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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2020 @ 02:02 AM
link   
< smirk >

So we're potentially looking at Vice President Anchor Baby.

Heh. That needs to catch on, yesterday. We need memes, comedians of ATS!




posted on Aug, 18 2020 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

There is nothing to discuss.

The Supreme Court has ruled on this a number of times. She is a citizen. Born here.

She is eligible. Now electable is something else entirely...



posted on Aug, 18 2020 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Actually the OP addresses this.


No, it doesn't. The person who wrote the op-ed is still claiming United States v Wong Kim Ark is not a correct ruling which you then go on to use to erroneously cite her parents not being citizens as the issue.

But, hey, this election needs some birther nonsense to distract the stupid from the real issues.




edit on 18-8-2020 by AugustusMasonicus because: 👁❤🍕



posted on Aug, 18 2020 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

I've had it since 5-24-19 last year..1 year...didn't know what to call it then.

Lost 70 lbs...still not so great...but, hey. Still here for today!

Take care of u n yours...



posted on Aug, 18 2020 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ganjoa
Intentionally misleading title.
Obviously, Kamalaa is a citizen.
Not obvious, whether she qualifies as a Natural Born Citizen eligible for the Presidency.
Naturalization Acts from 1790 through 1828(?) contain applicable language.
Best for SCOTUS to decide once and for all exactly what are the applicable criteria.

SO - at this point the question is: Who controls CJ Roberts blackmail strings now that Epstein's gone?

ganjoa


It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that the democrats already knew this and chose her so that her citizenship would be questioned and, like last time, they could scream "racist" at anyone daring to talk about it.

Nice try, democrats, nice try.



posted on Aug, 18 2020 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Well I saw that they mentioned this part of the 14th.


and subject to the jurisdiction thereof


I've read on this before and everyone is subject to the jurisdiction of this country except if a person is a diplomat or the child of a diplomat. Diplomats are immune to certain laws.

Are her parents diplomats for another country? If they are then an argument can be made. Otherwise I don't see the argument as meritorious .



posted on Aug, 18 2020 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Actually the OP addresses this.


No, it doesn't. The person who wrote the op-ed is still claiming United States v Wong Kim Ark is not a correct ruling which you then go on to use to erroneously cite her parents not being citizens as the issue.

But, hey, this election needs some birther nonsense to distract the stupid from the real issues.





Yes..........but then I pointed out that actually States v Wong Kim Ark is totally irrelevant anyway.

That case decided who MUST be granted citizenship. It didn't decide who CAN be granted it.

If, at the time of Harris' birth anchor babies were considered citizens by ordinary laws, (not constitutional laws, but just laws) -- Then she would be "natural born" anyway.



posted on Aug, 19 2020 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
That case decided who MUST be granted citizenship. It didn't decide who CAN be granted it.


Which shows a fundamental lack of understanding in regards the Constitution, it's not a list of things the government CAN do, it's a list of things it CANNOT do. If someone thinks jus soli is incorrect, like the whiney bitch in the article, then they should make a Constitutional challenge.

But whiney bitches don't do things like that, you know, being that they are just whiney bitches.



posted on Aug, 19 2020 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
That case decided who MUST be granted citizenship. It didn't decide who CAN be granted it.


Which shows a fundamental lack of understanding in regards the Constitution, it's not a list of things the government CAN do, it's a list of things it CANNOT do.



Sometimes it's also a list of things that it MUST do.

Such as granting citizenship to those born in America and subject to its jurisdiction.


If someone thinks jus soli is incorrect, like the whiney bitch in the article, then they should make a Constitutional challenge.

But whiney bitches don't do things like that, you know, being that they are just whiney bitches.



They can't make a constitutional challenge unless she is actually elected.

The constitution says a person who isn't "natural born" citizen can't BE the vice president.

It doesn't say they can't campaign for vice president.



posted on Aug, 20 2020 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Sometimes it's also a list of things that it MUST do.

Such as granting citizenship to those born in America and subject to its jurisdiction.


Which, since it doesn't list the exclusions, means everyone is a citizen unless the Supreme Court rules on the matter like they did in Wong Kim Ark. This is again and example of what it CANNOT do which is deny jus soli citizenship.


They can't make a constitutional challenge unless she is actually elected.

The constitution says a person who isn't "natural born" citizen can't BE the vice president.

It doesn't say they can't campaign for vice president.


I'm talking about his whiney bitch ass challenging just what exactly jus soli means vis a vis the Constitution. He thinks it means one thing, since he's being trolled by Newsweek, and most normal people know what it means since their not dumb enough to get birther trolled themselves.



edit on 20-8-2020 by AugustusMasonicus because: 👁❤🍕



posted on Aug, 21 2020 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Sometimes it's also a list of things that it MUST do.

Such as granting citizenship to those born in America and subject to its jurisdiction.


Which, since it doesn't list the exclusions, means everyone is a citizen unless the Supreme Court rules on the matter like they did in Wong Kim Ark. This is again and example of what it CANNOT do which is deny jus soli citizenship.



Yeah. When you read the ruling more thoroughly, it is clear that basically anyone who has to pay taxes is "subject to jurisdiction". And the Supreme court ruled that English Commonlaw definition of "subject to jurisdiction" would be used for that, which was very clearly framed at the time. Basically anyone who could be required to obey the law.

If we wanted to stop Mexican anchor babies, we would also have to return the income taxes paid by illegal immigrants when we deport them.

Or actually....we could work around that too. We could make them tax exempt, but require them to submit evidence to the IRS that they are illegal in order to claim the tax exemption.

As a citizen or Oregon, I don't have to pay sales tax when I visit Washington state (because they have a law allowing Oregonians to be sales tax exempt). But I have to show them my driver's license in order to claim it.








They can't make a constitutional challenge unless she is actually elected.

The constitution says a person who isn't "natural born" citizen can't BE the vice president.

It doesn't say they can't campaign for vice president.


I'm talking about his whiney bitch ass challenging just what exactly jus soli means vis a vis the Constitution. He thinks it means one thing, since he's being trolled by Newsweek, and most normal people know what it means since their not dumb enough to get birther trolled themselves.




If it can't be challenged yet, it is wise to look ahead and ask whether the election results would be challenged.

But I'm pretty sure her parents paid taxes while they were here.



posted on Aug, 21 2020 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Yeah. When you read the ruling more thoroughly, it is clear that basically anyone who has to pay taxes is "subject to jurisdiction". And the Supreme court ruled that English Commonlaw definition of "subject to jurisdiction" would be used for that, which was very clearly framed at the time. Basically anyone who could be required to obey the law.


So basically as I've been saying, a citizen. Thanks for confirming what I already knew and the Supreme Court said.



posted on Aug, 21 2020 @ 11:42 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 ...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...



There are exactly TWO 'kinds' of citizens: "Naturalized" and "Born". The 14th amendment says that. Not some court case.

"Naturlized" means that citizenship was granted sometime after birth.
"Natural Born Citizen" means that citizenship was gained naturally by the circumstances of their birth.

Kamala Harris did not gain her citizenship sometime after birth, she was born a citizen, naturally.

edit on 21/8/2020 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2020 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


Which, since it doesn't list the exclusions, means everyone is a citizen unless the Supreme Court rules on the matter like they did in Wong Kim Ark. This is again and example of what it CANNOT do which is deny jus soli citizenship.


Correct!

Which is exactly what was happening because of the Scott v Sandford (the Dred Scott Case) - denying citizenship to a specific class of people who were born in the U.S. The 14th corrected that abomination by saying that jus soli citizenship could not be denied to anyone for any reason (except diplomatic or invading army births).



posted on Aug, 22 2020 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus That would have applied more to Barry.
Hawaii was a conquered kingdom not a voluntary state.



posted on Aug, 23 2020 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


Which, since it doesn't list the exclusions, means everyone is a citizen unless the Supreme Court rules on the matter like they did in Wong Kim Ark. This is again and example of what it CANNOT do which is deny jus soli citizenship.


Correct!

Which is exactly what was happening because of the Scott v Sandford (the Dred Scott Case) - denying citizenship to a specific class of people who were born in the U.S. The 14th corrected that abomination by saying that jus soli citizenship could not be denied to anyone for any reason (except diplomatic or invading army births).



The 14th Amendment allows it to be denied if the parents are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." (But does not require it to be denied, if laws passed states or congress....etc.... want to grant it anyway, they are free to do so.)

But the Supreme court used English Commonlaw's definition of "subject to jurisdiction", which includes pretty much everybody except members of an attacking foreign army, or foreign diplomats (who may have diplomatic immunity.)

Apparently a later ruling also excluded children of Native Americans if they are not taxed.

The court has never really addressed the question of children born to illegal immigrants at all. But they usually do pay income tax, so a future ruling could someday clarify the issue.



That said: Kamala Harris' parents were here legally, and were not diplomats.




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join