More “Deportation Docket” Documents on Kamala Harris’s Mother Released by Mysterious Twitter Account

WHAT WAS HER IMMIGRATION STATUS?

by Sharon Rondeau

https://twitter.com/KamalaKancel/status/1308922900343402497/photo/1

(Sep. 24, 2020) — On Wednesday, the Twitter account @KancelKamala (also @KamalaKancel) posted additional documents associated with Shyamala Gopalan Harris, the late mother of Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala D. Harris, following Tuesday’s release of a “Deportation Docket” document indicating Gopalan Harris submitted an application under “Sec. 245” of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1968.

At the time, the “Immigration and Naturalization Service” was a division of the U.S. Department of Justice, as indicated on the posted form titled “DEPORTATION DOCKET CONTROL ACTION SLIP OR NOTICE” dated February 13, 1968.

The form was issued approximately 13 months after Gopalan Harris wrote a letter to the Chicago office of the INS requesting “an immigrant visa” on stationery belonging to the University of Illinois Department of Physiology and Biophysics, where she was employed as a “Research Physiologist,” according to the letter.

Gopalan Harris reportedly met her future husband, Donald Harris, in 1962 at the University of California, Berkeley, both as graduate students from foreign lands and marrying the following year, The New York Times reported.  “Until then Ms. Gopalan had expected to return to India, she reflected years later. ‘I never came to stay,’ she told a reporter for SF Weekly. It’s the old story: I fell in love with a guy, we got married, pretty soon kids came.’”

Daughter Kamala was born in Oakland, CA on October 20, 1964, with Maya born January 30, 1967 in Champaign-Urbana, IL, according to her Wikipedia entry.

Section 245 of the referenced law is now detailed at the website of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), a subsidiary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  The agency states that “Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows certain aliens who are physically present in the United States to adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). Most adjustment applicants file their adjustment of status applications based on INA 245(a).”

Further, USCIS explains:

In 1952, Congress made the pre-examination process unnecessary by creating INA 245, which allowed eligible aliens to obtain LPR status through adjustment of status without leaving the United States. [4] Congress indicated that adjustment should be used for purposes of family unity or otherwise be in the public interest. [5] 

Over time, Congress revised and consolidated the eligibility requirements for adjustment of status into the current INA 245(a). The bars, restrictions, and special considerations to adjustment are found in INA 245(c) through INA 245(k). Applicable inadmissibility grounds, including public safety and security concerns are found in INA 212.

In a follow-on tweet on Tuesday, the @KamalaKancel account posed the question, “Was Senator Harris not discussing public policy, but instead settling a personal score, in harsh questioning of Ronald Vitiello (comparing a perception of ICE to the KKK) in November 2018? Was this payback for her mother’s deportation proceedings in 1968?” with a link to a YouTube video depicting Kamala Harris aggressively questioning Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official Ronald Vittiello in 2018 as to that agency’s “parallel” to the Ku Klux Klan, a militant group opposed to black voting rights founded by Southern Democrats in the wake of the American Civil War.

“Are you aware that there’s a perception that ICE is administering its power in a way that is causing fear and intimidation, particularly among immigrants, and specifically, among immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America?” Harris demanded of Vittiello.  After he responded that he “does not see a parallel” and that agents perform their responsibilities “with lots of compassion,” Harris pressed, “Sir, how can you be the head of an agency and be unaware of how your agency is perceived by certain communities?”

“There is a lot of perceptions in the media and in the public that are incorrect about the agency…” [sic] Vittiello responded, with Harris interrupting, “But the perception exists; would you agree?  Whether or not it’s correct; and wouldn’t you agree, then, that if that perception exists, there might need to be some work done to correct the perception?”

