Is Andrew Yang a Natural Born Citizen?

DEMOCRATS RUN MULTIPLE CANDIDATES WITH QUESTIONABLE ELIGIBILITY

by Joseph DeMaio, ©2019

Does Andrew Yang have undivided allegiance to the U.S. as a “natural born Citizen?”  Photo:  Asa Mathat for Techonomy – https://techonomy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/imgl0026-610×406.jpg, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=66598552

(Aug. 2, 2019) — This post by the intrepid P&E Editor is spot-on for calling out the leftist argument that, somehow, it is “racist” to question a person’s constitutional eligibility.  The “racist” narrative began before and during the second usurpation of the United States presidency by one Barack Hussein Obama II.  During this sad era in the nation’s history, the pejorative term “birther” was concocted.

The word was (and is) used to describe anyone who rejects the purported axiom that a picture of a likely forged birth certificate posted on the Internet renders the issue of Monsieur Obama’s constitutional eligibility under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution “settled” and immutably cast in stone.  Anyone questioning Mr. Obama’s eligibility must therefore be, by definition, a “racist.”  Recently, because several other “persons of color” have announced their candidacy for the presidency, the pejorative has been dusted off and hurled at anyone having the temerity to even suggest that, for example, Kamala Harris or Tulsi Gabbard might not be eligible.

P&E readers will recall that neither Senator Kamala Harris nor Representative Tulsi Gabbard likely meet the eligibility criteria of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, the “natural born Citizen” provision.   Kamala Harris likely fails the test, as explained here, and Tulsi Gabbard likely fails the test, too, as explained here.

So obsessed are the Democrats in their hatred for President Trump and those who would support his reelection, they will use anyone’s support for the Constitution’s eligibility clause as “proof” of that individual’s “racism.”  After all, in their eyes, the Constitution itself is the racist screed of a bunch of white males, so how can those who support any component of the Constitution be seen as not racist?   Next thing you know, the Democrats will declare the moon to be racist because…, well…, from Earth…, it looks white.  This is neurosis elevated to an art form.

The Editor’s above post, moreover, draws into question yet another Democrat presidential candidate’s “natural born Citizen” bona fides, thus piquing your humble servant’s curiosity.  Could it be that we now have three (3) Democrats competing for the right – perhaps better labeled as a “2020 death wish” – to challenge President Trump?  The person in question is: Andrew Yang.

From all appearances, Mr. Yang seems to be a prime example of the success which entrepreneurship and capitalism can produce.  However, one should not equate entrepreneurship and capitalism with rational political decisions, as Mr. Yang appears to be quite comfortable with programs and policies well to the left of center on, for example, carbon taxes to address “climate change,” a $1,000/mo. “Freedom Dividend” for all “citizens” (thereby excluding illegal aliens…?) and Medicare for illegal aliens.

But insofar as his eligibility under the Constitution is concerned, certain questions need to be addressed and answered.  In addition to an age restriction (at least 35) and residency requirement (14 years), the Constitution requires that one be a “natural born Citizen.”  Regular P&E readers well understand that, while that term is not defined in the Constitution, it is evident that the Founders understood and defined the term to mean a person who is born to a mother and father both of whom are, at the time of the birth, already citizens of the nation where the birth occurs.

This conclusion is consistent with the principles found in § 212 of The Law of Nations produced by the person noted by the U.S. Supreme Court as “the founding era’s foremost expert on the law of nations…,” Emmerich de Vattel.  Despite the misleading and deceitful conclusions coughed up by the Congressional Research Service detailed here, here and here, the definition was ratified by the Court nearly 150 years ago in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

As for Mr. Yang, although he was born in 1975 in Schenectady, New York – unquestionably geographically located within the United States – his bio reflects that his parents were “immigrants from Taiwan” who met while they were both graduate students at the University of California at Berkeley.  His father, Kei Hsiung Yang, and his mother, Nancy Yang, moved to the United States in the 1960’s to pursue their higher education goals.  The anecdotal evidence retrievable via the Internet, however, does not (as yet) disclose whether either or both Mr. or Mrs. Yang had become naturalized U.S. citizens by the time their son, Andrew, was born.

If both of them – and in particular, Mr. Yang – had not already become naturalized citizens before the birth, then Andrew Yang would not meet the de Vattel § 212 criterion as embodied in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution.   Stated otherwise, while he arguably might be a “native born citizen” under the 14th Amendment, he would not be a “natural born citizen” as required for presidential eligibility purposes.  Further complicating the issue, in a newspaper article footnoted in Mr. Yang’s Wikipedia entry (please, spare me the tutorial on the downsides of “open source” websites like the one mentioned), it is noted that “Yang said he visits Taipei almost every year to see his parents, who retired in Taiwan after previously working and living in the U.S.”

While it may not be unusual for persons born in Taiwan to wish to retire at their birthplace, if one has previously renounced and completely abjured allegiance to and citizenship in a foreign nation in order to become a naturalized U.S. citizen, one is tempted to ask: why move back?  Family?  Cost of living?  The counter-argument is much easier made that, after working a lifetime here as a “green card” permanent resident, but still possessed of one’s Taiwanese citizenship, when retirement time comes, why not move “back home?”

The eligibility question will likely become moot and academic as to Mr. Yang when it becomes apparent that he will not succeed in becoming the nominee of the Democrats to challenge President Trump.  But the fact that the issue may become moot as to him does not mean that the underlying problem has evaporated as to others.  Stay tuned… this could get interesting.

9 Responses to "Is Andrew Yang a Natural Born Citizen?"

  1. Robert Laity   Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 7:48 AM

    Reginald, The U.S. Supreme Court has already determined, affirmed and reaffirmed in (6) Cases so far, that a Natural Born Citizen IS one born in the U.S. to Parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves. See: The Venus;Minor v Happersett;Shanks v Dupont;Wong Kim Ark; Laity v NY & Obama (2014) and Laity v NY,Cruz,Rubio & Jindal (2018), all US Supreme Court cases where the established definition cited herein has been affirmed,reaffirmed or left undisturbed. That definition IS the law currently.

  2. Reginald Carl Jackman   Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 11:50 AM

    It is not racist to ask about what is the true definition of ‘natural born citizen’. The phrase was presumably well understood back in 1778 when our Constitution was ratified, but today there is no agreement and no sufficient authority to establish exactly what was intended back in 1778. The only possible remedy is a constitutional amendment, like for example:

    “No person except a natural born citizen (a citizen born of citizen parents) … shall be eligible to the Office of President …” (USC II,1,5). [Note: This is what our Framers intended; so say I.]

    The amendment is not forthcoming. So, it is up to we-the-people to cast our votes accordingly. Andrew Yang’s citizenship hangs upon the unknown citizenship of his parents at the time of his birth.

  3. JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS   Monday, August 5, 2019 at 8:50 PM

    1. THE ONLY HOPE of holding Pelosi-Obama II accountable for the greatest internal (“natural born Citizen”) nbC-fraud and presIDential-treason against the United States lies within the natural invisible thinking of nbC-President Trump. GOD SAVE The DONALD.
    http://www.americanresistanceparty.org/2015/jun/mooerstruth.pdf

    2. Virtually our entire U.S. Government (over 2,000,000 federal employees) is indictable for passively or actively being complicit with said Pelosi-Obama II nbC-fraud-treason 08-28-08- TODAY, therefore, I would not solicit any help from federal “nbC-criminals”, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
    https://www.volckeralliance.org/true-size-government
    https://canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

    3. I would not solicit any help exposing said nbC-fraud-treason from any federal judiciary employees because they are complicit with this. Here is why I believe this:
    EXHIBIT A: Supreme Court has openly “evaded” this nbC-fraud
    EXHIBIT B: Some 300 court challenges to Obama’s nbC-eligibility were ALL summarily rejected
    http://www.americanresistanceparty.org/2016/07-16/ballotchallenge.pdf
    EXHIBIT C: ” Kangaroo Court” for LTC Terry Lakin’s imprisonment and discharge
    EXHIBIT D: Some states approved slavery, some did not; some states approve infanticide, some do not et al; whereas, it is expected throughout all U.S. history to see states differ in how they legislate any societal issues, ALL STATE AND FEDERAL JUDICIARY ELEMENTS BEHAVED IN 100% UNIFORM PRE-PLANNED COMPLICITY IN ALLOWING SAID nbC-fraud-treason, SEEMING TO BE ALL SECRETLY COMMUNICATING AMONGST THEMSELVES AS A NATIONAL CRIME SYNDICATION.

