First it was Barack Hussein Obama. Now it’s Kamala Devi Harris. Is either Democrat a natural born citizen? Obama ran for the presidency without anyone affirming that he was qualified to be president. The Constitution requires a person to be a natural born citizen.
To date, Obama still has not proved his eligibility under the Constitution. To be a natural born citizen, one must have been born within the United States to two U.S. citizen parents.
Despite claims to the contrary by his supporters, including the media, Obama has never provided a verifiable, 3-dimensional, historically accurate, legal birth certificate to any court or to the public. No one has examined the original birth certificate, indeed if one even exists.
An investigation by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of AZ came to the conclusion, based upon expert analysis, that the so-called “birth certificate” posted online in 2011 is a composite document, created digitally, and thus is not a legal document. No court of law or government agency would accept a digital image on a blog as proof of citizenship.
Now comes Kamala Harris, who apparently has pondered running for the presidency. Who knew that, like Obama, Harris also has questionable eligibility? In fact, her eligibility is even more suspect than Obama’s.
Obama, at least, had one U.S. citizen parent (if you believe that the woman he claims as his birth mother truly is his birth mother).
There are many unknown variables that affect Obama’s eligibility. Was he truly born in Hawaii? If so, on U.S. territory? When? Where in Hawaii? Was he, as indicated by school records, ever a citizen of Indonesia? Was he truly born with Kenyan and/or British citizenships because of the citizenship of the man he claims as his father?
Did he officially surrender any or all foreign citizenships before running for the presidency? If he ever gave up his U.S. citizenship (provided he had it in the first place), did he at some point later naturalize as a U.S. citizen?
We still don’t know the answers. Without knowing for certain the facts about each variable, then Obama’s eligibility for the presidency remains suspect.
Harris was born in 1964 in Oakland, CA, if her online biographies are correct. Has anyone seen her birth certificate?
Harris’s mother emigrated to the U.S. from India in 1960, according to online biographies, although Harris once said that her mother emigrated in 1959. Her father emigrated to the U.S. from Jamaica in 1961. Reports are that at some point her father naturalized in the U.S. Unknown is whether or not her mother ever obtained U.S. citizenship.
Despite what some online biographies state, Harris was not raised and educated in California. From the “mid-70s” (grade school age, perhaps earlier) through high school, Harris lived in and was educated in Montreal, Canada.
Because neither parent could have qualified for U.S. citizenship by 1964, when Harris was born, then likely she was born to two non-citizen, foreign parents. Ordinarily, immigrants must live in the U.S. for 5 years before being allowed to apply for citizenship. Is this why at one point Harris claimed her mother came here in 1959?
While Harris would then be considered an “anchor baby” with “birthright” U.S. citizenship (provided she really was born in CA), this would constitute “native” citizenship, not natural born citizenship, as required by the Constitution, if a person wants to run for the presidency.
Unlike Obama (allegedly), neither of Harris’s parents was likely a U.S. citizen at the time of her birth; thus she appears to be ineligible for the presidency.
Harris was (arguably) also born with Jamaican and/or Indian citizenship. Depending upon what happened when she moved to Canada and began school in that country, she may have also naturalized there as a Canadian citizen. Did she? Nobody knows because Harris’s office appears to be ignoring these very valid questions.
Harris had an odd response when asked in 2009 whether she’s ever been married:
What, exactly, does that mean? Like newly elected Representative Ilhan Omar, was Harris married “religiously” and not legally? (We won’t address here the issue of Omar’s potential bigamy and/or incestuous and/or fraudulent other marriage.)
But I digress …
Do Democrats and other progressives deliberately seek to circumvent and undermine the Constitution?
Are they deliberately trying to globalize our nation by putting forward candidates who have questionable natural-born allegiance to our nation?
Is this their way of changing what it means to be an American and diminishing the role of presidential allegiance to this nation, as well?
Do Democrats and like-minded progressives prefer a president who has no special allegiance to the United States, all the better to hew to globalist priorities instead of being (gasp!) a nationalist like President Trump?
Why must Democrat candidates have such amorphous, ever-shifting, non-specific biographies?
Why must they be more like progressive archetypes than like real people–real Americans–with verifiable histories instead of blank-slate fantasies?
Both Obama and Harris spent formative years in foreign lands. As a result, it’s mandatory to question whether each holds sole allegiance to the USA, as required by the Constitution. It remains unknown whether either holds, to this day, dual, triple, even quadruple citizenship.
Oddly enough, like Obama, Harris has a sister named Maya. (Harris’s sister actually worked for Hillary Clinton!)
Also like Obama, Harris traveled as a child to foreign countries, visiting relatives. What passport did she travel on, one wonders? Canadian? Jamaican? Indian? Will anyone ask Harris what passports she holds?
If Kamala Devi Harris run for the presidency, be prepared to hear rabid accusations of bigotry and “birtherism” from Democrats and the media, should anyone dare to question her qualifications, even though every candidate should prove that he or she is fully qualified under the Constitution.
It’s incumbent upon everyone in this nation to honor the Constitution and the rule of law, presidential candidates most especially.
h/t Zenway. See commentary here.