According to a February 2017 Facebook post, newly-serving U.S. Senator Kamala Harris saw her mother’s arrival in the United States and subsequent marriage as having “made us Americans,” referring to Maya and herself.

https://www.facebook.com/SenatorKamalaHarris/photos/for-me-it-starts-with-my-mother-shyamala-harris-she-arrived-at-the-university-of/425642674445538/

Since Democratic presidential contender Joseph Biden announced his choice of Harris as his running mate on August 11, some have questioned whether or not she is eligible to serve as vice president or president given that the 12th Amendment and Article II of the U.S. Constitution, respectively, require each office-holder to be a “natural born Citizen.”

As the Framers did not define “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 for the president and commander-in-chief, many scholars look to a number of U.S. Supreme Court cases which tangentially mentioned it, including Minor v. Happersett, a women’s suffrage case brought by Missouri resident Virginia Minor in 1873 challenging women’s then-inability to vote across the nation.

Virginia’s husband, Francis Minor, a lawyer, argued the case to the Missouri Supreme Court, and later, to the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal, invoking the first paragraph of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868.  The section reads:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In the court’s opinion on the case, issued in October 1874, Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote:

…It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.

There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are expressly declared to be ‘citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

…Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen—a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’7 and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. [Emphasis added by The Post & Email]

The unanimous decision concluded:

33

We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power, to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman’s need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a State to withhold.

34

Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we

35

AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.

According to documents @kancelkamala released Wednesday, Gopalan Harris was asked to report for two medical examinations in Chicago, along with her husband and certain documents, on February 20, 1968 and February 28, 1968.

Now-famously, on August 12, Newsweek published an opinion column by Chapman University Professor of Law John Eastman positing that Kamala Harris might not have been “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” upon her birth in Oakland, CA since neither of her parents was a U.S. citizen at the time.

“Were Harris’ parents lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth?” Eastman wrote. “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.”

Going a step farther, Eastman raised the question of Harris’s eligibility for the seat she currently holds as U.S. Senator from California:

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.

While some posit that Harris does not qualify as a “natural born Citizen” given her parents’ respective foreign citizenship at the time of her birth, many media outlets say she is eligible for either vice president or president because of her U.S. birth.  Some have gone farther by chastising those allegedly participating in a “racist birther conspiracy” in raising the question.

On September 20, @KancelKamala alleged Gopalan Harris was engaged in “immigration fraud,” a claim repeated Wednesday with the promise that “more” on the subject “will appear here soon.”

According to the additional documents released Wednesday, Gopalan Harris was fingerprinted by the University of Illinois Police Department on August 28, 1967, prior to the scheduled medical examinations but after she requested the immigrant visa.  “INS demanded fingerprints for submission to FBI,” the account-holder tweeted along with the image, followed by a tweet with FBI-generated instructions on submitting fingerprints.

According to her Wikipedia biography, Gopalan Harris “worked as a breast cancer researcher at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and University of Wisconsin” as well as at the “Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research and McGill University Faculty of Medicine.”  Through documents released on Sunday, @KancelKamala reports Gopalan Harris’s arrival in Montreal with her two daughters as February 13, 1976.


Correction, September 27, 2020, 8:42 p.m. EDT:  This story originally erroneously reported Francis Minor as “a non-lawyer” when he was, in fact, an attorney.

 

41 Responses to "More “Deportation Docket” Documents on Kamala Harris’s Mother Released by Mysterious Twitter Account"

  1. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 3:00 PM

    JigSaw said:

    “Madison and other Framers in Congress reject this position.
    Compare Ramsay’s five points for acquiring citizenship in his dissertation with his five points for acquiring citizenship in his petition to Congress. Same five points.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=bQ8EfoaTBLsC&pg=PA23&dq=contested+elections+ramsay+v+smith+1789&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiciM3lwozsAhVYuZ4KHfU3CFIQuwUwAHoECAMQBg#v=onepage&q=contested%20elections%20ramsay%20v%20smith%201789&f=false

