The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Dueling Search Engines: Was Kamala Harris an Anchor Baby?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Kamala Harris was born an anchor baby: neither of her parents were a United States citizen when she was born in California in 1964. It’s interesting to look at how the two main search engines respond to a search for this fact:

 
Hide 134 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Peter Shaw says: • Website

    Steve,

    I love these

    Does unz.com have a URL categorising all of these sort of posts on one page?

  2. Horseball says:

    OT

    A friend is a public defender in a city that has been in the news lately for racial unrest. A few years ago, the boss declared the office a dog-friendly space. People (read: the white people) started bringing their dogs to work and loved it, of course. Recently, a black woman who had previously worked there returned as some sort of diversity coordinator. Her first act was to ban dogs from the office, because the ghetto blacks who come in are often scared of dogs, due to ghetto-style dog ownership. This has crushed morale and broken the office down along racial lines, among the most progressive crowd you’d ever want to meet.

  3. Proof that any child born here can grow up to be President. I wonder if the NYT would call it a “racist theory” if her parents had been from say, Russia?

  4. vhrm says:

    Google’s gone pretty far in “heuristically” interpreting search terms over the past several years. i.e. they try to answer the question they think you’re asking rather than match the specific terms.

    Adding quotes only helps marginally. Going to Tools -> and changing “all results” to “verbatim” gets somewhat more direct results, but even there it’s not guaranteed.

    This happens in apolitical searches too, often for the good, sometimes for the bad.

    However on political and culture war stuff the opportunity to put the thumb on the scale and then just blame “the algorithm” is not insignificant. (although i still think the “American inventors” thing is related to the term “african american” as in “african american invontor”. That would also explain why it doesn’t show up quite the same in spanish)

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  5. Steve, keep digging – still two months to drop a bombshell that will turn the election. I’m not sure using search engines is the best method, but, hey, what do I know?

  6. @Horseball

    AKA the “Can’t Have Nice Things” Dept.

    @vhrm

    Google’s gone pretty far in “heuristically” interpreting search terms over the past several years. i.e. they try to answer the question they think you’re asking rather than match the specific terms.

    They try to answer the question you should be asking.

  7. @Horseball

    A friend is a public defender in a city that has been in the news lately for racial unrest.

    Well, that sure narrows it down!

  8. Google any 3 digit number followed by new cases….itts pretty interesting….any number you pick will come up in a very official looking covid article

    • Replies: @El Dato
  9. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:

    Steve, keep digging – still two months to drop a bombshell that will turn the election. I’m not sure using search engines is the best method, but, hey, what do I know?

    Relax. The deck is shuffling.

    Durham’s coming.

    I guess his dilemma is, let’s say he has the goods on Biden, hands down. Even msnbc can’t defend him. Does he wait until all his ducks are in a row, as a detached professional normally would, allowing Biden a chance at being elected, and if he is elected, drop What he knows now is a nuclear warhead on the first month of the Biden administration?

    Or do it before the election, thus ending Biden’s chances, and skipping the living hell of presumably an early Biden impeachment proceeding, which if successful, would catapult extremist Kamala into the Presidency? By that time, what would our country look like, and what would it become under the Harris administration? Should Durham even be thinking about this at all?

    I guess there are disagreements, indicating someone has made a decision.

    Which is why my critical thinking tells me… Durham’s coming…

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/top-aide-john-durham-resigns-doj-russia-probe

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    , @S
  10. Lurker says:
    @Horseball

    Excellent news! Eventually the realities of the multikult will grind down all but the staunchest cucks.

    • LOL: IHTG
  11. @vhrm

    The Russian search engine, Yandex, seems to be the best search engine of all. There are no problems in finding Unz articles.

    • Thanks: Alden
    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
  12. Typing in “Anchor baby” into DuckDuckGo’s image search yielded a huge variety of cartoons and photographs.

    • LOL: The Alarmist
    • Replies: @Roderick Spode
  13. … neither of her parents *were* a United States citizen when she was born in California in 1964? Neither … was!

    • Replies: @HFR
  14. AndrewR says:
    @Horseball

    I love our furry friends but they don’t really have any business in an office setting, especially a quasi-governmental institution like a public defender’s office. Many people have severe allergies to dogs and, of course, many people, not all of whom are hood, have traumatic reactions to dogs. If you don’t have anyone at home to take care of the dog and you don’t want to leave it alone all day, hire someone. Barring that, find another job or just don’t get a dog. Use the money you would have spent on it to promote capturing and/or sterilizing this unspeakably tragically overpopulated species.

  15. @Horseball

    A lawyer I worked with decades ago told me about a trial he had handled as an assistant attorney general in a state AG’s office, defending prison guards at one of the state’s maximum security prisons. Prisoners had accused the guards of wanton cruelty, depriving the prisoners of their civil rights, etc., etc.

    The prisoners were bad guys — you don’t get put in a max security joint for passing bad checks — so the guards didn’t exactly play by Marquis of Queensbury rules, either. To even the odds, the guards had dogs: big German Shepherds. The guards found that black prisoners who had no fear of even the biggest, baddest guard froze up at the mere sight of one of the K-9 GSD’s.

    So my colleague is telling me about his cross-examination of the lead prisoner plaintiff. Previously on direct examination, the prisoner had laid it on thick, claiming that a particular prison guard had put him in fear for his life, so much so that he had asked for solitary confinement. Now, on cross, my colleague focused on what, specifically, that guard had done to evoke such fear. “Well, it wasn’t so much him as his dog.” “His dog? What exactly did his dog do?” “Well, it growled, all mean-like. I thought it was gonna take a bite out of me.” “You mean FLUFFY?”

    After the laughter in the courtroom (including the jury box) subsided, the judge warned my colleague not to take matters lightly again before him, or risk sanctions. But a little well-placed levity carried the day: the jury took 90 minutes to find in favor of the state on all counts.

    Woof.

    • Replies: @Bucky
    , @Anon
    , @Chrisnonymous
  16. I guess we’ll see if she is an anchor around the neck of a sinking Joe Biden, or if she is a flotation device as she was under Willie Brown.

    • LOL: Charon
    • Replies: @fish
  17. AndrewR says:
    @Redneck farmer

    Current “progressive” dogma holds that Russians are of the demonic alien race known as “white people” and therefore one cannot be racist to them.

  18. 22pp22 says:

    Try typing it into yandex.com, the Russian search engine. That’s much more fun.

    • Thanks: tyrone
  19. What do you mean by anchor baby? The parents of Kamala Harris were both in the country legally and eventually became citizens. I thought anchor baby referred to wealthy pregnant Chinese women who come to America by hook or crook in order that their baby be born here and be a citizen by jus solis which is the law of the land. The mothers and babies then return to China. Baby has birth certificate so can claim American citizenship if he/she choses to.

    I keep on reminding myself that Kamala Haris is married to a Jewish man. Why has his influence on her not been investigated? If she was politically influenced by Willie Brown she would likely be a pragmatist and a go-with-the-wind opportunist. At the moment she gives lip-service to the BLM and is herself impecably woke. Back in the day, she was Cal. state district attorney and was a centrist.

  20. @Horseball

    I’m not sure why a diversity coordinator would have veto power on this issue, but I happen to agree with her. One of the most embarrassing features of white people is the way their take their pets and treat them as full-fledged members of their families.

