Total posts: 396
-->
@Moozer325
@<<<Amber>>>FACT: Mother is Indian/HinduFACT: Dad is Irish/HinduFirst of all, I can’t find those videos that you cited, so I would love to take a look at those.
Judge Joe Brown met her father and explains it clearly: https://youtu.be/kgqynV3cobE
Second, it’s really not that simple. Family trees, especially ones involving raped slaves can get very complicated. It’s still not clear enough to cal anything a fact, but the evidence points to her father being black.
What does the family trees of "raped slaves" have to do with this discussion over Kamala Harris' ancestry?
And no, the evidence does not point to her father being black. Just because he was born in Jamaica doesn't make him black, no more than Elon Musk being born in Africa makes him black. Geography has nothing to do with race, but family lineage does. As you will hear from Judge Brown, her father is not black.
Her great-great grandmother was listed as a “laborer” on her death certificate, which at the time meant slave.
Wrong. That's a term meant 'apprentice' and was given to emancipated slaves and were paid for their labor. Notwithstanding, this is completely irrelevant.
Here’s a quote from the article I cited “According to the family tree, Hamilton Brown Jr. had a son named Hamilton Brown, who, with a woman named Jessian Prince, had a daughter named Christiana Brown. Christiana Brown and Joseph Alexander Harris had a son named Oscar Joseph Harris. Oscar Joseph Harris and Beryl Finegan had Donald Harris. And, finally, Donald Harris married Shyamala Gopalan, and the couple had Kamala”
Yeah, I see where this info came from and it is inconclusive.
Now, I’ll admit that that is taken very out of context. There are some minor discrepancies and holes, but the chances are that it’s more probable she is descended from a slave owner who is listed as having many partners than from anyone else.
Pure speculation that is equally full of holes and discrepancies. You're just repeating the nonsense annotated in that source.
It’s complicated, but it’s more probable that she is black than not black.
Not according to Judge Brown who knew the man personally and got the info about him straight from the proverbial horse's mouth.
Created:
Posted in:
Your lack of reading comprehension skills never cease to amaze me. What part of my comment mentioning an “officiant” did you fail to comprehend?“Your brother can’t do it”So your brother can do it. You are amazing toots
Quoting out of context and strawman fallacy.
Yes, you do need a priest to get married. Government permission is NOT required.Are these your exact words? Are both statements false?
Neither is false. Both are accurate.
Truly predictable.What’s predictable is you’re a lonely cat lady who shouldn’t be allowed to vote. - according to JD Vance
Non sequitur.
Created:
->@Moozer325No, I did not make it unclear. It's basic English and simple reading comprehension skills.lol. Aren’t you going to tell her to stop being so hostile? lol
Moozer has far more intelligence, intellect, integrity, honesty and self-awareness than you could possibly fathom.
TROLL!
Created:
One doesn’t need to be black to join a black related socialization.What a dunce
Why yes, you are. Truth hurts, doesn't it!!!!
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
@<<<Amber>>>No, I did not make it unclear. It's basic English and simple reading comprehension skills. It was crystal clear, you just glanced at the sentence and cherry picked the latter half to rebut with (strawman fallacy) without quoting the entire sentence within the context given. That context made it clear I was referring to her mother,Well I’m so sorry that I’m human, and make a few mistakes. Seriously though, sorry that I took this so of track.
I'll give you kudos, kid. At least at your age you know better to have the integrity and honesty to admit when you're wrong, unlike so many so-called "adults" in this forum like Sidewalker, IwantRoseveltagain, et al.
No his parents were not black. JFC! There's that lack of reading comprehension again. One parent was white (Irish) and the other Indian (Hindu). Neither were "black" (i.e., African).Her history is complicated, but I haven’t found anything about an Indian on her dads side. Her dad is descended from and Irishman who raped his slaves as far as we know.
I posted two videos herein that proves you wrong.
FACT: Mother is Indian/Hindu
FACT: Dad is Irish/Hindu
Again, being born in Jamaica doesn't make you black. Mr. Harris' great grandmother was Indian/Hindu. It's not hard to verify. You seem savvy enough. Do it.
Created:
Posted in:
Amber: Your brother can't do it no more than your barber can.I got a certificate from the county and married my brother in law to his bride. It’s very easy to do. As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Your lack of reading comprehension skills never cease to amaze me. What part of my comment mentioning an “officiant” did you fail to comprehend?
Clearly you are, stupid. You said you don't need one, I said yes you do. They are one among 2 other authorized persons to do it.Your brother can't do it no more than your barber can.You have to be a licensed officiant, priest or judge to perform a marriage.so you admit you don’t need a priest to get married.
I don’t need to admit anything, as I already made it clear who can perform marriages. Never said ONLY a priest can do it.
No, marriage is not "granted" by law. It is granted by God via a priest/pastor, a judge or magistrate and is only recognized through law for the purposes of benefits, property, inheritance via kinship, so on and so forth.This is your dumb statement.If marriage is granted by god, how do people get married by a judge or licensed officiant?
The lack of self-awareness and the irony of your lack of attention to detail and lack of reading comprehension skills never fails. Truly predictable.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
she wrote in her autobiography, “I was elected president of the Black Law Students Association (BLSA) during my second year in law school
And? One doesn’t need to be black to join a black related socialization. I mean really, Jeffrey “Shaun” King is a white dude who got a scholarship paid by Ophra to attend Morehouse, a HBCU, married a black woman, became a self-proclaimed (trans-racial) black man advocating for black Americans. Doesn’t prove anything. Kamala is Indian/Irish/Hindu.
