Is a Child of Non-U.S. Citizens a “natural born Citizen?”

WHAT ROLE, IF ANY, DOES IMMIGRATION PLAY?

by Sharon Rondeau

https://twitter.com/KamalaKancel/status/1312892804230574080/photo/1

(Oct. 5, 2020) — The Twitter account @kancelkamala, also identifying itself as “@kamalakancel,” on Sunday released new images depicting what appears to be an April 1965 application completed by vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris’s mother for “nonimmigrant visitor” status in the United States.

While it is widely known that Kamala was born in Oakland, CA on October 20, 1964, questions have arisen as to her constitutional eligibility to serve as vice president under the 12th Amendment or president under the U.S. Constitution’s Article II “natural born Citizen” clause.

A modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment bestows U.S. citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil with rare exceptions, as in the case of a child born to foreign diplomats.  However, whether or not Harris’s parents were “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States given their respective statuses as foreign students, “visitors,” or “nonimmigrants” temporarily in the country continues to be a subject of debate.

Likewise, some consider the “natural born Citizen” clause to mean simply “born in the United States,” while others believe the Framers intended a higher level of citizenship and allegiance in the nation’s chief executive. Some point to George Washington, who was born in the United States but considered an English subject until the American Revolution was fought and won; presided over the Constitutional Convention in 1789; and was elected the nation’s first president under the “grandfather clause” of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, which states, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,…”

There were six presidents, including Washington, who are acknowledged in public reporting to have been born with foreign citizenship, whether born in the United States or elsewhere.

Some argue that as foreign students admitted to the United States, both Donald J. Harris and Shyamala Gopalan Harris were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as stated in the 14th Amendment and that their daughter is therefore a “natural born Citizen” qualified for the vice-presidency or presidency.  Others say that each parent remained at the time subject to the jurisdiction of his or her own country of citizenship.

“Being a natural born citizen has nothing to do with where you are born but strictly to whom you are born — as long as it’s to American citizens,” wrote Mark Hewitt in an August 20 op-ed at American Thinker.  “This is the media’s and the Democrat Party’s great lie going on twelve years now.  There are many ways to become a U.S. citizen, but if you are to seek the office of the president (or the vice president), you must be a child born of American parents.”

Others, including mainstream media outlets, disagree and have declared Harris eligible for the two highest offices in the land.  “By virtue of her birth in California, Harris is a natural-born U.S. citizen,” USA Today wrote on September 21.

As to whether or not Kamala Harris is a U.S. citizen outside of the “natural born” question, National Review reasoned on August 12:

There’s an academic debate to be had here. But if the 14th Amendment wasn’t supposed to give citizenship to kids who are born in the U.S. to students and then live here for more than a decade, we’ve been doing it wrong for a long time, and the courts are not going to change their mind just in time to keep Harris out of a Joe Biden White House.

Following @kancelkamala’s Sunday-evening release of the immigration documents are two images representing as many timelines in Shyamala Gopalan Harris’s life years after she arrived in the United States in 1958 on a student “nonimmigrant” visa to attend the University of California at Berkeley.  According to the Twitter account, Gopalan Harris’s actions over the years extending her stay and utilizing different names amounted to “immigration fraud.”

Gopalan Harris died in 2009 of cancer.

Having launched in mid-August, over a number of weeks @kancelkamala has released  more than a dozen images of what appear to be government and educational documents showing that Shyamala Gopalan, “Gopalan Shyamala,” of “G. Shyamala,” as she sometimes identified herself, received multiple extensions of her student visa both before and between the births of her children, Kamala and Maya.

Her married name was generally expressed as “Shyamala Gopalan Harris” after she married Donald J. Harris, a doctoral student she met while attending Berkeley.

Gopalan Harris later applied for “permanent legal resident” status only to abandon that effort by accepting a position in Canada to work as a cancer researcher for approximately 16 years.

To reenter the United States in 1985, the images show, a then-21-year-old Kamala Harris would apply for an “immigrant visa” on her mother’s behalf, identifying herself as a U.S. citizen “through birth in the U.S.,” but not “through parents.”

