Harris was born in Oakland CA.
A natural born citizen refers to someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth, and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life. Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
She's a natural born U.S. citizen. End of story!
You are wrong. Read “The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How of the “natural born Citizen” Term In Our United States Constitution”: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf
“A natural born citizen refers to someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life.” You are correct as far as it goes.
But let’s go further.
The Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, simply declared Mr. Wong a ‘Citizen at birth’ as does 14A §1.
Further still, statutory construction tells us a general clause (i.e. 14A §1 Citizens at birth clause) can not govern a specific clause (i.e. No Person except a natural-born citizen — Art. II, §1, Cl. 5). Until Congress specifically states via its constitutional authority that “all citizens at birth are natural born citizens” the court MUST give each clause a separate legal effect. That is to say while all Art. II, §1, Cl. 5 natural citizens at birth are citizens by natural right, 14A §1 Citizens at Birth are statutory citizens at birth via the state’s plenary power.
I would think a naturalization process at birth would also not qualify.
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
Well this is incorrect. In the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme court went out of its way to *NOT* say Ark was "natural born". It said he was a "citizen." It did *NOT* say "natural born citizen", and if you read their argument on the case, they make it clear he is a "citizen" by the operation of the 14th amendment.
And since we've mentioned the 14th amendment, I will inform you, because nobody else will, that the 14th amendment is a naturalization process.
And you don't have to take my word for it. You can read the congressional debates on the 14th amendment, and the men who passed it through congress will tell you that it is a "naturalization". They repeatedly refer to it being a process for "naturalizing" the freed slaves, who everyone will admit at the time were not citizens.
The 14th amendment naturalizes people at birth. It is not at all the same thing as someone who is a "natural born" citizen.
SHE IS AN ANCHOR BABY....PERIOD.
ARTICLE 2
SECTION 1
Clause 5
US CONSTITUTION