Kamala Critics Are Going Back to the Birther Playbook

[tulc]

Kamala Critics Are Going Back to the Birther Playbook

A historic candidate of color appears on a national ticket and the Default Twitter Avatar People go wild sharing all the reasons they think that candidate is secretly foreign born and, thus, ineligible for high office. Sound familiar? The birthers are back, posting their claims about where Kamala Harris was born and what her parents’ background really was.

tulc(and as if by magic: the head birthers birther troops are back at it)

 

[iluvatar5150]

Oh this oughta be good.

 

[JackRT]

Pitiful!

 

[timothyu]

The ol' lets get people to support us by bringing out the birthers on the prowl ploy.

 

[dzheremi]

Shocking. Truly shocking.

 

[Basil the Great]

This move will only backfire. I do not believe that many voters will fall for such an effort.

 

[timothyu]

This move will only backfire. I do not believe that many voters will fall for such an effort.

You mean a second time? Seems to be working here.

 

[JohnDB]

I don't see this getting any real traction...

Although her time in childhood in Canada might get a little. But I still doubt it.

It's about the centrist vote and "get out the vote campaigns".
Those tell more than anything.

The Dems need about 5 times the money to get out voters than republicans...

Republicans mostly have cars. Democrats don't. The retirement home vote will matter even though they have been decimated by Covid.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

They made sure Harris was eligible to become president when she jumped into the presidential nomination.

You can bet her enemies would've jumped all over the issue if there was even a hint that she wasn't born in the USA.

 

[Fantine]

So racist.
And bringing up a white slave owning ancestor who obviously raped his slaves is beneath contempt.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Kamala Critics Are Going Back to the Birther Playbook

tulc(and as if by magic: the head birthers birther troops are back at it)

This is a legitimate legal argument that has been debated in law schools for decades. Is an anchor baby, born in the US to parents who are not Americans "subject to the laws thereof" pursuant to the 14th amendment. The Courts have never actually answered the question. I believe they have with regards to the children of diplomats, ruling they are not "subject to the laws thereof" but not in situations like Harris. That Trump notes Prof. Eastman's argument before saying he assumes the Democrats looked into the issue makes this a total non-story.

 

[hedrick]

This is a legitimate legal argument that has been debated in law schools for decades. Is an anchor baby, born in the US to parents who are not Americans "subject to the laws thereof" pursuant to the 14th amendment. The Courts have never actually answered the question. I believe they have with regards to the children of diplomats, ruling they are not "subject to the laws thereof" but not in situations like Harris. That Trump notes Prof. Eastman's argument before saying he assumes the Democrats looked into the issue makes this a total non-story.

The debate seems to be over undocumented immigrants. United States v. Wong Kim Ark is normally considered to answer the question for people here legally. That decision makes the following exceptions (from the Wikipedia article): "excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory." The decision probably also applies to children of undocumented immigrants, but recently there have been disputes.

The original decision also excepted Indian tribes not taxed. That exception has been removed by later actions.

 

[Redwingfan9]

The debate seems to be over undocumented immigrants. United States v. Wong Kim Ark is normally considered to answer the question for people here legally. That decision makes exceptions for children of diplomats on the grounds that they are not subject to our laws. The decision probably also applies to children of undocumented immigrants, but recently there have been disputes

It may apply but it's not clear at this time. There's nothing wrong with having a debate on these issues. It's absolutely ridiculous that the media wants to shut down debate not just on this issue but every other issue as well. There's only one acceptable view of Coronavirus, all others will be mocked or censored. There's only one acceptable view on race, all others will be called racist regardless of whether they are. This country is in bad need of a robust debate and we aren't getting it.

 

[Arcangl86]

This is a legitimate legal argument that has been debated in law schools for decades. Is an anchor baby, born in the US to parents who are not Americans "subject to the laws thereof" pursuant to the 14th amendment. The Courts have never actually answered the question. I believe they have with regards to the children of diplomats, ruling they are not "subject to the laws thereof" but not in situations like Harris. That Trump notes Prof. Eastman's argument before saying he assumes the Democrats looked into the issue makes this a total non-story.

How did you miss Wong King Ark in law school? Now I will admit that the courts have never settled what exactly being a "natural born citizen" means, but my understanding is that the consensus is that being born in the US counts.

 

[Redwingfan9]

How did you miss Wong King Ark in law school? Now I will admit that the courts have never settled what exactly being a "natural born citizen" means, but my understanding is that the consensus is that being born in the US counts.

I agree that is the consensus but that doesn't mean it's the law. That also doesn't mean there isn't an ongoing debate about the issue within the halls of law schools and probably more specifically in law reviews and other journals. Law can be a fluid thing, today's consensus is tomorrow's overturned law.

 

[Arc F1]

Kamala Critics Are Going Back to the Birther Playbook

tulc(and as if by magic: the head birthers birther troops are back at it)

The article says "The birthers are back, posting their claims about where Kamala Harris was born" yet the article doesn't give any examples of that. They do however go on to say "anchor baby" but that has nothing to do with being born anywhere other than here.

I haven't seen any posts or articles saying she wasn't born here. Sounds like click bait.

 

[Arcangl86]

I agree that is the consensus but that doesn't mean it's the law. That also doesn't mean there isn't an ongoing debate about the issue within the halls of law schools and probably more specifically in law reviews and other journals. Law can be a fluid thing, today's consensus is tomorrow's overturned law.

That's true, but I'd be surprised if the natural born citizen clause is ever decided by a court. If nothing else, standing is going to be a tough obstacle to get past.

 

[Redwingfan9]

That's true, but I'd be surprised if the natural born citizen clause is ever decided by a court. If nothing else, standing is going to be a tough obstacle to get past.

I agree, I would think the Courts would stay as far from this issue as they can.

 

[hedrick]

I agree, I would think the Courts would stay as far from this issue as they can.

It has been decided. The case has already been cited here, twice.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It may apply but it's not clear at this time. There's nothing wrong with having a debate on these issues. It's absolutely ridiculous that the media wants to shut down debate not just on this issue but every other issue as well. There's only one acceptable view of Coronavirus, all others will be mocked or censored. There's only one acceptable view on race, all others will be called racist regardless of whether they are. This country is in bad need of a robust debate and we aren't getting it.

When conservatives start applying these concerns equally and not just to non-white liberals, then I might start believing that their concerns are really about the constitution and not merely about employing racism to win elections.