It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Newsweek Article Argues Kamala Harris Is NOT A Citizen

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Infoshill
You can be a United States citizen, and still not be eligible to be President . Or didn't you know that ...


She is:
  • A legal citizen
  • Is 35 or older
  • Has resided in the United States for at least 14 years


Those are the qualifications, or didn't you know that?




posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:18 PM
link   
People have been complaining about anchor babies for a while now. They are automatically US citizens when they are born on our soil, that's been the argument for them from day one. Why would Kamala be any different? If she was born here she's a US citizen. According to the US Constitution:


Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
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.


Underline is mine. I really don't see an issue here.



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Someone poopoo'd me last week about this.....CALLED IT!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:27 PM
link   

a reply to: HalWesten

Underline is mine. I really don't see an issue here.


Doesn't say "Natural" Born Citizen ...No one is trying to take her citzenship away, she's just not eligible, she can get a other job that doesn't have the potential to cause so much damage to society...




edit on 17-8-2020 by Infoshill because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I think that needs change to 35 and UNDER!



a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

Did you read the article in the OP? It makes valid points.

The part that muddies the waters is the part that says, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

The anchor baby issue is in the works to be re-examined, too, btw.

As far as the 100-yr. old ruling goes:


The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Wong Kim Ark is not to the contrary. At issue there was a child born to Chinese immigrants who had become lawful, permanent residents in the United States—"domiciled" was the legally significant word used by the Court. But that was the extent of the Court's holding (as opposed to broader language that was dicta, and therefore not binding). Indeed, the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen.
www.newsweek.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: lakenheath24
I think that needs change to 35 and UNDER!


They couldn't do any worse than the current crop of bozos.



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I guess if you’re anti-American that is a valid point of view.



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aallanon
I guess if you’re anti-American that is a valid point of view.


Don't worry buckaroo, no one is taking your geezer choices away.



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:38 PM
link   
--


edit on 17-8-2020 by Infoshill because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Infoshill

a reply to: HalWesten

Underline is mine. I really don't see an issue here.


Doesn't say "Natural" Born Citizen



Really? "All persons born or naturalized "in the United States"

What about those seven words don't you understand? That is crystal f'g clear to everyone except deniers.



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I wouldn’t care if she was born on Mars.
This is all going to be moot when her and Biden lose in November.



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:43 PM
link   

a reply to: HalWesten

Really? "All persons born or naturalized


You don't have to be "Naturalized" if you're already "Natural"



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:45 PM
link   
The "current " crop for me starts with Slick Willy Clinton and has slid downhill faster than a frozen whale turd.






a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Infoshill

That's why they used the word 'or'. Those funny Founding Fathers, always confusing people with conjunctions.



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: lakenheath24
The "current " crop for me starts with Slick Willy Clinton and has slid downhill faster than a frozen whale turd.


Bush the First wasn't much better.

We would have been better with Ross Perot and Admiral Crazy Nuts.



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: HalWesten

Did you read the article in the OP? It makes valid points.

The part that muddies the waters is the part that says, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

The anchor baby issue is in the works to be re-examined, too, btw.

As far as the 100-yr. old ruling goes:


The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Wong Kim Ark is not to the contrary. At issue there was a child born to Chinese immigrants who had become lawful, permanent residents in the United States—"domiciled" was the legally significant word used by the Court. But that was the extent of the Court's holding (as opposed to broader language that was dicta, and therefore not binding). Indeed, the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen.
www.newsweek.com...



Yes, and that writer was twisting the words "natural born citizen" into the fallacy that the parents were required to be citizens or the child born here was not a citizen. That's not what it says or means. If you read the words of the Constitution there is no wiggle room in the 14th Amendment. That is all you need to know. Anything else is distorting the document and spreading false information. The only debate about the use of "natural-born citizen" is if the birth happened to US citizens on foreign soil. That's it. As the Constitution stands today, if you are born here you are a citizen of the USA. Period, end of story.



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Infoshill


a reply to: HalWesten

Really? "All persons born or naturalized


You don't have to be "Naturalized" if you're already "Natural"


You're purposely parsing words to match your thinking. The words "born... in the United States" are important. That's exactly what they mean.



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

I think the real argument should be had with the guy who wrote the Op ed. He doesn't just work for hair club for men, he's a client. I sure as hell don't have the knowledge to argue this. But I just hate to have someone shouted down rather than beat by facts.
edit on 17-8-2020 by network dude because: where the hell is my beer?



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I voted ole Rossy. Bush two was so stupid I dont know how he made it to adulthood.

I dunno, Admiral Crazy nuts was a VietCong mind plant. Like that tv show where dude gets rescued in the ME somewhere but tries to blow up the whitehouse. Meh...something like that anyway. Kinda gone off TV for youtube.

Currently rewatching skoolhouse rock vids to see if they are still legit.


Conjunction junction...whats your function......








a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join