Kamala Harris Humbled To Have Been Chosen Exclusively For Her Race, Gender

<><> Harris’ father and mother were born in Jamaica and India, respectively. But Harris herself is a natural-born citizen Back when Harris was still a Democratic presidential candidate, we fact-checked a similar claim: that she was ineligible to run for president. That’s wrong.

“If you are born in the U.S., you are automatically a natural-born U.S. citizen under the constitution,” Harvard Law professor Einer Elhuage told PolitiFact in 2019.

Harris is an anchor baby born in Oakland, Calif., a spokesperson for her campaign told us that year. Harris is 55 years old, two decades older than the age to become president.

<><> Her father, Donald Harris, was born in Jamaica and immigrated to the United States after he got into the University of California-Berkeley, Kamala Harris wrote in her autobiography, “The Truths We Hold: An American Journey.” He is an emeritus economics professor at Stanford University.

<><> At the end of a bio on the school’s website, her father notes his citizenship status. “Jamaica (by birth); USA (by naturalization).”

<><> Kamala Harris’ mother, Shyamala Harris, was born in Chennai, India, and moved to California after graduating from the University of Delhi to pursue a doctorate in nutrition and endocrinology at Berkeley. She met Donald Harris at the university and the couple married, separating around the time Kamala Harris was five and divorcing a few years later, according to “The Truths We Hold.”

Harris lived in California until she was in middle school, when she moved to Montreal after her mother was offered a teaching position at McGill University. She went to college at Howard University in Washington D.C.

The U.S. Constitution says that “no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible for the office of President.”

Experts say that Harris meets the definition of “natural born citizen.” Other federal laws and legal opinions to know for this fact-check:

The 14th Amendment, which says that “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.”

8 U.S. Code § 1401, which says people born in the United States are “nationals and citizens.”
The 1898 Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case, which ruled that people born on U.S. soil (with a few exceptions that aren’t relevant in Harris’ case) qualify for citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Sarah Duggin, a Catholic University law professor, told us: “Her birth in the United States, to someone other than a member of a foreign diplomatic corps or otherwise not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, makes her a U.S. citizen. ...
There is no reason to look at where her parents came from, how long her parents were U.S. residents before she was born, or where she was raised.”

Several other fact-checking organizations — AFP and the Associated Press among them — have also looked into these claims and agree that they are inaccurate.

We rate this Facebook post False.

PolitiFact Texas is a partnership of the Austin American-Statesman, Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News to help you find the truth in Texas politics.

Kamala Harris is an ‘anchor baby.’ Is she a natural born citizen?
Just about anyone born on United States soil is a citizen of the United States, save children of certain visiting dignitaries. But does that make her a “natural born citizen”?
by Chastity Mansfield August 12, 2020

Update: Unlike the vast majority of news sites, we do not censor perspectives. We curate our writers based on their adherence to conservative values, but we do not prevent them from expressing their views. But as Editor, I believe it’s important to add my own perspectives from time to time if I disagree. This is one of those cases.

Is Kamala Harris a natural born citizen? No. I’m not a lawyer, but the plain reading of the 14th Amendment as well as historical context leads me to this layman’s conclusion. Therefore, I do not believe she is eligible for the office for which she is currently running.

On the issue of whether or not we should focus on other aspects of her candidacy rather than attempt to go after her as an “anchor baby,” I can completely appreciate Chastity’s point without agreeing. The law is the law, and as long as it does not contradict with the only higher law than the Constitution, namely the Bible itself, then it must be upheld. If we don’t agree with a law, we can work to change it. But in this scenario, Harris should not be given a pass for political expediency. Yes, I like that she’s the VP choice because she makes the ticket weaker. But that does not negate the demonstrable fact that she should not be allowed to run in the first place. If we are truly constitutional conservatives, then we need to act like it and that means speaking up when the Constitution is under attack.

I respect Chastity’s perspective below, but I don’t fully agree. Nevertheless, I will not censor it. This is America. We at NOQ Report love America, and I, as Editor, will not prevent Chastity’s opinion from being heard. I simply disagree with her assessment.

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

jdr

Original Story:

Senator Kamala Harris, who was announced yesterday as Joe Biden’s Vice Presidential pick, qualifies for birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Some on social media are contending that this disqualifies her from being President of the United States and therefore Vice President as well.

The constitutional qualification states that only natural born citizens can be president. Many scholars have claimed that to be a natural born citizen, at least one parent must be a U.S. citizen. All indicators thus far point to neither of Harris’ parents being citizens at the time of her birth. But there has been no clarification from the Supreme Court on this definition, leaving it in a perpetual state of murkiness.

This comes down to the need to be careful what we wish for. If it could possibly be quickly demonstrated by the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment does not make natural born citizens, then Harris would need to be replaced. Frankly, I was ecstatic when I heard she had been tapped as the others under consideration were tougher candidates. She may be the weakest VP candidate since Dan Quayle. In fact, she may be weaker.

It’s the wrong argument at the wrong time, especially considering how harmful she is to the Democrats’ election hopes. Republicans would be wise to stop going down this lane of attack. We can and should have judicial examination of the 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship, and originalist interpretations of presidential qualifications, but not today. Not now. Not with the election less than three months away. There’s no need. We have plenty of fodder to legitimately attack both Harris and Biden on merits. It’s counterproductive to try to catch a weak candidate on a technicality, especially one that almost certainly would qualify her if the issue were taken up by the Supreme Court.

That does NOT mean we shouldn’t make it known that she is an “anchor baby.” It’s relevant as her constant attacks on the immigration system and favorable perspectives on open borders give us cause to examine her motivations for feeling as she does. But to try to make it a disqualifying issue is pointless.

Keep in mind, we WANT her to be the VP candidate. Her presence as Biden’s running mate is beneficial for President Trump. Here is what we know so far:

There is no shortage of avenues through which to attack Kamala Harris. Her policies, rhetoric, and qualifications are all weak. Trying to defeat her by questioning the 14th Amendment two months before ballots go out is unnecessary.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.