Born in India on April 7, 1938, Gopalan Harris does not appear to have become a U.S. citizen at any point in her life.  She originally arrived in the United States in September 1958 to pursue her Master’s degree in Nutrition at Berkeley on a scholarship and completed a Ph.D. in Physiology and Nutrition from the same institution in 1964.

On her April 23, 1965 application, she reported she had been employed “as a full-time research worker” between October 1, 1963 and that date, and was requesting what would be a fourth extension as a “nonimmigrant temporary worker” on an “H-1” visa.

On September 30, the U.S. Allegiance Institute released an image it reported obtaining from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) appearing to be the same as one previously released by @kancelkamala demonstrating that the U.S. government documented Gopalan Harris’s “nationality” as “Indian” ten days after Kamala Harris’s birth, which occurred on October 20, 1964.

While at Berkeley, Gopalan Harris became active in student political events, one of which introduced her to her future husband, then a Ph.D. student from Jamaica. According to The New York Times, “The community where they met was a crucible of radical politics, as the trade-union left overlapped with early Black nationalist thinkers…Members of the study group that drew them together in 1962, known as the Afro American Association, would help build the discipline of Black studies, introduce the holiday of Kwanzaa and establish the Black Panther Party.”

A January 1969 paper titled, ” Campus Activism and Foreign Students” by UC Berkeley Assistant Foreign Student Advisor Eugene H. Smith states, “We invite foreign students to our campuses so that our American students and local citizens can get to know and understand them and their cultures and so that Americans can profit from the points of view of other cultures; political and social activism is a valuable means for foreign students to bring their different points of view to bear on our customs and institutions. We can profit immensely from listening seriously to their evaluations and criticisms of our society. It will profit us little to pay attention to them only when they agree with us.”

IntlEduArticleWinter1969

The couple married in July 1963, documents show.  In February 2017 as a newly-elected U.S. senator, Kamala Harris wrote on her Facebook page that her mother avoided an “arranged marriage” in her home country by marrying her father.  “And – like millions of the children of immigrants before and since – it made us Americans,” Kamala Harris added.

Gopalan Harris and Donald Harris divorced in 1973.  In early 1976, Gopalan Harris took her two daughters to Montréal, Quebec, Canada, where she had accepted a position in cancer research at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research/Jewish General Hospital, an affiliate of McGill University.  Kamala Harris reportedly attended Canadian schools between the ages of 12 and 17, including a “French-speaking primary school,”

On September 5, The Post & Email reported, “In a 2009 interview with a South-Asian-interest outlet (now defunct), Harris held up India, the country of her mother’s origin, as “a model” for the United States system of governance.”

According to a January 2019 op-ed by Donald Harris in a Jamaican publication, he attempted to connect his daughters to their Jamaican heritage during their youth.  Trips were also made to India to visit the girls’ maternal extended family, multiple sources have reported.  According to an August 12 article in ANI (“South Asia’s Leading Multimedia News Agency”) quoting Kamala’s maternal uncle, “Kamala Harris was very emotional when she came to India with her mother’s ashes.”

In 2018 and again last year, The Trump administration said it was considering rejecting the automatic awarding of U.S. citizenship, sometimes known as “birthright citizenship,” to children born in the United States to non-citizen parents, such as illegal aliens. Some term those children “anchor babies” since their birth on U.S. soil can serve as an expedited means by which their parents can acquire U.S. citizenship, eligibility for public benefits and work authorization as well as the ability to sponsor relatives from their home country as legal immigrants to the United States.

As this publication has covered extensively, questions arising in 2007 regarding Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president have never been answered. His claimed father was in Hawaii on a student visa and indisputably never a U.S. citizen, while his claimed mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was reportedly born in Kansas and is believed to have retained U.S. citizenship throughout her life and far-reaching travels. Obama claims a birth on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI and in 2008, invoked the 14th Amendment to proffer his eligibility.

