Joe Biden's first major blunder.

He picked a VP candidate who's not a natural-born citizen. That's what happens when you put race and gender over country. You end up putting identity politics above the interests of your country and constitution.

To put it simply, being a natural-born citizen requires that one be born on US soil to citizen parents. It applies only to the vice-president and president. Harris fails that test since neither of her parents were US citizens at the time of her birth, instead, one was a citizen of Jamaica, and the other a citizen of India.

Below is a secondary link on the subject because the media is trying it's best to "cancel" or "bury" the original authors op-ed on the subject. So you can't really find a clean copy of it anymore.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...d-accused-of-pushing-kamala-harris-birtherism

 

She's a natural born citizen.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ecome-president.576822/page-9#post-1071955870

 

Why all these false flag she's not a citizen posts? Guess what nobody cares.

 

False flags? I've debated a couple of people on the citizenship issue. They were established righties on the forums. Though I'd be relieved to hear you say that the ones making this argument are all fake accounts just meant to make Trump supporters look bad.

 

That link has this paragraph:



I hope Trump doesn't "go there" with Kamala. The Obama birther thing got old and he did it with Cruz too.

There's plenty wrong with the Biden/Harris campaign that Trump doesn't need to go down the birther route a third time.

 

Where she was born is the least of her problems.

 

Half Jamaican, half Indian, 100% liberal socialist nutcase.

 

With a laugh that causes starlings to fall out of the sky.

 

She was born in the USA of parents that were in the country legally. That makes her a citizen according to the SCOTUS ruling US v. Wong Kim Ark:

https://qz.com/1447349/an-1898-us-supreme-court-case-confirmed-birthright-citizenship/

 

His first blunder was thinking he could be president.

 

"Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen

 

You make a good point, if Biden/Harris lose, but what if they win? We will have elected someone who the constitution deems unqualified, and will open the door for every other unqualified candidate to run and win as well.

As I see it, the constitution isn't something that can just morph into something else, or be dismissed by those who disagree with it, but instead, it's something we should abide by, and enforce until it is duly modified by a constitutional amendment.

To do otherwise is to risk losing our country and all the constitutional freedoms and protections that come with it.

 

Your link doesn't say what you say it says, instead it says this:

Also known as the Naturalization Clause, the Citizenship Clause is contained in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause conferred U.S. and state citizenship at birth to all individuals born in the United States.

The naturalization process is a congressional process, subject to the whims of Congress, the "natural born citizen" clause is a constitutional process, which can only be changed by a constitutional amendment.

No one is disputing that Harris is a US citizen, she is because she was born in Oakland. What's in dispute is whether or not she's a "natural born citizen." She isn't, because she wasn't born to citizen parents, but instead to foreign parents; one of the specific things the founding fathers were seeking to prevent.

 

Unfortunately, "natural born" is a very imprecise term and there is no precedent of excluding those born on US soil from it.

 

Sorry, but history doesn't support your opinion. From Wikipedia:

In 1875, Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, stated:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.​

Natural born citizen = Born on US soil to citizen parents.

 

WH chief of staff says Harris is eligible. Thread over.

 

William Rawle, formerly the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania (1791–1799) defined natural born citizen as every person born within the United States, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. In an 1825 treatise, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, he wrote:

The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. ... [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. ... Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed ... no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natur...tions-,1800s,the citizenship of their parents.

 

Natural born citizen = Born on US soil to citizen parents. How's that for precision?

 

Wrong

 

Mooglow beat me to it.

 

To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay

New York 25 July 1787

Dear Sir

I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet, which sailed Yesterday.

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

John Jay

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0251

 

Why is it that nobody ever questions citizenship unless there is a non-white candidate?

Do you honestly and truly believe the DNC would put forth a candidate that has questionable citizenship?

Do you honestly believe they would spend millions upon millions backing someone that had no legal and valid right to hold the position for which they've been nominated?

 

Well they just did, so I guess that answers your question. How is it that in a country of 200 million voting-age adults, the DNC can't come up with a natural-born citizen for its VP pick? That's the question you should be asking yourself.

And if you knew anything about the issue, you'd know that Chester Arthur, Charles Hughes, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain all faced controversies over their natural-born citizenship status, and they were all white guys. So it's not about white or non-white, it's about abiding by the constitution, and the DNC decided not to do so this time.

 

Nothing false about it, that's how a country decays, when no one cares.

 

So, there should be no problem getting her removed before the election.