First of all this should never be necessary. But it’s political war.
In yesterday’s edition of, “There Is No Bottom” a Dr. of law from Chapman University, John Eastman, teamed up with Newsweek to launch a ridiculous birther attack on Kamala.
Now we know Kamala was born in Oakland. California. In the USA. But apparently there is some kind of parsing of words that no court, even conservative ones, accepted in the past.
The gist of the argument is this-jurisdiction complete determines if a person born here to non-citizen parents is a natural born citizen.
Ok. So let’s play. I was born to a 17 year-old woman. According to the rules, that alone is not enough to confer citizenship. My Dad was over 18. We are all three from the Midwest.
However, I have no video evidence of my conception. I can not prove, without a DNA test from an estranged father, that he is my Dad, except for birth certificates which as we know, according to the GOP, are not good enough.
Therefore with my Mom 17, my Dad being “questionable” and no other proof a Republican could claim the following:
1. I can’t prove I was born to an American adult.
2. Being born in America, while that is not in question, I can not prove my natural citizenship if I can not prove I was born to an adult subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
3. Therefore if you do not like me, challenge my eligibility in the courts.
4. I am white, brown haired, blue eyed, and apparently, every bit the questionably eligible citizen as the brilliant, melaninly blessed Vice Presidential nominee.
However let me attempt to bring to an end this argument.
A baby is born to a mother. The nurse sees that. The doctor sees that. But they were not present to see the, ahem, contribution made by the father 9 months prior.
Technically until the birth certificate is signed, the parentage on the father’s side is not affirmed.
In a hospital, subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the United States, is a baby with as yet, undeclared parentage. The hospital is responsible for care of said child.
Until such time as the parents declare their parentage, essentially, at the time of birth for all intents and purpose, we are ALL children of the state. I call this the First Parent Principle and intend to someday submit as an argument against birtherism if need be.
My argument is that as this child was born in a medical facility, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to the laws of the U.S. (and the state in which they reside), then a newly born child is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. hospital.
How do I argue this? If, in the hospital’s judgment, a baby is not ready to be brought home, they can and do call child services where the state can immediately take custody.
The hospital can decide, in coordination with the state, what is in the best interests of the child. THAT is jurisdiction over the welfare of the baby. The hospital automatically has such discretion because the state of California, and every state, confers that discretion.
In California, the law reads like this-A mandated reporter of child neglect or abuse is any of the following: there are many others but for these purposes we highlight:
11165.7.
(21.) A physician and surgeon, psychiatrist, psychologist, dentist, resident, intern, podiatrist, chiropractor, licensed nurse, dental hygienist, optometrist, marriage and family therapist, clinical social worker, professional clinical counselor, or any other person who is currently licensed under Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of the Business and Professions Code.
ARTICLE 2.5. Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act [11164 - 11174.3]
Interestingly the first child abuse laws were enacted in California, in 1963, the year before her birth.
The first child abuse reporting law in California was enacted in 1963.That early law mandated only physicians to report physical abuse. Obstetricians are physicians.
My argument does not mean I think Kamala was neglected-it simply means that AT birth, this proves unequivocally, she was subject to the jurisdiction of California law as written one year earlier, in 1963.
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.
For these purposes we have to assume jurisdiction is immediate. Otherwise there would be no legal authority to provide for the health and welfare of children.
I do not believe a rational court would ever entertain such nonsense as was published in Newsweek. Rational. But if they do, this argument seems to me to be pretty difficult for them to overcome.
By being in the hands of personnel directly responsible, by law, to provide for her safety and welfare, Kamala was automatically subject to the jurisdiction thereof, of, The United States of America.
But really, it is even simpler than that. The simplest argument to make is that the very act of assigning a birth certificate is in and of itself the state exercising jurisdiction over the child. However my hospital argument is to close any loophole debating immediate jurisdiction at birth.
The First Parent Principle.
-ROC