A five-year criminal investigation reported the image released by the White House in 2011 said to represent Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate to be a “computer-generated forgery.”  More than two years ago, the former detective who conducted the investigation under the authority of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office additionally divulged that two U.S. intelligence agents disclosed to him that it is “an open secret” in Washington, DC that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

Some believe that Obama is behind Harris as Biden’s choice of a running-mate.


Updated, October 10, 2020, 7:45 a.m. EDT.

28 Responses to "Is a Child of Non-U.S. Citizens a “natural born Citizen?”"

  1. Harry   Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 12:19 PM

    Not One?
    Is there not one of these ineligible candidates (Kamala Harris comes to mind) to the office of President or Vice-President willing to produce the documents necessary to prove they are a natural born citizen in accordance with the US Constitution? We are up against this issue once more after Obama and the rest of those who put their personal naked ambition ahead of the Constitution and We the People. I challenge Kamala Harris to produce the necessary documents – birth certificate; citizenship documents for herself, her parents and any other legal documents necessary to prove her eligibility to the office of Vice-President. And, furthermore, to submit those documents to the US Supreme Court for an emergency decision as to whether or not she is a natural born citizen of the United States of America. Is it possible? Is it too late? Can one of you legal experts respond? Is there not one willing to pledge their life, their fortune and their sacred honor in order to support and defend the US Constitution? I am afraid not one.
    Harry

    Reply
  2. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 10:15 PM

    My thoughts on some significant events with dates and an excerpt from the US Constitution in the days of our Founding Fathers/Framers that should be applied to our 2020 presidential election:

    April 19, 1775 – Shot heard ‘round the world at Concord, Massachusetts. NOTE 1
    July 4, 1776 – Thomas Jefferson pens the Declaration of Independence.
    May 25, 1787 – US Constitutional Convention convenes.
    Jul 25, 1787 – Date of John Jay’s letter to George Washington suggesting that the US president/Commander-in-chief be a natural born Citizen. NOTE 2
    September 17, 1787 – US Constitution signed.
    March 4, 1789 – US governance under the US Constitution.
    April 30, 1789 – George Washington took presidential oath of office. NOTE 3
    September 25, 1789 – First Congress adopted 12 Amendments to US Constitution (Original Bill of Rights). Ten Amendments ratified in November 1789.

    Excerpt from US Constitution: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. NOTE 4

    NOTES 1, 3 & 4: Looks like the Founding Fathers/Framers were definitely serious about the Concord, Massachusetts event that they instilled the 14 years specification for George Washington’s presidency and thought that by keeping that 14 years a resident of the United States specification in the US Constitution as a reminder to the ensuing presidents of the USA of THAT event.

    NOTE 2: Also looks like the Founding Fathers/Framers took the John Jay suggestion so seriously that they grandfathered “their own” as statutory “citizens” as of July 4, 1776. The Framers knew fully well that the ensuing generation of patriots would then be natural born Citizens, just in time to adhere to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 specifications.

    SUMMARY: As our Founding Fathers found it necessary and wise to stockpile weapons and ammunition (NOTE 1), so too, we modern-day patriots should do the same. The Democrats are running around acting like a bunch of Brits, ready to remove our freedoms at the drop of a ballot. The Democrats should be known as the Founding Phonies.

    Reply
    1. JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS   Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 7:21 AM

      The thoughtful list of events might add July 25, 1788 (exactly one year after Jay’s nbC letter to George Washington) when John Jay proposed an accepted amendment to New York Ratification Convention, that the following office-holders posses “natural born” citizenship (nbC) and posses land as freeholders (= holders of fixed property for an undetermined period of time):

      President
      Vice-president
      Senators
      Representatives

      http://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/john-jay-on-natural-born-citizenship.html

      This nbC law of man, predictably, was eventually prostituted, by The Whoreable Nancy Pelosi on 08-28-08 when Nancy forged the nomination certification of Obama II, with Biden II (a natural born Criminal) being complicit in this forgery then, and now complicit on foisting non-nbC Kamala, too.

