This is the old “jus soli” vs “jus sanguinis” argument.
In the US, Congress has the enumerated exclusive power over naturalization. That includes who needs naturalization, who does not, who is ineligible for naturalization, and who by the conditions of their birth, are naturally born citizens. One of the very first acts of Congress was the Naturalization Act of 1790.
In the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in favor of Wong Kim Ark, a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, that he was a U.S. citizen by birth.
That is the current state of the law. That makes Harris a citizen a birth (natural born citizen). Disagree or dislike, but that is the current law. If you don’t like that, change Congress so that the SCOTUS ruling in the Ark case gets overturned.
You need to remember some basic logic and set and subset theory; and also grammatical analysis. Adjectives mean something. The terms ‘natural born Citizen” and ‘Citizen at Birth” are not logically and grammatically identical terms or identical in meaning. Again the additional adjective “natural” means something special in legal and constitutional terms. The 14th Amendment and the WKA (1898) SCOTUS decision only made WKA a basic citizen by man-made acts and only an Article I “Citizen” of the United States. They did not make the person an Article II “natural born Citizen” at birth, a person born with sole allegiance to the USA at birth by being born in the USA to parents who were both U.S. Citizens (born or naturalized Citizens) at the time their child was born.
The adjective “natural” refers to created by the laws of nature not the laws of man such as the 14th Amendment of any act of Congress of SCOTUS ruling in 1898 on basic birthright citizenship. Again, adjectives mean something. Especially in interpreting the U.S. Constitution and presidential eligibility. See this report for more details on logic and grammar when comparing terms: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2024/08/08/citizen-at-birth-term-vs-natural-born-citizen-term-grammatical-and-logical-analysis/ Also see this Euler Diagram logic showing truth and fallacy of an argument analysis which graphically shows that those two terms are not identically equal: http://www.kerchner.com/documents/pol/385966818-Kamala-Harris-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-USA-to-Constitutional-Standards.pdf
The current law, and also the law in effect at Harris’ birth, is USC 8 S3c. 1401.
Precisely
Are you claiming that the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark is determinative re the US Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen requirement ?
That is not in evidence.
Meaning this is what the current ignorant Judges will enforce as the law, but is not the same thing as to what the law really is according to original intent.
That makes Harris a citizen a birth (natural born citizen).
No it doesn't. Naturalized citizens are *NOT* natural born citizens.
Harris gets her citizenship through the 14th amendment, and only through the 14th amendment, therefore she is a naturalized citizen.