, Kamala Harris lived in Canada as a teenager for 5 years and graduated high school in Montreal...can we trust someone educated in a communist society?

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

1 hour ago, PaladinSolo said:

I'm amazed that people don't understand this if you're born in the US you're a natural born citizen, parental lineage means nothing.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on what the explicit definition of a 'natural born citizen' is, though, and it's not defined in the constitution.

 

The closest we get to an explicit definition is in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case, but even in that case the term 'natural born citizen' is not explicitly defined, or even used.

 

And you know the usual suspects are going to ride that terminological indeterminacy until the cows come home, especially if Harris ends up president someday.

 

Someone just needs to go back in time to the constitutional convention and tell the founding fathers to define. your. freaking. terms.

[PaladinSolo]

33 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

The Supreme Court has never ruled on what the explicit definition of a 'natural born citizen' is, though, and it's not defined in the constitution.

 

The closest we get to an explicit definition is in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case, but even in that case the term 'natural born citizen' is not explicitly defined, or even used.

 

And you know the usual suspects are going to ride that terminological indeterminacy until the cows come home, especially if Harris ends up president someday.

 

Someone just needs to go back in time to the constitutional convention and tell the founding fathers to define. your. freaking. terms.

I know where they're coming from, but I just don't know how you could define it other than citizen from birth, without redefining what the word natural means its the only thing that makes sense, and again its entirely possible to be natural born citizen of multiple nations.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Relevant thread.

[SuperSpreader]

15 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

I know where they're coming from, but I just don't know how you could define it other than citizen from birth, without redefining what the word natural means its the only thing that makes sense, and again its entirely possible to be natural born citizen of multiple nations.

Natural sometimes means not adopted. 

[Firewithin]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

[Joe]

I know some of you like to badmouth the USA often, but birthright citizenships is the shit. One of the few things this country does better than most other first-world countries.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

The Supreme Court has never ruled on what the explicit definition of a 'natural born citizen' is, though, and it's not defined in the constitution.

 

The closest we get to an explicit definition is in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case, but even in that case the term 'natural born citizen' is not explicitly defined, or even used.

 

And you know the usual suspects are going to ride that terminological indeterminacy until the cows come home, especially if Harris ends up president someday.

 

Someone just needs to go back in time to the constitutional convention and tell the founding fathers to define. your. freaking. terms.

 

I was trying to find something about what I remembered about the "natural born" thing not being 100% settled but instead I found this making a strong case that it was not an ambiguous term to the founding fathers.

 

Quote

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress.

Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

 

As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children. These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever. The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries, a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.

 

[Firewithin]

3 minutes ago, Joe said:

I know some of you like to badmouth the USA often, but birthright citizenships is the shit. One of the few things this country does better than most other first-world countries.

 

of all the things this shithole country has to complain about i dont think this is a big one among most people?  obviously except for the racists