DOCUMENTING INELIGIBILITY AND IMMIGRATION FRAUD
Why should Kamala Harris withdraw
from her occupancy of the
Office of Vice President of the USA?
Scroll down for records/details
Why should Kamala Harris withdraw
from her occupancy of the
Office of Vice President of the USA?
Scroll down for records/details
www.kamalakancel.com will present documents evidencing Constitutional ineligibility of
Vice Presidential Candidate Kamala D. Harris.
We will also present evidence that Shyamala G. Harris, mother of Kamala D. Harris, committed immigration fraud leading up to her birth (and Kamala participated in fraud, after the fact).
Shyamala G. Harris violated US immigration policies, including using a variety of names (on official documents).
Her birth certificate evaded her nationality, in violation of the "India Quota" that was in effect in 1964. Is Kamala's "claimed"
US citizenship valid (legally)?
Naturalization oath sworn in 1981 (when Kamala Harris was age 17). Proof her father not a US Citizen (at the time of her birth)!
The US Immigration Service (finally) caught on to Shyamala's schemes. Here, are fingerprints she was forced to submit to the FBI.
Why does Kamala D. Harris get so mad about US immigration enforcement? Because her mother was docketed for deportation!
Just 5 days after her 21st birthday, Kamala D. Harris helped complete her mother's immigration fraud, with a petition for her US re-entry
Repeating courses (up to 7 times), as part of an effort to extend a Student Visa nearly 7 years
(leading to birth of Kamala in US)
Kamala Harris claims to represent the black community, but her mother self-identified as"Caucasian" at Kamala's birth!
What do these three men have in common? All three were used, to advance the careers of women within the Harris family
Why is there so little reporting about Donald Harris, father of Kamala? His records have been heavily redacted.
How did Harris women get their credentials? Shyamala enrolled in UCB's Home Economics program, and Kamala chose the academically weak HBCU Howard University
The "End Game" of Harris family corruption: Illegitimate US birth status for Kamala. For the benefit of the voting public, the actual documents will be posted soon.
Questions are being asked, whether Kamala Harris is eligible to occupy the office of Vice President of the USA, per the terms of the 12th and 25th Amendments of the US Constitution.
The context of this discussion, must note that gratuitous amounts of mis-information
was featured in media outlets leading up to the US federal elections of 2020.
As the electorate was asked to make an informed choice, what was needed is provision
of simple facts that are plainly told, and actually true.
Research has been conducted, and based on initial results KancelKamala.com asked:
(1) Did Shyamala Harris, native of India, mother of candidate Kamala Harris,
abuse US policies for her own benefit?
As a foreign national, Shyamala gained entry to the USA by stating that her interest
was academic. During the term of her student "F" visa, she did not fulfill the obligation to maintain a full course of study, but instead reduced her enrollment to "part time" while also taking employment at UC Berkeley. Shyamala also reportedly escaped an arranged marriage in India by instead marrying the holder of another foreign national student "F" visa holder.
Around the scheduled expiration of her student visa, Shyamala did not return to India
but instead bore a child on US territory. Whatever her motivations were, these acts
represented more than personal dishonesty, and were in fact a breach of faith.
The original intention of the student visa program was a post-WWI desire for a lasting international peace through educational exchange (intended to result in a greater understanding between nations), rather than use as a "back door" for schemes for immigration to the US.
During the year of the expiration of her student visa, rather than gain legal naturalization
to the US, Shyamala extended her stay within the US by applying for "Visitor" status and receiving a "H-1" "skilled labor" visa. This not only allowed her to bear a second child (Maya) on US territory but to also displace the employment (at prevailing wage rates) of other university-educated native-born US citizens from positions available for
a research physiologist. (The “H-1” program is still in existence today, and its continued exploitation by many other immigrants from India, has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of middle and upper-class jobs among US citizens).
(2) Did Shyamala Harris, continue her exploitation of US policies?
After enjoying benefits of US residency and a public university education,
then taxpayer-funded employment and public schooling of her daughters, Shyamala
chose to remain a foreign national on an Immigrant Visa and not to complete steps
to become a citizen of the United States. It is uncertain if this was for financial reasons,
as she maintained bank accounts within the US, as well as an interest in an offshore
account in the Bahamas. She also arranged for regular child support payments as part of
a settlement for divorce in mid-1973, but moved quickly to escape mutually-agreed weekend/holiday child visitation schedules by applying to relocate to Montreal, Canada
in late 1975.
Shyamala continued to hold a passport from India throughout the mid-1970's,
then after a 7-year stay in Montreal she obtained a separate passport from Canada
(while stating that she resided in Oakland, CA at that time).
(3) Was Kamala Harris sufficiently influenced by her mother, to be a willing participant
in immigration policy abuse?
Kamala did not hesitate to participate in another “back door” process for re-admission
of her mother to the US, as she signed a petition just 5 days after celebrating her 21st birthday. Kamala’s "anchor baby" status is not conjecture, but was in fact cited in
documents from her mother who stated she wanted to re-enter the US for an intended
residence in Oakland, CA (although Kamala was at the time attending university in the District of Columbia).
More pertinent to her 2020 candidacy, is that in this process and as an adult, Kamala declared her US citizenship as being based on "birth in the US" and not "through parents"
in a sworn petition. Could this be interpreted as a legal admission, that Kamala Harris is
not a “natural born” citizen of the US (as is required for a Vice-President)?
(4) Will the story end here?
A narrative emerged, that straight-ticket Democratic voters should be warned
their votes for Harris may not count, as legal implications of these records could apply to eligibility for ballots, the electoral college, and related court rulings.
Additional questions for the public record also exist, regarding discrepancies in the varying names of Harris family members that appear in official records, discrepancies in the claims of racial status of the Harris family, and discrepancies in the statements of claims of nationality, as well as other files that have yet to be released to the public.
Constitutionally, offices of President and Vice President require status as a
"natural born citizen" of the USA.
A widely shared narrative is that mere birth in the USA meets this eligibility standard, regardless of parentage.
However, counter-claims have not received proper legal analysis, amid attempts to limit discussion of this topic.
What has been missing from this discussion in 2020-2021 (to date), has been a supply of facts which evidence that the claims that the birth of Kamala D. Harris was of a questionable legal validity.
Terms of Admission (clarified)
Gopalan Shyamala (the mother of Kamala D. Harris, under her maiden name) gained admission to the USA on the basis of a visa granted by the immigration officials.
The terms of the student visa she received, included performance requirements which were stated and sworn, in exchange for the benefit of access to scholarship within the USA.
Stated explicitly and signed, those terms included: Pursuit of a full course of study,
visitation solely for the purpose of education, and an entry that was only temporary.
A rough chronology of the actions of Gopalan Shyamala, examining her compliance
(or non-compliance) with those terms, based on available evidence, follows:
Full course of study (Student Visa Term #1)
Gopalan Shyamala originally received a US Student Visa in September 1958.
Her entry to the USA was based on meeting a mandated requirement for a "full course"
of study within an (approved) institution of learning.
What was a "full course" of study in her field at UC Berkeley? According to course catalogs during her 1958-1962 term, a minimum of 12 semester units was required as an enrolled student(within the "College of Agriculture" at Berkeley).
Did Gopalan Shyamala fulfill that requirement?
A review of her actual transcripts, verifies that the answer is: No.
From her very first term at UC Berkeley (Fall 1958), she evidenced her disregard
for the statement she signed, by completing a sub-standard number of semester units (eleven). Despite receiving a fully paid scholarship, she continued to underperform as
if there were no anomaly, by completing even fewer semester units in
Fall 1959 (six), Spring 1960 (six), Fall 1960 (eleven), Spring 1961 (ten), Fall 1961 (ten), and Fall 1962 (nine).
Within nine semesters of course enrollments, she completed a full 12 unit enrollment only twice.
This was not the only indicator of sub-standard scholarship.
Her curriculum was within the "Home Economics" program at UC Berkeley, which was a department so academically weak that it was considered an embarrassment to the prestige of that institution. As such, Home Ec was scheduled for elimination (the incoming class of 1958 was its last), and it later merged into a "Department of Nutrition".
How did Gopalan Shyamala meet these meager and less-than-full course loads, in a dying department?
Transcripts show she repeated one individual course (NUTR 299) a total of seven times, and another individual course (NUTR 290) a further four times. These repeated courses alone, amounted to over 53% of the course units which accrued to the MS & PhD degrees she received from UC Berkeley.
Sole purpose of education (Student Visa Term #2)
If Gopalan Shyamala wasn't active in studying full time during her terms, then what was she doing?
Reportedly, by 1962, she was engaged in a more time-honored collegiate practice: Searching for a husband.
A post was made by then-Senator Harris on her Facebook page on Feb 16, 2017.
It read: "For me, it starts with my mother Shyamala Harris. She arrived at the University of California Berkeley from India in 1959 with dreams of becoming a scientist. The plan, when she finished school, was to go back home to a traditional Indian marriage. But when she met my father Donald Harris, she made a different plan. She went against a practice reaching back thousands of years, and instead of an arranged marriage, chose a love marriage. This, an act of self-determination, made me and my sister Maya. And - like millions of the children of immigrants before and since - it made us Americans."
This contrasts with the expressed purpose of her Student Visa, which was to "solely" enable a visitor from another nation to study at an educational institution within the US. The terms of a student visa did not include or authorize marriage or childbirth within the USA.
However it is a matter of record, that Gopalan Shyamala married Donald J. Harris in Alameda County, California in July 1963, and that she also gave birth to Kamala D. Harris on October 20, 1964.
Certainly these actions were not authorized, nor were they in compliance with the terms of her student visa. In fact, there is evidence that Gopalan Shyamala tried to evade immigration agency notice, by continuing her post-1963 employment at UC Berkeley, under her maiden name.
With this closer examination, in 2021, can we now also ask: Were these actions valid?
And if they were not valid, does Kamala D. Harris even hold a valid status as a US citizen (or, as a US Senator)?
Temporary visitation (Student Visa Term #3)
All the way into 1965, Gopalan Shyamala petitioned for multiple successive visa extensions, which ultimately meant her post-graduate term for "scholarship" lasted a nearly-unbelievable (almost-7-year) term.
How she did it, was by engaging in conflicts of interest with senior faculty. She traded lab support to Dr. I. Chaikoff for endorsements which ultimately resulted in 18 months worth of (post-PhD) extensions.
The most egregious example, was how Gopalan Shyamala relied on radical foreign student advisor Eugene H. Smith, to endorse her final 6 month extension request in late September 1964. Based on a continuation of employment at UC Berkeley as a part of "training," there was no official acknowledgement that at the time Gopalan was 8 months (visibly, very) pregnant - and, presumably, not in a physical condition to work in a campus laboratory
(particularly one that handled radioactive materials)!
The birth of Kamala Harris occurred during a 30-day "grace period" (when Gopalan officially was a “non immigrant” and had no US residence status), prior to an approval which was received retro-actively on October 30, 1964.
These actions were not isolated incidents, as a similar pattern of abuses occurred in succeeding years.
Shyamala Gopalan Harris (now filing under her married name) requested visitor-status visas both in 1965, and just prior to the birth of her second daughter Maya, in early 1967. Shortly thereafter, she was subject to the "deportation docket" by the US Immigration and Naturalization service, until she acted to fulfill requirements for change of status in early 1968.
Did Gopalan Shyamala (now, Shyamala G. Harris) then act in a way that helped to empower other women?
After receiving an education, scholarships, paid employment, medical services, government and court services, and care for her daughters (all paid for by US taxpayers, men and women alike), did she act to repay these favors by acquiring US citizenship status?
Shyamala G. Harris, an acknowledged influence upon daughter Kamala D. Harris, instead continued to exhibit her basic selfishness. Unlike other immigrants whose intentions and actions were entirely honorable, Shyamala G. Harris continued to act as a (colloquial) "gimme-grant" - someone whose interest in travelling to the US was as a net user of public services, to acquire whatever they could for themselves (not unlike a large number of other nationals from India, who continue to exploit the H1B visa program to this day).
Shyamala G. Harris remained in the US until late 1975 (a full 17 years after her "temporary" 1958 entry), when she relocated to Canada. Shyamala was not done with the USA, as she petitioned to return to the US again (this time as a "permanent resident") in late 1985.
The final filing, which completed Shyamala's abuse of US immigration laws, was sponsored by co-signatory Kamala D. Harris herself (within 5 days after she reached her 21st birthday).
Here, the question is repeated again: If the birth of Kamala D. Harris resulted from demonstrable and provable fraud (of US immigration statutes and policies), is her claim to US citizenship valid?
We conclude with a further question: If her mother gained and regained access to reside within the USA based on fraud of immigration statutes, and this fraud is one which it can be documented that Kamala D. Harris herself later exploited (acting in collusion, as an "anchor baby" in October 1985), then can we ask:
Does this narrative disqualify Kamala D. Harris from a position which would require her to faithfully execute all US laws (such as that of Vice President—or as a potential actual President)?
+ FOLLOW OUR TWEETS @KamalaKancel (also on Parler)
Copyright © 2020-2021 KamalaKancel.com - All Rights Reserved.
NOTES: All statements made are for political discussion.
Privacy exceptions for deceased individuals also apply.