Kamala is not a US Citizen

Author: Amber

Posts

Total: 205
Topic's author
#1
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 387
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
Saw this on Facebook and it makes a very compelling argument.

Kamala Harris is [not] a US Citizen. The #14th excludes foreigners even temporarily residing in the US & on Visas (education/work) from having birthed children declared US Citizens.
The qualification clause of the #14th "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - it prevents diplomats, tourists, and (illegal) aliens alike. "Jurisdiction" refers to "political allegiance" of an individual & the jurisdiction a foreign government has over them.
Just because tourists, illegal aliens, & those here on VISAs may be subject to answer to our laws (a crime, speeding ticket, etc.) doesn't place them under the political "jurisdiction" of the US. This language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
"a[ll] persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power" would be considered citizens. Sen. Lyman Trumball, a key figure in the adoption of the #14th, said that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US included "not owing allegiance to any other country".
Children of foreign citizens temporarily resident in the US are - subject to [the] foreign power governing their parents' citizenship. Donald Harris was a Jamaican citizen. Shyamala Gopalan was an Indian citizen. Both were in the US on VISAs to attend UC.
#KamalaHarris was born in 1964, both her parents were still in the US under VISAs. Her mother didn't even apply for permanent residency until 1966. She was not even issued her I-151 Perm Resident card until 4-10-68 per INS records.
Senator Jacob Howard explained the meaning of the #14th citizenship clause: that every person born w/in the limits of the US, & subject to the US' jurisdiction (political allegiance), is by virtue of natural law a citizen of the US. This, of course, does not include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States but will include every other class of persons. #KamalaHarris parents were foreigners for years b4 and after her birth.
Bottom line, #KamalaHarris is NOT a United States Citizen as she was born to #foreigners / #aliens in the US on a VISA educational program, then a work program, and were not naturalized until several years AFTER Kamala's birth. Kamala is not qualified to become #POTUS
I did not write this; I am just cut n pasting it here for consideration for debate or discussion.

Thoughts?
#2
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
You’re a wack job. That’s my thought

Anyone who gets there news from Facebook is an idiot. That’s another thought.
#3
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Amber
Thoughts?

Courts aren't infallible, but I don't see any apparent errors.
#4
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
Thoughts?
LOL, you guys need to get some new material.  

I know, how about "too old, cognitive decline"...no, that could backfire.

A black woman is going to kick Trump 's lard ass....MAGA will just love that LOL.

It's fucking poetic.


#5
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,570
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8


#6
Casey_Risk
Casey_Risk's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 996
3
3
8
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
3
3
8
Oh joy, they're doing Birtherism for Harris now. 

The "subject to its jurisdiction" clause of the 14th amendment was specifically carved out for the children of foreign diplomats. It's standard internationally for diplomats and their families to not be citizens of the country in which they are residing on a diplomatic mission. The exception does not apply to Harris, no matter how much you want it to. 
Topic's author
#7
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 387
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@Casey_Risk
The "subject to its jurisdiction" clause of the 14th amendment was specifically carved out for the children of foreign diplomats.
No it is not. 

Foreigners on VISAs, tourists, etc. were also included within that group of diplomats, etc. 

Senator Jacob Howard explained the meaning of the #14th citizenship clause: that every person born w/in the limits of the US, & subject to the US' jurisdiction (political allegiance), is by virtue of natural law a citizen of the US. This, of course, does not include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, ...

Try reading what the person wrote and make an actual effort to disprove the legal arguments within instead of spouting off with things you clearly neither understand or cherry picked in order to ignore the rest of it. 

Her father was under the jurisdiction (political allegiance) of Jamaica.
Her mother was under the jurisdiction (political allegiance) of India.

Neither were under the jurisdiction (political allegiance) of the United States. 
They were foreigners visiting the US on VISAs, therefore Kamala is NOT a US Citizen.