      Except for Republican Arthur and Democommunist Obama II usurpations, it was evidently understood that nbC required presidential parents to also be US citizens: https://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/All-U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud

      In 1804, John Jay’s desire for Vice-presidents to also be an nbC was ratified via the 12th Amendment.

      HAS ANYONE EVER CHECKED THE PARENTAGE OF ALL VICE-PRESIDENTS SINCE 1787 TO SEE IF THEIR PARENTS WERE ALSO US CITIZENS?

      Words have meaning:

      citizen

      naturalized citizen (laws of man)

      born citizen

      natural born Citizen (laws of nature)

      born a natural citizen

      Reply
      1. Michael Britten   Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 12:21 PM

        In the 1916 election, over one million vote were cast in California. Republican Charles Evan Hughes lost California by 5000 votes. Had he won California, he would have won the Electoral College vote and the presidency.

        Charles Evan Hughes was born in the US to British father and US citizen mother.

        Reply
        1. Sharon Rondeau   Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 1:54 PM

          In a 1916 essay, then-future Woodrow Wilson State Department official Breckinridge Long wrote:

          “Whether Mr. Hughes is, or is not, a ‘natural born’ citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, so as to make him eligible or ineligible, to assume the office of President, presents an interesting inquiry.

          “He was born in this country and is beyond question ‘native born.’ But is there not a distinction between ‘native born’ and ‘natural born’? At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England. His father had not then been naturalized. The day after Mr. Hughes was born his father had a right, as an English subject, to go to the British consul, at New York, and to present his wife and infant and to claim any assistance he might need from the consul as the representative of the English government.”

          https://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/10/lifelong-democrat-breckinridge-long-natural-born-citizen-means-born-on-the-soil-to-a-father-who-is-a-citizen/

        2. Michael Britten   Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:28 AM

          Finally got around to reading breckenridge Long’s treatise on Hughes.

          He doesn’t mention the Wong Kim Ark decision while he miscites another decision by Gray.

  3. Michael Britten   Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 7:13 PM

    “Some point to George Washington, who was born in the United States but considered an English subject … and was elected the nation’s first president under the “grandfather clause” of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, which states, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,…”

    There is some evidence the founders considered themselves natives or natural born citizens.

    Reply
    1. Sharon Rondeau   Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 9:06 PM

      And that evidence is where?

      Reply
      1. Michael Britten   Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 1:19 AM

        “And that evidence is where?”

        In their use of the terms. Here is one example:

        “Native citizens, on several valuable accounts, are preferable to Aliens, and to citizens alien-born.”

        “…it appears to me adviseable to declare, by a standing law, that no person but a native citizen shall be capable of the office of Consul”

        These two quotes come from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to John Jay in November, 1788.

        So who did Jefferson consider to be a native citizens? Clearly someone born before July 4th, 1776.

        Please ask Mr. DeMaio for his opinion.

        Link to Jefferson letter

        https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-14-02-0054

        Reply
        1. James Carter   Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 8:32 AM

          Better yet, please ask Mr. Thomas Jefferson who he considered to be a native citizen.

      2. Michael Britten   Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 9:38 AM

        Additional evidence:

        “When I recommend Care in yr Choice, I wd be understood to mean Men of good Character in the Regimt that possess the pride of appearing clean & soldierlike—I am satisfied there can be no absolute security for the Fidelity of this Class of People, but yet I think it most likely to be found in those who have Family-Connections in the Country. You will therefore send me none but Natives, & Men of some property, if You have them—I must insist that in making this Choice You give no Intimation of my preferance of Natives, as I do not want to create any invidious Distinction between them & the Foreigners. I am &c.”

        From letter by General Washington to Colonels Alexander Spotswood, Alexander McClanachan, and Abraham Bowman and Lieutenant Colonel Christian Febiger, April, 1777.

        Who are these natives that Washington is insisting on being made his guard? Clearly he is referring to men born in the colonies before July 4th, 1776. And he draws a distinction between the natives and foreigners.

        Please ask Mr. DeMaio for his opinion.

        Link to Washington’s letter.

        https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-09-02-0301

        Reply
      3. Michael Britten   Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 9:45 AM

        Good time to review Vattel?

