This Newsweek article examines both sides of the debate about whether Kamala Harris is legally able to become the vice presidential candidate. It is very fair at covering both sides. https://www.newsweek.com/some-questions-kamala-harris-about-eligibility-opinion-1524483
"Were Harris' parents lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth? If so, then under the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark, she should be deemed a citizen at birth—that is, a natural-born citizen—and hence eligible. Or were they instead, as seems to be the case, merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act? If the latter were indeed the case, then derivatively from her parents, Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers—Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother—and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood." Quote from the Newsweek article. So someone needs to determine if her parents were permanent US residents. Is that correct?
Well, sit back and enjoy, as they will beat this horse to death. It will be just another Obama situation. No winners here.
How absurd; another tempest in a teapot. Every illegal couple that have a baby on US soil have given birth to an AMERICAN CITIZEN, like it or not. If that is the case... and it is, then the ridiculous supposition about Kamala Harris is just another pointless argument. She was born in California; she IS an American.
I think that this is part of the reason that Kamala was chosen. It certainly was not just because of her skin color, there were other choices possible, and also female, and ones who were actually African-American, not Asian-Jamaican. She was not even very popular in the first round of selecting the Democratic candidate for presidency, and one of the earliest dropouts. I think that this will push to the forefront (even more than it already is) about the status of anchor babies. Once she is approved to run, that opens the gate for any other anchor-baby to run for office, even though their parents might still be Mexican or other Hispanic citizens. This is going to be a pivotal point in her selection and campaign.
Well, it's all going to be very, very interesting. From facts, to debating/bashing each other, to the election.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/citizens-of-the-united-states https://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/u-s-citizenship-through-parents-or-by-birth.html https://www.masslegalhelp.org/income-benefits/food-stamps/advocacy-guide/part2/q47-who-is-a-citizen https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=739 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause Case closed there is no question.Yvonne and Shirley, you need to stop. Fact is fact whether you like it or not. If her parents were diplomats as in had diplomatic immunity, then no, she would not be a citizen.. If her parents were combatants for their respective home nations while engaged in a declared war with the US then she would not. They were neither both holding VISA's s private citizens. Anchor baby is nothing more than a racist dog whistle. There is no such thing as an anchor baby as a baby cannot infer citizenship on its parents, Parents remain aliens subject to the restrictions and afforded only the rights conferred by their visa. What do you hope to gain by your birtherism stance? you know or should know that this is and has been a settled question. Only takes a google search for the information When are we going to start implying she was promiscuous and of poor moral values? Maybe that will disqualify her. Plain and simple, she is the Democratic nominee for vice president of the US. Only qualification that she be a natural born citizen over 35 years of age. She meets both of those standards. Now if you don't like some of her positions she has held or the ideas she puts forth, fine perfectly fair topics to debate. If you come on here questioning citizenship or judging morals race or sex, I will jump with both feet!
I was kinda sorta with ya until your last sentence. Everyone here is entitled to an opinion, even you Pete, so jumping with both feet Especially along the lines of JUDGING (ref. your opinions concerning our President) might get others jumping “with both feet”. (note that I didn’t even have to use an exclamation point). Lest you wish to make hypocrisy your standard, you might wish to back track on that jumping thing.
Not a single one of you conservatives has called out the Donald on his adultery or his glaring lack of moral values. If his peccadillos do not affect his moral authority to lead our nation,no ones will ever be in question again. as for the citizenship deal, it is law, not up for opinion. You may not like the law but it is just what it is.
"Anchor baby is nothing more than a racist dog whistle. There is no such thing as an anchor baby as a baby cannot infer citizenship on its parents, Parents remain aliens subject to the restrictions and afforded only the rights conferred by their visa." You make a good point every now and then, Peter. But try to be more like me. Make good points ALL the time.
Why are you so upset Pete? Here you are again, judging judging and judging but yet you threatened one and all that if anyone else judged Kamala that you were going to what? Now, of course since you’re so busy Judging D. Trump you wouldn’t possibly remember who set the standards of what happens whilst IN the White House. Remember? Good Ol JFK and Bill Clinton just romped all over that house! Yup, your left handed party....... Like I wrote in my last post Pete. You really need to backtrack on your judging and start getting the facts straight for a change.
I had to re-read this thread to see what the hysteria is about as far as moral values. It appears that you are the only poster who has brought this up, so no one is accusing Kamala Harris of anything immoral. There was a question of her citizenship and then you went off the rails. Good grief. As Bobby stated, the morality of the president went out the window with JFK, and probably long before that if the truth be told. Personally, I couldn't care less what goes on behind closed doors as long as the country is being run in a manner that benefits the people.
@Peter Renfro , I thought Newsweek was a reputable source. The quote I posted is from Newsweek. They seem to think that there is room for discussion about Kamala's illegibility to be vice-president. You weren't here during President Obama's term. If you had been, you would know that i never questioned his birth. If his mother is an American, it wouldn't matter who his father is or where he was born. He is an American and is qualified to be president. About Kamala's morals or lack thereof.... It's a man's world. A woman has to do whatever she has to do to get ahead. If that requires doing things that she finds distasteful, so be it. Even if it involves being "nice" to a much older, powerful man. She is not the first woman to use sex to get ahead and she certainly won't be the last.
I, my dear sir, am an American Citizen and I Can and Will offer an opinion whenever, and however I wish whether you like it or not. There, now that I’ve cleared that up, I think it’s time for a cup of coffee.