    JigSaw, Madison and the others did not REJECT Ramsay’s 5 points of citizenship. He and the others simply believed that Mr. Smith met one or two of them. In Madison’s case he said he believed that Mr. Smith became one of the original Citizens of the United States upon the Declaration of Independence. Madison believed that even though Mr. Smith was not in his home colony and state upon their committing to the Declaration of Independence, that his actions in life were not traitorous to the revolution and in Mr. Smith’s trying to and eventually returning to his home state, as difficult as that was for Mr. Smith because the ongoing revolutionary war for many years, that he demonstrated his loyalty to his state and the new nation while studying and because of the war stranded abroad. And thus Madison believed that Mr. Smith met point 1 of Ramsay’s 5 points, that Mr. Smith became a citizen of the United State upon the Declaration of Independence. Of course David Ramsay did not believe that Mr. Smith met that point. But the final vote shows that most disagreed with Ramsay and voted that Mr. Smith was a citizen for at least 7 years at the time of his election to Congress and thus met that constitutional requirement for said seat in Congress. So you misstate what the Case 1 decided and said. They did not reject Ramsay’s 5 points of citizenship. The voters simply said the Mr. Smith met at least one, the first one and/or the third one. But that is another typical OBOT/HBOT troll tactic, to misstate or only state part of the truth of what a legal case or hearing decision says.

    Ramsay Five Points of Citizenship:
    1st: By being parties to the original compact,The Declaration of Independence.
    2nd: By taking anOATH OF FIDELITY to someone of the united States according to law.
    3rd: By tacit consent and acquiescence
    4th: By birth or inheritance
    5th: By adoption

    What was voted on and decided in the affirmative in Case 1 covered in that contested elections book: “Resolved, that it appears to this House, upon mature consideration, that William Smith had been seven years a citizen of the United States at the time his election.” They were not voting on the validity of Ramsay’s 5 points.

    That 7 years a citizen at the time of his election was the sole issue before the House in the Congress in 1789.

    Ramsay also wrote which obviously came from Emer de Vattel in regards to inheritance of citizenship “I say, that, in order to beof the country, it isnecessary that a person be bornof a father who isa citizen; for, if one is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not hiscountry.” And we know Emer de Vattel defined “natural born Citizen” clearly as a person born in the country to parents who were its citizens. See: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/

    OBOT and now HBOT tactics and gaslighting: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/gaslighting/

    CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

    Reply
    1. Lew Harper   Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 6:04 PM

      That is not what Madison said in his speech:

      “What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign”

      It was birth in the community that gave Smith his right to claim citizenship.

      Had Smith supported the British in the Revolution he would still be a citizen but he would be guilty of teason.

      “If it is said, that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe, that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency, and must therefore pay a proper attention to this principle.”

      Reply
      1. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 7:22 PM

        Lew:

        Smith could not have been a citizen of the United States at birth since the USA did not exist when he was born. He was a citizen of the state where he was born of course but not a citizen of the USA since it did not exist when Smith was born. Madison said that Smith obtained his citizenship in the United States when the Declaration of Independence was signed. See the words of Madison and how he came to his decision at this link. Read especially the last paragraph: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0115 Again, Smith could not have been a citizen of the United States when he was born. He was only a citizen of his state when he was born and of course a subject of the King of England also. So Ramsay point 1 was not disagreed with by those that voted to seat Smith in the House of Reps. In fact they pointed to that point as part of their reasoning that Smith had been a citizen of the United States for the constitutionally required 7 years when he was elected. So you picked a small piece of Madison but did not show it all. Again see the link I provided just previously to Madison on the Smith election challenge by Ramsay. Ramsay’s 5 points of citizenship were not rejected as JigSaw said. Engaging in partial truths seems to be a tactic by the HBOT trolls here.

        But lets get back to the situation for Kamala Harris. She was a Citizen of Jamaica at Birth and owed homage and allegiance to the Queen of Jamaica/England. See: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/09/19/kamala-harris-owes-homage-and-allegiance-to-queen-of-jamaica/ Do you care at all that she was born with foreign influence, citizenship, and attendant allegiance requirements to another country? Foreign influence on who would be the President and Commander in Chief (and per the 1804 12th Amendment for the VP too) was a great concern to the founders and framers as evidenced by John Jay’s 1787 letter to Washington and his reply to Jay, and the Federalist Papers writings on that subject. Kamala Harris is constitutionally NOT eligible to be the VP: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/07/23/u-s-senator-kamala-harris-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-usa-not-eligible-to-be-president-and-cinc-or-vp/

        CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

        Reply
  2. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Monday, September 28, 2020 at 7:59 PM

    Slight-of-hand Senate – and House.

    Between June 11, 2003 and February 28, 2008, Congress (both chambers) attempted to alter or diminish the natural born Citizenship requirement for the presidency. They all failed. This fact has been mentioned many times on this website, but here is my “take”.

    This particular attempt sticks out as a sore thumb – in my mind: S. 2128 (108th): Natural Born Citizen Act by Sen. Nickles, Don [R-OK]

    To wit: [2/25/2004–Introduced. Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President, as: (1) any person born in, and subject to the jurisdiction of, the United States; and (2) any person born outside the United States who derives citizenship at birth from U.S. citizen parents, or who is adopted by the age of 18 by U.S. citizen parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship.]

    The major problem with this bill is that the author “gave-away his hand” – just by the way the bill was worded.
    Read the bill for yourself: https://www.congress.gov/108/bills/s2128/BILLS-108s2128is.pdf

    If the above persons whose citizenship was derived in such a manner, as that listed in the bill, were valid natural born Citizens, there would not have been a need to submit the bill, period.

    My high school education logically tells me that the author knew that the specifications that they wrote down did not amount to a natural born Citizens, but he was trying to apply natural born Citizenship to these types of US citizens. i.e., mix them in with valid natural born Citizens – born in the country to two US citizen parents. Notice the first part of item (2) before “or” of the bill has shades of Senate Resolution (SR) 511 and Senator McCain written all over it.

    Thankfully, the bill was not passed. SR 511 eventually did the damage to the natural born Citizenship requirement. But, that’s another occasional comment from me.

    These designers of natural born Citizenship congressional critters think all of their constituents are napping. The author and any co-sponsors of this bill should have been indicted for attempted fraud against the US Constitution.

    Reply
  3. George Dallas   Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 8:12 PM

    Why does this article say Francis Minor wasn’t a lawyer? The link to the National Park Service says he was.

    Reply
    1. Sharon Rondeau   Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 8:37 PM

      You are correct; my mistake, and thank you for the correction.

      Reply
  4. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 1:55 PM

    David Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation on Citizenship:
    https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/09/27/david-ramsays-1789-dissertation-on-citizenship/

    Reply
    1. Jigsaw St. John   Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 4:50 PM

      What authorities does he cite?

      Reply
      1. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:08 PM

        JigSaw: Your mind must be as much a jigsaw puzzle as your name. You’re joking with such a question or just a troll. Have you read his dissertation? Do you know who David Ramsay was? He is an authority on the founding of our nation. He was a leading historian of the revolution and founding. He lived through and participated as a delegate to, and at times Chairman of, the Continental Congress in the founding of our nation. His dissertation is contemporaneous and scholarly on the “original Citizens” and who are the natural born Citizens as understood by the founders and framers of the founding time period. See wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ramsay_(historian) Among his peers were Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson. He was a noted historian of the revolution and subsequent events and decisions. See: https://www.scribd.com/document/33676461/Founder-and-Historian-David-Ramsay-Defined-Natural-Born-Citizenship-in-1789-by-Atty-Mario-Apuzzo Like I said you must be joking or just pose rhetorical questions one after the other like the typical troll frequenting this forum. All you do is ask questions after questions to create doubts about what is presented, and don’t even read what is presented. But that is your gas-lighting tactic and purpose of being here. To try and create confusion.

        All: You can download your own PDF copy of David Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation on Citizenship here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/33807636/A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789

        CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

        Reply
        1. George Dallas   Monday, September 28, 2020 at 1:22 AM

          Was Ramsay even at the Constitutional Convention of 1787?

        2. Sharon Rondeau   Monday, September 28, 2020 at 7:44 AM

          Why don’t you look it up?

        3. George Dallas   Monday, September 28, 2020 at 12:16 PM

          I looked it up, and found no evidence that Ramsay was at the the Constitutional Convention of 1787. But I figured I might be missing something that explained his relevance.

        4. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Monday, September 28, 2020 at 12:44 PM

          George, you are using straw man argument type questions. Citizenship in the new USA and the natural law natural born Citizens, children of those new original Citizens born in the new nation, were not created at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The original Citizens were created by the Declaration of Independence. You obviously have not read the David Ramsay dissertation or you choose to ignore what he wrote.. Terminology used in the new 1787 Constitution, i.e., the terms “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” existed prior to 1787. The founders and framers wrote the constitution using words and terms in common use at that time. They did not coin new words in 1787. And the founders and framers got the concepts of “citizenship” and “natural born Citizen” from existing at that time writings on Natural Law, with the treatise by Emer de Vattel being the most widely read in the colonies on that subject: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ Your continuing Socratic Method style questions designed to create confusion are quite obvious. As others have said, go research and look up the answers to your strawman questions since you are obviously not reading and comprehending was is written and posted here. But that is your troll tactic isn’t it … to try and confuse the subject with strawman argument orientated questions. Again citizenship in the United States was not created by writing the new Constitution in 1787. It was written as is clearly stated in the pre-amble to “create a more perfect union”. So, why don’t you go look that up too or will you just ask another strawman question about when citizens of the United States were created, or something else.

          CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

        5. Jigsaw St. John   Monday, September 28, 2020 at 2:54 PM

          Ramsay never used the term natural born citizen. He is talking about citizenship in general. His position is that you can’t be a citizen without citizen parents.

          Madison and other Framers in Congress reject this position.

          Compare Ramsay’s five points for acquiring citizenship in his dissertation with his five points for acquiring citizenship in his petition to Congress. Same five points.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=bQ8EfoaTBLsC&pg=PA23&dq=contested+elections+ramsay+v+smith+1789&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiciM3lwozsAhVYuZ4KHfU3CFIQuwUwAHoECAMQBg#v=onepage&q=contested%20elections%20ramsay%20v%20smith%201789&f=false

        6. Roger Murtaugh   Monday, September 28, 2020 at 5:32 PM

          “Among his peers were Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson”

          William Rawle was a friend of Benjamin Franklin. When Franklin was the President of the Society for the Abolition of Slavery, Rawle was one of the legal counsellors.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=QnITAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=william+rawle+trench+cox&source=bl&ots=IfWvBmfL1I&sig=ACfU3U2Z_XlomAvgMeMKSQf4a7cMttpyyA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9p5ukgYvsAhXjIDQIHU2yCME4ChDoATACegQIBhAB#v=onepage&q&f=false

          In February, 1787, Rawle with Franklin founded the Society for Political Inquiries. The Society include as members, James Wilson, Benjamin Rush and Trench Cox. They met twice a month at Franklin’s house. Thomas Paine wrote the Society’s by-laws. Members include signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Rawle gave a talk on immigration and citizens.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=tchCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA45&dq=Report+of+the+committee+appointed+to+exam+in+the+minute+book+of+the+Society+for+political+inquiries&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjr3dXLrozsAhVpIDQIHS3tCrU4ChDoATAAegQIAxAB#v=onepage&q&f=false

          He was the Secretary for Franklin’s Library Company of Philadelphia and as such wrote to Washington offering the Library’s collection to members of the Convention.

          https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0230

          He was selected by President Washington to be the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania.

          Rawle was a prominent attorney of his time and to date is the only member of the founding generation to give a straightforward definition of natural born citizen.

          “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. …Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

          https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships23.html

        7. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 4:12 PM

          JigSaw said:

          “Madison and other Framers in Congress reject this position.
          Compare Ramsay’s five points for acquiring citizenship in his dissertation with his five points for acquiring citizenship in his petition to Congress. Same five points.
          https://books.google.com/books?id=bQ8EfoaTBLsC&pg=PA23&dq=contested+elections+ramsay+v+smith+1789&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiciM3lwozsAhVYuZ4KHfU3CFIQuwUwAHoECAMQBg#v=onepage&q=contested%20elections%20ramsay%20v%20smith%201789&f=false

          JigSaw, Madison and the others did not REJECT Ramsay’s 5 points of citizenship. He and the others simply believed that Mr. Smith met one or two of them. In Madison’s case he said he believed that Mr. Smith became one of the original Citizens of the United States upon the Declaration of Independence. Madison believed that even though Mr. Smith was not in his home colony and state upon their committing to the Declaration of Independence, that his actions in life were not traitorous to the revolution and in Mr. Smith’s trying to and eventually returning to his home state, as difficult as that was for Mr. Smith because the ongoing revolutionary war for many years, that he demonstrated his loyalty to his state and the new nation while studying and because of the war stranded abroad. And thus Madison believed that Mr. Smith met point 1 of Ramsay’s 5 points, that Mr. Smith became a citizen of the United State upon the Declaration of Independence. Of course David Ramsay did not believe that Mr. Smith met that point. But the final vote shows that most disagreed with Ramsay and voted that Mr. Smith was a citizen for at least 7 years at the time of his election to Congress and thus met that constitutional requirement for said seat in Congress. So you misstate what the Case 1 decided and said. They did not reject Ramsay’s 5 points of citizenship. The voters simply said the Mr. Smith met at least one, the first one and/or the third one. But that is another typical OBOT/HBOT troll tactic, to misstate or only state part of the truth of what a legal case or hearing decision says.

          Ramsay Five Points of Citizenship:
          1st: By being parties to the original compact,The Declaration of Independence.
          2nd: By taking anOATH OF FIDELITY to someone of the united States according to law.
          3rd: By tacit consent and acquiescence
          4th: By birth or inheritance
          5th: By adoption

          What was voted on and decided in the affirmative in Case 1 covered in that contested elections book: “Resolved, that it appears to this House, upon mature consideration, that William Smith had been seven years a citizen of the United States at the time his election.” They were not voting on the validity of Ramsay’s 5 points.

          That 7 years a citizen at the time of his election was the sole issue before the House in the Congress in 1789.

          Ramsay also wrote which obviously came from Emer de Vattel in regards to inheritance of citizenship “I say, that, in order to beof the country, it isnecessary that a person be bornof a father who isa citizen; for, if one is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not hiscountry.” And we know Emer de Vattel defined “natural born Citizen” clearly as a person born in the country to parents who were its citizens. See: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/

          OBOT and now HBOT tactics and gaslighting: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/gaslighting/

          CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

      2. James Carter   Monday, September 28, 2020 at 1:14 PM

        Why don’t you go take a look?

        Reply
    2. James Carter   Monday, September 28, 2020 at 1:26 PM

      Even a Trump-hating Democrat Constitutional Professor agrees with ‘Birthers’! Thank You for this CDR Kerchner (Ret).

      http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/14thamendment.html

      “Professor Karlan was the Star Witness for the House Democrats in the Trump impeachment: in the video she explains that just plain citizens, like the 14th makes one, cannot be President.”

      http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/Professor%20Karlan%20explains%20the%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Clause.mp4

      Reply
      1. William King   Monday, September 28, 2020 at 2:52 PM

        She only said that the Framers were concerned about foreign influence over the U.S. President.

        No one disagrees that the Framers were concerned about foreign influence.

        Reply
      2. Jigsaw St. John   Monday, September 28, 2020 at 3:26 PM

        “…If you become an American citizen”

        Who becomes citizens? Aliens. If you are born a citizen that is not becoming one.

        She’s talking about naturalized citizens.

        Never even mentions the made-up 14th amendment citizens.

        Reply
        1. Roger Murtaugh   Monday, September 28, 2020 at 4:59 PM

          Transcript of Professor Marlin’s statement.

          “And there are a number of different provisions in the Constitution that deal with the kinds of corruption they were
          worried about, two that I’d just like to highlight here because I think they go to this idea about the national interest and
          foreign governments, are one that seems today I think to most of us to be really a kind of remnant of a past time, which is
          if you become an American citizen, almost everything in this country is open to you.
          You can become Chief Justice of the United States. You can become Secretary of State. But the one office that’s not open to you, even though you’re a citizen just like all of the rest of us, is the presidency because of the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution. And the reason they put that in is they were so worried about foreign influence over a President.”

          https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/house-event/LC64639/text?s=1&r=43

  5. Rob Laity   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 4:49 AM

    Mere birth in the US does NOT make a person a Natural Born Citizen. The term of art “Citizen at birth” (as NY State misrepresents the criteria) is NOT tantamount to the term of art “Natural Born Citizen”. One can be born in the US and NOT be an NBC. Harris is anchor baby.

    BTW, Harris was served her eligibility lawsuit summons on the 23rd of September,2020. https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/09/13/harris-eligibility-suit-docketed-in-federal-court/

    Reply
    1. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 12:32 PM

      Good work Rob. I’m sending the news of the eligibility lawsuit summons service being completed to several of my contact lists including newspapers, U.S. Congress, ActionAlert, and others. See: https://twitter.com/cdrkerchner/status/1309527357229801474

      CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

      Reply
    2. George Dallas   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 2:38 PM

      Has this service been filed in the DC court?

      Reply
      1. Rob Laity   Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 2:52 AM

        Service was made on Kamala Harris, the U.S. Attorney for DC and the U.S. Attorney General purusant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on September 23, 2020. I have in my possession three affidavits of service signed by the person who served the process.

        Filing those affidavits with the Clerk of the Court confirms that the proper parties were served.

        Reply
    3. Jigsaw St. John   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 2:51 PM

      How did you effect service?

      Reply
      1. Rob Laity   Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 2:53 AM

        Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

        Reply
    4. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 3:09 PM

      Rob: I suggest that you let the OBOT type trolls and HBOT type trolls in this forum find the answers to their investigative query questions on their own dime. They can simply contact their benefactor or employer who can email to their friends and allies on Kamala Harris’ campaign staff and get the answers they seek. No sense making it easy for the gas-lighting trolls pinging away here regularly with disinformation.

      Reply
      1. George Dallas   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 5:45 PM

        How is asking how service was effected “gas-lighting” “disinformation”?

        Is asking questions gaslighting? What benefit would there be in hiding such information?

        Reply
        1. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:36 PM

          “George Dallas”, whoever he/her really is, stated earlier in this forum’s comments: “What’s the point of these tweets? They keep showing that Kamala Harris was born in the United States — a fact that no one disputes.”

          That comment of yours reveals your true motives and intentions here … to gas-light and seed disinformation. Your Socratic Method of gas-lighting and seeding disinformation is not fooling me. Feign ignorance and offense with someone else.

        2. George Dallas   Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 2:22 PM

          How is it a “Socratic Method of gas-lighting and seeding disinformation” to attempt to determine the intent of tweets that reinforce that the undisputed fact that Harris was born in United States?

        3. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 4:25 PM

          Because Dear George the fact that Kamala Harris was born in the USA is not the question in dispute regarding her lack of eligibility to be VP. You know that. You are using straw-man questions, in a Socratic Method style, to mislead and confuse people. You are a troll in this thread to mislead, gas-light, and seed disinformation with carefully worded misleading questions with a factual premise not in dispute. You state a fact about something that is not in question and then ask another question in a way to make the unknowing coming by here a a newbie, that we disputing Harris’ constitutional eligibility are disputing a fact that is not in dispute by our side or anyone. All the while you know what the real questions are about Kamala Harris’ eligibility questions really are. Others have told you so many times. So Mr. Socratic Method troll, I expect you to reply again by asking another question. You sound at times like a programmed robotic type AI agent, or if not, a trained OBOT/HBOT robot troll.Talking to you you at times seems like talking to one of those old 8-Ball novelty items. ;-)

        4. George Dallas   Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 7:39 PM

          If Harris’ birth in the United States is undisputed, then how is it “disinformation” to notice that these tweets just keep repeating this undisputed fact about Harris’ birth in the United States?

          These tweets don’t add nothing new to any concerns about Harris’ eligibility. Is there any information in them that will change anyone’s minds about Harris’ eligibility?

  6. George Dallas   Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 7:13 PM

    What’s the point of these tweets? They keep showing that Kamala Harris was born in the United States — a fact that no one disputes.

    Reply
    1. James Carter   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 3:21 PM

      What’s the point of repeatedly dismissing the fact that Kamala Harris was born a citizen of three different countries and, therefore, could not possibly be a “natural born Citizen” of any country?

      Reply
      1. Jigsaw St. John   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 4:38 PM

        A recent district court ruled that the statements by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark about English Common Law are not dicta (Fitisemanu v. United States). The case is all about birthright citizenship and whether territories are part of the United States.

        10th circuit court of appeals heard oral arguments on the government’s appeal on Wednesday.

        IMO appeals court will overrule the district court but not because of the the district courts statements about dicta.

        Whoever loses will undoubtedly try to take it to the Supreme Court.

        Court will have an opportunity to review birthright citizenship if they chose to.

        District Court:

        https://casetext.com/case/fitisemanu-v-united-states

        10th Circuit Court of Appeals:

        https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/oral-argument-recordings?page=1

        Reply
        1. Robert Laity   Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 2:57 AM

          Unincorporated territories are NOT U.S. Soil. Panama Canal Zone, for example was never U.S. Soil for constitutional purposes. The PCZ was never a fully incorporated territory of the U.S. People born there are Citizens by Statute and are NOT Natural Born Citizens. McCain was not born on U.S. soil.

      2. George Dallas   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 5:31 PM

        Even if everything you say is true, these tweets change none of that.

        It would seem these tweets have no point.

        Reply
  7. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 3:51 PM

    Papers discussing “natural born Citizen” to Constitutional Standards: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3301209/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-to-Constitutional-Standards

    Kamala Harris was and is a Citizen of Jamaica at Birth and as a Citizen of Jamaica she owes homage and allegiance to the Jamaican sovereign. the Queen of Jamaica who is also the Queen of England. Harris : https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/09/19/kamala-harris-owes-homage-and-allegiance-to-queen-of-jamaica/

    Reply
  8. Jigsaw St. John   Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 3:43 PM

    The FBI demanded.

    Hyperbole?

    Wouldn’t fingerprints be a standard requirement for someone applying for legal permanent resident status. Same with the spouse being present?

    Apparently she got the status because she stayed and worked in the US for eight more years.

    Of there is s smoking gun they should produce it. So far it appears that everything is by the book.

    Reply
    1. Rob Laity   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 4:43 AM

      Permanent residents must naturalize if they want to become U.S. Citizens. Harris’ parents did not do so before Kamala was born. They were still foreigners when Kamala was born. Permanent resident status does NOT confer US citizenship.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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