Created:
Sidewalker and IWantRoseveltAgain are the two biggest racist, bigoted, ignorant and inflammatory trolls on this site and you wonder why the forum has no intelligent discussions apart from what myself, Greyparrot and others on track provide but you jackasses derail with your insults and flagrant ignorance.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
@<<<Amber>>>Quoting out of context fallacy. What I said was: "Her mother is Indian/Hindu, but Kamala's birth certificate identifies her as Caucasian."I was clearly speaking to/of Kamala's birth certificate AND how her mother was identified on said birth certificate. Way to demonstrate that lack of reading comprehension, yet again.Oh, I get what you were trying to say now. So sorry about that one, but you made that pretty unclear. Thanks for putting up with that.
No, I did not make it unclear. It's basic English and simple reading comprehension skills. It was crystal clear, you just glanced at the sentence and cherry picked the latter half to rebut with (strawman fallacy) without quoting the entire sentence within the context given. That context made it clear I was referring to her mother, as her mother is clearly named on the birth certificate as is her race: Caucasian. A clear error on the hospital's part since she is Indian/Hindu, not Caucasian.
Who gives a shit where he is from. Just because you are born in a black (African ancestry) dominated country does NOT make you "black"!!!Elon Musk was born in Africa, is he "black"? No. He is not. No more than Professor Harris is "black," and he does NOT identify as black.Yeah, but his parents also were black and he identifies as black. This shouldn’t be taking this long.
No his parents were not black. JFC! There's that lack of reading comprehension again. One parent was white (Irish) and the other Indian (Hindu). Neither were "black" (i.e., African).
You clearly didn't review the link I provided. Doesn't surprise me.People like you just can't handle the truth.I did review the link, and I quoted it! You can’t handle that you forgot to read the source.
No, you did not.
I did, thoroughly, but you did not.All you did here was cherry-pick. It's not evidence for your argument.Try again, child.I didn’t cherry pick, I just didn’t want to quote the whole thing. The whole point of the article was that it’s a religious term that is sometimes misused as a regional one.
Yes, you did.
Try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
@<<<Amber>>>Let them make the exception.
When it is in direct contravention with the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause and the historical record of the legislative history behind the creation and passage of it, why???
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Also,And you need to education on the subject of being Hindu, because it's not just about religion: Hindus - WikipediaA quote from your own source:“Hindus (Hindustani: [ˈɦɪndu] ⓘ; /ˈhɪnduːz/; also known as Sanātanīs) are people who religiously adhere to Hinduism”Read your own sources before you use them.
I did, thoroughly, but you did not.
All you did here was cherry-pick. It's not evidence for your argument.
Try again, child.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
>@<<<Amber>>>Reading comprehension problems? I never said anything about Kamala's racial background. What I said, wrote in context refers to her mother being identified as Caucasian.Bruh, you said:but Kamala's birth certificate identifies her as Caucasian.
Quoting out of context fallacy. What I said was: "Her mother is Indian/Hindu, but Kamala's birth certificate identifies her as Caucasian."
I was clearly speaking to/of Kamala's birth certificate AND how her mother was identified on said birth certificate. Way to demonstrate that lack of reading comprehension, yet again.
"barely knows Kamala's father"... REALLY? How do you know? What part of the video of Brown's statements of first-hand knowledge did you fail to understand?How about you back of your assertion: "...the actual truth and testimony of Kamala's father himself!" Prove it.He is from Jamaica and identifies as black, what more do you need? He even wrote an essay about it!
Who gives a shit where he is from. Just because you are born in a black (African ancestry) dominated country does NOT make you "black"!!!
Elon Musk was born in Africa, is he "black"? No. He is not. No more than Professor Harris is "black," and he does NOT identify as black.
You cannot prove what you claimed about the "actual truth and testimony of Kamala's father," which does not surprise me.
They're categorized as Asian since they are in the Asian hemisphere.Then why didn’t you just say Asian! I think your confusing Indian and Hindu.
You clearly didn't review the link I provided. Doesn't surprise me.
People like you just can't handle the truth.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@<<<Amber>>>Hindu=Asian.Ah, the asian race. Let's dwell on that a bit.
No, it does not, dumbass.
India is located in South Asia. Indians/Hindu is in South Asia. Hence Hindu is Asian cause they're located in South Asia.
rofl this is more fun than watching trekies argue about exactly how fictional technology violate the laws of physics.
Only because you're to ignorant (uneducated) to know what I am talking about. Not to mention the lack of reading comprehension skills.
I bet this works on nazis too.
Asinine non-sequitur argument.
Instead of trying to get them to debate something meaningful just suggest that they might not be pure aryans (sic) and go get some popcorn.
Projection on your part.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, you do need a priest to get marriedNo, you don’t. Are you stupid?
Clearly you are, stupid. You said you don't need one, I said yes you do. They are one among 2 other authorized persons to do it.
Your brother can't do it no more than your barber can.
You have to be a licensed officiant, priest or judge to perform a marriage.
Prove it. (that you’ve never been asked to marry)That’s proof right there toots
Proof of your childish ignorance, yeah. It is.
I feel sorry for your kids, if you have any, and your ex-wife.Oh I’ve been married 32 years. Because I’m not a loser.
26 years, first and only marriage. Yeah, you're the loser alright.
Sadly, you don’t have any of that. Because you’re a racist weirdo
Appeal to ignorance, non sequitur, childish psychological projection and wishful thinking fallacy on your part. LOL!!!
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
-->@<<<Amber>>>But she isn't black. Judge Brown exposes the truth, after all he met/knows her father, professor Harris. Hear it for yourself at 8:35 here: https://youtu.be/GgKLPzQe6uI?si=sNWhTZTbA0mN2-0Q It's a video by Anthony Brian Logan (ABL), a popular black speaker online and in person during certain venues.Hey nice job, you have the antecdotal testimony of someone who barely knows Kamala’s father against the actual truth and testimony of Kamala’s father himself!