    4. Virtually the entire corporate “yellow-stream/yellow-journalism” media is complicit in their steadfast refusal to investigate said nbC-fraud-treason. They, too, have behaved as a quietly communicating national crime syndication in said refusal to investigate objectively, just as they also refused/refuse to show Obama habitually smoking cigarettes.

    5. I have learned since 2013 to “LISTEN TO THEIR BEHAVIOR” of our national “leaders”, and place little to no reliance on their public statements. We the People, the first three words of the U.S. Constitution, are responsible for this nbC-fraud-treason, and BABY BOOMERS ARE MOST RESPONSIBLE. Therefore, we must rise up from cowering private citizens to towering private citizens to work with The Post and Email’s archived knowledge, and President Trump and AG Barr, to ARREST PELOSI-OBAMA II, RELEASE AMERICA!
    http://www.americanresistanceparty.org/2015/oct/selfishbabyboomers.pdf

    >Trump consented power + AG Barr consented power + The P&E Internet nbC-knowledge:
    http://www.americanresistanceparty.org/2018/04-18/justicevideos.pdf

  4. Robert Christopher Laity   Monday, August 5, 2019 at 4:17 AM

    Bob 68, in Virginia and Kentucky, the (2) States in the Union that take away a prisoner’s right to hold a public office that right can only be restored after the person pays his price to society and finishes his sentence, pays any fines and restitution to his/her victims. Then, these rights are restorable only AFTER application to the State.

    Under such a law, a prisoner would not be able to have his/her name placed on those State’s ballots.

    I find a problem with this with regard to federal elections. NO STATE can unilaterally keep a person off of a federal ballot for reasons other than not meeting the Article II Criteria for that office or not following the lawful procedures for being placed on said ballot.

    The Constitution does not prevent a felon from holding office under the U.S. except for Treason. Felons, thank God, usually lose such elections, however, based on their character.
    As this nation slips further into the abyss, however, the chances of such felons becoming President are increased. Congress must address this now.

  5. Robert Christopher Laity   Monday, August 5, 2019 at 3:55 AM

    Thinkwell, No person who fails to meet Article II requirements can enter the office of the Presidency or Vice-Presidency. I know in my State of NY that it is illegal to be on the ballot if one will not meet the requirements of office prior to entering said office. A person who is not an NBC can do nothing to meet that requirement by the time he/she enters office. So that person has committed election fraud, if he/she was aware of the deficiency. These usurpations are becoming quite frequent. in the last (11) years alone we have had Obama,McCain,Rubio,Cruz,Jindal,Swarzenegger,AOC,Harris,Gabbard and others attempt to usurp the Presidency or put their name in for the quest to become POTUS. NINE people in the last (11) years alone. Prior to 2008, the last phony President we had was in 1881. One hundred and twenty seven years prior. That we have had NINE usurpers in the last (11) years since Obama became our second usurper says that something very sinister is happening. In 2016 Ted Cruz even said “If Obama can do it so can I”. He KNOWS he is ineligible. The fact that both major parties have proffered frauds in the last (11) years portends ill winds for our sovereignty. In the 2008 election Nancy Pelosi sent a required federal election form to the (50) States. To Hawaii she sent the form with a statement on it that Obama met all Article II criteria for being POTUS. To the other (49) States that Statement was deleted. There is tyranny afoot. Pelosi is complicit with Obama’s treason and espionage for his having usurped the Presidency by fraud, during time of war, which made Obama both a spy and a traitor.

