Senator Kamala Harris (D-California) goes full communist


Readers!
 
Scroll down to read this post.
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

They’re coming for you next: During a townhall broadcast provided for her by CNN in connection with her decision to run for president, Democratic senator Kamala Harris (D-California) made it clear that her policies would follow a full communist agenda, aiming to eliminate the entire fossil fuel industry and the entire private healthcare industry while working to ban private ownership of guns.

Considering that the nation this very moment is suffering from one of the coldest cold spells ever and that millions would die without the ability to warm their homes without fossil fuels, it seems to me that Kamala Harris is a very typical leftist: She believes her ideas are so wonderful that they must be imposed, even if this will cause a genocide.

This at least has been the track record of leftists for the past 150 years, in Germany, in the Soviet Union, in Italy, in Venezuela, in practically every place they have gained power. Why anyone should expect it to be different here?

In fact, we have evidence to believe Harris would do exactly this, based on her own track record. In 2016 Harris tried to use the power of her position as California’s attorney general to force conservative organizations to hand her their confidential tax information so she can obtain the names of their donors. Her effort failed, but only because a judge ruled against her. And he did so because he recognized that Harris and her liberal supporters posed a violent threat to those donors.

Harris also joined a lawsuit by seventeen Democratic attorneys general aimed at harassing climate skeptics.

She has also publicly fantasized about the idea of killing Trump, Pence, or Sessions. She might claim that she was merely making a joke, but this really is not something you should joke about, especially if you are aiming for a position where you will be able to wield great power.

No matter. The American public, especially in the states dominated by Democratic elected officials, wants this. I consider her the frontrunner in the race for Democratic presidential candidacy And if you do not agree, be warned. They’re coming for you next.

Share

46 comments

  • Phill O

    Utter insanity. Wonder what she has been smoking?

  • Orion314

    Yet more proof that a feminist i.e. “a man hating lesbian” , is a really bad idea for political office. Thank God , that after 8 yrs of the disgrace of 44, Harris has less chance of becoming the next POTUS than i do…free men are not equal, equal men are not free. Women are not equal to men, men are not equal to women. Fact , not opinion.
    All the “female’ POTUS candidates i’ve seen so far aren’t even fit to clean the toilets in the WhiteHouse, let alone occupy the oval office.

  • Orion314 wrote, “Harris has less chance of becoming the next POTUS than i do.”

    I wish I was as confident as you. Remember, Hillary Clinton got more votes nationwide than Trump. The American public increasingly does not agree with you, or I, on these matters.

  • MDN

    Orion314, with respect, I don’t think your derogatory characterizations are appropriate or useful. It is OK to disagree and have a counter view (with which btw we win handily with rational arguments), but it only serves to discredit these arguments by casting about insults.

    WRT Harris, I concur with Bob that she is out to a fast start on a hard left course. And I hope she is as unelectable as 314 seems to feel, but am worried nonetheless. She is an accomplished woman who ticks all of the progressive boxes and is more formidable than Obama imho. And you know the fourth estate will back her full tilt should she become the nominee.

    That said the journey has only started and she is going to be challenged to remain the shiny penny. As the apparent front runner of a large pack of wolves everyone else will be shooting at her first, so it should be an entertaining year.

    God help us if she pulls it off though, because Bob’s sentiment is 100% on point in that regard.

  • Orion314

    Before it’s thought I’m a misogynist , I’ll point out i’m happily married for 35 yrs. My wife , is a bartender , so she has met far more men and women than i over the years.. i asked her “would you ever vote for a women for POTUS?”
    She said “NOT EVER”. Why?
    “Because women can’t be trusted” WHY? ” Because they are naturally vengeful and spiteful”
    “Women treat women far worse than men treat women” ‘ i admit that kind of shocked me. I asked , what about MAD” {Mutually Assured Destruction],
    She said, DOESN’T MATTER” Why , asked?
    “Because, it would make her feel good at that moment, they are vengeful creatures”
    Women wonder why MGTOW is taking off all over the place,,,a bone to chew on…

  • Orion314: While generalizations such as those you and your wife posit are quite often based on reality, they fail when one narrows things down to individuals. This is the difference between being knowledgeable and discerning versus being simply bigoted. If you insist on applying the generalization to all individuals of a group, you are the latter. If you recognize the reality of the generalizations but look past them to see the individual, you are the former.

    Which are you?

  • I must add that my objections to Kamala Harris focus entirely on her political stances and positions. It did not even occur to me to consider her sex. It really is irrelevant.

  • Noah Peal

    Is Harris even eligible to be president? It’s my understanding her father arrived from Jamaica in 1961, and her mother from India in 1960. Neither parent was a legal resident for 5 years prior to Kamala’s birth, a legal requirement for naturalization, if I’m not mistaken. Lastly, Kamala Harris was raised in Canada.

  • Orion314

    Well Bob, with all due respect, when you find a female who considers herself fit to fill the office of the most powerful leader in the world , who is NOT a feminist , let us know. Good luck on that snipe hunt…

  • Orion314: I’d vote for Margaret Thatcher any day of the week, just to give one example that immediately came to mind.

  • Orion314

    Just for clarity, ANYONE , who calls themselves a Nazi, a Klansman, a Jew hater . or a Feminist, is by the “candidates’ own admission, completely the wrong person to be POTUS. Every female wannabe POTUS I’ve ever seen and heard, who feels they have a bigger pair than any mere man , always states proudly , right out of the gate,
    ” i am a feminist first and foremost…”
    FEMINIST IS CODE = MANHATER
    How could any thinking human want such a person as a world leader?

  • Orion314

    Watching PM Theresa May squirm addressing parliament is another fine example , all mouth , no balls, ever….zero leadership. Good Women leaders? As rare as finding men who are good mommies..bah!!!!!

  • Orion314: Here you are using real data about actual individuals to reject those specific individuals. Perfectly reasonable.

    However, to extrapolate that analysis and apply it to all women, as you do in your next comment about Theresa May, is not reasonable, and in fact is very wrong.

    Your thinking would benefit if you calmed your rhetoric. One of the ways to do that is to avoid CAPS.

  • Phill O

    Golda Meir

    Marg Thatcher

    However, the premier of Alberta and the late premier of Ontario support Orion314

  • Andrew_W

    On AVERAGE women are better at people, men are better at things, women are, ON AVERAGE, better at reading people and so are ON AVERAGE better at manipulating them. In the battle between the sexes men have more physical strength, women more cunning, today in the western world mens advantage in physical strength is basically outlawed, and women now have the upper hand in the age old battle – everyone’s obsessed about misogyny, even though institutionalized misogyny has gone, misandry is far more common today, and institutionalized misandry still fairly common. Men are commonly depicted as Homer Simpson, women as Marge.

  • Orion314

    Lets put out a couple of examples that have nothing to do with physical power, RATHER , skills of intellect and acumen , e.g POKER & CHESS, skills useful for a POTUS, the number of women on that list is endless… sarcasm high !!!!
    We must lose this insane idea that women are equal to men , and that the sexes are interchangeable. It is dangerous to believe lies because it’s PC or merely expedient. if men want to act like women, they deserve what they get, and it damn sure won’t be good.

  • Kirk

    Noah Peal> Is Harris even eligible to be president? …

    Kamala Harris was born in Oakland. Are you suggesting that she might not be a “natural born Citizen” due to the status of her parents?

  • Orion314

    It’s not the color of her skin, it’s the content of her politics, to paraphrase Dr MLK.

  • Kirk

    Orion314, I’m not sure who you are responding to, but if to me, then I believe that Noah was questioning whether Ms. Harris could be considered a “natural born Citizen” per Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution if neither of her parents were US citizens at the time of her birth. I don’t see the conflict there and was asking for clarification?

  • wayne

    Wow– if her parents weren’t citizens, she’s not a citizen.
    And its about time we settled that with a Statute before the courts get their grimy little hands on it. I’m sure Mitch McConnel will get right on that….

    Jordan Peterson: Differences between men and women
    (excerpted from University of Western Ontario Event March 2018)
    https://youtu.be/LSXEHsYf8uQ
    18:39

  • wayne

    Jordan Peterson Triggers Scandinavian Feminist
    SVT/TV-2 Skavlan 2018
    https://youtu.be/W0mooGSD7ik
    13:09

  • pzatchok

    If the Dems are going this hard left this early in the game what are they going to be one upping each other with by the time the primary’s are in play?

  • mike shupp

    Wayne — Harris’s mother came to the US as a student in 1960; her father in 1961. Presumably neither had obtained US citizenship by the time she was born in 1964. I suspect both did so at some point, although her mother might have gotten Canadian citizenship when she was teaching there. Anyhow.

