- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,358
- Reaction score
- 82,750
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
8/13/20
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Thursday encouraged a racist conspiracy theory that is rampant among some of his followers: that Senator Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic vice-presidential nominee born in California, was not eligible for the vice presidency or presidency because her parents were immigrants. That assertion is false. Ms. Harris is eligible to serve. Mr. Trump, speaking to reporters on Thursday, nevertheless pushed forward with the attack, reminiscent of the lie he perpetrated for years that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya. “I heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements,” Mr. Trump said of Ms. Harris. “I have no idea if that’s right,” he added. “I would have thought, I would have assumed, that the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for vice president.” Mr. Trump appeared to be referring to a widely discredited op-ed article published in Newsweek by John C. Eastman, a conservative lawyer who has long argued that the United States Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship. Ms. Harris, the daughter of Jamaican and Indian immigrants, was born in 1964 in Oakland, Calif., several years after her parents arrived in the United States.
But Mr. Trump was in effect revisiting an old tactic: spreading a race-based and anti-immigrant crusade he began nearly a decade ago, when he began sowing distrust in the background of Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii. This time, Mr. Trump has legions of followers who have been spreading similar theories about Ms. Harris. In the hours after Joseph R. Biden Jr. announced Ms. Harris as his running mate, a new crop of memes and conspiracy website postings began proliferating online, suggesting that Ms. Harris was an “anchor baby,” a disparaging term for a child born in the United States to immigrants. Constitutional law scholars say that the immigration status of Ms. Harris’s parents at the time of her birth is irrelevant because under the Constitution, anyone born in the United States automatically acquires citizenship. The 14th Amendment makes it clear: “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.”
Trump Encourages Racist Conspiracy Theory About Kamala Harris
As is obvious and anticipated, Birtherism conspiracy theory is still alive and thriving in the racist mind of Donald Trump and his ilk.
Trump Encourages Racist Conspiracy Theory About Kamala Harris
As is obvious and anticipated, Birtherism conspiracy theory is still alive and thriving in the racist mind of Donald Trump and his ilk.
Trump Encourages Racist Conspiracy Theory About Kamala Harris
As is obvious and anticipated, Birtherism conspiracy theory is still alive and thriving in the racist mind of Donald Trump and his ilk.
Trump Encourages Racist Conspiracy Theory About Kamala Harris
As is obvious and anticipated, Birtherism conspiracy theory is still alive and thriving in the racist mind of Donald Trump and his ilk.
I actually will attempt to move to Canada or Mexico if Trump wins another four; if so, America will be over anyway....
It's a repackaged trumpism "they don't look like indians to me". Birtherism is a variety of racism and Trump has exhibited it since the early 90's if not before.
He has followers who join right in.
At times President Stable Genius, whose mother was born in Scotland, has claimed that his father was born in Germany. If true, then by Trump's own definition he, himself, is not qualified to be president. :shock:
Reminds me of the racist conspiracy theory the NYT encouraged about McCain...
A Citizen, but ‘Natural Born’? McCain’s Eligibility to Be President Is Disputed by Professor - The New York Times
:donkeyfla:donkeyfla:donkeyfla
The question raised was whether Harris's parents, who were in fact NOT immigrants when she was born but instead both in the USA on a student visa, were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA when she was born.
Court precedence indicates that she was and is thus a citizen.
See-- there is a better way of responding to this allegation rather than lazily saying anyone who opposes your candidate is a racist.
No, sorry, it's just racist BS.The question raised was whether Harris's parents, who were in fact NOT immigrants when she was born but instead both in the USA on a student visa, were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA when she was born.
Court precedence indicates that she was and is thus a citizen.
See-- there is a better way of responding to this allegation rather than lazily saying anyone who opposes your candidate is a racist.
:roll:Reminds me of the racist conspiracy theory the NYT encouraged about McCain...
:roll:
The NYT didn't "encourage" anything. They reported on a law professor's views on a lawsuit about McCain's eligibility, as well as legal opinions to the contrary.
The law prof actually has a point: The US has always played fast and loose with its territories, trying to have it both ways -- both subject to and not subject to US jurisdiction -- depending on what is convenient for the US. In this case, Congress made people born in the Panama Canal Zone citizens by statute, which might fly as not being "natural." That said, and as the article pointed out, there were solid legal arguments in favor of McCain's eligibility.
For some strange reason, this objection never wound up taking off. I may have missed it, but I don't recall Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, Romney, Paul, Fox News etc suggesting McCain should be ineligible because of where he was born.
For some strange reason, Republican lawyers defended McCain in the lawsuit over this issue.
Fun fact! One of the people who sued McCain over his eligibility (Philip Berg) also sued Obama over his eligiblity in 2008, and tried to stop electors for Bush/Cheney. I.e. the guy is obviously a crank.
In other words, this case is illustrative not because of how they are similar, but how they are different. Rather than brushing this off as a crackpot objection, Trump and Fox and their followers are all in.
If they drop this in a few days, then I'd agree that the two cases are more alike than different. However, I seriously doubt this will die any time soon.
The question raised was whether Harris's parents, who were in fact NOT immigrants when she was born but instead both in the USA on a student visa, were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA when she was born.
Court precedence indicates that she was and is thus a citizen.
See-- there is a better way of responding to this allegation rather than lazily saying anyone who opposes your candidate is a racist.
lol, okAnd Trump commented upon an article which made a similar claim with regards to Harris.
No, they can't. Because the only way to question Harris' eligibility is to ignore 120+ years of birthright citizenship, settled jurisprudence, the validity of Originalism or Textualism as constitutional interpretation methods, and so on. I.e. you have to be so racist and xenophobic that you're willing to rip up the Constitution and ignore the law.In other words, people can actually question Harris's eligibility, and be challenged on that view, WITHOUT a knee jerk reaction of racism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?