        Some years ago, John Greschak researched the various editions of the Law of Nations. Here is a summary and link to his work:

        1758 Original French edition – “Les Naturels, ou Indigènes“

        1759 first English edition (London) – “natives, or indigenes,”

        1760 English edition (London) – “natives, or indigenes,”

        1787 first American edition (New York) – “natives, or indigenes,”

        1792 English edition (Dublin) – “natives, or indigenes,”

        1793 English edition (London) – “natives, or indigenes,”

        1796 English edition (New York) – “natives, or indigenes;”

        1797 English edition (London) – “natives, or natural born citizens,”

        http://web.archive.org/web/20100404055353/http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

        Between the original 1758 French version and the 1797 English version – Naturels was translated as natives.

        Reply
      4. Michael Britten   Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:40 AM

        More evidence?

        In 1785 the Maryland legislature made Major General Lafayette a natural born citizen of Maryland.

        “An Act to naturalize major-general the marquis de la Fayette and his heirs male for ever.”

        “II. Be it enacted, by the general assembly of Maryland, That the marquis de la Fayette, and his heirs male for ever, shall be, and they and each of them are hereby deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, natural born citizens of this state, and shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural born citizens thereof, they and every of them conforming to the constitution and laws of this state, in the enjoyment and exercise of such immunities, rights and privileges.”

        January, 1785

        The naturalization act used the term natural born citizen to describe the citizens of the state only eight years after the Declaration of Independence was signed.

        Did the pre-Declaration natural born subjects become the post-Declaration natural born citizens of Maryland?

        https://books.google.com/books?id=9pxaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT40&dq=laws+of+maryland+la+Fayette&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwig-LPUm6TsAhXWJTQIHSTWDj4Q6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

        Reply
      5. Michael Britten   Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:55 PM

        More evidence?

        The first drafts of the Articles of Confederation in November, 1777, had the term “natural born free Citizens of the State to which they go to reside”.

        The final draft did not use this term but only “free citizens in the several states;”

        Why the change? There doesn’t appear to be an explanation. Did they realize that in 1777 there were no “natural born free Citizens” or did they not want to draw a distinction between those natives and those citizens alien born (as Jefferson described them).

        First form
        http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ll/lljc/009/0100/01360888.tif

        Second form
        http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ll/lljc/009/0100/01370889.tif

        Reply
        1. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:01 PM

          Congress cannot deem, cannot make, nor cannot bestow natural born Citizenship upon anyone, because Congress does not have natural law authority to do so.

          Natural born Citizenship is a natural phenomenon caused by being born in the country (all 50 states + DC – and no other locations) to two citizen parents of those 50 states + DC. All natural born Citizens are citizens at birth.

          On the other hand, Congress is authorized through the US Constitution, Article I and Amendment 14 – to make laws to declare persons as US citizens at birth, including such overseas personalities as Ted Cruz, Tulsi Gabbard, Tammy Duckworth, Ilhan Omar, and John S. McCain. These US citizens are plain-vanilla STATUTORY US citizens and because the phrase “natural born Citizen” does not exists in any citizenship law, these STATUTORY US citizens (at birth) are not natural born Citizens.

          Congress also possesses the Constitutional authority to bestow STATUTORY US Citizenship upon immigrants through naturalization laws.

          Because of the wrongly interpreted phrase found in the 14th Amendment: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, the US Supreme Court justices in the USA v. Wong Kim Ark decision inadvertently authorized legal and illegal alien parents authority to bestow US citizenship on their newborn, should the child be born in the 50 states + DC.

    2. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 9:54 PM

      I think M. B. belongs to the Homo-Marxian species of the socratic style gas-lighting far-left trolls tasked by their comrade masters or pay-masters to come here to seed confusion. JMHO. He and others never answered the question which I’ll ask again, does he care if a person born with foreign citizenship and innate allegiance to the Queen of Jamaica, the Queen of England, will become the VP, and in the failure of Joe Biden become the President and Commander in Chief of our military?

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

      Reply
      1. Schuyler Colfax   Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 12:50 AM

        Has Gabbard shown any suspicious favoritism toward America Samoa? Duckworth toward Thailand? Haley toward India? Cruz toward Canada? Rubio toward Cuba? Jindal toward India? Romney toward Mexico? Obama toward Kenya? McCain toward Panama?

        Reply
        1. James Carter   Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 8:58 AM

          In his first book, “Dreams From My Father”, Obama showed suspicious favoritism towards Kenya — lauding his father’s attempts to rid Kenya of “White Colonialism”

          During a radio interview in 2001, Obama showed suspicious disfavor towards the U.S. Constitution — “…is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

          On October 30, 2008, Obama showed suspicious intent to do to America what his father attempted to do to Kenya — “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America!”

          Fool me once, your bad. Fool me twice, my bad.

        2. Schuyler Colfax   Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 11:38 AM

          Rebuking colonialism isn’t favoring Kenya. The Founders of the United States also rebuked colonialism.

        3. Gary Wilmott   Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 6:52 PM

          You can’t be serious.

        4. Schuyler Colfax   Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 7:25 PM

          I don’t know if James Carter was serious.
          But when asked how these ineligible candidates had favored their “home” countries over the United States, James Carter mentioned only Obama’s support for Kenya’s independence from the United Kingdom. That’s not favoring Kenya over the United States, and most Americans support independence from the United Kingdom. We a fought a war for exactly that.

      2. Michael Britten   Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 4:18 PM

        “He and others never answered the question which I’ll ask again, does he care if a person born with foreign citizenship …will become the VP, and ..become the President and Commander in Chief of our military”

        I saw answered this in a different there as thread.

        I’m not concerned about Harris becoming VP or president because of her parents. Just as I was not concerned about Obama, Rubio, Cruz or Jindal becoming president because of their parents. Nor am I concerned about Haley or duckworth becoming president because of their parents.

        Reply
  4. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 5:39 PM

    Not only were Kamala Harris’s parents non-U.S. Citizens when she was born they were also NON-IMMIGRANTS when she was born in the USA. The were only temporarily sojourning in the USA on student VISAs. That point has to be emphasized. Her parents were not even immigrants to the USA when she was born, let alone not U.S. Citizens. That makes Kamala Harris an “anchor baby”. VP Pence who would have standing should litigate her eligibility. Pence has been provided the information by several people at this point. Let’s see if he brings it up in the debate tomorrow. A perfect question to her to launch it would be: “Ms. Harris did you know you were a Citizen of Jamaica via your foreign national father when you were born in 1964?”

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

    Reply
    1. Schuyler Colfax   Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 11:18 PM

      At the debate, Harris discussed her upbringing, and the Vice President said nothing.

      Reply
      1. James Carter   Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 1:35 PM

        Her upbringing wasn’t among the issues being debated…political records and policies were.

        Reply
        1. Schuyler Colfax   Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 2:26 PM

          Isn’t Harris’ eligibility a matter of her political record?

          Surely a skilled debater like Pence could have tied Harris’ upbringing to any number of important policies, like immigration.

  5. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Monday, October 5, 2020 at 8:58 PM

    U.S. Senator Kamala Harris is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen‘ of USA – NOT Eligible to be the Vice President, or the President and Commander-in-Chief of Our Military, per U.S. Constitution: 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/

    Read and print out this White Paper about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

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

    Reply
  6. James Carter   Monday, October 5, 2020 at 8:07 PM

    “As to whether or not Kamala Harris is a U.S. citizen outside of the “natural born” question, National Review reasoned on August 12:

    There’s an academic debate to be had here. But if the 14th Amendment wasn’t supposed to give citizenship to kids who are born in the U.S. to students and then live here for more than a decade, we’ve been doing it wrong for a long time, and the courts are not going to change their mind just in time to keep Harris out of a Joe Biden White House.”

    Here we go again. It’s not that 14th Amendment wasn’t intended to give citizenship to those born here to student parents but, moreover, it’s that it doesn’t give natural born citizenship to anyone at all. And that, whomever at National Review, settles it. PERIOD!

    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.