  6. Bob68   Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 12:15 PM

    Thinkwell,……One example I remember from the 2012 election is Keith Judd, who was on the ballot with Barack Obama in West Virginia and got 41% of the vote against Barry in the Democrat primary. He applied by mail from a federal prison in Texas, sent in his fee and was placed on the ballot by election officials who said they were aware he was serving a 17 year felony prison sentence as Federal Inmate No. 11593-051. Send the money and apparently that’s the only requirement to get on the ballot.

  7. thinkwell   Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 7:15 AM

    Unfortunately if a presidential candidate is honest about their birthdate, birthplace and citizenship of their parents at the time of said candidate’s birth, then it does not seem that there is any federal law preventing them from running. The Constitution only prohibits them from actually becoming president. It is up to the states to remove ineligible candidates from their ballots. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

  8. Robert Laity   Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 4:26 AM

    To run for President or VP knowing that one is ineligible for said office IS Illegal. That is FRAUD. Whether Yang has a chance to win or not, he MUST be vetted. Harris and Gabbard are ineligible. The form that Pelosi fraudulently attested to in the Obama usurpation does exist and it states that the Candidate meets all Article II Criteria for the Office of President. Lying on that form IS perjury and constitutes a felony under 18USC, Sec. 1001. There are also violations in the DC Code for impersonation of a public official”. These are all crimes committed before Obama took office, for example. Clinton v Jones allows the prosecution of crimes committed before a “sitting President”, whether faux or bona-fide, entered office. There is rampant corruption in our government (i.e. “The Deep State”.,”Swamp”., Obama RICO Cabal). that President Trump is doing his utmost to weed out. John Jay knew what an NBC was. He was our first Chief Justice of the U.S. The current SCOTUS should keep that in mind and respect the 4+ decisions made by their predecessors and STOP “Evading the issue” as Justice Thomas disclosed SCOTUS was doing. If it is not nipped in the bud, our Presidency will ultimately be inculcated with foreign allegiances that would render our laws impotent, erode our freedoms and result in our sovereign nations downfall. It is incumbent on each and every American, a civic duty, to participate in seeing that the Constitution is defended. It is a moral imperative and an act of societal self defense. NO Foreign allegiances in our Presidency and Vice Presidency.

  9. Ed Sunderland   Friday, August 2, 2019 at 4:23 PM

    Sharon, after 3 challenges through the Texas Secretary of State, the Attorney General’s office under Texas Election Code 273.001 which you can find with a simple Google search and a submission to the Texas Supreme Court for a hearing thus denied, this is what I have concluded with written proof, there is no one to stop unqualified candidates! The Democrat party doe’s not care about the constitution, subsequently neither does the RNC.

    Their position is as written in their application for president which reads “I (name) being a candidate for the office of President of the United States, swear that I will defend the Constitution and laws of the United States. I am a natural born citizen of the United States eligible to hold such office under the constitution of the United States. That is it!

    There are no guards standing on the castle walls demanding a “shrubbery” like Monte Pythons Flying Circus to allow passage. No one on either party to guaranty your vote will not be fraudulently nullified by a democrat or republican that are not qualified to run like our Canadian Senator Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal. All the votes, money, time, press, and or delegates corrupted by these unqualified candidates fraudulently stole your vote. The democrats this cycle have at least two possibly three unqualified candidates and we have heard -0- from anyone in the republican non-leadership.

    In my view unqualified candidates pose massive vote fraud. Not unlike cheating voters that vote on behalf of dead people, or illegals voting, or voters voting multiple times in different districts or simple hiding ballot boxes.

    Unqualified voters must be stopped at all costs because we just endured 8 years of devastation because of that massive corrupt unqualified Obama regime.

    It was suggested many years ago that the Federal Elections Commission be designated those Castle Guards and they sent out a public comment request to see if that is what they should do. Out of millions of Americans with an opinion I was one of a grand total of 9 people who responded! I first said Ellen Weintraub who is a Commissioner should be withdrawn because she is a Perkins and Coie alumni. This is an office that has spent a lot of time protecting Obama and other democrat operators.

    Ultimately the FEC said we are not going to do it, it isn’t illegal to run for president, you just can’t collect public dollars. So, lost was an opportunity to square up public elections with a Federal Agency with Police power to stop this kind of vote fraud.

    Think about it!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.