Newsweek Article Argues Kamala Harris Is NOT A Citizen

Another day, another crazy news cycle. Its becoming absolutely exhausting keeping up with everything.

So, to turn away from the riots in the streets, and insurgency that's allowed to exist within our borders unchecked by law and order, let's turn to everyone's favorite subject on ATS: Politics.

Namely, constitutional politics.

So, we had this argument back in Barry's term years, when we were talking about what it means to be a Natural Born Citizen. I think it's pretty well understood; That you have to be born on US soil, and beholden to the jurisdiction; MEANING you have to be born by citizens. Not by people who are here on a work visa, or as temporary workers.

Enter Kalamatta Olive Harris, who's parents were both temporary workers within the US when she was born. Does this make her ineligible?

In the video, Tim Pool reads the article from Newsweek, which explains the SCOTUS case which people point to during this issue, but how it is not quite cut and dry, as the case's defendant had a different parent-situation.



Link to Newsweek article

All in all, what do you think, ATS? Is there a case here? Should it be taken seriously, and investigated, or thrown away as antiquity?

a reply to: Iconic

Sure wasted a bunch of your time....really? Got nuthin' else...didn't work on Barry huh?

a reply to: Iconic

The only ruling by the Supreme Court in jus soli where the parents are foreign nationals without credentials is United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) which only allowed citizenship to be denied if the parents were foreign diplomats or children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.

a reply to: Iconic

I never wasted my time over the Obama citizenship fiasco. His mother was an American citizen and I don't care where she was standing when he was born. That was good enough for me.

I think he applied for college with a foreign passport though but that just makes him a fraudster.

Now Harris has non citizen parents so her birth certificate should clear this up real quick.

a reply to: Iconic

Not this again.

No of course it should not be taken seriously.

Newsweek already apologized for putting out the article.

The magazine was hit with criticism for pushing a racist "birther" conspiracy after publishing the piece on Wednesday by conservative law professor John Eastman. Eastman falsely argued that Harris — whose mother and father emigrated from India and Jamaica, respectively — "may not be subject to the complete jurisdiction" of the US, even though she was born in California and is undeniably a US citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

www.businessinsider.com...

originally posted by: snowspirit
Newsweek already apologized for putting out the article.

The magazine was hit with criticism for pushing a racist "birther" conspiracy after publishing the piece on Wednesday by conservative law professor John Eastman. Eastman falsely argued that Harris — whose mother and father emigrated from India and Jamaica, respectively — "may not be subject to the complete jurisdiction" of the US, even though she was born in California and is undeniably a US citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

www.businessinsider.com...

Apologizing to the woke left to make sure you don't get canceled doesn't do anything except just that. But if you take that seriously, then go join your homies in Portland

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Iconic

The only ruling by the Supreme Court in jus soli where the parents are foreign nationals without credentials is United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) which only allowed citizenship to be denied if the parents were foreign diplomats or children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.

If you watch the included video, or read the included article, it explains why the case with Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant in this issue with Kalamatta Olive Harris.

a reply to: snowspirit

How is it racist lol? It's super simple...either her parents had naturalized by the time she was born or not.

a reply to: Iconic

if you talk about it, you are raycist. don't be raycist.

a reply to: Iconic

Her policies should make her unelectable.

As proven by the amount of delegates she won in this Democrat primary.

Which was zero.

As for ineligible?

To me personally she was born here, was raised here.

Which kind of defines what the Framers intended when they wrote the Constitution.

That anyone running for office should not have a higher allegiance to a foreign power.

So a real non-issue.

originally posted by: Iconic

originally posted by: snowspirit
Newsweek already apologized for putting out the article.

The magazine was hit with criticism for pushing a racist "birther" conspiracy after publishing the piece on Wednesday by conservative law professor John Eastman. Eastman falsely argued that Harris — whose mother and father emigrated from India and Jamaica, respectively — "may not be subject to the complete jurisdiction" of the US, even though she was born in California and is undeniably a US citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

www.businessinsider.com...

Apologizing to the woke left to make sure you don't get canceled doesn't do anything except just that. But if you take that seriously, then go join your homies in Portland

Not a lefty, not even American, Portland from what I’ve seen in various news sources is a crap hole....

originally posted by: Iconic
If you watch the included video, or read the included article, it explains why the case with Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant in this issue with Kalamatta Olive Harris.

I read it, he's claiming the ruling is incorrect which pretty much is the standard argument when jus soli comes up and someone doesn't agree with the Supreme Court's decision. Maybe he should challenge it in court instead of doing practically nothing like everyone else who says the ruling was incorrect does.

a reply to: Iconic

Kamala Harris's parents were both temporary workers within the US when she was born. Does this make her ineligible?

Yes .

Ever heard of "anchor babies"? If you are born in the US, you are a US citizen. End of story, right or wrong,

I think it is worth a serious discussion. Neither of her parents were American citizens.

She wasn't even raised in this country except during early childhood. Her middle school and high school years were spent in Canada. That really doesn't play into the legal part of the equation, but she is not rooted firmly in our country, imo.

There is a reason our founding fathers specifically addressed this issue in the Constitution. Your heart and soul should be with the American People and our Constitution. I have my doubts about Kamala.

As far as Barack Hussein Obama goes, his mother was an American citizen. So, although there was some basis for a citizenship question, in the end, nothing negated the fact that he was born to an American woman.

But, even the mention of a possible infraction of the Constitution, causes the left to hyperventilate and start screaming "birther, birther!!!". Time to stand up to the crazies, plug your ears, and address it.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Iconic

Not this again.

No of course it should not be taken seriously.

Much like Tim, in the video, I don't think there is anything to this, but the CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR who brought it up made an argument that he feels merits a discussion. I think before you dismiss his point out of hand, you should at least bring some form of argument with you.

originally posted by: queenofswords
I think it is worth a serious discussion. Neither of her parents were American citizens.

People can have as many 'serious discussions' as they want about jus soli, the Supreme Court already ruled on this well over 100 years ago. 'Seriously discussing' this isn't going to change the fact that she is a United States citizen.

And let's say someone decides to challenge the current understanding of jus soli, what person actually thinks they are going to revoke people's citizenship retroactively?

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

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

'Seriously discussing' this isn't going to change the fact that she is a United States citizen

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