- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Professor of Law at Chapman & Senior Fellow "Harris not leagally qualified for VP"
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:48 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:48 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Good lord because it was relevant factually to that case
That case was and will always be about it Wong was a naturalized Citizen. He was not being allowed back in to the USA and he sued. It went to the SCOTUS and they ruled he was a naturalized citizen.
He was not allowed in because we STOPPED allowing entry to the USA at the time. Meaning non citizens were not allowed access to the USA.
As in NO ENTRY UNLESS A CITIZEN!
And the SCOTUS decided that he was... therefore MUST BE ALLOWED IN.
WHY? Because he proved his citizenship based on ....wait for it.. .. per the SCOTUS DOMICILED!
quote:
not qualifications to serve.
Good lord you are slow.
You can not be a president or VP unless you are a naturalized citizen. PERIOD. That is clear!
So yes.. the case serves to prove that the parents must be permanently DOMICILED in order for the CHILD to have citizenship.
quote:
Besides the central holding in the case is the exact opposite
nope.
quote:
of the argument you
Not me. A Professor and Senior Fellow.
quote:
with respect to Harris.
Were her parents here and permanently domiciled? Do you know that?
2
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:48 pm to Jjdoc
So Kamala is an anchor baby? 
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:49 pm to Jjdoc
this is a reach, she was born in oakland.
But she grew up in canada.
And she still isnt black or an african american.
But she grew up in canada.
And she still isnt black or an african american.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:51 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
This is a diversionary tactic created to make the right look stupid
It's definitely working in this case.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:53 pm to Jjdoc
You are not even worth discussing this with. It is clear that you have not read Wong Kim Ark.
The domicile of his parents WAS NOT the deciding factor in the case. It simply was not. It was discussed, but that is not why he was allowed back in. He was allowed back in because he was a citizen by birth.
No, it does not. Every person in this thread and over 100 years of jurisprudence since Wong Kim are completely opposed to your position.
The domicile of his parents WAS NOT the deciding factor in the case. It simply was not. It was discussed, but that is not why he was allowed back in. He was allowed back in because he was a citizen by birth.
quote:
the case serves to prove that the parents must be permanently DOMICILED in order for the CHILD to have citizenship.
No, it does not. Every person in this thread and over 100 years of jurisprudence since Wong Kim are completely opposed to your position.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:53 pm to Seldom Seen
quote:
So Kamala is an anchor baby?
Yes.
Also, if people would read instead of believing everything they hear... they would have a clear understanding.
quote:
The children born on U.S. soil to guest workers from Mexico during the Roaring 1920s were not viewed as citizens, for example, when, in the wake of the Great Depression, their families were repatriated to Mexico. Nor were the children born on U.S. soil to guest workers in the bracero program of the 1950s and early 1960s deemed citizens when that program ended, and their families emigrated back to their home countries.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:55 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Were her parents here and permanently domiciled? Do you know that?
It is totally irrelevant. Only attention-whoring fringe law professors (apparently), bots, and idiots even consider that information relevant.
Why, oh why, pray tell, is every constitutional lawyer in the United States not up in arms this week? There is not one single peep from any reputable legal scholar or institution that considers Harris to be ineligible or that disputes birthright citizenship. Why do you think that is?
This post was edited on 8/13/20 at 4:57 pm
Posted on 8/13/20 at 5:05 pm to Indefatigable
Indef, you can't have any kind of logical discussion with people like jdoc. They are either willfully ignorant or proudly stupid.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 5:16 pm to Indefatigable
I don’t know if this is the case in this situation.
Is it current law that two foreigners on temporary student work visas can have a child while in school/graduate program and that child is a citizen of the United States?
Separate question
Would it also matter if that family moved out of the country not long after for personal reasons?
I am mainly asking the question as I am curious to the law. I don’t think Biden/Harris is winning anyways.
Is it current law that two foreigners on temporary student work visas can have a child while in school/graduate program and that child is a citizen of the United States?
Separate question
Would it also matter if that family moved out of the country not long after for personal reasons?
I am mainly asking the question as I am curious to the law. I don’t think Biden/Harris is winning anyways.
This post was edited on 8/13/20 at 5:18 pm
Posted on 8/13/20 at 5:21 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Why, oh why, pray tell, is every constitutional lawyer in the United States not up in arms this week?
Tom Fitton just retweeted it. Does He count in your eyes?
The ruling by the SCOTUS. AND IT'S FRIGGIN NUMBER 1 by the MAJORITY !
quote:
1 - 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 are still enjoying a permanent domicile and residence therein at San Francisco.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 5:34 pm to Jjdoc
Define what a Natural Born Citizen is and why only one can be President..what's the difference between just a US Citizen and a Natural Born one. Why was that stipulation put there if there's no difference?