"barely knows Kamala's father"... REALLY? How do you know? What part of the video of Brown's statements of first-hand knowledge did you fail to understand?
How about you back of your assertion: "...the actual truth and testimony of Kamala's father himself!" Prove it.
In short, Brown discloses Prof. Harris identifies as Caucasian since his ancestry is Irish/Hindu. Her mother is Indian/Hindu, but Kamala's birth certificate identifies her as Caucasian.First of all, you realize that Hindu is a religion, not a race, right?
They're categorized as Asian since they are in the Asian hemisphere.
Second, Kamala’s birth certificate didn’t even specify her race. Check your facts.
Reading comprehension problems? I never said anything about Kamala's racial background. What I said, wrote in context refers to her mother being identified as Caucasian.
No, she is Indian/Irish/Hindu.Once again, Hindu is a religion, not a race. This is ridiculous.
Hindu=Asian.
And you need to education on the subject of being Hindu, because it's not just about religion: Hindus - Wikipedia
Created:
Projecting much?MAGA MORONS love to use that word projecting.Why not say “I know you are but what am I?”
Irrelevant comparison.
Projection is a defect on your part pushing or projecting your inadequacies onto another as if they are the defect when it is you.
The childish idiom you used has no relevance here because everyone can see your insecurities and inadequacies projected onto others.
You're a childish troll. Deal with it. We have to, sadly, but you should accept the criticism because you are what you are. A childish troll
Created:
He doesn't even look black, he looks bi-racial whiteHis skin is black in the picture, right? Perhaps living all alone has distorted your perception of other people since you see so few on a weekly basis?
Darker colored skin =/= black.
Indians are just as black as an African, as are many aboriginals in Australia. Doesn't make them "black."
Your projection is ridiculous. Just shows what a weakling you are.
Created:
Kamala Harris is not black. Period.Is her father black? His her skin black? Yes to both. She’s black.He sure looks black to me.Are you stupid? Toots?
No, her father is not black. He is Irish/Hindu(Indian), and her mother is all Indian/(Hindu).
He doesn't even look black, he looks bi-racial white and Indian just like he says and claimed, identifying as Caucasian over anything else, definately not black.
Here, listen to Judge Joe Brown who KNEW the man, personally:
Kamala is a hoe, and she ain't black. Period. End of Story, dunce!
I mean really, you clearly didn't read post #38 let alone watched that video. The one above is a one on one interview with Judge Brown vs a mere clip of his commentary.
What I said is 100% factually accurate. You're wrong. Just admit it, troll.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Just because they called her Indian doesn’t mean she can’t also have been black. She mixed, so they spotlighted the Indian part because she was the first, and didn’t mention the black part, but it’s still relevant.
But she isn't black. Judge Brown exposes the truth, after all he met/knows her father, professor Harris. Hear it for yourself at 8:35 here: https://youtu.be/GgKLPzQe6uI?si=sNWhTZTbA0mN2-0Q It's a video by Anthony Brian Logan (ABL), a popular black speaker online and in person during certain venues.
In short, Brown discloses Prof. Harris identifies as Caucasian since his ancestry is Irish/Hindu. Her mother is Indian/Hindu, but Kamala's birth certificate identifies her as Caucasian.
Just because someone is born in a country dominated by a particular race doesn't necessarily make them an equal member of that race when you're so clearly not. Prof. Harris being born in Jamaica where his family had slaves doesn't make him "black" anymore than Elon Musk being born in Africa makes him "black."
Kamala Harris is not black. Period.
She’s half and half, that doesn’t mean she was switching.
No, she is Indian/Irish/Hindu. And claiming to be something you're not and switching back and forth for political expediency and self-centered conveniences to appeal to emotion and ignorance of the people she is speaking to - like when she shifts her tone and accent - to fit the audience like Hillary and AOC are infamously known for doing, it disingenuous and lacks integrity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
@<<<Amber>>>Posting what appears to be "quotes" but failing to provide linked sources.lol I was quoting directly from the ruling by the court. The fact that you don't know that kinda confirms my suspicion that you didn't actually read about the case directly. You are pulling quotes from some right wing conspiracy site that is picking individual sentences out to try to mislead people.you could have found this in like 2 seconds by searching the text, but here is a link for you.
You clearly lack attention to detail and reading comprehension skills. I've only mentioned, cited and quoted from that case 6-12x throughout this threaded topic.
I don't use right-wing conspiracy websites when doing legal research. I do actual legislative history research only reading direct and cited sources therein.
You're the one caught cherry-picking individual sentences out trying to mislead people with the same regurgitated nonsense the left & MSM lies about redundantly.
Kamala is not a legitimate US citizen.she absolutely is. There is no legitimate question about that. It has been established law for over a century.
She is not, not according to the legislative history behind the creation and passage of the 14th and the citizenship clause.
Yes there is a legitimate question about it, as I brought it up as others have too.
No, it is not established law it is the bastardization of a law that has been misread, misapplied, and washed over with DemoKKKratic intervention and running interference so their anchor/tether babies can get (illegitimate) citizenship in order to be added to their demoKKKratic voting roles.
Created:
Posted in:
No, marriage is not "granted" by law.Wrong. Who issues marriage licenses?
You clearly didn't read a damn word I wrote in the previous reply to you ignorant nonsense.
You don’t need a priest to get married, but you do need government permission.
Yes, you do need a priest to get married. Dumbass.
Government permission is NOT required.
I’m not surprised you are ignorant of how marriage works.
Psychological projection.
I made it clear how marriage works. And the fact that there is more than one form recognized by law in order to bestow benefits, property and inheritance rights, etc.
You have never been asked to marry. So sad.
Prove it.
You realize republicans are planning on banning you from voting, right? Because you’re an old maid. A spinster
Prove it.
So far to date, you haven't been able to prove any of your empty ignorant claims.
You're such an ignorant troll it's pathetic.
I feel sorry for your kids, if you have any, and your ex-wife.
Created:
Posted in:
Show us where in the US Constitution does it explicitly stated same sex couples have a right to matrimony with SAME sexed couples!where does it explicitly say in the constitution you have a right to clean air and water?
It doesn't, no more than it says same sex people can marry either.
People, all people are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Marriage is an institution granted by law.
No, marriage is not "granted" by law. It is granted by God via a priest/pastor, a judge or magistrate and is only recognized through law for the purposes of benefits, property, inheritance via kinship, so on and so forth.
There is NO "equal treatment" in marriages given the fact that outside of a traditional marriage, civil unions are also recognized through law for the same purposes of benefits, property, etc.
Please continue trolling with your flagrant ignorance of subjects you demonstrate knowing nothing about.
Created:
Posted in:
Kamala is not a legitimate US citizen.Besides being born here,
Still doesn't make her a US Citizen when her parents were here on VISAs, essentially visiting and still under the political allegiance of their respective countries governing bodies.
Kamala is married
Not a qualification for US citizenship
and is a stepmother.
Not a qualification for US citizenship
You are not married and you don’t have children.
Prove it.
So Republicans think you are only a partial citizen.
This makes absolutely no sense. Then again, nothing you post makes any logical sense. Just blathering drivel trolling nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
Gay marriage was bad case law as the justices legislated from the bench.You don’t need legislation to enshrine equal rights for any group. It’s already in the Constitution
You clearly don't understand the meaning of the term "legislated from the bench."
Show us where in the US Constitution does it explicitly stated same sex couples have a right to matrimony with opposite sexed couples!
There is no "privacy" in the Constitution,Right, the 4th Amendment has nothing to do with “privacy” because the word privacy isn’t used. Genius
The subject is about the 14th, not the 4th, you twit. SCOTUS used the 14th to pass Roe v Wade claiming there was a right to privacy in medical decisions in the 14th and there is no such right to privacy in the 14th.
Also, each time a term is used in multiple locations they have different meanings. The 4th is privacy in one's person and home from unreasonable searches and seizures, NOT the right to private personal medical decisions about one's own body.
Keep grasping at ignorant straws (men).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
-->@<<<Amber>>>The definition of 'under the jurisdiction thereof' is perfectly clear based on the legislative history that was debated and put forth when approving and passing the 14th Amendment.Did you post one of these debates in this thread?
I posted excerpts/snippets, yeah. Clearly you haven't been following along. Check post #80 for starters.
Jurisdiction appears elsewhere in the constitution you know.
No kidding, under different context(s) than the contextual meaning intent within the 14th Amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Still talking out your rear end I see with ADreamofLiberty.
Posting what appears to be "quotes" but failing to provide linked sources.
Typical.
Kamala is not a legitimate US citizen.
Created:
Posted in:
IWantRoseveltAgain
It's been proven they can just make stuff up when they want to. Homosexual marriage and a right to abortion for example.Right, and all that nonsense of equal protection for blacks. As if they should be voting when they have black skin, right chucklehead?
Apples to Oranges argument.
Gay marriage was bad case law as the justices legislated from the bench.
Abortion rights was voted upon the WRONG reasons. There is no "privacy" in the Constitution, but there is "personal liberty."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The 14th amendment citizenship clause is fairly clear language and trying to corrupt the definition of 'jurisdiction' is classic subversion.
No, it is not clear, except to uneducated people like you.
The definition of 'under the jurisdiction thereof' is perfectly clear based on the legislative history that was debated and put forth when approving and passing the 14th Amendment.
You're just in denial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
I see you've fell deathly silent herein.
Guess you got nothing intelligent to say or rebut with.
I'll take your silence as a concession that you were wrong, and I am right.
Thank you, honey.
Amber
Created:
Posted in:
@<<<Amber>>>their ruling was not related to them being legal residents. It was a fact of the case, but not critical to the outcome.Yes, it was critical to the outcome, which is precisely why it was stated so many times throughout the ruling.please, just read an actual summary of the decision.
I have, and the reality of the FACT [is] that his parents were legal permanent residents with a permanent domicile is very fucking germane to the entire case you ignoramus!!!!
The majority opinion was that anyone born in america
No, it was not. The Court made it pretty fucking clear, not once, not twice but more than 5 fucking times that the parents were legal permanent residents with a permanent domicile, thus granting legal American (US) citizenship to their son.
Kamala's parents were NOT legal permanent residents with a permanent domicile when she was born. Nope.
The ruling in the case is the exact opposite of what your opinion is.
NO, it is not, dumbass.
And that Wikipedia page didn't list any law/statute he was charged with. Try again.jesus christ. It listed the crimes he was charged with.
No, it does not. It has a citation to a completely different source. Try again
you want the exact laws and statutes that made those crimes? I'm not playing this game.
And yet you're the one claiming laws were broken without actually citing what laws you claim were broken.
You're a big girl. You're capable of basic reading. I gave you a link to the crimes he was charged with. I'm not going to hold your hand the whole way through it.
Yeah, and I have done a lot of fucking reading whereas you have not. Clearly.
You made the claim, burden of proof is on you. I am not reading link after link after cited within link to another link just to do YOUR fucking job, dude.