    There’s this thing called jus soli, a legal notion going back to Roman times. If you’re born in a nation you’re an citizen automatically. There are certain exceptions — children of diplomats, for instance, American Indians at some times — and not every country anymore accepts the notion. But the US does, and has held to the idea basically since the Founding. You aren’t going to change that without amending the Constitution. Kamala Harris was born in the USA, and she’s a citizen. Period.

    Interestingly, the only recent cases I can think of where the birth citizenship of a Presidential contender might have been argued involve Republicans. John McCain was born in Canal Zone in Panama; his father was a US officer stationed there, so his citizenship status was unquestionable. Before that, George Romney, a contender in 1968, was born in Mexico in 1907, in a colony of Mormons, who had fled the oppressive US government … But apparently no one objected around 1915 or so when his family returned to the US and resumed being US citizens, and no one made an issue about his status when he ran for governor of Michigan or campaigned for President.

  • wayne

    mike–
    I readily admit, I am ignorant of the particular factoids on Harris. If her parents weren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then it becomes very problematic. For the reasons discussed in a previous thread I would maintain there is no birth-right citizenship.
    I really don’t want to go down that rabbit hole again, but I will say from an historical perspective;
    people were historically automatically considered Subject’s of the King (or whomever dictator was running the show) while in the USA, we are Citizen’s of our respective State’s and of the Union. (assuming we meet the test)
    There’s a huge distinction between subject & citizen, even in “western common-law” history.

    Anyway….

    “In Our Hands”
    Part 3: How to Lose What We Have (1950)
    https://youtu.be/8UFYluWMDiM
    11:53

    “Just what would have to change, to be sure to lose, what we have…”

  • wayne

    Jordan Peterson: Why is Marxism so Attractive?
    [excerpted from: Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Onkar Ghate on Free Speech: LIVE at Clemson 2017]
    https://youtu.be/6h_mMVwQnAk
    6:04

  • mike shupp

    Wayne —

    Harris’s parents were graduate students, which is certainly “subject to the jurisdiction of the US.” But the thing is, it takes a minimum of 4 years of residence for immigrants to qualify for citizenship, and college students from foreign countries do not qualify as “residents.” (This was certainly the case in the 1960’s,
    and I’ve never heard of things being changed.). However, new college graduates who can get an offer of employment are basically guaranteed a green card, so when she was born most observers could have concluded that both her parents were firmly on the path to citizenship.

    But as I said, there’s jus soli so this is kind of academic.

  • Kirk

    mike shupp> Interestingly, the only recent cases I can think of where the birth citizenship of a Presidential contender might have been argued involve Republicans. John McCain was born in Canal Zone in Panama … George Romney, a contender in 1968, was born in Mexico …

    And most recently, Ted Cruz who was born in Canada.

    Thanks Mike, your post led to some interesting reading about George Romney (Mitt Romney’s father).

  • wayne

    Mark Levin
    Citizenship, illegal immigrants, and the 14th Amendment
    2010
    https://youtu.be/8WDXANgEytE
    12:59

  • Gee, isn’t in interesting that Kirk and Mike, both of whom have indicated in past comments their liberal political leanings, seem to only recognize the presidential birth issues of Republicans.

    The questions raised on all these Republicans can certainly be considered, though many would consider them inconsequential. So too would many on the questions of Obama’s birth citizenship. Regardless, questions were raised about his birth citizenship, and to conveniently leave him out reveals your partisanship and some intellectual dishonesty.

  • Andrew_W

    Mr Zimmerman, the debate over Obama’s citizenship was so recent and so thoroughly thrashed to death, was such a shameful exercise in misinformation by those trying to create a false narrative, I’m surprised you choose to mention it. Given that those acting shamefully were Republicans.

  • Andrew_W

    “her policies would follow a full communist agenda,”

    Mr. Zimmerman, the article you reference doesn’t mention communism, and no one in the comments here has done so, the reasons the article gives for describing Harris as going “full left wing” center around her wanting to have some sort of public health system and various policies that address AGW.
    Personally I don’t agree with her on either, we’ve got a public health system with a government accident insurance monopoly in this country and it provides a very poor service for what it costs us, even those that work in the system and are the main benefactors of the system whine about it – but they and most other people sadly continue to support it, thinking its short-comings can be solved by just pumping more tax payer money into it when it can only be fixed by getting rid of the state monopoly and allowing the free market in.

    The issue I have is your use of the phrase “full communist agenda”. Most countries in the Western world have policies in place similar to those Harris advocates for – but those countries are mostly described as “social democracies”, does your use of the word “communist” mean that you think that most countries in the Western world are now communist?

  • Andrew_W: Not surprisingly, you completely miss my point, as you usually do. I wasn’t arguing whether Obama was a citizen. I was noting that the dispute over his citizenship was being completely ignored by these liberally-inclined commenters, with one even going so far as specifically saying “the only recent cases I can think of where the birth citizenship of a Presidential contender might have been argued involve Republicans.”

    This statement is false, and could only be made if the person making it is either willfully blind to recent events, very partisan, or being intellectually dishonest. If I was to discuss the birth citizen questions of past presidential candidates, I would not limit that discussion to just McCain, Cruz, and Romney, and make believe no one ever questioned Obama’s status in this regard.

    I am not trying to be insulting. I am just being very bluntly descriptive. The matter now falls from me to you and these commenters.

  • Andrew_W

    Mr. Zimmerman, “the only recent cases I can think of where the birth citizenship of a Presidential contender might have been argued involve Republicans.” The commenter was obviously baiting the Republicans here, you took the bait. Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born a US citizen, the made up claims that he was born in Kenya were false. Those creating the “dispute” was noisy but their claims baseless, Obama’s citizenship was never legitimately in question so there was no genuine basis for a discussion over it, which is different to instances in which the Presidential candidate actually was born outside of the US.

  • mike shupp

    Mr Zimmerman —

    1. You’ll note I said “the birth citizenship of a Presidential contender might have been argued” — my point being that it wasn’t argued, not that it should have been. In McCain’s case, it was basically a non-issue from the start; a handful of people might have been puzzled by his birth outside the US but not enough of them and not for long enough to cause any problems. In Romney’s case, there’s sort of an issue about whether pro-polygamous Mormons trying to evade the anti-polygamous US government ceased to become US citizens when they fled to Mexico in the 1880s. This might amuse legal scholars, but basically everybody else seems to have shrugged and said “no big deal” when those exiles decided to return. I don’t recall even two seconds of controversy about whether Romney was a “REAL” American when he was in politics. Which seems fine to me.

    2. I overlooked the Cruz-in-Canada thing — mea culpa! — but I never took it as something serious in the first place, and I don’t recall it being an issue at any particularly liberal website.

    3. If had to generalize, I’d say the vast majority of Americans — liberal or conservative or centralists — have been quite willing to accept the legitimacy of politicians in this country. I can think of only one case where disagreement became strident, and that was the treatment of Barak Obama.

    4. I’m a registered Republican voter and have been since 1967. Granted, I’ve gotten very picky about candidates in recent years.

  • Edward

    Orion314 wrote: “We must lose this insane idea that women are equal to men , and that the sexes are interchangeable.

    But women have been declared to be equal to men and the two sexes interchangeable, so it must be true. This was done by the same people who insist upon diversity in all things.

    Except, how can there be diversity when everyone has been declared to be the same and interchangeable? Wait. Didn’t Google fire someone for pointing that out?

    mike shupp wrote: “not every country anymore accepts the notion. But the US does, and has held to the idea basically since the Founding.

    But the U.S. does not, and only started the practice of birthright citizenship in the mid 20th century without statute or constitutional amendment — there is no legal justification for its implementation, and it is clearly unconstitutional, just as are a lot of other things that the government does. The Fourteenth Amendment was very specific about this, and this was not the practice before its passage, either. No amendment is necessary to end birthright citizenship, because the Fourteenth Amendment is that amendment.

    The purpose of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to assure citizenship to the freed slaves without granting citizenship to just anybody who happened to be born in the United States — without granting birthright citizenship. This isn’t a difficult concept to understand, and I don’t know why so many people cannot grasp it.

    Harris’s parents were graduate students, which is certainly “subject to the jurisdiction of the US.”

    That is not what that phrase means. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the countries of which they are citizens, not the U.S. Just because they are required to follow the local laws does not mean that they are entitled to U.S. passports.

  • pzatchok

    Head first right down that rabbit hole.

  • wayne

    Edward-
    Good stuff.

    Paul Kengor
    “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis- The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor”
    Glenn Beck Show July 20, 2012
    https://youtu.be/zBeTrBvQLrc
    38:25

  • wayne

    What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means
    P. A. Madison
    Federalist Blog 2007
    http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

    “Perhaps the first most important thing to understand about national birthright is that there was no national birthright rule applicable within the States prior to the year 1866. One will look in vain to find any national law on the subject prior to this year, or even any mention of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution. The reason for this is because the authority remained with each State to make rules that distinguished alien from citizen.”

    “After the Revolution, States retained only those portions of common law that were applicable to their local circumstances. In England at the time, the general rule – not a hard rule since could be suspended when required by the King – every person born within the Kings allegiance and within any of the King’s realms or dominions was considered a natural born subject under the maxim every man owes natural allegiance to the King whom may have been born in any of his realms or dominions. This natural allegiance was perpetual and difficult to severe or alter (Once a English subject, always a English subject) and was found odious in this country (America went to war against this “natural allegiance” in 1812).”

    “In early America the common law rule of “natural allegiance” was discarded as well as the rule of automatic citizenship to children born to aliens regardless of their condition. Other differences that differed from the common law were the general rule children born to transient aliens or temporary sojourners remained alien. Early states also required of aliens who desired to become domiciled within their limits to first renounce any allegiances to other governments and pledge their allegiance solely to the State. Therefore, a child born to domiciled alien parents was “born within the allegiance” of the State even if the parents had not yet been naturalized would be considered a citizen of the state and a United States citizen.”

    “The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.”

    Under Sec. 1,992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    “Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    “Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”
    “Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866 that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

    “In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone.
    Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provide the answer, with Trumbull declaring:
    >”The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
    “In other words, it isn’t local jurisdiction the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes but only the lack of owing allegiance to some other nation because the United States only recognizes those who are ‘true and faithful’ alone to the nation. The United States has always, as a matter of law, considered new arrivals subjects of the country from which they owed their allegiance. As a matter of law, new arrivals were recognized as bearing the allegiance of the country of their origin, and the only way that could change is through the voluntarily act of expatriation.”
    In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General – who was a Senator during the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause debates – ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean:
    >The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

    >House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.”

  • pzatchok

    Sounds just like the arguments against blacks being citizens.

    Their parents never took the oath and their ancestors were born someplace else so none of the children born here could ever be citizens.

    Slaves were aliens, the ONLY difference was they were here against their own will. Why would they even want to be citizens? Sending them back would be better for them in the end.

    What are the requirements that you want for someone to be a citizen of the US?

    What are the requirements that you want for someone to become a US citizen?

  • wayne

    pzatchok-
    (I’m not understanding what you don’t like about the 14th amendment)

    14th Amendment to the US Constitution:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age*, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
    Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
    Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
    Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    [*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.]

    (In an ironic twist of fate, former Confederate States were required to ratify the 14th Amendment as a condition of being re-admitted to the Union.)

  • pzatchok

    Explain why decedents of slaves and the slaves were covered by the 14th but not the children of illegal aliens.
    Just saying that is what they meant at the time does not explain the wording of the amendment.

    Both children are born here against their will hold no allegiance to any nation.

    Remember that the 14th makes no mention of the parentage of the children. Only the children.

    And why does the child of an illegal alien hold allegiance to the parents nation but not the nation he is born in?
    Why is one more important than the other to the child and the nation the child is born in.

  • mike shupp

    Pzatchok – It’s a matter of history. When the 14th Amendment was passed, the US government did not accept dual citizenships. If you were Albanian, let’s say, and chose to become an American, once you took the oath of allegiance you automatically ceased to be an Albanian, and vice versa.

    Of course, one wants to be sensible. The child of Albanians being born on US soil and raised in the US and who presumably will stay resident in the US for most of his or her life can easily be accepted at once as an American. The child of an Albanian diplomat, born in the US more by accident rather than design, who’s likely going to be transported back to his parent’s home in several years rather than stay in the US, probably wouldn’t get much benefit from becoming a American, and indeed might suffer inconveniences (do you want to send a draft notice to a kid who’s already in the Albanian Army?). So we make some exceptions, and try to be reasonable.

    At some point in the 1970’s or l980’s, this policy changed. I don’t recall exactly when, or if a court decision was involved, and I’m not clear about the rationale. I suspect that travel between nations had become fast and cheap enough that being citizens of two nations just seemed sensible to many people who wouldn’t have considered it before. I’ll note that dual citizenship HAD been accepted all along by many other nations, although I don’t recall how commonplace it may have been.

    At any rate, the US government decided it would grant citizenship to applicants who ceased their “allegiance” to their prior homelands but who still wished for sentimental or business reasons to remain citizens of that nation. So now you can be Albanian and American both, with some caveats — if you join the Albanian army when the US and Albania are at war with one another, US courts will assume you voluntarily gave up your US citizenship.

    There’s a Wikipedia age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_United_States#Dual_citizenship which discusses a lot of this.

  • Edward

    pzatchok requested: “Explain why decedents of slaves and the slaves were covered by the 14th but not the children of illegal aliens. Just saying that is what they meant at the time does not explain the wording of the amendment.

    Because the slaves and their descendants were and are subject to United States jurisdiction. The Constitution assured that they had representation in Congress (although they were poorly represented by the slave states’s representatives).

    Both children are born here against their will hold no allegiance to any nation.

    Are you advocating that anyone who has no allegiance to any nation should automatically be eligible for U.S. citizenship?

    And why does the child of an illegal alien hold allegiance to the parents nation but not the nation he is born in?

    Because the alien parents are the ones who raise the child. If they hold allegiance to another nation, why do you think that the child will hold allegiance to the United States? Or do you advocate for the government to take over the raising of children in order to assure that they are allegiant?

    Babies are not old enough to comprehend the idea of allegiance to a nation. We expect the parents to bring that about as the child matures.

    However, the law does not go into such detail. The law (and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) is written to clarify — at least to those who know legalese. wayne included an explanation:

    The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits.

    And: “As a matter of law, new arrivals were recognized as bearing the allegiance of the country of their origin, and the only way that could change is through the voluntarily act of expatriation.

    Thus, the child need not comprehend the notion of allegiance in order to be or not be a citizen of the United States or any country.

    Remember that the 14th makes no mention of the parentage of the children. Only the children.

    This is correct. When a child is born of foreign parents, that foreign nation accepts the child as a citizen, and that child is subject to its jurisdiction. Why people think that the U.S. must also do so is a mystery, because it allows for a child raised as a foreigner to advocate in favor of the foreign country (such as declaring that California should actually be part of Mexico) or even to rationalize committing treason against the U.S. in favor of that foreign country.

  • pzatchok

    Wayne

    “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” this is the clause that excluded diplomats. Diplomatic immunity and such.

    But illegal aliens do not have diplomatic immunity, they are subject to our legal jurisdiction.

    Edward

    So you deny the child his rights because the parents might have raised him wrong? Against the US.
    And legally how do you tell the difference between aliens that want to be American and are willing to stay and those who want to do us harm?
    How does that stand with modern American hating leftists? Do we remove their rights and their children’s citizenship for the same reasons?

    If you do not want the children of illegal aliens to be citizens then just write the law specifically stating exactly that. Then get it passed. Make it a constitutional amendment if you like.

    Unless you like playing Don Quixote tilting at legal windmills.

  • Cotour

    KAMALA’S MOMENT, AND SHE FAILED

    This is a 44 second clip of the moment when Kamala Harris would either be on the ticket or be the candidate for 2020. I had originally thought that the Democrat ticket for president would ultimately be Biden with Harris in the vice presidential position. I no longer think that, it is all up in the air due to the Democrats inherent weakness. What do the Democrats stand for? Everything that is un American. And there is no path to victory with such an anti American agenda.

    https://youtu.be/Q221px7E65I

    If Kamala Harris had taken her microphone and smashed it over the head of this protester that rushed the stage and pushed him away mixing it up with him then I would say that she would have demonstrated her leadership ability and that would have gone a long way to securing a position on the ticket. Would have been a lock IMO.

    But she did not, she sheepishly surrendered the mic and sat there transfixed and impotent. NG, she did not want to risk an injury, her fear and weakness was revealed. The allegory to this would be when Ronald Reagan had his mic cut off and he demanded in no uncertain terms that it be turned back on. “I paid for this microphone!”.

    Its funny how just one moment in time can reveal so much about someone and their potential as they sit in the medias view finder.

    I think contrasting Harris with Tulsi Gabbard, Gabbard comes out the winner.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *