SuicideFuel for blackcels : why I think vice-president candidate Kamala Harris is a natural-borne American citizen

[Sheogorath]

Here is a photograph of Donald J. Harris and Kamala's mother Shyamala Gopalan from when they first got together in University of California, Berkeley in 1963. Donald was fresh off the boat come to begin his PhD/Masters studies in economics, having received his Bachelor of Arts from "University of the West Indies" in 1960. They were both born in '38 and about 25 years old.

Shyamala had actually been at Berkeley since she was 19: she arrived to begin her Masters in 1958, so she had been studying there for five years before Donald arrived and their romance began. Shyamala's parents had arranged a marriage for her back in India and she was expected to return after finishing her degree. She finished her degree in 1964 but by then she was married to Donald and Kamala was born that same year.

What Shyamala was up to in her first five years at Berkeley remains somewhat of a mystery. Who her friends and associate were. However she appears to have been involved in some forms of political activism.

A hint to her friendships can be found in an anecdote that Kamala relates in "Truths We Hold" however...

Although she doesn't use a surname, I have a pretty good idea of who this is.

He gave a lecture in Japan in '67 when Kamala was 3 years old. He was a teacher at Berkeley since 1948 who ended up running the graduate program. Given that he ran the Department of Molecular & Cell Biology, he obviously would have been involved with someone studying Endocrinology who went on to work in the Cancer Research Lab.

So here's the thing I'm wondering... when you look at a young Kamala next to Donald Harris' mother Beryl Harris... and then next to Kamala's mom Shyamala, who does she resemble more?

The interesting thing to me is that next to her mom, Kamala actually looks "less ethnic", if that makes sense. Seeing her next to bonafide negresses such as Beryl and Mrs. Wilson is just a very stark contrast.

So anyway, you guys know what I'm getting at right?

Kamala Harris did not inherit Indian citizenship from her mother, because the ex sanguinis rights of Indian citizenship only transfer to those born abroad if they are sons of Indian men.

Kamala did inherit American citizenship by merit of ex sanguinis rights from her father Howard Schachman.

That's a good thing, because the 14th Amendment would not actually guarantee her rights. Here is why:

By Shyamala Gopalan marrying a citizen of Jamaica, this also made her a citizen of Jamaica (she became a dual citizen: Indian and Jamaican, which is termed "Indo-Jamaican) which means that since she became a citizen of Jamaica prior to giving birth to Kamala, Kamala inherited Jamaican citizenship from her mother.

Since she is subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power (Jamaica) the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to her. But that's okay. She doesn't need it. Kamala has no need for "ex solis" citizenship rights due to having "ex sanguinis" citizenship rights from her father who was born in Philadelphia in 1918.

Kamala is sadly a full-orphan and not a half-orphan but it's nice to know she has a great relationship with her Jamaican stepfather and I hope she fondly remembers the pearl necklaces that Howard gave to her as a little girl in the sixties.

 

[asdf1234]

tl;dr, it's over for currycels

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Why is this relevant to inceldom?

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Why is this relevant to inceldom?

Who was the person that said anything related to curries is incel related?

But anyways, who cares about Kamala Harris? I would only care if someone went ER on this bitch

 

[mNFwTJ3wz9]

Why is this relevant to inceldom?

 

[Deleted member 26242]

But anyways, who cares about Kamala Harris? I would only care if someone went ER on this bitch

Why is this relevant to inceldom?

 

[metabuxx]

Her mother's looksmatch roped in his room while she was sucking Tyrone's dick. She is fucking ugly.

 

[Sheogorath]

tl;dr, it's over for currycels

That was only the first part: Kamala's mom Shyamala abandoned her Indian fiance by dragging out her doctoral studies to take SIX years (Donald finished his in THREE by comparison)

The second part is even though she seemingly abandoned her currycel fiancee for Tyrone, that's only the surface tale.

The even darker (or should we say lighter) truth is that she'd been fucking her white professor for five years wanting to have his baby, but he didn't permit her to do that until she married Donald Harris so that they could cuck him and pretend their half-white half-curry offspring was half-black half-curry instead.

It of course worked marvelously. Howard Shachman got the hapa progeny he desired without having to pay a cent or ruin his marriage. Shyamala got bleached and managed to insert herself into racial activism with her daughter as some kind of curry/negro token crossbreed even though she's just appropriating African-American culture and not black at all.

Didn’t read

bragging kiddies

Why is this relevant to inceldom?

You'll notice I tagged this as "Suicide Fuel".

Basically, even if you're a relatively good looking black man like Donald J. Harris who manages to find a clevery curry Becky waifu who is approximately your international looksmatch: she is going to cuck you and pass off her half-white half-curry daughters as your offspring, and you will be so bluepilled with oneitis for her that you will accept them as your own even though they clearly look more caucasian than negroid:

This would only be worthwhile if you could fuck them (it's not unethical, you're actually just their stepdad, no DNA in common) but you didn't get to. You took them to meet your family so they could pose for pictures with black people and be "cultured", planning their political futures in activism, as their mother always intended.

Instead you were just their token 'good at math' negro who they will use as leftist currency to capture the black vote.

Note how Kamala ritualistically wears the white pearls in remembrance of her actual SCIENCE professor dad, taking her back to fond memories of when true-dad would shower her with presents upon his return from the orient.

 

[Deleted member 21768]

I'm a blackcel and I'm not reading any of that. I just know Kamala can go fuck herself. I don't like her.

 

[asdf1234]

That was only the first part: Kamala's mom Shyamala abandoned her Indian fiance by dragging out her doctoral studies to take SIX years (Donald finished his in THREE by comparison)

The second part is even though she seemingly abandoned her currycel fiancee for Tyrone, that's only the surface tale.

The even darker (or should we say lighter) truth is that she'd been fucking her white professor for five years wanting to have his baby, but he didn't permit her to do that until she married Donald Harris so that they could cuck him and pretend their half-white half-curry offspring was half-black half-curry instead.

It of course worked marvelously. Howard Shachman got the hapa progeny he desired without having to pay a cent or ruin his marriage. Shyamala got bleached and managed to insert herself into racial activism with her daughter as some kind of curry/negro token crossbreed even though she's just appropriating African-American culture and not black at all.


bragging kiddies



You'll notice I tagged this as "Suicide Fuel".

Basically, even if you're a relatively good looking black man like Donald J. Harris who manages to find a waifu who is your looksmatch: she is going to cuck you and pass off her half-white half-curry babies as your offspring, and you will be so bluepilled with oneitis for her that you will accept them as your own even though they clearly look more caucasian than negroid:

This would only be worthwhile if you could fuck them (it's not unethical, you're actually just their stepdad, no DNA in common) but you didn't get to.

Instead you were just their token 'good at math' negro who they will use as leftist currency to capture the black vote.

Note how Kamala ritualistically wears the white pearls in remembrance of her actual SCIENCE professor dad, taking her back to fond memories of when true-dad would shower her with presents upon his return from the orient.

dude holy shit, should have made that a tl;dr, this is actually interesting as hell

 

[SlayerSlayer]

Her mother's looksmatch roped in his room while she was sucking Tyrone's dick. She is fucking ugly.

fakecel if you wouldn't smash like there was no tommorow

 

[Sheogorath]

Her mother's looksmatch roped in his room while she was sucking Tyrone's dick.
She is fucking ugly.

Do you actually view Donald Harris as Tyrone-tier?

He seems more like whatever the negro version of Brad/Tanner/Melvin is tbh

 

[metabuxx]

Do you actually view Donald Harris as Tyrone-tier?

He seems more like whatever the negro version of Brad/Tanner/Melvin is tbh

Well it was 1963. Chads and Tyrones of that era would've been normies now.

 

[Uglymuggly]

@Legendarywristcel this is suifuel for kikecels even in the 50’s a kikecel had to fuck that hideous curryfoid jfl

 

[Deleted member 24876]

Lets just hope she dosent come near the presidency

 

[Uglymuggly]

Lets just hope she dosent come near the presidency

Why is this relevant to inceldom?

Read my post where I tagged you above

 

[Sheogorath]

Well it was 1963. Chads and Tyrones of that era would've been normies now.

Maybe, but if you look at Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali 1963they clearly facemog the shit out of Donald Harris.

They were Tyrones, he wasn't.

@Legendarywristcel this is suifuel for kikecels even in the 50’s a kikecel had to fuck that hideous curryfoid jfl

She wasn't that bad I would've fucked her

LOL when I see these photos of Kamala I have no idea how anyone thought she was black/curry she was clearly white/curry

 

[Uglymuggly]

Maybe, but if you look at Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali 1963they clearly facemog the shit out of Donald Harris.
View attachment 330150

They were Tyrones, he wasn't.


She wasn't that bad I would've fucked her

LOL when I see these photos of Kamala I have no idea how anyone thought she was black/curry she was clearly white/curry

Don’t forget Farrakhan based Tyrone Khalid Muhammad could be a tyronelite maybe as well

 

[Sheogorath]

Donald Harris was sub-Tyrone-lite

 

[your personality]

Who was the person that said anything related to curries is incel related?

@pp183

 

[Deleted member 19079]

@pp183

nah pretty sure that it was @chudur-budur

curries are gods

 

[your personality]

nah pretty sure that it was @chudur-budur

curries are gods

As @pp183 would say, this is currydom discussion

 

[Sheogorath]

if Kamala Harris' real dad revelation isn't a blackpill for blackcels, then Kamala's choice of white husband Douglas Emhoff should probably send the point home

like mother like daughter, craves the bleach

 

[Deleted member 19079]

.

i was referring to how curry greycels turned id into their own forum with the india vs pakistan threads

 

[Deleted member 27249]

Why is this relevant to inceldom?

Didn’t read

 

[your personality]

i was referring to how curry greycels turned id into their own forum with the india vs pakistan threads

I see

 

[crestfallencel]

curryfoids hated their own race even that long ago

 

[Reprobus]

Imagine having a female Vice President. I’m leaving if he gets voted in

 

[Justdone]

if Kamala Harris' real dad revelation isn't a blackpill for blackcels, then Kamala's choice of white husband Douglas Emhoff should probably send the point home

like mother like daughter, craves the bleach

I see this is what OP is going towards a race hierarchy angle an old white rich and status white dude had more SMV than a young ethnic man at the height of the civil rights movement to a desprate women trying to work her way into a corporate ladder. Suifuel for blackcels

 

[Deleted member 21219]

@Legendarywristcel this is suifuel for kikecels even in the 50’s a kikecel had to fuck that hideous curryfoid jfl

Isnt that guy Jamaican?

 

[Sheogorath]

I see this is what OP is going towards
a race hierarchy angle
an old white rich and status white dude had more SMV than a young ethnic man
at the height of the civil rights movement
to a desprate women trying to work her way into a corporate ladder.
Suifuel for blackcels

finally some IQ

Isnt that guy Jamaican?

Ugglymuggly was referring to Shyamala's Japan-visiting mentor professor Harold Schachman, not her husband Donald Harris.

I don't know if Schachman was Jewish, can't find anything to indicate that. Seems to be derived from 'Schack', a German surname

 

[PPEcel]

It doesn't matter which citizenships her parents held; they weren't diplomats. She was born on U.S. soil and is therefore a natural-born U.S. citizen.

 

[AlexanderTheGreat11]

Interesting

 

[your personality]

curryfoids hated their own race even that long ago

Since forever tbh it becomes obvious once they get the slightest bit of freedom to leave relationships easily like in western countries.

 

[Deleted member 6657]

It doesn't matter which citizenships her parents held; they weren't diplomats. She was born on U.S. soil and is therefore a natural-born U.S. citizen.

That's not the point of this thread. The thread title is kinda bait ngl.

This a very profound thread about race and JBW. I didnt expect it either.

Also I am not sure about the legal technocalities regarding someone like Kamala Harris whose parents are each citizens of different countries.

 

[Sheogorath]

dude holy shit, should have made that a tl;dr, this is actually interesting as hell

sometimes it is fun to put effort into threads

It doesn't matter which citizenships her parents held; they weren't diplomats.
She was born on U.S. soil and is therefore a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Wrong. The idea that 'not subject to the jurisdiction to' is limited to diplomats is a common misconception, but that is too narrow a scope and not what the writers of the Fourteen Amendment of 1868 intended at all. You can see this by reading their own words.

Jacob M. Howard

...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.​

Lyman Trumbull

"What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."​

"It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens "​

Reverdy Johnson

Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States ... If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States​

The 14th amendment should only be applied as originally intended. People are twisting it into something it simply never was voted to be applied as.

It'd be tantamount to using the "natural born" clause for president to excluse people born via Caesarian or Cloning or gene-splicing with Klingons. That's simply not what natural-born meant at the times those things were written: it meant being born on the nation's land to a nation's citizen. You had to be both citizen-at-birth (ex sanguis: citizen parents) AND born-on-land.

The 14th amendment was done to give citizenship to nationless people (slaves, ie property) who came from wildernesses that had no governments to be beholden to. They were not subjects of a foreign power because Africa was not civilized, so they could inherit no citizenship there.

It was never EVER meant to just give citizenship to anyone born in the US who came from still-existing nations.

It would give it to someone like Superman IF he was born here since his nation was wiped out (planet blown up). But he wasn't born here, so he isn't an American citizen BY BIRTH like a slave is.

How he would have acquired American citizenship is by the Kents using the "foundling status" to get it for him, assuming they didn't just fake being his biological parents.

 

[Over_this_Life]

Shes been gargling chad balls since day 1. She’s like every other foid

 

[PPEcel]

The 14th amendment should only be applied as originally intended. People are twisting it into something it simply never was voted to be applied as.

That's not how the law works. I don't care how you think it should be applied, I'm just saying how it is being applied.

Since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the federal courts have consistently held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" includes anyone who isn't a foreign diplomat (since they have diplomatic immunity and there thus not subject to U.S. jurisdiction). But noncitizens in the United States are subject to U.S. law -- it would be manifestly silly to suggest that they aren't -- and therefore they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

We don't care what the writers say. We care about what the Supreme Court thinks about it. It's not a misconception; it's how the law is applied and has been applied for the last 120+ years.

I wonder since you think the 14th Amendment should "only be applied as originally intended", whether you think the same principle should apply to the 1st Amendment. After all, the proponents of the Bill of Rights never could've possibly foreseen the rise of broadcast media and the internet age.

 

[Uglymuggly]

Isnt that guy Jamaican?

Read post pajeet

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Read post pajeet

Reminding me of my sub humanity

 

[Uglymuggly]

Reminding me of my sub humanity

Brutal. The mirror does it for me

 

[ChinaCurry]

Tldr; lifefuel for me, I'm part curry, maybe now I can get representation??

Prob not, she's a foid. Anyone know if she's dating an ethnic? Or is it a jbw? Or is it a black guy? If so lifefuel for @Colvin76

 

[solblue]

Her father clearly has recent Caucasian ancestry

Tldr; lifefuel for me, I'm part curry, maybe now I can get representation??

Prob not, she's a foid. Anyone know if she's dating an ethnic? Or is it a jbw? Or is it a black guy? If so lifefuel for @Colvin76

She’s married to a white guy. Last name is Ermhoff so maybe Jewish, but I’m not an expert at those things

 

[Deleted member 20811]

Tldr; lifefuel for me, I'm part curry, maybe now I can get representation??

Prob not, she's a foid. Anyone know if she's dating an ethnic? Or is it a jbw? Or is it a black guy? If so lifefuel for @Colvin76

I know you mean well, but this is gigacherrypicked lol.

this is like saying: "I know a 5'3" chad face guy who slays. height doesn't matter bro!" its just cherrypicking.

if its an ethnic she's dating then its probably a Chadpreet/Chang/Tyrone/etc. Ethnic Chads getting laid doesn't improve any chances for ethnic incels like us.

 

[ChinaCurry]

I know you mean well, but this is gigacherrypicked lol.

this is like saying: "I know a 5'3" chad face guy who slays. height doesn't matter bro!" its just cherrypicking.

if its an ethnic she's dating then its probably a Chadpreet/Chang/Tyrone/etc. Ethnic Chads getting laid doesn't improve any chances for ethnic incels like us.

Agree, but it's a start...
Can't start a fire without a spark...

 

[Transcended Trucel]

(((@Wizard32 )))

 

[Sheogorath]

(((@Wizard32 )))

how much of thread did you actually read, fren?

Shes been gargling chad balls since day 1. She’s like every other foid

Do you mean day 1 in berkeley after she arrived in America at age 19 on a student visa?

You can't mean day 1 in India because India is chad-deficient

Her father clearly has recent Caucasian ancestry

If you refer to Donald Jasper Harris, I agree, on his dad's side. DJ's dad Oscar was pretty light, whereas his mom Beryl (and her mom Iris) were very dark.

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)
and to my maternal grandmother Miss Iris (née Iris Finegan, farmer and educator, from Aenon Town and Inverness, ancestry unknown to me).

above is DJ's dad with her mom on right (top row) then on bottom row DJ's mom with her mom on right

Kamala is so light that if she had a dad other than Howard Kapner Schachman it's more likely to be Oscar Joseph Harris (OJ) than his son Donald Jasper Harris (DJ)

You can see from the photo that it looks like Shyamala actually took Kamala to Jamaica ALONE without DJ to be with Oscar. Isn't that a bit strange?

It's entirely plausible that they honeymooned in Jamaica and that this is when Oscar inseminated Shyamala (cucking his son) which is why Kamala is so light.

I suppose if that is the case then she would not inherit American citizenship from Howard Schachman

I am very pro-Kamala though, I want her to be our next president because then Kamala Khan will be more popular too. So I really hope it is Howard and not Oscar (it clearly just can't be Donald) who is Kamala's dad, so she is a birthright citizen and can be our next president.

Since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the federal courts have consistently held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" includes anyone who isn't a foreign diplomat (since they have diplomatic immunity and there thus not subject to U.S. jurisdiction).

Wong Kim Ark's parents were subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States because they had acquired Permanent Resident status. They don't set a precedent on how to treat visitors (or child of 2 visitors) who are not given that status. WKA's parents had a permanent domicile and residence before he was born. Kamala's mom didn't, her parents rented dorm rooms and were both using non-immigrant (ie no intention to settle permanently) student visas. The Harrises only got permanent residences and switched their visa status from non-immigration to immigration AFTER she was born.

Permanent residency means you are subject to US jurisdiction like a citizen is: you have to pay tax on income earned abroad, for example.

Frequently asked questions about international individual tax matters | Internal Revenue Service

Listing of ACCI-approved FAQs about International Individual tax matters by category.

www.irs.gov

if you click the very 1st question:

1. I’m a U.S. citizen living and working outside of the United States for many years. Do I still need to file a U.S. tax return?​

​

Yes, if you are a U.S. citizen or a resident alien living outside the United States, your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you live. However, you may qualify for certain foreign earned income exclusions and/or foreign income tax credits. Please refer to Publication 54, Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad, for additional information.​

But noncitizens in the United States are subject to U.S. law -- it would be manifestly silly to suggest that they aren't -- and therefore they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The intent of that is ONLY the United States. It could've been phrased better but this intent was clear in the discussions of the people who proposed and voted to pass it.

Non-citizens who are not permanent residents are only subject to PARTIAL jurisdiction of US law. They are also subject to the jurisdiction of their home nations.

We don't care what the writers say. We care about what the Supreme Court thinks about it.

Cool, so you want Supreme Court decisions AFTER the 14th passed in 1868?

1873 Slaughter-House Cases (click "Case" tab on https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/ to search+verify) from page 83, the end of US 73 preceding US74

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion.​

It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.​

That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt.​

The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.​

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case.​

It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established.​

1884 Elk v. Wilkins addressed natives who were born in tribal land which was part of the US: they were NOT considered citizens. This is why they had to pass the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to give it to them: because the 14th amendment alone does NOT qualify people for citizenship merely for being born within the borders.

It's not a misconception; it's how the law is applied and has been applied for the last 120+ years.

1924 was 96 years ago. If it was applied like you think it was then they wouldn't have needed the ICA.

I wonder since you think the 14th Amendment should "only be applied as originally intended",
whether you think the same principle should apply to the 1st Amendment.
After all, the proponents of the Bill of Rights never could've possibly foreseen the rise of broadcast media and the internet age.

Not being able to predict the exact technicalities of new technology doesn't mean you're incapable of predicting the spirit. I do believe for example that the right to bear arms wasn't founded upon an assumption like "guns will never get better" and no, I do not think the right to free speech was founded upon an assumption like "self-publishing will not become easier"

Technology is a very different issue than granting citizenship to new classes of people though.

If people want to do that, they should try to pass a new amendment, not twist an existing one out of context to justify their desires.

 

[PPEcel]

Wong Kim Ark's parents were subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States because they had acquired Permanent Resident status. They don't set a precedent on how to treat visitors (or child of 2 visitors) who are not given that status. WKA's parents had a permanent domicile and residence before he was born. Kamala's mom didn't, her parents rented dorm rooms and were both using non-immigrant (ie no intention to settle permanently) student visas. The Harrises only got permanent residences and switched their visa status from non-immigration to immigration AFTER she was born.

The suggestion that Wong Kim Ark only applies to the children of permanent residents isn't how the law has consistently been interpreted and applied by federal appeals courts. At this point, you're clearly being disingenuous. We know that Kamala was born in the U.S. and therefore a natural-born citizen; that's why even the most batshit crazy of right-wing interest groups haven't challenged her Senate seat on citizenship grounds.

Cool, so you want Supreme Court decisions AFTER the 14th passed in 1868?

1873 Slaughter-House Cases (click "Case" tab on https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/ to search+verify) from page 83, the end of US 73 preceding US74

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion.​

It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.​

That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt.​

The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.​

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case.​

It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established.​

1884 Elk v. Wilkins addressed natives who were born in tribal land which was part of the US: they were NOT considered citizens. This is why they had to pass the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to give it to them: because the 14th amendment alone does NOT qualify people for citizenship merely for being born within the borders.

1924 was 96 years ago. If it was applied like you think it was then they wouldn't have needed the ICA.

The Slaughter-House Cases preceded Wong Kim Ark, and even then, it's legacy on birthright citizenship was tangential at best, as the bulk of the case was focused on the Privileges and Immunities Clause, not the Citizenship Clause.

Elk merely decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to Native Americans, not that the Fourteenth doesn't apply to non-immigrant visitors.

Not being able to predict the exact technicalities of new technology doesn't mean you're incapable of predicting the spirit. I do believe for example that the right to bear arms wasn't founded upon an assumption like "guns will never get better" and no, I do not think the right to free speech was founded upon an assumption like "self-publishing will not become easier"

Technology is a very different issue than granting citizenship to new classes of people though.

If people want to do that, they should try to pass a new amendment, not twist an existing one out of context to justify their desires.

"Twist an existing one out of context" is simply called jurisprudence, courts have been doing that for centuries.

Originalism is a joke -- the assumption that you can somehow read the mind of someone two centuries ago is, as the late Justice Brennan described it, "arrogance cloaked in humility". I see no need to defer to original intent, not that you could discern one particular intent in a pluralist society.

 

[Sheogorath]

The suggestion that Wong Kim Ark only applies to the children of permanent residents isn't how the law has consistently been interpreted and applied by federal appeals courts.

So give me examples of later cases, don't just pull out WKA and expect me to act like his parents were in the same sitch as Kamala's.

Whatever you do find to argue your case, it is clearly not "consistent" since as I already pointed out, 73+84 post-68 cases still interpreted it as not applying to foreign citizens.

At this point, you're clearly being disingenuous.

No, Eastman actually convinced me, he made a good argument

Some Questions for Kamala Harris About Eligibility

There are significant questions surrounding Kamala Harris' constitutional eligibility for the second-highest office in the land.

www.newsweek.com

Were Harris' parents lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth? If so, then under the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark, she should be deemed a citizen at birth—that is, a natural-born citizen—and hence eligible. Or were they instead, as seems to be the case, merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act? If the latter were indeed the case, then derivatively from her parents, Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers—Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother—and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood

This is what I believe. Except I might be less inclined to defer to WKA as Eastman.

We know that Kamala was born in the U.S. and therefore a natural-born citizen;

You're just parroting MSM catchphrase: being born in the US alone is not a qualifier, you choose here to omit the jurisdiction clause.

that's why even the most batshit crazy of right-wing interest groups haven't challenged her Senate seat on citizenship grounds.

She probably just wasn't a notable enough figure back in 2017 when she became Senator, Republicans didn't even RUN during the 2016 senate race for California

The Slaughter-House Cases preceded Wong Kim Ark

Irrelevant, WKA doesn't change anything about that statement except to set precedent that Permanent Residents are not considered subject to the foreign empire of China at that time.

Plus there are also some decent objections to the decision of WKA anyway, don't take for granted that was considered a sound judgement that began the twisting of the 14th.

it's legacy on birthright citizenship was tangential at best, as the bulk of the case was focused on the Privileges and Immunities Clause, not the Citizenship Clause.

What the bulk of the case focused on doesn't matter, the portion I quoted was about the citizenship clause, they quoted it RIGHT BEFORE.

Elk merely decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to Native Americans, not that the Fourteenth doesn't apply to non-immigrant visitors.

Explain the distinction please.

Why would "Native Americans" (I don't prefer the term) be "more subject to a foreign power" than non-immigrant visitors?

"Twist an existing one out of context" is simply called jurisprudence,
courts have been doing that for centuries.

Courts have also been convicting people of crimes they didn't commit for centuries.
What exactly is your point?

Originalism is a joke -- the assumption that you can somehow read the mind of someone two centuries ago is, as the late Justice Brennan described it, "arrogance cloaked in humility".
I see no need to defer to original intent, not that you could discern one particular intent in a pluralist society.

Originalism in a vacuum is foolish, but I'm providing quotes from the writers at the time which is not a vacuum.

This is more "as described" than "as intended".

In theory you don't know any intention of anyone, just -stated- intention.

This matters since stated intentions are taken with some benefit of doubt when conversing about passing a bill and convincing people to vote for it.

So it is indeed important.

To not take this into consideration would be like agreeing to vote for a "right to bear arms" commenting at the time you know it means rifles, and then insist after it passes that it doesn't apply to guns, only humeral appendages.
- - -

American Samoans Should Be Granted U.S. Citizenship, Judge Rules (Published 2019)

The federal judge in Utah stayed his decision on Friday, signaling that it is likely just one shot in a continuing battle.

www.nytimes.com

Judge Waddoups wrote that the amendment’s language clearly applies to American Samoans.

“American Samoans owe permanent allegiance to the United States,” Judge Waddoups wrote. “They are therefore ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States.” And because American Samoa is “within the dominion of the United States,” the territory must be considered part of the country, he wrote.

I find that an interesting quote for consideration.

Waddoups says "owe permanent allegiance to" being the qualifier of "subject to the jurisdiction".

So he is discussing the idea of political jurisdiction over legal.

 

[PPEcel]

So give me examples of later cases, don't just pull out WKA and expect me to act like his parents were in the same sitch as Kamala's.

Whatever you do find to argue your case, it is clearly not "consistent" since as I already pointed out, 73+84 post-68 cases still interpreted it as not applying to foreign citizens.

In WW2, some already tried to overturn WKA to strip Japanese-Americans of their citizenship, in Regan v. King. SCOTUS didn't even bother to hear it. In Nishikawa v. Dulles, SCOTUS never even considered your "birthright citizenship" argument even in the case of an natural-born U.S. citizen (whose parents were Japanese citizens) who later served in the Japanese military.

No, Eastman actually convinced me, he made a good argument

Some Questions for Kamala Harris About Eligibility

There are significant questions surrounding Kamala Harris' constitutional eligibility for the second-highest office in the land.

www.newsweek.com

This is what I believe. Except I might be less inclined to defer to WKA as Eastman.

You're just parroting MSM catchphrase: being born in the US alone is not a qualifier, you choose here to omit the jurisdiction clause.

I'm sure that there's a fringe minority of legal scholars who do believe that WKA does not extend to the offspring of non-permanent residents. What Eastman fails to understand is that SCOTUS accepted not only WKA's citizenship but chose to interpret the jurisdiction clause in the light of English common law...where "natural-born" simply refers to being...born here. The State Department clearly accepts this interpretation of WKA, or otherwise, they wouldn't have been granting U.S. passports to the offspring of illegal immigrants for years.

She probably just wasn't a notable enough figure back in 2017 when she became Senator, Republicans didn't even RUN during the 2016 senate race for California

What are you smoking? Democratic groups have been grooming Kamala Harris for the Presidency even when she was still the California AG. Republicans did run for California's Senate seat in 2016. They just weren't competitive.

Irrelevant, WKA doesn't change anything about that statement except to set precedent that Permanent Residents are not considered subject to the foreign empire of China at that time.

Plus there are also some decent objections to the decision of WKA anyway, don't take for granted that was considered a sound judgement that began the twisting of the 14th.

What the bulk of the case focused on doesn't matter, the portion I quoted was about the citizenship clause, they quoted it RIGHT BEFORE.

So if WKA isn't a sound judgment, what is? Elk? The one rendered moot by Congress in 1924?

Explain the distinction please.

Why would "Native Americans" (I don't prefer the term) be "more subject to a foreign power" than non-immigrant visitors?

Because Native American reservations, in the 19th century, had "tribal sovereignty"; that indigenous tribes had the ability to self-govern. That sovereignty was gradually whittled down throughout the 20th century as more and more delegated administrative and law enforcement responsibilities to the federal government, and as they gained citizenship.

Courts have also been convicting people of crimes they didn't commit for centuries.

What exactly is your point?

Originalism in a vacuum is foolish, but I'm providing quotes from the writers at the time which is not a vacuum.

This is more "as described" than "as intended".

In theory you don't know any intention of anyone, just -stated- intention.

This matters since stated intentions are taken with some benefit of doubt when conversing about passing a bill and convincing people to vote for it.

So it is indeed important.

To not take this into consideration would be like agreeing to vote for a "right to bear arms" commenting at the time you know it means rifles, and then insist after it passes that it doesn't apply to guns, only humeral appendages.

All "original intent" allows is for so-called judgest to cherry-pick quotes to make decisions based on otherwise spurious legal reasoning. There are a multitude of reasons to vote for or against a particular law and for a court to decide which particular reason constituted the primary intent is a less balanced approach than for the court to consider the contemporary ramifications of their decision.

American Samoans Should Be Granted U.S. Citizenship, Judge Rules (Published 2019)

The federal judge in Utah stayed his decision on Friday, signaling that it is likely just one shot in a continuing battle.

www.nytimes.com

I find that an interesting quote for consideration.

Waddoups says "owe permanent allegiance to" being the qualifier of "subject to the jurisdiction".

So he is discussing the idea of political jurisdiction over legal.

I don't know much about the situation surrounding American Samoa and the Northern Marianas.