Tuesday, August 18, 2020

Kamala Harris Apparently Not Eligible to Run for Vice President

By David Martin 

It appears that Joe Biden's running mate Kamala Harris is not eligible to run for Vice President on the grounds that she is not a natural-born citizen. It is a Constitutional rule that one cannot be eligible to run for president or vice president unless he or she is a natural-born U.S. citizen.

To be natural born one must be born to parents who are U.S. citizens. Emerich de Vattel's exemplary book "Law of Nations" (1758) defines what a natural born citizen is.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…. In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”  

                           Emerich de Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, section #212

Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California, in 1964. Her father immigrated from Jamaica to the USA in 1961 while her mother immigrated from India to the USA in 1960. According to the law on the books at the time, it took five years for immigrants to become naturalized citizens (as it still does), which means that neither of Kamala's parents were U.S. citizens at the time she was born.

Hence it appears that Kamala Harris is not a natural-born U.S citizen, and as such, is not eligible to be Joe Biden's running mate in the November 2020 presidential election. According to reports, she has simply chosen to snub the Constitutional rule and do as she wish, but how could she get away with it? 

This is serious because it appears that Democrats are simply using Biden as a stepping-stone to make Kamala president. If Biden were elected – and we pray that never happen – there is every reason to believe that he would step down on account of his dementia, whereupon Kamala would take the Oval Office and become the first woman president of U.S. history! An impostor!     

Kamala Descends from a Slave Owning Family

To add to the madness, it has now been discovered that Kamala has no black ethnicity in her ancestry as she clams but is a mixture of Irish, Indian, and Jamaican, and that she descends from a family that owned slaves. https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vortex-kamala-family-slave-owners 

Kamala’s claim of being black is apparently done to conceal the slave-mongering history of her ancestors. Slavery is certainly part of her formation. Based on her radical-leftist views, her brutal attack on the unborn, and her impassioned support for Black Lives Matter, there is every reason to believe that she would use her position as president to enslave patriot America under a socialist tyranny.    

Hopefully President Trump and the true Americans will use the foregoing evidence against Kamala Harris to try to keep her off the November ballot.  



S. Ignatowski said...

But like Obama, she has protective pigment.
Don’t expect the GOP to fight on this. They have Rafael, Marco, Nikki, and Bobby in the dugout waiting for their turn at bat.

Constantine said...

@S.Ignatowski- the Republicans will never bring up the issue because anything they say about this, the leftist media and leftist organizations would convert these questions about Kamala Harris into accusations of race provocations.


C.M. said...

With all due respect to Emerich de Vattel (his work did indeed inspire many of the Founding Fathers), but U.S. law is not now, nor ever has been based on the opinion of foreign nationals no matter how erudite. Birthright citizenship has, according to the 14th Amendment, been the law of the land since 1868. Agree with it or not, that supersedes de Vattel’s thoughts of a century earlier, that is if you believe in the Rule of Law and the Constitution upon which this Republic is based. If not, there is no use arguing the point further.

peter Comestor said...

Kamala Harris wss born in California, the cutting edge of civilization on the planet. Causa finite est.

Felt Banner said...


The 14th Amendment did not address the NBC issue because that only concerns the POTUS. It did , however, establish her citizenship as an anchor baby. Vattel is referenced because of when the Constitution was written and the fact that the Constitution has no glossary. You’re arguing like a Sola scriptura Protestant who doesn’t even know the phrase is Latin.

Eligibility has been contested before on “white” candidates: Goldwater (not born in a state) , McCain born in Panama, Romney’s dad born to polygamists from Mexico etc. Only with Obama did this become a racial issue. But, it need not be. If he admitted that Frank Marshall Davis was his dad , it’s all Kosher. That is until you get into the fact that he might hold Malaysian citizenship. Dual citizens can’t be NBCs.

I’m shocked at how quiet this issue has been. Über Zionist Joseph Farrah of WND hasn’t said boo this time around. He lost credibility by endorsing a Canadian in 2016.

C.M. said...

@Felt Banner
Amendment XIV, 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.”

Thus, one is U.S. citizen either by birth or by naturalization. According to the principal of non-contradiction, Ms. Harris either is or is not a citizen of the U.S. She is. And according to the 14th Amendment, she is so by birth (whether either of us agrees with such principle or not) & thus also meets the NBC eligibility prerequisite laid out for the Office of the Presidency as outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Nowhere does the Constitution or federal law make any distinction between NBCs whose parents are also already citizens and those whose parents are not.

For Mr. Martin to argue that Ms. Harris is not a NBC because her parents were not also U.S. citizens, even though he acknowledges the fact that she was born in Oakland, California, and to use the de Vattel quote to support this erroneous view, is misleading at best if not outright duplicitous and belies the very Constitution he seeks to use to discredit Ms. Harris’s eligibility.

David Martin said...

Re: Felt Banner - >> "Nowhere does the Constitution or federal law make any distinction between NBCs whose parents are also already citizens and those whose parents are not."

That's because it's automatically understood that it applies only to children born of American parents so there is no need to make a distinction. Simple common sense should dictate. A child born in the U.S. of two foreigners visiting the U.S. is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. If two parents from the U.S. vacation in Poland for six months during which time the mother has a baby in Poland, that child is a natural-born American citizen by virtue of his parents citizenship, and is not a Polish citizen.

So likewise, if two Polish parents are in the U.S. for six months during which time the mother has a baby, the child is not an American citizen but a Polish citizen. For the child to automatically acquire American citizenship upon being born here would rob the child of his Polish birthright, since he can't have dual citizenship. And too, it robs the parents of their decision of what the child's citizenship should be. It all hinges on the parents.

Today's socialists who want to make automatic citizens out of every illegal that crosses or is born within our borders are the ones who hold these liberal interpretations of Amendment IX, but the parent's citizenship and decision for the child must be honored. These liberals preach Amendment IX but then they forget a very important phrase of the ruling: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The parent's citizenship is what makes the child subject to U.S. jurisdiction, without which he is not subject to it, and as such, is not a U.S. citizen. The child rather is subject to his parents and to the jurisdiction of the country that his parents belong to.

C.M. said...

Your example of U.S. parents vacationing in Poland is correct given that Poland does not have birthright citizenship. But the U.S. does, regardless of whether you or I or anyone else agrees with the practice or not. If however your fictional U.S. parents were vacationing in Canada, Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, etc. then it would be another story as those counties all legally recognize birthright citizenship as do many other New World countries. Interestingly, it is predominantly in the Americas (North & South) that birthright citizenship is most common, counties that historically have a more complex & less homogeneous populous than, say, European or Asian countries.

As for Ms. Harris’ case in particular, to argue that her parents were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. seems a stretch given that they both immigrated here legally, became U.S. citizens themselves and were both productive members of U.S. society with distinguished careers in medicine & higher education, her mother having died in Oakland in 2009 & her father now a professor emeritus from Stanford. Hardly the “anchor baby” stereotype looking for taxpayer funded government handouts.

If your gripe is with birthright citizenship in the U.S., fine, but don’t simply ignore or try to rewrite or redefine or mislead others concerning what has been settled U.S. law for over 150 years. Like it or not, the XIV Amendment is as much a part of the Constitution as the Preamble, Article II, or the Bill of Rights.

Lastly, as to the rights of parents, I certainly agree, they can and do have a say regarding the citizenship of their children. If a child is born to foreign parents while in the U.S. they have the option of claiming U.S. citizenship for that child if they so choose, but do not have to. Neither would this necessarily rob the child of citizenship in the parents home country, although that is determined by that country’s laws not U.S. law. The U.S. State Department also (although begrudgingly) acknowledges the legal possibility of dual citizenship for U.S. citizens since a secondary citizenship is dependent upon the laws of the other country despite whatever the U.S. might desire or prefer.

Finally, lest we forget that which is ultimately important, perhaps it is timely to remember that all in this fleeting world is passing, including our time in it (“seventy years, or eighty for those who are strong” saith the Psalms) and that, as co-heirs with Christ, we are citizens of Heaven our only true and eternal home.

Unknown said...

Our skin color is not our protection it's our Christian values, keeping God's commandments and our love of God, Kamala Harris being a baby killer proves she doesn't love God or his commandments. DEC

Aaron Aukema said...

CM: the issue isn't "citizenship" but the qualifier "natural born". That is the key. Whether Harris is a citizen is irrelevant, as is your argument for "birth right citizenship". Her father was not a citizen born in the US, which is what was understood by the Fathers who wrote the Constitution as "natural born". Rubio wasn't eligible, Cruz wasn't eligible, Obama wasn't eligible, and Harris isn't eligible.

The intent was to protect the Presidency or Vice Presidency from individuals whose interests were divided. An individual who is a 1st Generation Immigrant still has parents who may love the US, but may also have affinity to their home country. 2nd Generation citizens don't have those affinities, and are thus more beholden to the citizens of the US.

Freedom said...

Rather than rambling on, get to the point! This has nothing to do with NBC’s OR race, but everything to do with Biden and Harris destroying the freedoms & justice for all, the basic foundation of America, which is as true in 2020 as it was in the 1700’s!!!

Felt Banner said...

The 14th Amendment gave citizenship to Indians and Blacks. Only the generation after the passing could be NBCs.
When the NBC clause was written, it excluded those alive at the time of the signing precisely because none could’ve been NBCs.

Liam said...

Another sticky point is a candidate with multiple citizenships. Through her father, she can obtain a Jamaican and British passport. The Founders definitely didn’t want Brits as presidents. I don’t know if she’d be entitled to Indian citizenship through her mother.

Obama was a British subject at birth, assuming Barrack Senior was his inseminator. To attend the mandrasa in Indonesia , he had to be a citizen. He still has never explained how he went to Pakistan when visits by US citizens were illegal.

Jobs with security clearances are often not open to applicants with multiple citizenships. A local chemical plant won’t even let me visit. Scaled Composites says I must be accompanied on a tour and can not even apply
to sweep the floor. I asked if they hired Jews because they can obtain an Israeli passport (held By many employees of the U.S. gov’t) and they got very uneasy.

C.M. said...

Well said, couldn’t agree more! Which is why diving down the rabbit hole & leading others to do so regarding what one wishes the law said vs what it actually dose is such a waste of time. Time that would be better used shedding light on what Mr. Biden & Ms. Harris actually believe, their voting records that are a matter of fact, & their ruinous plans for the country if elected.

@Aaron Aukema
Wether or not first generation NBCs should be eligible for the highest two offices is a separate question than what was being argued in the original article. Perhaps though that would be prudent policy. However, as the law stands now, that is not a consideration.

That line of reasoning though does beg the question: what of candidates whose spouses are not NBC, would that not potentially lead to divided allegiance as much or more than the status of one’s parents? Such has been the case with both presidents John Q. Adams & Trump. Should they then have been disqualified?

BirtherReport.com said...

Trump’s mother became a citizen before he was born.

Back in 2016, Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship. Technically , he received US citizenship through a Reagan pardon. Michele Bachmann acquired Swiss citizenship from her husband. She renounced it to run.

Stop Voris said...

Bill Kristol's old room mate is a birther.


James Joseph said...

In the United States there one law:

If Jew says good then good.
If Jew says bad then not good.
Else if, engage in ethnic self-dissolution.

You are Goyim slaves.
Debating the intricacies of anything is a waste of energy.

David Martin said...

Re: CM - “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.”
(Amendment IX)

This pertains only to those children born in the U.S. who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," not to those who are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Without explicitly articulating the point, it is understood that children are only subject to U.S.jurisdiction by virtue of their parents who have citizenship here, without which these children are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and as such, are not NBCs. It hinges on the status of parents.

If a mother vacationing in the U.S. has a baby in the U.S., that child is not a natural-born citizen because he is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Anonymous said...

Republicans are weak spineless prison punks.
They will be first in line to kiss her feet.

Claude said...

The NBC clause will be just the beginning.

John Lyman said...

World Net Daily hasn't reported on this in years.


Anonymous said...

Kamela Harris is ineligible to be VP because of the 14th amendment text which prohibits any person from holding the office of VP or President who "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.' Harris' well documented support of criminal violence aimed at the police by BLM and Antifa and her collaboration with Clapper annd Brennan and other self declared insurrectionists to the administration of President Trump disqualifies her from office of VP on both counts.

Unknown said...


Peter said...

I'm just sorry I'm white.

Anonymous said...

Camel-laugh Harris!