It really doesn’t matter what she is and what she is not.
The Deep State can twist facts and forge documents at the drop of a hat.
Yeah says the person who comes here talks shit, accuses people of being racist without actually knowing the facts! Sounds like you should take your own advice and practice what you preach! You pretty much revealed what a low info voter looks like! Next!
Harris is a descendant of Jamaican plantation owner and slave holder.
Their forgeries are not very well done though. 0bama’s BC for example. 
1 Like
The Free Beacon noted
Donald Harris, a Stanford University economics professor, revealed in 2018 that his grandmother was a descendant of Hamilton Brown, the namesake of Brown’s Town in northern Jamaica.
“My roots go back, within my lifetime, to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown, descendant of Hamilton Brown who is on record as plantation and slave owner and founder of Brown’s Town),” he wrote in a post for Jamaica Global.
…
A research archive of Jamaican records indicate that at one point in 1817, Hamilton Brown owned scores of slaves. The majority were brought in from Africa, though he also owned many Creole slaves.
You just think what you want to think. It’s fucking pathetic that you have been shown the law half a dozen times, yet you still insist on this rant that’s going to lead no where. Make no mistake, you lost this argument.
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a)
a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
You continue to misquote your own “proofs” The term in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 is NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. not citizen or born citizen or naturalized citizen or Klingon or fucking pathetic Texan. You have NEVER given any legal proof for your argument.
Thanks from playing along.
1 Like
Is that really true? Trump invited her? That is freaking hilarious if it is! 
Yet you STILL have this idiotic idea that a born citizen is different from a natural born citizen and quote other morons with an opinion as your proof. There is ZERO basis for your argument. It’s an idiotic opinion that’s going to distract people and efforts from the real battle and that’s defeating Biden and that Socialist idiot he’s pegged as VP. You have a great life, I’m done with you. You can’t admit basic truths of US law so there’s no point in debating you further.
While Ark does not address NBC at all, Minor does. Even Ark holds one must be born jus soili to citizen parentS (plural) jus sanguinis.
Hamilton’s letter to Jay prompted debates in the CC in Philly about the classification of citizen required for POTUS changing from citizen to born citizen to natural born citizen. If as you contend there is no difference, why the debate and strengthening of the term of art?
Also, recent Congress actions indicate members disagree with your opinion in that numerous Bills were presented to weaken the required classification for POTUS from NBC.
So I think I have adequately made the case with references. Yours seems to me to be only an opinion for whatever reason, no matter how well intentioned.
Leave the heavy lifting to others. 
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President ; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Because of the large number of Framers who went on to serve in Congress, laws passed by the early sessions of Congress have often been looked to as evidence of the Framers’ intent. The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens…(Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia) The 1790 Act is the only act that has ever used the term, which was omitted by the replacement Naturalization Act of 1795. The 1795 Act merely declared that such children “shall be considered as citizens of the United States”
Why was the term removed with the 1795 Act? It was because it was in error and the 1795 Act corrected the mistake. You JUST proved my position. Thanks!
Kamala Harris is a Judas goat! She’ll do anything for Israel.
1 Like
First thing you need to understand is, a tree is a plant BUT not all plants are tree. A natural born citizen is a citizen, BUT not all citizens are natural born citizens. See how easy that is?
Any citizenship classification that requires any legal ruling or act of law is by definition NOT natural in the same way your NATURAL rights do not come to a man by edict, legislation or ruling by any court. They come from Nature and Nature’s God only.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc only one who is a citizen without any naturalization law is by definition a natural-born citizen.
Justice Gray - " it was never doubted [no doubt] that all children, born in a country [jus soili] of parents [plural] who were its citizens [jus sanguinis], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens"
David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) . He said that after July 4, 1776, birthright citizenship was preserved only for a child born to U.S. citizens. He defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born to citizen parents. Concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, he said that birthright “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He continued that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7; Finally, he said that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.
The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814). Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cited Vattel and provided his definition of natural born citizens, and said: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’” Id. at 289.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Justice Daniels concurring cited Vattel and The Law of Nations and provided his definition of “natural born citizen” and removed Vattel’s references to “fathers” and “father” and replaced them with “parents” and “person.” He stated: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.” Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .”
I don’t give a fk! This is not what this thread topic is about! Do you know how to read? You and the acid freak Digi should get a room as its obvious you like licking each other’s balls! Go for it and leave me out your moronic discussions!
1 Like
No it did not. I think its funny that all your arguments that you make falls on the lines of semantics and is devoid of the substance itself. I remember such a discussion on another topic where you pulled the same shit! Try again!
Why don’t you simplify it instead of having to post all this nonsense to prove a point? What I posted is pretty clear and to the point the constitution pretty much states it, but for some reason you want to twist it around to feed your confirmation bias into thinking you are right and Texashusker is wrong. I got news for you, its usually by consensus to which such conclusions are agreed on and you are outnumbered on this issue. You can’t possibly be right about everything all the time, which judging from my limited interactions with you on this site, that is pretty much the case with you on any topic you fixate on! Try letting it go in the end it means nothing, you gain zero!
1 Like
This is exactly why I put the idiot on ignore.
I wouldn’t say he is an idiot, but he does have a habit of trying to turn certain topics into subjective subterfuge by playing the semantics game, when the language is pretty clear on what the constitution says. Citing and submitting to what other opinions are on the topic is pretty weak. Show me the actual language in which supports such arguments and state your case, and in this instance it clearly doesn’t. I know constitutional law, I am a lawyer, so its a no brainer to me, and clearly it is to you too!