It doesn't matter what the argument is. Harris is born in the US, and there are no fine points. Full stop.
Lol.....before laying down an ultimate verdict, Judge Moxie, can't you at least listen to the case? You haven't even looked at Eastman's article, nor do you have the intellectual curiosity or disposition to do so. Instead, you just dismissively make the philistine declaration that "there are no fine points." Welp, so much for legal debates. We should just toss all of them out the window for good and go along with Moxie's retarded prejudices, such as slobbering over homosexuals and highly privileged mixed-race descendants of slaveowners who titillate her sensibilities. The cosmopolitan pretense of the Democratic Party today is one of the most comical farces in human history. What you have are a bunch of almost entirely monolingual and deeply philistine people pretending to be cosmopolitan because of their passive-aggressive contempt for white Christian identity.
Now let's look at Eastman's actual article:
"Article II of the Constitution specifies that “[n]o person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President.” Her father was (and is) a Jamaican national, her mother was from India, and neither was a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of Harris’ birth in 1964."
And then he goes on.....
"The language of Article II is that one must be a natural-born citizen. The original Constitution did not define citizenship, but the 14th Amendment does—and it provides that “all persons born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and that meant subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully)…"
So you saying that Harris was born in the United States and there are no fine points "full stop" does not address this very serious argument about the 14th Amendment, which clearly uses the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in addition to "all persons born...in the United States." If the people who wrote the 14th Amendment actually believed anyone born in U.S. territory under any circumstance was automatically a citizen, they would not have thrown in the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Of course, you are only defending Harris because you absolutely love her highly emotive and highly prejudiced schtick of not caring about "fine points" of logic or reason (which shows here), but instead just venting, with no filter or self-control, whatever prejudice is fashionable at the moment among the Democratic Party, whether it's "believe all women" (until Tara Reade) or "let the Mueller investigation play out" (until it falls like a dud on the pavement). You also know that this argument cuts to the heart of the illegal immigration debate, and you obviously don't want a serious legal conversation about the 14th Amendment, because that would reveal how ridiculous it is to argue that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen. Everything for you is fundamentally a power play and a power grab for the left. That is why you love the Voting Rights Act, mail-in balloting, and giving the right to vote to illegal immigrants, teenagers, and convicted felons. The more that politically apathetic and ignorant people vote, and the more fraud there is, the more power your side gets.
What is racist is muddying the waters on Obama and Harris, who are both US-born, and yet the Republicans and Trump try to make the case for their "otherness," and put it out there that their citizenship and eligibility for office is in question.
I guess this is why Indian-American Nikki Haley is a celebrity Republican in fucking South Carolina of all places, right? How many times can you possibly type something that demonstrates total ignorance of the American right?
And Eastman's argument is not about the "otherness" of Obama and Harris. He is making a serious legal argument about the 14th Amendment, which you are demonstrating a completely philistine and irrational attitude toward. If you want to talk about the problem of xenophobia, then look at the mirror and reflect on how your party indulged in the most irrational and baseless conspiracy theory about a foreign country (Russia) for over 3 years. That was xenophobia in action if there ever was such a thing.
Finally, if I may ask: why does the party of reparations-for-slavery always nominate privileged mixed-race people of slaveowner descent instead of pure black descendants of actual slaves, who the party purports to care about more than anyone in the world (except homosexuals, whose sacred victim status can no longer be eclipsed by that of any other group)?
www.huffpost.com