Topic's author
#8
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 387
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
@IwantRooseveltagain,

You're the resident troll.
You're not worth my time. 
Each of your comments will be ignored hence forth.
Topic's author
#9
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 387
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@Sidewalker
Thoughts?
LOL, you guys need to get some new material.  
Not a guy, so don't lump me in with others.

I know, how about "too old, cognitive decline"...no, that could backfire.

A black woman is going to kick Trump 's lard ass....MAGA will just love that LOL.

It's fucking poetic.

You clearly didn't read anything in the OP since you haven't responded to it on point.

You're just trolling, right! Why?
Why sideline my discussion that could be interesting for all to actually learn something important about our BOR and the 14th citizenship birthright section that has been so clearly misunderstood and abused by the left/demoKKKrats?
Topic's author
#10
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 387
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@FLRW
Based on what I read/posted in the OP, that article and all others parroting the same are wrong.

They're just regurgitating the left's talking points about the 14th without doing the legal research to prove it. 

What I read and posted addresses actual legislative history that is far more sound and logical than the lies from the left.

Try again. 
#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Amber
They can't address it because it would require the government to deport millions of DACA kids.
#12
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
You're the resident troll.
You're not worth my time. 
Each of your comments will be ignored hence forth.
I thought I was the resident troll.

Sheesh, talk about loose, she's already cheating on me with other trolls.

She just ignores around with anybody.
#13
Casey_Risk
Casey_Risk's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 996
3
3
8
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
3
3
8
-->
@Amber
Okay, I have a lot to say, but I'm at work right now and also participating in a game of mafia. I'll break down how laughably incorrect you are either later tonight or tomorrow. For now though, no, jurisdiction does not mean political allegiance, it means you are subject to the laws of a certain jurisdiction. People who enter the US illegally are still bound by its laws. Diplomats and their immediate family members are not. 
Topic's author
#14
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 387
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Bingo. None of the DACA illegals are citizens either. 
Topic's author
#15
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 387
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@Casey_Risk
For now though, no, jurisdiction does not mean political allegiance, it means you are subject to the laws of a certain jurisdiction. 
No it does not. You clearly didn’t read the OP in its entirety. 

The legislative history is clear, jurisdiction means political Allegiance. 

Diplomatic immunity is a political courtesy and has nothing to do with all other persons subjected to the 14th jurisdiction (political allegiance) restrictions. 

If my husband and I visit France as either tourists with passports or for work on VISAs, we are subject to their laws as they are a sovereign nation. But if I pop out a kid they’re not a France citizen no more than if the reverse happened here in the US. 

#16
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Amber
good lord we've circled back to birtherism? Man republicans are racist. 

She was born on US soil. Therefore she was born a US citizen. There is no question about that other than stupid people on facebook. 
Topic's author
#17
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 387
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
Thanks for demonstrating that single digit IQ you’re sporting there HB. 

You clearly know nothing about legislative history behind an act/law, the debates that went on to define terms, intent and purpose to give them meaning in its application. 

You’re not worth my time. 
#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
@Amber
There is no question about that...
If the left can make a quick books accounting error a felony, then the right can have its own creative political interpretation of the law as well. 
#19
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Amber
Thanks for demonstrating that single digit IQ you’re sporting there HB. 
I'm not even sure what you're trying to do. You're quoting some random post on facebook and pretending like this is a legitimate topic of debate. It's not. The law is clear. If you are born in the US, you are a US citizen. This is a thing that happens regularly. The exception you are talking about is a carve out for diplomats since they spend so much time in foreign countries and you don't necessarily want your diplomats being foreign citizens. 

this whole post is dumb. The fact that you're bringing it up when it is so obviously nonsensical absolutely screams racism. 
#20
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
If the left can make a quick books accounting error a felony
"the left" didn't do that. The state of new york did years ago. 

then the right can have its own creative political interpretation of the law as well. 
it's thinking like this that destroys democracy. You try so hard to find some "leftist" conspiracy to justify your own crimes and shitty behavior. 
#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
New York is the left. A pretender of democracy.
#22
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
New York is the left.
an entire state is "the left"? You know Trump is from new york right? MY GOD!!!! you've uncovered the secret!!!

#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Democrats own the state on all levels for all of your lifetime. It's their playground to play in.
#24
Casey_Risk
Casey_Risk's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 996
3
3
8
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
3
3
8
Let me break this down for you.

The legislative history is clear, jurisdiction means political Allegiance. 
You do realize that just because some post on Facebook says something, doesn't mean it's true, right? I need to know that you understand that.

Let's look at how Merriam-Webster defines jurisdiction:

  1. the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
  2. the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate; the power or right to exercise authority
  3. the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised
Literally nothing about political allegiance. It's almost like the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" means subject to its laws like I said it means! Remember, Merriam-Webster is the foremost dictionary of American English, and the Constitution is the document that outlines the entire structure of the United States and serves as the basis of its legal system. If 'subject to [its] jurisdiction' could mean 'allegiant to the government of the United States', the dictionary would say so. And yet, it doesn't.

The concept of jurisdiction is especially important in US law, too, due to its use of federalism and separation of powers. Just have a glance at the Wikipedia article on the subject. Legal language is known for being very conservative. The idea that the writers of the 14th amendment would suddenly make up a new definition for 'jurisdiction' and have it apply there is simply ludicrous. Jurisdiction has always referred to the power of an authority to make and enforce laws. It has never meant the authority to which one owes their political allegiance.

If my husband and I visit France as either tourists with passports or for work on VISAs, we are subject to their laws as they are a sovereign nation. 
Yes, that's exactly correct, because you are subject to the jurisdiction of the nation of France! You've got it!

But if I pop out a kid they’re not a France citizen no more than if the reverse happened here in the US. 
...Aaaaaaaand you've lost it. France and the US are two entirely different nations with different legal systems. France is a civil law country; the US is a common law country. The law works differently in different countries, because different countries are allowed to do different things. I need to know that you understand that.

France doesn't recognize birthright citizenship at all (at least not as far as I'm aware); the United States does. Virtually every single person ever born in the US, past or present, is/was subject to its jurisdiction. The ONLY exceptions are those born to foreign diplomats being hosted by the US, as they automatically have diplomatic immunity, meaning that they cannot be prosecuted by the American legal system. Kamala Harris was born on US soil and was not born to any diplomats; therefore, she is a citizen by birth. Case closed.
#25
Casey_Risk
Casey_Risk's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 996
3
3
8
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
3
3
8
Sorry for the double ping btw, I accidentally published my comment while I was still in the middle of writing it.
#26
Casey_Risk
Casey_Risk's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 996
3
3
8
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
3
3
8
-->
@Greyparrot
@Amber
Oh wait, I forgot to tag you both at all the second time. NOW you've been double pinged!
#27
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
2008 - First colored president to be elected.
2024 - First female colored president to be elected.
2056 - First colored president to be elected without birtherism allegations.
Topic's author
#28
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 387
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
Random post on FB ≠ factually inaccurate information. Names of senators I cocked in the debates and ratification of the 14th are clearly mentioned. The details are easily verifiable. I’ve looked already and nothing this person wrote of is wrong. Nothing. 

All you’re doing is regurgitating leftist demoKKKrsric talking. Points. If u actually looked behind those fallacious talking points and did a little legal research on point you’d see that which I posted from the anonymous source is 100% correct. 

But no, like so many on the left you don’t want to exercise the muscle between your ears and just drink whatever koolaid of the day is being handed to you. 
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
2016- Second colored president elected.
#30
Casey_Risk
Casey_Risk's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 996
3
3
8
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
3
3
8
-->
@Amber
The details are easily verifiable. I’ve looked already and nothing this person wrote of is wrong. Nothing. 
You have literally already been proven wrong in this very thread. The Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) already settled this issue.