You made the claim, you cite the laws verbatim statute by statute. Don't give me some retarded link to Wikipedia.
nope. They ruled that trump might not be able to be charged. They said nothing about his co-conspirators. Their ruling was only about a sitting president. Eastman is still going to trial and probably prison.No, Eastman is not.he's been indicted in both arizona and georgia.
Doesn't mean shit.
He's almost certainly going to prison. And since the georgia case is a state case, it can't be pardoned even if trump does win.
Your guessing game isn't evidence of anything other than you're a leftist idiot.
Sure, they're crimes but you did not cite the law (i.e., statute). Allegations in title only doesn't prove shit.Cite the law.I'm not your baby sitter. I showed you a link to some of the charges he is facing. If you want to know what laws made fraud a crime, you can look it up yourself. I know you're just trying to waste my time.
Wikipedia isn't a legit source, especially when it doesn't do your job for you.
No statutory laws were cited.
Meet your buden of proof and cite the laws you claim were broken.
Otherwise fuck off. I have better things to do and kids to care for instead of going back and forth with your dumbass.
Regardless, you couldn't cite a law as requested.you're either lazy or just trying to waste my time. I showed what he was charged with. If you want to know what law made fraud and conspiracy illegal, you can look it up yourself.
No, you're the lazy one here dude.
You didn't show shit.
You made the claim, it's your burden of proof.
And you're still drawing the short straw here, and making a complete and utter fool of yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
@HistoryBuff@<<<Amber>>>Okay, then cite the law that states if it is discovered that a person was issued a birth certificate in the US in contradiction to the originalist meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause that that certificate cannot be retroactively taken away.no it can't.Didn't think so.
I want to clarify something here.
I initially read this as "No, I can't" which is why I said didn't think so.
Regardless, you couldn't cite a law as requested.
So, you got nuffin muffin.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
I'm perfectly willing to see another point of view so long as it is grounded in reality and logically comparable.
Comparing sexual intercourse to lighting a match is not logically comparable.
I don't need to come up with a comparable analogy.
Begin with a false premise, your conclusion is equally false.
Mall fell on his/her/its face from the start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
@<<<Amber>>>Okay, then cite the law that states if it is discovered that a person was issued a birth certificate in the US in contradiction to the originalist meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause that that certificate cannot be retroactively taken away.no it can't.
Didn't think so.
yes, they listed the facts of this case and the facts showed that in this scenario the parents were legal residents.their ruling was not related to them being legal residents. It was a fact of the case, but not critical to the outcome.
Yes, it was critical to the outcome, which is precisely why it was stated so many times throughout the ruling.
Thank you for finally admitting that fact. Applying the same facts to Kamala's parents, they were not legal residents, they were under the political allegiance of their respective countries, and Kamala is not a legitimate US Citizen.you aren't getting it.
No, YOU are the one not getting it.
he was charged with trying to steal an election.Yeah, what statute would that be again?I linked you to a page on his crimes already. If you don't want to read it, whatever. But don't pretend like I haven't already given you this.
And that Wikipedia page didn't list any law/statute he was charged with. Try again.
Is it now...I don't think so, and recent ruling by SCOTUS has put a huge damper on a lot of that.nope. They ruled that trump might not be able to be charged. They said nothing about his co-conspirators. Their ruling was only about a sitting president. Eastman is still going to trial and probably prison.
No, Eastman is not.
Until then, you got no leg to stand on.
No law was cited. Try again.do you even read at all? let me quote for you "to advance "fake electors" in Arizona led to his indictment on conspiracy, fraud and forgery charges there in April 2024."Last time I checked conspiracy, fraud and forgery were all crimes.
Sure, they're crimes but you did not cite the law (i.e., statute). Allegations in title only doesn't prove shit.
Cite the law.
That suspension is on appeal, and I foresee him getting it back.you can foresee whatever you want. He's going to prison unless trump pardons him.
No, he is not going to prison.
Keep dreaming this wishful thinking all you want.
Until it comes to pass, you got NUFFIN, Muffin (err...cupcake)!
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
-->@<<<Amber>>>ntercourse is not an "If, then" situation.It doesn't always result in a pregnancy. More often than not it does not due to contraception & timing of the month.Some even have intercourse despite a woman being on her period.A match will always light when properly stricken.True, but It's the case that intercourse will produce a baby (with proper circumstances), just like striking a match will produce a fire (with proper circumstances).
"but it is the case that..." that's not an IF. THEN in every situation then, now is it. Only in SOME cases, and striking a match will always ignite and produce fire.
Still an apples to oranges analogy that has no relevance to the topic at hand.
Created:
Posted in:
@<<<Amber>>>Who says it cannot be done? Who!the law
Okay, then cite the law that states if it is discovered that a person was issued a birth certificate in the US in contradiction to the originalist meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause that that certificate cannot be retroactively taken away.
For your edification:Legislative History:yes, I know what legislative history means. I said what legislative history because you have shown no history of legislation that supports your position.
No, you don't and doubling down on what you said proves it.
I have, you just ignored it, all of it. That's called denial.
Repeated FIVE TIMES with each relevant statement of the FACTS of this case.
yes, they listed the facts of this case and the facts showed that in this scenario the parents were legal residents.
Thank you for finally admitting that fact. Applying the same facts to Kamala's parents, they were not legal residents, they were under the political allegiance of their respective countries, and Kamala is not a legitimate US Citizen.
Was he charged and convicted of being a traitor? Nope.no,
Yeah, that's what I thought.
he was charged with trying to steal an election.
Yeah, what statute would that be again?
His trial hasn't happened yet but the evidence is pretty clear.
Is it now...I don't think so, and recent ruling by SCOTUS has put a huge damper on a lot of that.
And if you try to overthrow an election, you're a traitor.
And yet he didn't and so he is not.
Democracy cannot be overthrown you knucklehead.what? History has lots of examples of democracy being overthrown. Hitler and musilini being obvious examples.
Democracy: "The common people, considered as the primary source of political power."
No one person, no 10 persons are equipped to steal an entire federal election. You people parroting this idiotic nonsense just makes you all look loonier than the looney tunes.I didn't say he did it alone. In fact, he is charged in engaging in a criminal conspiracy with a 17 other people. One of whom is trump.
And the recent ruling by SCOTUS has put a damper on all of it. You're still reading for straws and coming up short, as usual.
What law did he break?you can read about it here.
No law was cited. Try again.
His law license has also been suspended as he has been recommended for disbarment for his crimes.
That suspension is on appeal, and I foresee him getting it back.
What law was he convicted of?none yet.
That's what I thought. None.
The trial hasn't happened. But he has had his license to practice suspended before his disbarment.
And he is appealing that suspension and again, I wager he will get it back.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
However, if Mall is simply referring to the final action of those private parts will produce a baby if the woman is fertile, then an "IF, THEN" action is understandable like matches.I'm just trying to further the conversation.
Intercourse is not an "If, then" situation.
It doesn't always result in a pregnancy. More often than not it does not due to contraception & timing of the month.
Some even have intercourse despite a woman being on her period.
A match will always light when properly stricken.
Still an apples to oranges argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
@<<<Amber>>>There are probably millions of american citizens who got their citizenship the same way as Kamala harris.And they'd all be equally invalidated/fraudulent.that's not how the law works. You can't unilaterally revoke millions of americans' citizenship.
You a lawyer? Have a degree in a legal profession like paralegal? You do not know how the law works. I mean really, you do not even understand the term "legislative history." LOL!
Who says it cannot be done? Who!
Yes, there is as the legislative history has shown.what legislative history? You have not shown any legislation that says that people born in the US shouldn't get citizenship.
For your edification:
Legislative History: Legislative history Definition & Meaning | Merriam-Webster Legal
Non-permanent residents who have kids do not get citizenship. United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed thatno, you did not understand the case. Here is a summation of the ruling. The ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that if you are born in the US and the parents were not in the US acting in an official capacity of the nation they represent, then the child is a citizen. United States v. Wong Kim Ark confirms that you are wrong.Because Wong was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically makes him a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray authored the opinion on behalf of a 6-2 majority, in which the Court established the parameters of the concept known as jus soli—the citizenship of children born in the United States to non-citizens.
You're cherry-picking shit you think defends your position.
First paragraph from the syllabus of that decision.
"A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution."
More:
"That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid."
More:
"The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; "
"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business,"
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business,"
Repeated FIVE TIMES with each relevant statement of the FACTS of this case. Since his parents were permanent legal residents with a permanent domicil in the United States, the 14th citizenship clause kicks in because his parents were here LEGALLY! Kamala's parents were NOT here legally as permanent legal residents until 4 years after her birth.
Not just "people," but [a] legal scholar. Singular. Not plural.ok. There are tons of rightwing assholes that want to misuse the constitution to do bad things. Their opinions mean nothing without actual laws or court rulings to back them up.
Nothing he said was factually inaccurate where the US Constitution is concerned. No more than what the anonymous person who wrote the snippet I posted in the OP.
Fallacy of irrelevance on your part. The fact you even try to discredit his valid point on the subject matter merely because of later (long after he provided that scholarly research on point) shows your desperation to be right when you are so clearly wrong.lol, the man is literally a traitor. He tried to overthrow democracy.
Was he charged and convicted of being a traitor? Nope.
Democracy cannot be overthrown you knucklehead.
That is a very valid thing to keep in mind when reading his opinion on the law.
No, not really. Just to you and your ilk ignorant of the law and paranoid after drinking the left's KoolAid.
He thought it was perfectly ok to try to steal an election and is likely to be disbarred for it.
No one person, no 10 persons are equipped to steal an entire federal election. You people parroting this idiotic nonsense just makes you all look loonier than the looney tunes.
So his opinions on the law mean very little given that he is so willing to break the law for personal gain.
What law did he break?
What law was he charged with?
What law was he convicted of?
NONE!
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Under Trump we got a home loan at 2.6% APR.
Under Biden/Harris it almost hit 10% APR.
Inflation under Trump 2017-2020: 1.9%
Inflation under Biden/Harris 2020-present: 5.7%, third highest on the list while Trump is near bottom.
Under Biden mass illegal migration has been quite apparent vs the small numbers under Trump.
Clearly costing taxpayers a shit ton in money via their tax dollars being wasted on housing, feeding and clothing illegals while letting Americans and veterans stay on the streets with ZERO support. Nothing like this has ever been on a scale like Biden/Harris' failures ever in the last several decades of Presidents. Then add in the cost of crime from recent illegals coming from the gangs, violent inmates released from Venezuelan and Mexican prisons, cartel members, Muslims, etc. and the expense to Americans grows exponentially.
Gas was lower under Trump.
Purchasing power under Trump was better.
So on and so forth.
Yeah, the economy under Biden/Scamala is pure SHIT and you are 100% delusional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
@WyItedHey check this out. They used AI to fake his voice in a call to kamalaThis is interesting that no one refuted this, though it's not part of the thread topic.
It's not a part of this thread topic, so don't derail it any further with this nonsense.
Please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
-->@<<<Amber>>>Observing a legal argument =/= racism.a legal argument, sure. But this is a legal argument in the same way that saying the sun is god smiling down on us is a scientific argument.
Ignorant false comparison analogy.
There are probably millions of american citizens who got their citizenship the same way as Kamala harris.
And they'd all be equally invalidated/fraudulent.
There is no question about whether this is a valid way of gaining citizenship.
Yes, there is as the legislative history has shown.
It happens all the time.
Yeah, that's because it is the bastardized broken version of the status quo the left/DemoKKKrats wanted to increase their voting pool.
So making the argument that is so obviously false...
But it is not as I have so clearly shown in post #80
and is the same argument people used to try to discredit the last black presidential candidate makes it pretty obvious what the authors are doing.
Yet it is not the same argument. I or the anonymous person from FB from which I took the premise draws no connection to the Obama birther issue. You're just making straws and coming up short.
They have few, if any, legitimate criticisms of Harris so they just go to the racist argument they made last time. IE they aren't white, therefore they must not be from here.
See, another straw pulled and it's the shortest one of them all.
You have to PROVE it is "stupid stuff," claiming it doesn't cut it.What are you even talking about?
You being obtuse on purpose, or are you truly that dense!?!
There are millions of american citizens with citizenship who got it that way.
And they'd all be equally as illegitimate as hers.
Kamala harris was issued a birth certificate and american citizenship at birth. She's had it her whole life. The idea that she doesn't have it is just dumb.
No one has claimed she wasn't issued a birth certificate, and your claim that "the idea that she doesn't have it" is as you said, "just dumb" on your part.
Being issued a birth certificate doesn't mean it's legitimate.
I invite you to read my reply here to another user of the group:I read it,
No, you didn't and the following drivel of yours prove it...
it confirms you are wrong.
No, it does not.
It says the courts have never said that you have to be the child of a permanent resident in order to qualify for citizenship.
Proof you didn't read what I posted. I cited and bolded the parts that prove otherwise.
If a court were ever to say that, it would be the 1st time in american history.
And yet SCOTUS did.
This was the legal (federal) question before SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
- Is a child who was born in the United States to Chinese-citizen parents who are lawful permanent residents of the United States a U.S. citizen under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
And subsequent courts and legal scholars have noted the SAME conditions as noted and bolded in post #80 which, again, you clearly didn't read from start to finish.
And even if they did rule that, it wouldn't remove citizenship from anyone who already got it that way.
Yes, it would because it violated the US Constitution, BOR, 14th Amendment, Citizenship Clause.
It would prevent any new children from gaining citizenship that way. Thus, it has nothing to do with Kamala Harris.
Wrong. Ignoring a law doesn't mean the punishment and corrective action cannot be taken retroactively. There is no statute of limitations on violating the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause. At least none that I am aware of or came across in my thorough research on point. Again, you're grasping for straws and coming up short, as usual.
I'm not sure why you directed me to this. What about this was supposed to support your argument?
Because it is [the] support for my argument. Support that discredits your ignorant rebuttals the same as it does for everyone else. Even Casey too who has been remarkably silent thus far since that posting.
At least I take the personal responsibility to do some personal research on the subject before sticking my foot in my mouth like you and IWRA.Lol, you did research that proved that you are wrong
Easy to claim, harder to prove.
Everything I posted proved my initial assertion correct thus far.
None of you have proven otherwise. Claiming you have without actually doing it isn't proof that you or that I am incorrect. It just demonstrates what ignorant fools you are.
and basically just repeated what me and IWRA said to you.
It does nothing of the sort. Your delusions of grandeur knows no bounds.
The children of tourists and people on visas get citizenship.
According to the legislative history of the 14th premised on the preceding Civil Rights Act passed before it, no they are not supposed to be bestowed citizenship.
That's is (sic) what is happening today,
Yeah, because the left and DemoKKKrats ignore the law. DUH!
and what was happening when Harris was born.
Again, because the left and DemoKKKrats ignored the law. DUH!
You linked cases where the courts upheld similar things and confirmed they have never ruled that children of people on student visas shouldn't get citizenship.
You're misreading the rulings (i.e. - lack of reading comprehension). I mean really, I bolded and italicized the relevant parts, so they'd stand out for non-readers such as you and IWRA.
Non-permanent residents who have kids do not get citizenship. United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that, and has been cited/repeated quite clearly noting the reality/fact of "permanent legal residents/residency" grants their children citizenship.
Then gave a quote of people saying the courts shouldn't have ruled that way. But I don't care what those people think, because what they think isn't law.
Not just "people," but [a] legal scholar. Singular. Not plural.
Also, is that quote about John C. Eastman, the lawyer who has been indicted and recommended for being disbarred due to his actions in committing election fraud? If so, using him as a source is hilarious.
Fallacy of irrelevance on your part. The fact you even try to discredit his valid point on the subject matter merely because of later (long after he provided that scholarly research on point) shows your desperation to be right when you are so clearly wrong.
If at first you do not succeed, try try again.
Though, given your responses to date that lack obvious critical thinking and research skills of your own, you'll just fail yet again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Yeah, ya are, and you just proved it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@Sidewalker
Best.Korea too.
Didn't think any of you would have anything remotely intelligent to say in response to my well-researched post #80
Maybe @Casey_Risk will have something to rebut with worthy of reading and replying to.
One can only hope.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, given all the detailed legal research I took upon myself to properly debate/discuss this issue, I don’t foresee any equally legitimate responses this evening. That being said, I doubt I will in a day or two either. So I will check back in a few days and see if there are any actual intelligent (researched) responses to my argued position.
Amber
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
You all don't think Amber is Don Jr. , do you?
Paranoid much?
An intelligent woman scares you so much you have to be so paranoid to assert I’m actually a previous member of your Motley Crue?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
-->@IwantRooseveltagainSo Amber is a racist?I haven't seen much she has said other than this, so it's hard to say. The argument is certainly based in racism, but she could have just been taking in by stupid stuff on facebook and not realize that.
Observing a legal argument =/= racism.
You have to PROVE it is "stupid stuff," claiming it doesn't cut it.
And a MAGA MORON.seems pretty pro-trump and the argument in this post is quite dumb....
Again, observing constitutional legal argument=/= either pro-Trump or the post being "quite dumb."
These empty claims just goes to show you and IWRA are sharing your single digit IQs in order to try and make it a double digit, but it is falling far short.
That’s right, not all Trump supporters are racists, but all racists are big, big, MAGA MORON Trump supporters.I wonder if there are any racists who don't support trump. I doubt it, but i suppose it's possible.
I invite you to read my reply here to another user of the group:
At least I take the personal responsibility to do some personal research on the subject before sticking my foot in my mouth like you and IWRA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@whiteflame
@ADreamOfLiberty
Thank you for your thoughtful contributions rising above the resident trolls of this forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I can respect your take/opinion on the matter, and I certainly appreciate your candor as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
List of related research and legal articles regarding the rethinking and re-evaluation of the citizenship clause.
"Just five years after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court appeared to take a restrictive view in the Slaughter-House Cases, observing (in an aside) that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from [the Clause’s] operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
"But a decade later, the Court (again in an aside) suggested a broader view in Elk v. Wilkins.63 Elk principally confirmed the pre-Amendment rule that tribal Native Americans lacked birthright citizenship under the Amendment, but in the course of its discussion, the Court observed that such Native Americans were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States than “the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations”64 (thus arguably implying that other U.S.-born children of aliens were U.S. citizens).65 Ultimately the Court faced the issue directly in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, holding that the U.S.-born child of lawful Chinese resident immigrants was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and thus was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment."
"After the Supreme Court rejected the latter conclusion in Wong Kim Ark, the Executive Branch reverted to a broad view of the Clause, concluding that the Clause conveyed citizenship not only to children of permanent residents..."
"Modern arguments for a narrower scope of “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction” began with the 1985 book by Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith, Citizenship Without Consent.76 Adopting what they called a “consensual” position, Schuck and Smith argued that the Citizenship Clause should be read to extend citizenship only to U.S.-born children of parents who (if not themselves citizens) had become part of the U.S. political community as lawful permanent residents.77 Their term “consensual” invoked the proposition that the sovereign should consent to the person’s integration into U.S. society by admission of the parents as lawful permanent residents. Thus, while accepting the result in Wong Kim Ark, their view excluded from citizenship both children of temporary visitors and children of persons not lawfully resident."
"Professor John Eastman, for example, has expressly argued that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided: Justice Gray [in Wong Kim Ark] appears not to have appreciated the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of its laws, and complete, political jurisdiction, which additionally requires allegiance to the sovereign. . . . . . . . . . Justice Gray simply failed to appreciate . . . that there is a difference between territorial jurisdiction and the more complete, allegiance-obliging jurisdiction that the Fourteenth Amendment codified.80 Thus, Professor Eastman argues that the extent of constitutional citizenship should be restored to what the “drafters [of the Fourteenth Amendment] actually intended, that only a complete jurisdiction, of the kind that brings with it a total and exclusive allegiance, is sufficient to qualify for the grant of citizenship to which the people of the United States actually consented."
"The most common meaning of “jurisdiction” is associated with courts, meaning a court’s power over a case or a litigant.146 That meaning fits poorly with the Citizenship Clause, which invokes the jurisdiction of the United States." (This is why you cannot use the modern definition found in a dictionary in this debate/discussion)
"Thus in Wheaton’s terms, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant under U.S. sovereign authority."
"A sovereign had almost complete authority over (almost) every person and thing within its territory, but authority over almost nothing outside its territory except the actions of its own citizens."
"The equation of “jurisdiction” with “sovereign authority” in this passage is unmistakable—amounting to the unsurprising proposition that visitors to a country. It is true that aliens (and typically their U.S.-born children) also owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign even while in the United States. As discussed, international law recognized the authority of sovereigns to govern activities of their citizens/ subjects abroad. Moreover, many nations claimed the allegiance of foreign-born children of their citizens/subjects, either because the nation followed the European rule of jus sanguinis or because (like Britain) the nation had special statutory rules for subjects’ foreign-born children.196 Thus, U.S.-born children of nondiplomat aliens were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States; they were subject to overlapping jurisdiction to the extent they were citizens/subjects of one sovereign in the territory of another. ordinarily must obey that country’s laws and courts while within its territory."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
“Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.”
“Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
Irrelevant.
And yet that is the legal question posed of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court case did not specify that to gain birthright citizenship, the parents had to be permanent residents of the united states.
And that fact is repeated throughout the ruling clearly identifying his parents as permanent legal residents with a permanent domicile residency in the US.
NO exception for children of non-permanent residents has ever been carved out. This is not even a source of legal controversy.
Yea there is as clearly states within the legislative history of the 14th citizenship/birthright clause as carved out from the previously passed Civil Rights Act. Foreigners (like her parents), tourists, aliens and diplomats who have kids in the US are NOT entitled to US Citizenship.
It’s not a legal controversy because ignorant people who don’t know any better just read the 14th with a 6th grade reading level and accept whatever they’re told or simply don’t question it.
Notwithstanding it isn’t as if this issue hasn’t been raised before, it has several times, but ignored by others and Americans with no legal knowledge due to complacency and apathy towards the problems created by the bastardization of the birthright clause and its abuse for decades.
Created: