Shame on Newsweek for putting out a birther OP Ed on Senator Harris

[still_one]

https://www.newsweek.com/some-questions-kamala-harris-about-eligibility-opinion-1524483

[hlthe2b]

1. Well, it very clearly dispels the notion and the RW meme behind it, so I'm ok with it.

[SheltieLover]

2. K&R!

Boycott! I won't even click their link. Ty!

[hlthe2b]

4. It is a fact checking piece. Better to get that out there.

Indeed, PolitiFact rated the claim of ineligibility as "Pants on Fire" false, Snopes rated it simply "False," and from the other side of the political spectrum, Conservative Daily News likewise rated it "False." All three (and numerous others) simply assert that Harris is eligible because she was born in Oakland—and is therefore a natural-born citizen from location of birth. The 14th Amendment says so, they all claim, and the Supreme Court so held in the 1898 case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

Read more

[SheltieLover]

7. Ok

Ty for talking me down. Was furious!

[hlthe2b]

10. Yeah... Me too, but it will be discussed. May as well have the citations to counter the BS

[SheltieLover]

13. True.

As long as it is fact based. And presented correctly so people don't look at the cover & draw an incorrect conclusion.

[Crunchy Frog]

56. It's not a fact checking piece, it's a hit piece.

He only put in that paragraph you read so that he could "refute" it.

In fact, he actually goes so far as to argue that she isn't eligible to serve in the US Senate either.

It's complete RW birther garbage.

[Cha]

8. TY.. I'm not going to the link, either.

[hlthe2b]

9. I cited the important discounting section upstream and below:

Indeed, PolitiFact rated the claim of ineligibility as "Pants on Fire" false, Snopes rated it simply "False," and from the other side of the political spectrum, Conservative Daily News likewise rated it "False." All three (and numerous others) simply assert that Harris is eligible because she was born in Oakland—and is therefore a natural-born citizen from location of birth. The 14th Amendment says so, they all claim, and the Supreme Court so held in the 1898 case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
Read more

[Cha]

12. Mahalo, hlthe2b!

[Crunchy Frog]

57. He only cited that section in order to "refute" it.

He is a RW wacko, and is absolutely arguing that she is not a "natural born" citizen (or possibly not even a citizen at all), and not eligible to run for the VP.

[SheltieLover]

15. Aloha, Cha

[Cha]

19. Aloha, Sheltie!

[SheltieLover]

22. 😊

[unblock]

17. No, it's not. It's calling for an investigation into her parents' status

[hlthe2b]

21. NO.. it counters with the fact paragraph below

Indeed, PolitiFact rated the claim of ineligibility as "Pants on Fire" false, Snopes rated it simply "False," and from the other side of the political spectrum, Conservative Daily News likewise rated it "False." All three (and numerous others) simply assert that Harris is eligible because she was born in Oakland—and is therefore a natural-born citizen from location of birth. The 14th Amendment says so, they all claim, and the Supreme Court so held in the 1898 case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.[/b

It discusses the RW meme that calls for investigation before showing that it is already a settled issue from the SCOTUS decision US v Wong Kim Ark.

[unblock]

27. That's the setup. The rest of the article goes on to challenge that.

"But those claims are erroneous, at least as the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was originally understood—an error to which even my good friend, renowned UCLA School of Law professor Eugene Volokh, has fallen prey."

[hlthe2b]

29. Yes it goes through the RW "legal" meme before countering that this is already settled law (SCOTUS)

RW lawyers can say any contrarian thing they want-- as they have repeatedly-- before being overruled by SCOTUS. In this case, a case concerning an identical issue has already been settled.

[unblock]

35. Read on, he says that Supreme Court case wouldn't apply if her parent were here on student visas

"So before we so cavalierly accept Senator Harris' eligibility for the office of vice president, we should ask her a few questions about the status of her parents at the time of her birth.

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."

[hlthe2b]

42. No. that is not relevant to the SCOTUS decision based on 14th Amendment. She is naturalized

because she was born on US soil. Don't let these RW a'holes and their anti-immigrant desire to restate the constitution and the prior SCOTUS-confirmed definition of "Naturalized Citizen" bamboozle you. Every legitimate legal scholar, including the likes of Laurence Tribe and others, has attested to the RW attempts to do so as total BS.

[unblock]

45. I agree he's full of crap. Point is, the piece is laid out as a birther claim

Indeed, he even claims she might not be eligible for the senate!

[hlthe2b]

46. I said downstream: They tried/failed on this with Obama because of Father's status

(ignoring their place of birth/certificate BS) and have brought it up previously with Ted Cruz> They know damned well it is BS, but it gets their name out there and notice of their far RW willingness to be a "legal opinion targeted to ideology," rather than law and precedence--much like JOHN YOO and his EO/imperial Presidency bullshit opinions.

[unblock]

55. Yes. So why does Newsweek give oxygen to such crap?

[still_one]

18. It is muddled at best.

[hlthe2b]

25. I think the inclusion of the SCOTUS decision on this very issue is less than a "muddled" conclusion.

[still_one]

28. Making it a discussion in the first place is a distractiom

[hlthe2b]

31. Perhaps, but anticipating the RW attacks and memes is smart as well.

[still_one]

39. you realize he ran against Harris for AG. He isn't on our side, and is trying to create doubt

He is setting this up as a “legitimate” debate, quoting a UCLA professor as an argument against politifact and snopes

This OPEd isn’t to dispel RW BS, it is to propagate it and create doubt

Otherwise he would not have added this:

“ the language of Article II is that one must be a natural-born citizen. The original Constitution did not define citizenship, but the 14th Amendment does—and it provides that "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and that meant subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully). Such was the view of those who authored the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause; of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1872 Slaughter-House Cases and the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins; of Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional treatise writer of the day; and of the State Department, which, in the 1880s, issued directives to U.S. embassies to that effect.”

[hlthe2b]

44. I'm not defending him, but Newsweek publishing it with the fact check, which clearly discounts it

as has Laurence Tribe and many others when they've pulled this out of their collective ass before. They tried to run the same damned thing up the flag pole with Obama because of his father's status (even ignoring their birth certificate/place of birth lies). Obviously there is nothing there and they know it. He was President for 8 years as a result.

[still_one]

47. The author incorporated this paragraph to create doubt

“ he language of Article II is that one must be a natural-born citizen. The original Constitution did not define citizenship, but the 14th Amendment does—and it provides that "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and that meant subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully). Such was the view of those who authored the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause; of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1872 Slaughter-House Cases and the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins; of Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional treatise writer of the day; and of the State Department, which, in the 1880s, issued directives to U.S. embassies to that effect.”

It doesn’t matter that fact checks are put in there, this is to create doubt in my opinion

[hlthe2b]

49. As they did with Obama and Ted Cruz (and on a related issue, John McCain in 2008)

We have to anticipate and discount this bullshit. The pertinent facts are there if you read the full piece. I realize the problem is that few people read beyond the title and first paragraph, but that is a bigger issue.

We can hardly avoid all RW memes making it to print or online. I'm grateful they decisively fact-checked it.

It sounds like you should write an opinion piece of your own to the Newsweek editor.

[still_one]

52. Lol, nah

[CaptYossarian]

41. They're grasping.

Joe's smart enough to vet this part of his choice.

How do we prove Pence is really alive? Those Disney presidents are more lifelike.

[LizBeth]

3. That one is truly old and tired.

[Cha]

5. Kamala Harris was born in Oakland.. what's the

problem? Sorry, not going to the link..

[agingdem]

16. Oakland, California...are you sure???

there's an Oakland, New South Wales...OMG...not Australia!!!

[unblock]

23. That one is Aukland. But with an accent, one might hear one when the other is intended...

[agingdem]

36. actually it's Oaklands and

it's really in New South Wales...

[unblock]

40. Oh wow, you're right!

I've heard so many jokes over the years about Oakland/Auckland but somehow I never heard of Oaklands

Until now!

[Thekaspervote]

6. I highly doubt that the attorneys and all that vetted Kamala for VP are wrong ..such bullshit

[spanone]

11. 'some question'....

in other words....'bullshit'

[still_one]

30. exactly

[catbyte]

14. Here we go again...

Truth doesn't matter to these people.

[sarcasmo]

51. Yep, birther 2.0 , racists gonna racist.

[lapucelle]

20. Shame on them indeed.

Everyone is reading the constitution wrong except him.

He clerked for Clarence Thomas.

[ResistantAmerican17]

24. I know the repugnant party, especially Rafael Cruz, wants to eliminate birthright citizenship but

FFS they haven’t yet. Cruz and the rest of those whiny fucks scream about how unfair birthright is, and wail about children born here automatically qualifying for citizenship. But will generously make an exception and deny it to VP Harris???.... Born in the United States or its territories, citizen. Born abroad to citizen parents on a US military installation - naturalized citizen. Full stop. Jezus with the effing birther nonsense again. One trick ponies.

[lapucelle]

26. He's on the leadership board of this group.

NOM Education Fund

The National Organization for Marriage Education Fund was founded in order to respond to the growing need for an organized promotion and defense of marriage in state and federal legislatures, in the courts at all levels, and in the general culture. The NOM Education Fund’s mission is to conduct research, public education, and strategic projects that promote an understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The NOM Education Fund also helps to protect the religious liberty of traditional faith communities.

https://nationformarriage.org/about/leadership

[still_one]

33. Thank-you lapucelle, that says a lot

[lapucelle]

32. He ran in the Republican primary for CA attorney general in 2010.

He lost to the guy who lost to Kamala.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_California_Attorney_General_election#Candidates_2

https://web.archive.org/web/20110720170617/http://www.ocmetro.com/t-Chapman_law_dean_resigns_012910.aspx

[still_one]

34. no wonder. What a jackasd

[malaise]

37. Did they do one for Colin Powell?

Of course note even thought both his parents were Jamaican.

Newsweek is RW trash these days

[agingdem]

38. is this birther crap still a thing??

make it go away!!!!

[Tarc]

43. Penned by John Eastman of the Claremont Institute

This guy is an anti-immigrant loon and a Constitutional originalist.

The Republicans have called him in to testify on several occasions, when they get on their high horse about so-called "anchor babies" and the like.

PDF links here of testimony;

https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=103384

[still_one]

48. and why is Newsweek letting him use their magazine to pen an OP Ed

[whistler162]

50. I guess Andrew Jackson wasn't

eligible for the Presidency -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Early_life_and_education

He was an anchor baby.

"Andrew Jackson was born on March 15, 1767, in the Waxhaws region of the Carolinas. His parents were Scots-Irish colonists Andrew Jackson and his wife Elizabeth Hutchinson, Presbyterians who had emigrated from Ulster, present day Northern Ireland, two years earlier.[3][4] Jackson's father was born in Carrickfergus, County Antrim, around 1738.[5] Jackson's parents lived in the village of Boneybefore, also in County Antrim. His paternal ancestors originated in Killingswold Grove, Yorkshire, England.[6"

[Demsrule86]

53. Newsweek needs to be added to right wing shit that is not allowed here...they

are MAGA Trumpers now.

[still_one]

54. I wouldn't go that far, but it is unfortunate in my view that they make something so untrue an op ed

[SiliconValley_Dem]

58. I am sensing a pattern, still_one

[qwlauren35]

59. If you read the whole thing

This guy seriously thinks she's ineligible.

He thinks that even though she was born here, the idea that being born in the US makes you a citizen is contestable if your parents were not naturalized when you were born.

People are going to latch onto this and it's going to be a MESS.

[still_one]

60. That is what I got out of it to