Skip to main content

If Kamala Harris' Father is part White & part Jamaican African and her Mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black?

 https://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/KAMALA04.jpg?w=620

Is Joe Biden's running mate really Black?

If Kamala Harris' father is part white and part Jamaican African and her mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black?

Reason.com tries to figure it out:

Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's pick to be the Democratic Party's vice-presidential nominee, is the daughter of an Indian immigrant mother and a Jamaican immigrant father. Her father, as I understand it, has ancestors of both European and African origin. [Welcome new Volokh readers. FYI, I've been working on a book on the American Law of Race, with this forthcoming article the first relevant output. My own opinion is that Ms. Harris should be deemed American, period, but there is no such box on government forms, and if you decline to state your race, someone will decide for you…

First things first. There is no multiracial or mixed-race category in American law in any jurisdiction. Nor is there an Indian category. So Harris cannot be legally Indian, nor can she be legally "both."

Indians once had their own census category and at other times were considered legally white. These day, however, they are now firmly in the Asian category. African American or black is defined as anyone with origins in the black races of Africa, so she qualifies as African American as well, even if her father is mostly European genetically, and even though he is an immigrant, not a descendant of American slaves...

 ...  I've misplaced the citation, but I recall that other federal guidelines state that if a person checks black/African American and another box, she is deemed African American for statistical purposes.

In short, under American law, no one could deny Harris's right to assert that she is half-Indian and less-than-half of African ancestry, but so long as she considers herself, and is considered by others, to be African American, for legal purposes she is black. The major exception would be if she filed a discrimination complaint based on her Asian ancestry. In that case, she would be considered considered legally Asian for purposes of resolving the complain. What, at least at this point, she cannot be is legally Indian, legally mixed-race, or legally no race at all. [https://reason.com/2020/08/11/is-kamala-harris-legally-african-american-indian-both-neither-or-something-else/

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

Comments

90-M998 said…
If you are 08Hayabusa and you wrote “Maurice Strong-The Father of America’s Destruction”, I’d really like to open a dialogue with you and learn more about what you know. That was the most accurate and condensed article I’ve ever read and I don’t understand why it hasn’t received more attention than it has. This has to get out one way or another and my future generations need it to as well. Please reply to my email address and, if there is a next step, I’d like to participate in getting this out to the common people. This IS the future of the United States of America and I have two sons and a grandchild who need this. Thank you for writing this and please let me know what I can do to help expose these crooks for what they’ve done to take down our country. God Bless, Lee
Tabitha Levine said…
This is a great post, thanks for sharing it.

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...