  21. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:

    Meanwhile, life isn’t easy for white people in NYC:

    • Replies: @tyrone
    , @slumber_j
    , @nymom
  22. AndrewR says:

    Was the NYT always so open with its womanly bias? That article in the search results is not an editorial. The headline should just read “Trump
    falsely implies Harris is ineligible to be president.” But apparently that wouldn’t give the NYT’s effete and deranged target audience the dopamine hit they get from seeing Bad Orange Man called a RACIST for the six millionth time.

  23. Spud Boy says:

    I switched to Bing after Google fired James Damore. Haven’t looked back.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  24. Bucky says:
    @Gary in Gramercy

    I once lived in a home with six other people. The lead tenant had a tiny little toy dog.

    I hated it. I hate small dogs in general. But it liked me.

    Friend of mine was black. He would come over and the little dog would growl and bark at him.

    Why? I’m guessing body odor.

    • Replies: @bruce county
  25. @Redneck farmer

    Proof we need to de-colonize America.

  26. @Anonymous

    Durham’s coming.

    Lulz … even if Barr was of a mind to prosecute, if Durham had anything, he’d have a tragic accident before anything was made public. That an entire DoJ team had their phones wiped shows you where things are really going.

    Do you hear that ticking sound? No, it’s not a bomb, it’s the statute of limitations clock running out.

  27. dearieme says:

    Yes she’s an anchor baby.

    Yes she’s a valid presidential candidate.

    Yes she’s rather a harlot.

    No, even though she’s a Dem she’s not demented.

    • Agree: vhrm
    • Replies: @teotoon
  28. KenH says:

    If Harris’s parents were illegal aliens or tourists then she wouldn’t be eligible to run for office but I think Harris’s parents were legal residents in which case she is a citizen based on the Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS precedent. That sucks for us and if Congress actually served the American people they would pass a law that only children born of American citizens are automatic citizens at birth. They would also strip the federal courts of jurisdiction in this matter so activist left wing shitbirds can’t strike it down.

  29. tyrone says:
    @Anonymous

    Escape from New York …..prophetic…..plus it had Lee Van Cleef

  30. fish says:
    @The Alarmist

    Unz won’t let me LOL but LOL!

  31. fish says:
    @Anonymouse

    Whatever she needs to be or do to slither her way to the top…….

  32. @Horseball

    Workplace standards have gone to the dogs.

    Whatever happened to the saying “this is a place of work?”

    • Agree: epebble, jamie b.
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Dago Shoes
    , @Charon
  33. slumber_j says:

    Kamala Harris was born an anchor baby: neither of her parents were a United States citizen when she was born in California in 1964.

    I was unaware of this. My reaction: Ruh-roh!!!!

  34. @Tsar Nicholas

    Out of the frying pan into the fire.

  35. slumber_j says:
    @Anonymous

    That dude doesn’t look white to me, but what do I know.

    I will say that I now think twice before driving through East Harlem on my way to or from Connecticut, which I never have before.

    • Replies: @BB753
  36. BB753 says:
    @slumber_j

    To quote Joe Biden: “He ain’t black!”

  37. Jack D says:

    Kamala Harris was born an anchor baby

    I’m sorry but this is simply not true. I’m not a big fan of Harris, but truth is still important. The definition of anchor baby (according to Urban Dictionary) is

    When a foreigner or illegal alien (non-US citizen) comes to the USA to have a baby for the purpose of making the baby a US citizen.

    Both of Harris’s parents appeared to have legitimate reasons (education) for being in the US irrespective of their decision to have a child.

  38. Alden says:
    @Horseball

    Anyone who needs to bring their dog to work………

    • Replies: @TWS
  39. A more-descriptive metaphor than “anchor baby” would be “grappling-hook baby”, as a means to get aboard a ship to be plundered.

  40. BB753 says:
    @Jack D

    So, you trust the urban dictionary for the definition of what an anchor baby is? The motive for ananchor baby is gaining permanent residency and future citizenship, irrespective of the parents’ situation.

  41. Alden says:
    @Anonymouse

    I always thought anchor baby refers to any baby born of a non citizen mother regardless of the mother’s financial or legal status, illegal alien, birth tourist, student or any kind of visa, long term legal resident waiting to become a citizen.

    Most are born to illegal alien Hispanics.

    In addition to legal residency the pregnancy entitles the mother and any illegal children and men to welfare section 8 EBT medical care, welfare hotel if there’s no section 8 or projects available, even free car seats for the new baby. No baby is allowed to leave the hospital without a car seat, so they get a free one. Plus what are called WIC coupons, more food stamps for milk baby formula and other healthy food.

    Or why Americans who pay taxes can’t afford to have children but illegal aliens on welfare and working illegally for cash can afford to have lots of children.

    Who benefits the most from all this? The companies that employ the illegals. The American taxpayer pays for housing, food, medical care utilities clothes, the basics for the illegal workers. The cash the employers pay the parents goes for cars, toys, and about 20-30 billion a year is sent right back to Mexico.

    These payments from Mexicans on American welfare are the biggest foreign currency paid to Mexico, bigger than its oil or any other export.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
  42. Alden says:
    @PiltdownMan

    I wonder if the DA office brought the black women in specifically to rid the office of the dogs after years of complaints, especially from the janitors, know what I mean?

    Anyone so……… he she needs to bring a dog to work……

  43. BenKenobi says:
    @AndrewR

    promote capturing and/or sterilizing this unspeakably tragically overpopulated species.

    Blacks?

    • Agree: Cloudbuster
  44. @PiltdownMan

    I always think of Tim Burton’s illustrated poem when I hear the phrase.

    Full text is here:
    http://homepage.eircom.net/~sebulbac/burton/anchorbaby.html

    • Thanks: PiltdownMan
  45. epebble says:
    @ScarletNumber

    take their pets and treat them as full-fledged members of their families.

    OK with me as long as they do it with their family. Not at workplace.

  46. Kamala Harris is just such an exceptional person that any worries about her being a first generation – American who mostly grew up in Canada should just be ignored.

    Her hard-scrabble background of being born to two struggling prominent academics just shows what hurdles she’s been able to overcome. She proved to be outstanding academically, both at a HBCU and at a second rate law school. Her extensive private sector work career of less than a day gave her the insight to understand the lives of most Americans.

    Her tutoring program under Willie Brown left her completely prepared to handle the challenges of any job in politics. As a prosecutor she helped transform California from a total hellhole into the paradise that it is today. As a senator her proposals would have brought a nirvana to America if they had not been blocked by radical reactionaries trying to protect the old order.

    She is one of the few Americans with the wisdom and insight to realize that Jussie Smollett was telling the truth and was the victim of a heinous hate crime. And she has done all of this despite being the least accomplished member of her immediate family. Such a remarkable leader, so essential to the future of the world.

    • Agree: Redman
    • Thanks: V. Hickel, Charon
    • LOL: Adam Smith, Hibernian
  47. Neuday says:

    If the GOP was a serious party, they could make serious inroads with Blacks and Mexicans by highlighting that the Dems are again nominating someone who isn’t really American at all. There are millions of people in the Southwest who are of Mexican ancestry but have been working and raising families in America for 4, 5, 6 generations and more. Same story with Blacks. Yet this woman, born of a Jamaican national and a .Indian national, here merely to go to school, gets an express ticket to the VP spot because she made the right friends and excited the right, ahem, donors.

    Imagine your parents had jobs in Mexico City, your mother, of a religion fairly foreign to the Mexican nation, gets pregnant there; could you even imagine running for El Presidente? It’s utterly preposterous. This would also be a good way to introduce the concept of “paperwork American”.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
  48. @Horseball

    ‘… Her first act was to ban dogs from the office, because the ghetto blacks who come in are often scared of dogs, due to ghetto-style dog ownership. This has crushed morale and broken the office down along racial lines, among the most progressive crowd you’d ever want to meet.’

    What’d be interesting would be if any of the otherwise-amiable doggies are hostile to blacks.

    Our otherwise indiscriminately-friendly Labrador Retriever, Ralph, went rabid exactly once: it was when your basic black ghetto male was passing us on the sidewalk. He didn’t actually bite him — but it sure as hell wasn’t his usual ‘hale fellow well met’ routine.

    I suppose if any of the dogs are shelter rescues, there could even be some actual history.

  49. @Horseball

    I can already see the knee-jerk iStever responses pouring in, “because black lady” but really, if you’re not running a mom and pop tax prep office or some such thing, keep your dogs and other hobbies at home. This “public defender” office sounds like a typical .gov operation where people sit around throwing balls to their dog or catching up on their knitting while waiting to retire. Get to work.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
  50. jamie b. says:
    @ScarletNumber

    I’m an animal lover, and I’ve had pets of various types (cats, dogs, exotics) throughout my whole life. Nevertheless, I think that the attitude that some people have towards their pets borders on mental illness. The love that is often showered on mutated toy dog breeds seems especially unhealthy.

    • Replies: @bomag
  51. @ScarletNumber

    Not just embarrassing; racially suicidal. I wonder how many of those dog-loving White people have any children, or does Fluffy take up all their nurturing?

    • Replies: @Oliver Elkington
  52. @Anonymouse

    ‘… At the moment she gives lip-service to the BLM and is herself impecably woke. Back in the day, she was Cal. state district attorney and was a centrist.’

    And by their lies shall you know them.

    Kamala Harris also claims to have gone around as a little girl with a can, collecting quarters for the Jerusalem Fund. No one’s even expected to believe that. She’s making sure everyone knows they can count on her to serve Israel.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
  53. jamie b. says:
    @Horseball

    …declared the office a dog-friendly space.

    So… this was like a pet store, or veterinary clinic? Even then, it would seem like a very bad idea. Fish and potted plants are fine in most work environments. Surely not dogs or children.

  54. res says:
    @Jack D

    Or you could go with Oxford Dictionary (perhaps a better source than Urban Dictionary? why did you choose that source?).
    https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/anchor_baby

    anchor baby
    NOUN
    offensive
    Used to refer to a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country which has birthright citizenship, especially when viewed as providing an advantage to family members seeking to secure citizenship or legal residency.

    She meets the first part of the definition, but the especially part is at least debatable.

    The American Heritage Dictionary definition is similar.
    https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=anchor+baby

    anchor baby
    n.
    Offensive
    Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child’s birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother’s or other relatives’ chances of securing eventual citizenship.

    Truth IS important.

    • Replies: @vhrm
  55. @Jack D

    Then that definition is wrong.

    The term is *anchor* baby – meaning the baby is the anchor that holds the parents in place.

    The attempt to redefine the term into something about birth tourism is part of an effort by the left to raise concerns about the evil Russians having babies in America.

  56. Anon[382] • Disclaimer says:
    @Gary in Gramercy

    There’s something that’s a little strange about black fear of dogs. I’m wondering if they have almost no history of dog ownership in Africa, and blacks innately think of dogs solely as predatory animals that can kill and eat you like a lion.

    • Replies: @Redman
  57. @ScarletNumber

    One of the most embarrassing features of white people is the way their take their pets and treat them as full-fledged members of their families.

    Well said.

    Nothing is quite as pathetic as these young white–childless–couples who blather on about how Toby is their child, or “part of their family”.

    College degrees, but apparently nary a thought about why they are “a couple”.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
  58. eD says:

    One of the earlier commentators raised a serious point here, and my opinion is no, dogs shouldn’t be allowed in offices, except for seeing eye dogs for the blind employees. And its mainly because there are too many people who react badly to dogs for various reasons, plus its additional work for the cleaning staff to clean up after them. Cats might work, but lots of people are allergic to cats.

  59. @Jack D

    Good afternoon Mr. D,

    I hope this message finds you well.

    When one reads through the documents of the day it is overwhelmingly clear that the founders not only debated whether simply being a citizen or “born a citizen” should be enough to qualify one for the presidency but that they ultimately rejected the idea in favor of Vattel’s “natural born citizen”.

    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. – Law of Nations

    This was no accident.
    The men who penned the constitution chose their words very carefully and deliberately.

    The 14th amendment and the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark do not change the 5th paragraph of Article II, Section I.

    The correct understanding of “natural born Citizen” has been well known throughout US history until it recently became politically inconvenient. From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there were eight different congressional attempts to alter the Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-joint-resolution/59

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-joint-resolution/67

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-joint-resolution/104

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-joint-resolution/2

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-joint-resolution/15

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-joint-resolution/42

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/2678

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/2128

    As they have not been able to alter the constitution through amendment or statute it seems they are trying to do so deceitfully and forcefully through precedent and acquiescence. (a la Øb☭ma)

    Kamala Harris is an anchor baby and unqualified for the presidency.

    • Agree: Neuday
  60. Marty says:
    @Anonymouse

    You’re not a centrist when you announce that you won’t seek the death penalty regardless of circumstance. That’s what she did upon becoming SF District Attorney.

  61. Anon7 says:

    oh, great. now women from around the world will come here to drop a president.

  62. JMcG says:
    @Horseball

    This marks the first time in my life I’ve ever agreed with a diversity coordinator.

  63. @Jack D

    When a foreigner or illegal alien (non-US citizen) comes to the USA to have a baby for the purpose of making the baby a US citizen.

    Jack, i love urban dictionary as much as the next guy, but that’s a crappy definition. It’s not even a definition about a baby, but about a time (“when”) of travel in the parent’s lives. It’s more like a definition of “birth tourism”.

    An urban dictionary type definition should have been something like:

    A baby dropped in the US by foreign (possibly illegal) mom who gets US citizenship only through “born in the USA” standard and anchors the family’s future in the America.

    To me the direct “anchor baby” requirement is “the kid wouldn’t have been a citizen otherwise”. That’s true of Harris.

    Agree, the connotation is more that the the parents have no particular claim on the US and the baby is the grappling hook that gets their family on board. That’s not true of Harris’s parents. They weren’t firmly/permanently on-board at the time–students–but have had pretty standard go-to-college-in-US-and-stay-on lives.

    Harris would have probably gotten citizenship eventually in a nation that allowed immigration but had more reasonable jus sanguinis law. Nontheless Harris’s birth in the US is clearly what gave her US citizenship and anchored her in the US. And she would not be eligible without it.

    I’d say Harris is a technical “anchor baby” but not the classic full-connotation “anchor baby” where the baby is the grappling hook and the parents never got themselves legally on board without him.

    • Agree: vhrm
  64. vhrm says:
    @res

    Those definitions fit with my understanding of the term’s usage, and I think it applies to Kamala Harris technically more than practically. That is, her parents could have probably gotten citizenship at that time anyway due to their degrees at the time.
    The place it’s generally used and relevant in the US is with people who have no realistic claim to residency, like illegal border crossers, tourists, etc.

    What’s new to me in this is the use of the phrase as a derogatory term against the person themselves. Previously it was always against the parents; in the sense: “they snuck in here, had an anchor baby and now we’ll never get rid of them”.

    More broadly though I don’t think there’s any serious question currently as to whether a person born here can be President. (Even the “children of diplomats” exception I didn’t know about until a few years ago and I think it’s something most people would be surprised by.)

  65. @AndrewR

    Personally I love dogs, but an unlucky fact of my life is that I have close family members who are severely allergic to dog dander, so I can’t pet dogs or get too close to them, for fear of tracking it back home. So the idea of bringing dogs to work is, to me, in theory kind of fun, but in practice it is intolerable. And my situation is not exactly rare. Business standards in a place of business are there for a reason.

  66. @AnotherDad

    Regardless of Kamala Harris’s technical legal status as a “citizen,” she is in no wise an “American,” morally or metaphysically speaking, and has absolutely no moral or metaphysical right to speak on behalf of “Americans,” much less to rule over us. The words “my fellow Americans” in the mouth of Kamala Harris are a blasphemy and an insult.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    , @MBlanc46
  67. HFR says:
    @John Siman

    John Siman: Are you channeling John Simon, who demanded rigorous adherence to the rules of grammar and produced famously waspish theater and movie reviews?

    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
  68. @Colin Wright

    “Joe has made it clear he will not tie security assistance to any political decisions that Israel makes and I couldn’t agree more,” Harris said during a virtual fundraiser with 1,800 Jewish Democrats. “As vice president, Joe Biden helped ensure unwavering support for Israel’s security. During the Obama-Biden administration he was a key advocate in securing support for life-saving technologies, which I have seen: Iron Dome. David’s Sling. The Arrow. Three anti-rocket and missile defense systems. And Joe has also helped shape the unprecedented $38 billion-a-year MOU — memorandum of understanding — for defense assistance to Israel that was signed in 2016 which, as you know, was the largest military aid package in U.S. history.”

    Not only is Kamala openly and brazenly beholden to a foreign power, she is also innumerate.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  69. Too bad we can’t Cancel Google.

  70. Kronos says:
    @vhrm

    Idea idea why Google became woke as hell, while Bing kinda lags in that regard?

    • Replies: @vhrm
  71. @James O'Meara

    Maybe things are different in the States but in Britain dog lovers tend to be very much on the right of the political spectrum, at least owners of proper dogs like golden retrievers, Labradors and Alsatians, those on the left seem to have an obsession with pugs, my guess though i do not have any statistics to back it up is that owners of larger traditional breeds tend to have more children, marry younger and lean right wing politically.

  72. 22pp22 says:

    OT

    A friend of mine is Parisian. He is very proud that he can trace his ancestry in the city back to the eighteenth century.

    I told him he needed to leave.

    Then, one of his students was murdered at the Bataclan massacre.

    Then, a couple of days ago, his son was stabbed three times. He is in a bad way, but he should make it.

    I don’t need to tell you the hue of the gang that attacked him.

    He is still there. His daughter is still PC.

    I p?ss on BLM!

    • Thanks: vhrm
  73. vhrm says:
    @Kronos

    Idea idea why Google became woke as hell, while Bing kinda lags in that regard?

    Not really.
    Maybe their dominance and money gave them delusions of grandeur?
    Maybe relatively young non-engineers on the “safety team” or whatever got out of control.

    Also I think the wokeness isn’t that deep. I suspect it’s a relatively small group of wokesters yelling and intimidating people while most of the nerds are just keeping their heads down because they don’t want to be cancelled.

    OTOH, MS is an older company with a corporate and government focus that hasn’t been “cool” in quite a while. I hope their lack of wokeness is because they’re older and wiser and still value objectivity and free speech.
    But it could as well be just let because they’re slower.

    • Replies: @frankie p
  74. @Bucky

    Friend of mine was black. He would come over and the little dog would growl and bark at him.

    They can sense imminent danger.

  75. Jack D says:
    @AnotherDad

    They… have had pretty standard go-to-college-in-US-and-stay-on lives.

    Actually Kamala’s mom moved to Canada after the divorce to teach at McGill and Kamala went to high school in Montreal. Later, after Kamala was grown, she did move back to Berkeley. One of her mom’s siblings (Kamala’s aunt) ended up in Ontario and two went back to India. They all had advanced degrees befitting of high caste, high IQ Brahmins. Legally I am convinced that Kamala is eligible to be POTUS but culturally I would say that her family is only tenuously rooted in the US. She could have just as well stayed in Canada. I suspect the decisive factor was her (half) blackness. If her dad had been Indian too the whole gang might have just stayed in Montreal or maybe moved back to India.

    Are there any other Presidents or VP’s who spent their formative years in another country? FDR’s family had a summer home (just barely*) in Canada but he didn’t attend school there.

    * Campobello Island is attached to the US mainland (Maine land) by bridge but can only be reached by water from Canada. It was owned and developed mainly as a summer colony for wealthy Americans like the Roosevelts.

    Traditionally immigrants such as the Trump family (on both sides) would cross the Big Pond and pretty much cut their ties to their homeland (though IIRC Trump’s grandaddy went back to find a wife) but modern day immigrants seem to maintain their connections much more thanks to cheap air travel and easier communications. Back in the day, you’d write a letter home once or twice a year and that was about it. After a generation or two, all ties were lost.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  76. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Regardless of Kamala Harris’s technical legal status as a “citizen,” she is in no wise an “American,” morally or metaphysically speaking, and has absolutely no moral or metaphysical right to speak on behalf of “Americans,” much less to rule over us. The words “my fellow Americans” in the mouth of Kamala Harris are a blasphemy and an insult.

    I agree … but it’s less immigrant background per se, but rather how she’s chosen to live her life and her political positions.

    To me anyone who is hostile republican government and the American founding and founding fathers isn’t really an American. For instance someone who thinks it’s the business of the court to bus kids around to further “integration” or to settle nakedly political questions like abortion, or homosexual marriage or immigration isn’t much of an American.

    I know immigrants happy to be on board with America. But there are millions upon millions of psuedo-Americans who are quite happy with globohomo elite diktat, happy being bossed around by the super-state, republican government and basic liberties of no particular interest to them and some of these people have ancestors stretching back to the founding. They are simply “post-American”, globohomo sapiens.

    Again–“separate nations”.

  77. @Anonymouse

    “anchor baby” is usually someone poor who crosses the order or overstays a visa and has their baby to be born in the US so that they can live in the US. Rich people are not refused…

  78. Jack D says:
    @Adam Smith

    In that case you should vote for Trump, who is a resolute supporter of the Palestinian cause. Oh, no – wait. Sorry buddy but there is bipartisan support for Israel in the US so no matter who you choose, US policy toward Israel is not going to change much. Even Obama, who was naturally anti-Israel by dint of his Muslim background (his mother married Muslims, twice) was not able to swing the needle much.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    , @Colin Wright
  79. @Jack D

    Actually Kamala’s mom moved to Canada after the divorce to teach at McGill and Kamala went to high school in Montreal. Later, after Kamala was grown, she did move back to Berkeley. One of her mom’s siblings (Kamala’s aunt) ended up in Ontario and two went back to India. They all had advanced degrees befitting of high caste, high IQ Brahmins. Legally I am convinced that Kamala is eligible to be POTUS but culturally I would say that her family is only tenuously rooted in the US. She could have just as well stayed in Canada. I suspect the decisive factor was her (half) blackness. If her dad had been Indian too the whole gang might have just stayed in Montreal or maybe moved back to India.

    Excellent point Jack. I almost mentioned the Canadian sojourn, which like Obama’s Indonesian stint tends to de-Americanize someone who is not particularly American to begin with. But i didn’t focus on the fact, that it wasn’t that her mom moved the family back, but simply Kamala graduating in Montreal and deciding on Howard. (Which i’d known.) Kamala’s family aren’t Americans but rather just global itinerants.

    Traditionally immigrants such as the Trump family (on both sides) would cross the Big Pond and pretty much cut their ties to their homeland (though IIRC Trump’s grandaddy went back to find a wife) but modern day immigrants seem to maintain their connections much more thanks to cheap air travel and easier communications. Back in the day, you’d write a letter home once or twice a year and that was about it. After a generation or two, all ties were lost.

    Another excellent point. I know immigrants who very much have signed on and are American. But others are all absorbed in their own–foreign–culture. (Celebrating it, bringing their kids up in it, watching its movies, going back to the homeland.)

    Turns out the modern globalized world, actually makes integration more difficult and immigration a much *worse* policy for any nation.

    • Agree: Redman
    • Replies: @Dr.C. Fhandrich
  80. @Jack D

    No argument there Mr. D.

    Voting is useless.

    It would be nice if presidential candidates were not so eager to fellate donkey’s for Israel.

    Obama, who was naturally anti-Israel…

    Lol…

    Remember when Mr. Øb☭ma rejected Israel’s request for bunker-buster bombs?

    Me either.

    Remember when Mr. Øb☭ma decided not to fund Israels Iron Dome?

    Me either.

    Remember that one time Mr. Øb☭ma decided to abstain from a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel over its settlements on the West Bank.

    I remember…
    So symbolic…

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  81. Birthright citizenship must have come out the Framers’ natural presumption that someone born here, to a (free) family who had settled here, would always be a loyal American; the Tories had left.

    Had the Framers somehow anticipated the modern-day, anchor baby scam, they would have imposed on immigrants a continuous residency requirement (~10 years) before (non-retroactive) birthright citizenship was granted to their offspring.

    Harris’s longest, US-residing parents arrived not more that six years before she did.

    It’s something how the Framers made immigrants ineligible for the presidency, except those who, like themselves, had been in the colonies before the start of the revolution.

    They wanted to keep the power of the new, USG within their own, clubby group.

    Many of them eventually took politically appointed jobs with it, e.g. as US senators and justices. Two served a combined 16 years as POTUS.

    Pegging the president’s minimum age at 35 years meant that their lock up would be secure at least til those schemers were too old (or dead) to care any longer.

  82. Redman says:
    @Anon

    I’ve known quite a few dogs to growl or be generally wary around blacks. That’s what I think is really strange.

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
  83. TWS says:
    @Alden

    Is blind, prone to seizures, paraplegic, etc? Surely that’s where you were going.

  84. @PiltdownMan

    “Whatever happened to the saying “this is a place of work?””

    That went out the door with the advent of smart phones and social media … probably the most used ‘drugs’ (drags) on the job …

  85. S says:
    @Anonymous

    Durham’s coming…

    So, too, it appears, is a Red October 2.0 event, followed by a Russian style Civil War.

    Going back at least to the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, Hillary’s destruction of evidence, to the FBI agents actions in regard to the Steele dossier, etc, a lot of people by rights should be already serving lengthy prison sentences, but, they aren’t.

    The consistent pattern instead has been to investigate, indeed find wrong doing, and going against precedent, choose to ‘not prosecute’.

    There’s no reason to think this pattern will change with Barr and Durham, though the process may be a bit different this go around.

    If an election time coup occurs, followed by a civil war, the judicial system will probably be thrown into disarray, and investigations as well as court cases will be frozen in situ until things calm down, which may take years.

    Then will likely come ‘a truth and reconciliation’ process, and a blanket amnesty, ie as in South Africa and North Ireland, and all these people Durham may well have the goods on, will not be prosecuted as they will fall under this amnesty as ‘political prosecutions’. Expect the same amnesty to cover what few Antifa and BLM people have been arrested thus far, and the many who haven’t been.

    My guess is the word has been out for years amongst the ‘right’ and ‘left’ manifestations of the ‘progressive’ set, ie the FBI agents involved in the Steele dossier shenanigans, as well as those Democratic party elites aiding and abetting Antifa and BLM, that nothing (ultimately) is going to happen to them legally, as in prosecutions and jail time in regards to a corrupt justice department, that the ‘fix was in’, which might explain their brazeness and seeming to act with impunity. Either that, or, they sensed that this was the situation.

    Even so, these folks aren’t entirely out of the woods yet in regards to this earthly plane. Come ‘the revolution’, a good many of them may well meet their sudden and untimely demise in the now standard ‘purge’ which seems to follow these types of events.

    One should always choose their friends…err..comrades…most wisely.

  86. Bene says:

    I don’t know, was Donald Trump an anchor baby? Like her sister before her, his mother came here with zero distinct skills, other than being the future mother of an incompetent and murderous (mask mockery, ”as late as yesterday by the way,” resulted in thousands of deaths) moron who couldn’t ever get more actual votes than whichever Democrat he’s running against.

    And I think that’s a talent she could have kept overseas. Thanks.

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
  87. frankie p says:
    @vhrm

    Absolutely not! The wokeness comes directly from the top, and there is no shortage of evidence to support this. The first “all-hands” meeting at Google following Trump’s election was leaked by an employee and went viral. Don’t search with Google on Chrome if you want to read about or see it! duckduckgo! In the video Sergei Brin can be heard comparing Trump supporters to fascists and extremists. Imagine the message that sent to any Google employees who may have voted for Trump.
    Even more troubling is the fact that the top management at Google expressed their determination to thwart both the Trump agenda and the growing populist movement emerging around the world.

    How about that “algorithm”?

    • Thanks: vhrm, YetAnotherAnon
  88. teotoon says:
    @dearieme

    Both parents have to be citizens of the united States of America. Period
    What the hell is wrong with all these cuckservatives; I can understand that Democrats will lie about this with a straight face, but so-called conservatives? Jeez.
    Because such of damned ignorance the Democrats have no shame in redefining terms such as natural born; even going so far as changing the online version of black letter law as they did for Obama when he ran.

    • Replies: @frankie p
  89. frankie p says:
    @teotoon

    Are you expressing your hopes and desires, or your interpretation of the law? If it’s the latter, you’re far off the mark. According to law, there are natural citizens, naturalized citizens and dual citizens.
    Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States, under clause 5 (emphasis added): No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    A natural born citizen is 1) a person born on US soil, regardless of the nationality of the parents, 2) a child born overseas with one or two parents being US citizens. The parents must apply to the embassy or consulate for a Consular Report of a Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States. Once that is issued, the child is a citizen and can obtain a passport. My children are in this category, and as such, are eligible to run for the office of president. 3) A child who is adopted overseas. A foreign-born child who is adopted by U.S. parents automatically and legally becomes a U.S. citizen after being legally adopted by the parents or after living with them in the U.S. for two years.

    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
  90. @Redman

    Dogs don’t watch TV or read the New York Times. They rely solely on their senses and instinct to guide them.

    If you want the truth about a particular black, don’t ask his mother (“He’s turning his life around! He’s going to get his GED and go to college!). Ask Fluffy.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  91. Eagle Eye says:
    @Redneck farmer

    Being a citizen through birth on American soil does NOT necessarily mean that the individual also qualifies as a “natural-born citizen” for purposes of being eligible to be serve as U.S. president.

    In a nutshell, the difference is that an individual who is (also) a citizen/subject of another country/countries at the time of birth is not [purely] subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This seems to be the best reading of the U.S. Constitution.

    (Parenthetically, there is no clear Supreme Court decision holding that an anchor baby born on U.S. soil to two parents neither of whom is a permanent U.S. resident (i.e. green card holder) is entitled to U.S. citizenship. Ius soli citizenship through mere birth on U.S. soil irrespective of parentage is merely a long-standing convention that was convenient at a time when immigration was much more manageable.)

    The MSM have gone into overdrive conflating the concepts of “citizenship by birth” with the separate concept of the status of being a “natural-born citizen” which pertains only to eligibility for the office of president.

    Prof. John Eastman has set out the concepts in a very lucid article published – under multiple PC disclaimers – by none other than Newsweek.

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

    Naturally, the “living document” brigade are ready with the usual hodgepodge of post-modern word games to obscure the situation.

    Simple rule: if the U.S. Constitution on your shelf is a “living, breathing document,” get Lysol.

    • Replies: @vhrm
  92. MBlanc46 says:
    @AnotherDad

    Your dog is certainly not your child, but if it’s not part of your family, you shouldn’t have a dog.

    • Agree: Charon
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
  93. MBlanc46 says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    That’s it. She’s not an American and never will be, whatever paper citizenship says.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
  94. Eagle Eye says:
    @frankie p

    A natural born citizen is 1) a person born on US soil, regardless of the nationality of the parents, 2) a child born overseas with one or two parents being US citizens.

    NO. “Natural born citizen” in the context means more than merely “citizen at birth.”

    Also, the Constitution does NOT mandate that a child born on U.S. soil to two alien parents without permanent residence (green cards) must be accepted as a U.S. citizen. Birthright citizenship is merely a long-standing convention but not REQUIRED under any American reading of the Constitution. (Of course, there is no shortage of people in academia and the law who would apply post-modern French concepts to the interpretation of America’s founding documents.)

    The 14th Amendment was adopted to clarify the position of those (principally Blacks) who had been born on U.S. soil prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment. There was no discernible intention to confer this benefit to all and sundry alien subjects who happen to give birth on U.S. soil.

    See #95 above and Prof. John Eastman’s article in Newsweek linked there.

  95. A tad OT,but this reeks of Stevitude. Seems United is being sued by two older flight attendants because, they claim, work on charter flights for NFL players is given to younger,blonde women. Older women are passed over.
    The complainants are a black woman (d’uh oh) and a Jewish woman,(oy! Its a shonda!)both of whom have more than 25 years in.
    I haven’t heard of any black lives matter genocide racism players joining in the suit,to seek justice!

  96. @Peter D. Bredon

    I think most of us have been reasonable on this issue if you look at the replies. I stated unequivocally at what is currently post 22 that while I doubted her authority to make the order I agreed with her order.

  97. @MBlanc46

    If you ask someone how many children they have and they sincerely reply: Three: 1 boy, 1 girl, and 1 dog, then they should be put away.

    • Disagree: Muggles
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
  98. EdPyros says:
    @Horseball

    Interesting. This is, of course, the same logic by which the 2nd Amendment has long been under attack—inner-city blacks shooting each other with handguns means rural whites can’t have rifles.

  99. vhrm says:
    @Eagle Eye

    Prof. John Eastman has set out the concepts in a very lucid article published – under multiple PC disclaimers – by none other than Newsweek.

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

    The example of the kids of the braceros in the 50’s not being citizens is an interesting one and i hadn’t heard. Same for the kids of Mexican migrants deported in the 20s.

    However it appears that neither of those claims are true:
    https://www.cato.org/blog/john-eastman-birthright-citizenship-kamala-harris-mexican-repatriation-citizenship-children
    Or at least i should say that i find the examples to the contrary given in the Cato piece to be more compelling than Eastman’s simple assertion of the fact.

    Anyway, as Eastman and you mention, for the past 50+ years the understanding has been that if you’re born here you’re a citizen and we’ve already been through this topic to some degree or another with:
    John McCain, Ted Cruz and Obama. (yes, i know the specifics are different but each time it was the “hey, what IS a ‘natural born citizen’ anyway?” )

    If anyone feels strongly that Harris isn’t citizen enough to be a Senator, for example, that’s an easy lawsuit to bring. Surely there’s at least one Californian who could be persuaded to bring the challenge especially if someone else is footing the bill.

  100. Eagle Eye says:

    If anyone feels strongly that Harris isn’t citizen enough to be a Senator, for example, that’s an easy lawsuit to bring. Surely there’s at least one Californian who could be persuaded to bring the challenge especially if someone else is footing the bill.

    The rules for U.S. senators are quite different and considerably laxer than those for U.S. president:

    No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    A challenge to Kamala’s standing to (continue) to serve as U.S. senator would be frivolous – with the benefit of the long-established custom of birthright citizenship, she clearly does meet the modest threshold for the Senate.

    A challenge of Kamala’s eligibility to serve as Vice President or President would also be futile. The U.S. Supreme Court is by now far too compromised to take up any case that might cast a less than flattering light on Kamala or other anchor babies (or even first-generation immigrants such as Ilhan Omar).

    • Replies: @vhrm
  101. @Jack D

    ‘…Sorry buddy but there is bipartisan support for Israel in the US so no matter who you choose, US policy toward Israel is not going to change much…’

    But while there’s bipartisan support for Israel, there isn’t bipartisan support for Trump. If he actually starts that war with Iran, the Left will crucify him.

    The same won’t apply if Biden/Harris win. So with Trump, we’re less likely to start the most evil war in our history — not because Trump is a great guy, but because he won’t be able to carry the country with him if he starts that war.

  102. Anonymous[221] • Disclaimer says:

    Kamala’s parents did not come to the US as immigrants.

    They were here on student VISAs at the time of her birth.

    They had to apply for legal resident status… but when/if they did is unclear.

    Regardless five year wait would need to happen and Kamala came along sooner.

    They were not legal residents at the time of her birth.

    WHAT IS HILARIOUS ABOUT THIS IS KAMALA CAN’T EVEN COMMENT ON THE ISSUE WITHOUT OPENING UP THE IMMIGRATION HISTORIES OF BOTH PARENTS TO EXAMINATION —— AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE PROPER STEPS WERE NEVER TAKEN BY EITHER ONE.

    What is outrageous is Obama was only allowed to skate because he had one true blue American parent.

    Now this witch comes along with two outright foreigner parents and Mitch McConnell and his cronies don’t say a goddamn word. Which obviously if allowed to stand capriciously removes any legal status for the term Natural Born Citizen. Meaning that if applied to the Kamala case then the term has no meaning.

  103. Anonymous[221] • Disclaimer says:

    I forgot the other minefield in the Kamala case…

    IF her parents 1 applied for and 2 were granted legal residency… then Kamala would’ve had to have been naturalized somewhere along the way. Because she was definitely not born after any mandatory five year waiting period both parents were subject to.

    SO WE CAN SEE WHY KAMALA WILL SIMPLY NOT COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE.

    Either the parents did not apply for legal residency at all (not surprising considering the mother’s exit to Canada) or the parents did indeed get legal resident status at some later date after the birth of Kamala —— and the child was naturalized.

    So an intrepid reporter might ask Kamala some basic questions….. isn’t that what reporters do?

    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    , @V. Hickel
    , @Jack D
  104. @Gary in Gramercy

    That’s great. All dogs who are used in prisons should be called cute names like “Fluffy”, “Snoopy”, “Mr. Snuggles”, etc. That way, when it comes up in court and the judge chastises the lawyer, he can just say, “but, your honor, I was really asking if he meant the dog, ‘Fluffy’…”

  105. Eagle Eye says:
    @Anonymous

    IF [Kamala’s] parents 1 applied for and 2 were granted [permanent resident status] then Kamala would’ve had to have been naturalized somewhere along the way.

    Corrections and amplification:

    – The technical term for “green card holder” is “permanent resident.”

    – As noted above, Kamala would be recognized as a U.S. citizen from birth, under the practice of granting birthright citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of either parent’s residence status. Even the child of two illegals is treated as a legitimate U.S. citizen under current practice.

    Kamala may well have LOST her U.S. citizenship entirely if her mother applied for and was granted Canadian citizenship. Current law is clear that swearing an oath of allegiance to another country (Canada) nullifies U.S. citizenship. Having worked as a university researcher in Montreal for a number of years, Kamala’s mother is quite likely to have sought and to have been granted naturalization as a Canadian citizen along with her two minor daughters. Of course, the Democrats will have sent in their “plumbers” to erase any trace of this from the Canadian records, nor will the former INS have taken pro-active steps to match Canadian naturalization records against its own.

    • Replies: @V. Hickel
  106. Anonymous[221] • Disclaimer says:

    People need to start asking Kamala if she was ever naturalized. Because — considering her family history — there is no good answer to the question.

    She has undoubtedly been prepped by counsel on this issue. She knows she can’t answer “yes” —— so that leaves “no” or “I don’t know”…

    Either of those answers starts a deep investigation into both parent’s immigration histories. (Both parents are not deceased so that makes any fictitious accounts harder to coordinate. But they probably have a phony maternal immigration history already constructed and ready to go —- bogus Federal documents and bogus California documents —- that’s the cleanest way to defend Kamala. Just avoid the dad entirely like the Obama case.)

    Some will claim Kamala’s butt is covered by whatever later immigration acts that were passed by congress but that is spurious because no Natural Born Citizen requires any action by congress to adjust their damn status.

    Obviously anyone with adjusted status is/was not natural born in the first place. This is the problem with Kamala.

  107. vhrm says:
    @Eagle Eye

    A challenge to Kamala’s standing to (continue) to serve as U.S. senator would be frivolous – with the benefit of the long-established custom of birthright citizenship, she clearly does meet the modest threshold for the Senate.

    The issues with her Senate eligibility are in the Newsweek article that you quoted and is the stuff Anon-221 is writing in this thread. I don’t see how the custom of birthright citizenship is less of an issue for the Senate case vs the President case.
    As i understand it either she was a citizen at birth by virtue of being born on US soil, in which case she’s good to go in both cases, or she’s not a citizen even now because there’s no indication that she became a citizen by any other method (i.e. via her parents while she was young, marriage or something else) in which case she isn’t eligible for either office.

    As to whether the Supreme Court would take it up or not i don’t know, but so far it hasn’t been in any court at all in a century. The only case i see mentioned with any regularity even on the “yes she is” side is “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)” (e.g. in Volokh’s piece on it https://www.newsweek.com/yes-kamala-harris-eligible-vice-president-opinion-1524969 ). The arguments on both sides are fairly abstract, to my layperson’s mind, and until someone brings a case and we get a ruling this is all idle speculation.

    The political point that she’s VERY unrepresentative of non-white Americans (though perhaps less than Obama was of American blacks) i think is a better political point against her than harping on her ineligibility to serve (until someone brings a case).

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
  108. @Spud Boy

    Google around 2004 was incredibly good – you really could use it to find the most obscure stuff. But it’s got worse and worse over time.

    Like so many things which are effective monopolies (Facebook, AirBnB etc) you get to monopoly by offering a good product (and simultaneously buying up the competition), only then can you use the monopoly power. In Google’s case, to promote some political positions and to suppress others.

    (I try to circumvent AirBnB by finding the house or flat elsewhere on the web – which is why ABnB won’t give the address until you book, but it can often be done) then contacting the owner direct)

  109. @ScarletNumber

    It’s great to have a dog when you’ve GOT a family. Without a family, not so great.

  110. bomag says:
    @jamie b.

    The love that is often showered on mutated toy dog breeds seems especially unhealthy

    A fanatical devotion to the different and helpless helped us in the past when we were small isolated groups of humans.

    Now that emotional response has been hacked, and too many of us spend it caring for various Others at the expense of maintaining the founder group.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  111. Charon says:
    @PiltdownMan

    Whatever happened to the saying “this is a place of work?”

    It got replaced with “this is library” and for much the same reason.

  112. V. Hickel says:
    @Anonymous

    she could have petitioned for each of them upon turning 21 regardless of their current status or location. im not sure why this hasnt been leaked

    • Replies: @Jack D
  113. V. Hickel says:
    @Eagle Eye

    the no dual-citizenship statute was nullified in a court case filed by a great (((patriot))) back in the 50s, IIRC. the current oatb of allegiance is a lie.

    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
  114. Jack D says:
    @Gary in Gramercy

    But dogs (at least my dog*) don’t dislike particular blacks, they dislike blacks in general. I don’t know whether they go by appearance or smell (dogs are very big on smell – they really live in a world of smell as much as we live in a world of vision. I’d be willing to bet that dogs can broadly speaking differentiate the races by smell, setting aside edge cases) or what but a lot of (white owned?) dogs clearly dislike black people.

    *when she was younger, my dog (generally a very friendly Labradoodle) would bark and growl whenever she saw a black person. This was very embarrassing so eventually we trained her out of it. But it took a long time – her natural instinct was to bark at black people.

  115. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous

    IF her parents 1 applied for and 2 were granted legal residency… then Kamala would’ve had to have been naturalized somewhere along the way.

    This is just wrong. She would have had to do this if she had been born overseas but since she was born in the US she has (under current law) birthright citizenship even if her parents never were legal residents at all. All you need to get a US passport is a copy of your birth certificate showing that you were born in the US – end of discussion. The only exception would be the children of foreign diplomats.

    There is lots of hot air blowing around about what the law in this area OUGHT TO BE or what it ONCE WAS or what it is in OTHER COUNTRIES. But if you look at what the current US law ACTUALLY IS, there’s no issue at all.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
  116. Jack D says:
    @V. Hickel

    I gather that her parents became US citizens long before Kamala turned 21 so she didn’t need to petition for anyone. Melania OTOH did petition for her parents, I believe.

    Trump and his family are not exactly old stock . Trump has continued a 3 generation tradition in his family of marrying European born women (in Trump’s case, more than once). Trump is not really in a position to play the nativist angle here, especially since this concerns the VP candidate (whom no one case about). The Biden family, OTOH, have been in the US since before the Civil War so if anything Joe is the one with deeper American roots.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
  117. @Jack D

    But dogs (at least my dog*) don’t dislike particular blacks, they dislike blacks in general.

    It’s possible that blacks run hot, i.e. they’re “on” all the time. Dogs can smell the pheromones given off by people/animals in fight/flight mode.

  118. Aardvark says:
    @vhrm

    Google’s gone pretty far in “heuristically” interpreting search terms over the past several years. i.e. they try to answer the question they think want you’re to asking rather than match the specific terms.

    FIFY

  119. @vhrm

    As I understand the different classes of citizenship a “citizen at birth” by virtue of being born of foreign parents on the magic dirt tract known as the united states is not the same as being a “natural born Citizen”.

    [MORE]

    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. – Law of Nations

    One can be a 14th amendment citizen or a naturalized citizen who is eligible to be a voter, congresscritter or senator but not a “natural born Citizen”, which is required for the presidency.

    I found a few quotes from antiquity that may help make the distinction more clear…

    “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” – John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section

    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”- (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

    “…the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.” – The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414

    “If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.” – “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905))

    We can also go back to the founder themselves who debated the issue extensively…

    When Alexander Hamilton delivered to the Constitutional Convention a proposed draft of the US Constitution, his proposal was that the President must be “a citizen of one of the states or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”.

    In response to this proposal, Congress was warned that it would open the Presidency to the possibility of foreign influence.

    Future Chief Justice John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington…

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    Recognizing the danger, Congress rejected the proposal of “born a citizen”, and instead inserted the much more strict requirement of a “natural born citizen”. They are not the same thing, as anyone reading the definition clearly understands.

    Let us for a moment consider the citizenship status of Indians (feather not •) …

    On June 2, 1924, Congress enacted the Indian Citizenship Act, which granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S.

    Why would they do that if everyone born on our magic soil was already a citizen under the 14th amendment?

    The civil rights act became a law April 9, 1866, and provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    In 1884, 16 years after the 14th amendment was ratified, John Elk, who was an Indian (feather not •) went to the Supremes to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

    He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supremes ruled that the 14th amendment did not grant Indians citizenship.

    I don’ know if you have ever read U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark…

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

    It’s very interesting. The majority in Ark did not decide that a child of foreigners is a “natural born Citizen” eligible to the presidency.

    The majority opinion in Ark hinges on the English common law rule that “every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England.”

    The majority in Ark argued that the words “and not subject to any foreign power” in the civil rights act of 1866 should be construed as excepting from the operation of the statute only the children of public ministers and of aliens born during hostile occupation.

    But there were others in respect of whom the exception was intended, namely, the children of aliens, whose parents remained subject to a foreign power.

    The words “not subject to any foreign power” do not refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that, nevertheless, they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and “not owing allegiance to any foreign power”, are citizens.

    Kamala Harris is a citizen of Jamaica at birth. She can never be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

    Kamala cannot claim to be an American jus sanguinis, by “right of blood,” but only jus soli, by “right of soil,” i.e., simply by virtue of having been born here.

    I think that it is erroneous to conclude that “natural born Citizen” applies to everybody born within the tract of dirt known as the United States and that the children of those subject to a foreign power who happened to be born upon our magic dirt tract are eligible to the presidency.

  120. MBlanc46 says:
    @ScarletNumber

    I hope that they would be trying to make a joke.

  121. @AnotherDad

    “High I.Q. Brahmins?? What happened to her!!!! ???lol

  122. nymom says:
    @ScarletNumber

    White people, in general, do treat household pets differently than other cultures….I think I read that our civilization actually started large scale farming later than Asia for instance. So, dogs and probably horses, were more critical to life as herders than they would be to life as farmers. Where sometimes these animals are seen as pests or at best food to farmers, herders view them as valuable.

    I was actually very surprised when I became friends with some people from China, who moved here as adults. They didn’t have milk as children and it turns out China has no large herding animals…just recently China has developed a taste for milk and milk products so has begun acquiring dairy farms in Australia to provide this product for their mainland.

    Anyway the West (or white people) transitioned later into farming so I think both horses and dogs particularly hold a special place with most Westerners….as long as they are not vicious I see nothing wrong with bringing them to work.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Anonymous
  123. nymom says:
    @Anonymous

    This crap has been going on for years now in NYC. Random Whites or Asians being attacked by black people in public. Colin Flaherty put up numerous videos of these sorts of events on U-tube but he is constantly getting banned by them.

    Maybe more people are finally starting to show these things or maybe it is just happening so often that the media cannot suppress the evidence anymore. Not sure but it is nothing new here.

  124. res says:
    @nymom

    Worth noting that the ability to drink milk in adulthood is a primarily European characteristic. Here is a map of worldwide lactase persistence for ancestral populations.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence

  125. @Jack D

    But dogs (at least my dog*) don’t dislike particular blacks, they dislike blacks in general. I don’t know whether they go by appearance or smell (dogs are very big on smell – they really live in a world of smell as much as we live in a world of vision. I’d be willing to bet that dogs can broadly speaking differentiate the races by smell…

    Dogs don’t have color vision. To a dog, the world looks like a black and white television screen. For the benefit of dogs and blind people, God added a distinctive, disagreeable odor to Black people . It’s similar to the ethyl mercaptan that is added to natural gas, warning you of its presence.

  126. Anonymous[429] • Disclaimer says:
    @nymom

    No, it’s just urbanisation. Whites were the first people to urbanize, and city people everywhere are more sentimental towards animals than rural people.

    The idea that white people are just kinder to animals by nature is really unhistorical. They were just as mean as anyone until the mid-19th century, when attitudes began to change.

  127. @Jack D

    I gather that her parents became US citizens…

    I gather that her parents never became US citizens.

    Kamala is an anchorbaby who is unqualified to the presidency.

  128. Eagle Eye says:
    @V. Hickel

    the no dual-citizenship statute was nullified in a court case … back in the 50s, IIRC. the current oatb of allegiance is a lie.

    Different scenario – an alien seeking to be naturalized in the U.S. no longer needs to renounce pre-existing citizenship(s) under an earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision as stated.

    The same principle does NOT hold in the obverse case – a U.S. citizen can still lose his citizenship by swearing an oath of allegiance to a foreign sovereign (e.g. the Queen of England) and renouncing his U.S. citizenship. See e.g. the Richards case.

    https://openjurist.org/752/f2d/1413/richards-v-secretary-of-state-department-of-state

  129. @HFR

    So, you’re calling someone a pedant just for correcting flagrantly bad grammar? You ought to be thanking him. What’s your first language, “ebonics”?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings