Republican group doubles down on racism... and slavery?

a reply to: Mahogani

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Phony ass title

There's no "racism or slavery" in that document.

Phony ass title

a reply to: Mahogani

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: rickymouse

Yes, Kamala is an anchor baby. Our Founders are rolling in their graves.

She's not eligible, but it's up to the Democrats to vet her.

They'll use Obama as precident. (Imo, he was also NOT eligible).

Our Founders wanted every child born on this soil to have the same opportunities as other Americans. It wasn't meant to pop in country, pop out baby, go somewhere else and said baby comes back to rule over the country.

I've asked before, but haven't found the answer. Does Kamala have 2 passports?

For all anybody knows, she might have 4 passports.

U.S.
Canadian
India
Jamaica

🍖

a reply to: xuenchen

Any more than 1 passport ( U.S.)should disqualify her.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: rickymouse

Yes, Kamala is an anchor baby. Our Founders are rolling in their graves.

She's not eligible, but it's up to the Democrats to vet her.

They'll use Obama as precident. (Imo, he was also NOT eligible).

Our Founders wanted every child born on this soil to have the same opportunities as other Americans. It wasn't meant to pop in country, pop out baby, go somewhere else and said baby comes back to rule over the country.

I've asked before, but haven't found the answer. Does Kamala have 2 passports?

For all anybody knows, she might have 4 passports.

U.S.
Canadian
India
Jamaica

🍖

India is out because they do not allow dual citizenship.

Jamaica is out because her father didn't live in the US long enough for him to hand down dual citizenship.

She was born in America, so Canada is out.

Thought I had already answered that.

a reply to: SourGrapes

They'll use Obama as precident. (Imo, he was also NOT eligible).

In your opinion, why wasn't Obama eligible?

Since you brought up slavery:

Donald Trump is the only living US president whose ancestors didn't own slaves


Oops!
Kamala Harris is a descendant of an Irish slave owner in Jamaica

a reply to: Lumenari

You did answer that, before. However, I don't believe it. I don't believe she would have surrendered any passports, if she had them.

Obama didn't. He still had his Indonesian passport, even though he was supposedly American.

The other countries may not allow dual citizenship, but America does.

They'd have to surrender their American passport and citizenship for Indonesia. But, who collects the surrendered passport?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SourGrapes

They'll use Obama as precident. (Imo, he was also NOT eligible).

In your opinion, why wasn't Obama eligible?

AAAnnddd here comes the all too familiar thread derailment...

What did you think about the OP, Sooks?

a reply to: ColeYounger2

Kamala Harris' great, great, great grandmother was raped by Kamala' Harris' great, great, great grandfather, who owned slaves.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Not going there. How about you tell me why an anchor baby is eligible to be the U.S. President? Is any anchor baby eligible?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Mahogani

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Phony ass title

There's no "racism or slavery" in that document.

Phony ass title

I know right...

a reply to: Mahogani

Thanks for bringing it up again, so we can talk some more about Project 2025, and what Trump would do if elected.

Well okay then.

I seem to remember Trump vowing to end citizenship of children born in the U.S. of less than citizen parents.

This from a May 30, 2023 article: Trump Renews Pledge to End Birthright Citizenship for Children of Immigrants

Former President Donald Trump pledged Tuesday that he would end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants in the country illegally on Day One of his administration if he were to be reelected in 2024, renewing a highly controversial proposition that he floated several times during his term.

Trump made the pledge in a video he posted on his social media site, Truth Social, while railing against the immigration policies of the Biden administration.

“Under Biden's current policies even though these millions of illegal border crossers have entered the country unlawfully, all of their future children will become automatic U.S. citizens. Can you imagine?” Trump said in the video. “This policy is a reward for breaking the laws of the United States and is obviously a magnet, helping draw the flood of illegals across our borders.”

“I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship,” Trump said, describing migrants as “some of the toughest, meanest people you'll ever see.”

There's the 14th Amendment. And there is the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924

Evidently, native born native Americans were not U.S. citizens until 1924. To be a U.S. citizen they had hoops to jump through:

1) Not live on tribal land.
2) Pay U.S. taxes.
3) Go through naturalization process like a foreign immigrant.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SourGrapes

They'll use Obama as precident. (Imo, he was also NOT eligible).

In your opinion, why wasn't Obama eligible?

AAAnnddd here comes the all too familiar thread derailment...

What did you think about the OP, Sooks?

I think all the cases cited ruled against the petitioners' argument, claiming Kamala Harris is ineligible to hold the office of POTUS due to her parent's place of birth, and not being American citizens at the time of her birth.

Also, I'm not sure, but think the OP may have meant to cite the 14th Amendment, rather than the 13th. But, the 13th does outlaw slavery, and the petitioners did invoke Dred Scott, which ruled that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States. However technically, Kamala Hariss is not African American, she's Jamaican American, even though Jamaican Black people can from Africa. So, I'm not sure why the Dred Case was cited by the petitioners in the first place.

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Not going there. How about you tell me why an anchor baby is eligible to be the U.S. President? Is any anchor baby eligible?

You brought it up, not me.
Barrack Obama was an anchor baby? Is that why, in your opinion, you think he was ineligible for POTUS

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Mahogani

Where exactly is the racism and slavery component please?

I was kind of wondering about that too, Trump is claiming that she really is not enough African American ancestry to call herself black...which kind of is evident looking at her. I don't know what slavery has to do with any of this either, her ancestors were not slaves to Americans.

From all I can surmise here, it's just the resident propagandist doing their thing again.

I'm telling you, Trump really broke some people.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about anchor babies and whether the Founding Fathers would want anchor babies running the country.

Do YOU think anchor babies should run the country?

Do you even know why it may be a really bad idea for it to happen?

Should a couple of U.S. tourists pop out a baby in China and that baby come back several decades later to rule over China? Would that be in China's best interest?

Would it be in ANY country's best interest to have someone else rule over it?

It's like buying a house in New York, never living there...just buy a house, and then run for office? Oh wait!

See, typically locals want other locals to represent them.

When someone comes from outside the community, they may have ulterior motives. They may have separate alliances.

Do you believe anchor babies should be President?

I believe BOTH parents should be American and the child born in America, so there are no other allegiances (to answer your question about Obama).

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ColeYounger2

Kamala Harris' great, great, great grandmother was raped by Kamala' Harris' great, great, great grandfather, who owned slaves.

There's no proof of any of that.

Kamala needs to get a DNA sequence and show that she's most likely more than 50% (aka 50%+) Caucasian. 😊

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about anchor babies and whether the Founding Fathers would want anchor babies running the country.

Do YOU think anchor babies should run the country?

Do you even know why it may be a really bad idea for it to happen?

Should a couple of U.S. tourists pop out a baby in China and that baby come back several decades later to rule over China? Would that be in China's best interest?

Would it be in ANY country's best interest to have someone else rule over it?

It's like buying a house in New York, never living there...just buy a house, and then run for office? Oh wait!

See, typically locals want other locals to represent them.

When someone comes from outside the community, they may have ulterior motives. They may have separate alliances.

Do you believe anchor babies should be President?

I believe BOTH parents should be American and the child born in America, so there are no other allegiances (to answer your question about Obama).

I like the way you wrote that. I wish I was better at writing things. But I'm not but I keep trying. Maybe by the time I am eighty I will get better at it.

a reply to: SourGrapes

I'm not talking about Obama.

You were, when you said that you didn't think Obama was eligible to serve as POTUS. I just want to why, what you base that on.

I'm talking about anchor babies and whether the Founding Fathers would want anchor babies running the country.

The 14th Amendment is what important here, not singling out immigrants with derogatory terms or arguing who the signers of the Constitution thought worthy of American citizenship and participation in community and commerce back in 1787, when only wealthy white men, with good reputation were qualified. I mean, why not just disqualify all women from office, under originalist constitutional reasons?

Would it be in ANY country's best interest to have someone else rule over it?

See, typically locals want other locals to represent them.

So basically, you're saying Kamala Harris isn't "one of us"?
Is she "local" enough to be Vice President? A US Senator? A California Attorney General? A San Francisco District Attorney?

How local is local enough for which layers of government?