Kamala is an anchor baby. no disputing that, and neither parent was a citizen when she was born.
Kamala is an anchor baby. no disputing that, and neither parent was a citizen when she was born.
This post was edited on 8/13/20 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 8/13/20 at 5:39 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
It is totally irrelevant. Only attention-whoring fringe law professors (apparently), bots, and idiots even consider that information relevant.
So the legal scholar that alleges she is not qualified as a candidate, the president, and Tom Fitton are all idiots now.
Thanks user Indefatigable. I don't know what this board would ever do without your sterling contributions.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 6:18 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
In 1904, Sun Yat-sen (father of modern China) obtained a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth,” issued by the Territory of Hawaii, stating he was born on November 24, 1870 in Kula, Maui. (See the Wikipedia entry at LINK
(Rather like Obozo's history of fraud.)
So Sun Yat-sen is over 35 years old and listed as a "citizen". Does that mean he could have been elected to the Presidency of the U.S?
Just like all of those Chinese "birth tourist" women that travel to U.S. territories or the mainland to obtain U.S. birth certificates for their babies. Are these "citizens" future presidential contenders?
(Rather like Obozo's history of fraud.)
So Sun Yat-sen is over 35 years old and listed as a "citizen". Does that mean he could have been elected to the Presidency of the U.S?
Just like all of those Chinese "birth tourist" women that travel to U.S. territories or the mainland to obtain U.S. birth certificates for their babies. Are these "citizens" future presidential contenders?
Posted on 8/13/20 at 6:21 pm to ImaObserver
quote:
Chinese "birth tourist" women that travel to U.S. territories or the mainland to obtain U.S. birth certificates for their babies. Are these "citizens" future presidential contenders?
Our commie friends are counting on it.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 6:23 pm to Jjdoc
Guys, The Dems had 100’s of Constitutional Lawyers pouring over every detail of her life while vetting. It’s definitely a prime point for Republicans to attack just to cast doubt, but legally she’s totally fine.
This post was edited on 8/13/20 at 6:28 pm
Posted on 8/13/20 at 7:58 pm to Celery
quote:
Guys, The Dems had 100’s of Constitutional Lawyers pouring over every detail of her life while vetting. It’s definitely a prime point for Republicans to attack just to cast doubt, but legally she’s totally fine.
And every one of them has a vested interest in confirming her eligibility.
Just like with Obozo, where Nancy and Harry Reid vouched for him with the assistance of the MSM, George Soreass and the complicit courts that would not grant "standing" to any who sought to launch a legal contest.
It did not make him legal, but since when do the Demoncrats care about what is "legal".
Posted on 8/13/20 at 8:33 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:
it current law that two foreigners on temporary student work visas can have a child while in school/graduate program and that child is a citizen of the United States?
Yes
Posted on 8/13/20 at 8:43 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Only attention-whoring fringe law professors (apparently), bots, and idiots even consider that information relevant.
When their minds tire of over ruling scientists and doctors, it's time to become 12 minute experts in constitional law.
The greatest minds of our nation.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 9:13 pm to Indefatigable
In the U.S.A. we have 4 general types of citizens:
1. Naturalized citizens, those who come here from other countries and get naturalized by law as us citizens.
2. Birthplace citizens, (questionable) born in this country, but with circumstances of parentage that gives them some level of inherited foreign allegiance, such as dual citizenship, in other countries.
3. Birthright citizens, children born to at least one qualifying citizen parent, regardless of birthplace. These too may have some level of inherited foreign allegiance.
4. Natural Born citizens, those born in the US or within it;s dominion, to two legal US citizen parents who can only naturally have US citizenship and no other allegiances to any other country.
Per Article 2 of the Constitution, only the 4th level of citizenship qualifies one for the Presidency.
1. Naturalized citizens, those who come here from other countries and get naturalized by law as us citizens.
2. Birthplace citizens, (questionable) born in this country, but with circumstances of parentage that gives them some level of inherited foreign allegiance, such as dual citizenship, in other countries.
3. Birthright citizens, children born to at least one qualifying citizen parent, regardless of birthplace. These too may have some level of inherited foreign allegiance.
4. Natural Born citizens, those born in the US or within it;s dominion, to two legal US citizen parents who can only naturally have US citizenship and no other allegiances to any other country.
Per Article 2 of the Constitution, only the 4th level of citizenship qualifies one for the Presidency.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 9:25 pm to Jjdoc
The woman was born in California. She is an American citizen.
The professor is positing an interesting theory that is taken seriously by about ... 1/10 of one percent of attorneys.
The professor is positing an interesting theory that is taken seriously by about ... 1/10 of one percent of attorneys.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News