Is Kamala Harris eligible to be Joe Biden's VP?

I can’t believe you would actually argue that communist Chinese and Anwar al-Awlaki’s kids are natural born citizens eligible to be President.

And per the 12th Amendment that restriction was extended to the VP.

Technically that restriction extended to the VP before the 12th as well. Since the VP was just the runner-up, he would have needed to qualify for all Presidential requirements anyway!

In a country where the rule of law prevails that would matter.

We’d need a constitutional amendment to fix this, but it’ll never happen.

Not true.
Wong was just a citizen

No, we need to elect people with integrity and sense.

Wong Kim Ark Reasoning
Among politicians and members of the mainstream news media, the consensus of opinion is that anyone born on U.S. soil (other than the child of a foreign
diplomat or alien enemy) is a natural born citizen. This consensus opinion is based largely on Justice Gray’s reasoning in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
Provided below is an excerpt from Leo C. Donofrio, Esq., Amicus Brief (Jan. 23, 2012, pp.31-39), explaining that Justice Gray’s reasoning relied heavily on
misrepresentations of prior Supreme Court decisions. Justice Gray cited four Supreme Court cases purportedly showing that the jus soli principle of English
common law controlled the meaning of federal (United States) citizenship prior to the 14th Amendment. However, none of those four cases supports
Justice Gray’s contention.
Prior to Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court had consistently maintained that children born on U.S. soil acquire, at birth, their fathers’ citizenship. Not one
U.S. Supreme Court decision (prior to Wong Kim Ark) had established the English common law rule of jus soli citizenship.

Well your opinion is that he is just a citizen. SCOTUS said that he was a citizen at birth i.e natural born as in not needing naturalization. There are only two types of citizens. Those who were naturalized and became citizens, and those that were, by the conditions of their birth, recognized as being born a citizen.

Given the fact that this topic deals with law and interpretation of the Constitution, I will go with the SCOTUS rulling for my understanding.

Well, jus soli is the current law of the land. Witness title 8 section 1401. If you do not like that interpretation, elect those to congress that agree with your position and have the willingness to make a change to the law.

The phrase “born citizen” was proposed by Alexander Hamilton to replace “citizen”. That proposed change was considered in committee. A vote was held. The change was rejected. Only later was the NBC phrase considered and, obviously, approved.

Yes, the disease started with Republicans in the 19th century but the Democrats have a more consistently virulent strain.

The phrase “born citizen” was proposed by Alexander Hamilton to replace “citizen”. That proposed change was considered in committee. A vote was held. The change was rejected. Only later was the NBC phrase considered and, obviously, approved.

Hamilton's proposal was that,

"no person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the states, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

His proposal did not use the term natural citizen or natural born citizen.

Article IX § 1 in Appendix F of the Hamilton Plan of June 18, 1787, 3 Farrand's Records at page 629.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr003449))

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
3 Farrand's Records 617 at 629-630
Article IX § 1 in Appendix F of the Hamilton Plan of June 18, 1787

On page 617, Farrand's Records indicated, concerning different content:

In connection with his important speech of June 18, Hamilton read a sketch of a plan of government which "was meant only to give a more correct view of his ideas, and to suggest the amendments which he should probably propose to the plan of Mr. R. in the proper stages of its future discussion."2
[Note 2: 2 See Records of June 18, and Appendix A, CCXXXIII, CCLXXI, CCXCII, CCXCIV--CCXCVI, CCCIX, CCCXI, CCCXII, CCCXXIV, CCCXXVIII, CCCXXIX, CCCLIV, CCCLXVII, CCCLXXX, CCCXCVII, CCCCI.]
Although this plan was not formally before the Convention in any way, several of the delegates made copies that show considerable differences in certain articles, -- namely, the fourth, seventh and eighth.

On page 619, Farrand's Records indicated, with respect to the paper with quoted content about presidential eligibility and being a citizen, the following:

The document that has just been discussed is to be distinguished from the following, which was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton.1
[Note 1: 1 See references under note 2, above.]
Copy of a paper Communicated to J. M. by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philada. 1787, which he said delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention: He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.

Hamilton's never-proposed plan followed.

The content correctly attributed to Hamilton was something he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention. It was never submitted to the Convention. After the rest of the New York delegation walked out of the Convention early, Hamilton had no power to act. The document is only the personal opinion of Hamilton as recorded in an Appendix, and was never considered or voted upon.

The phrase "natural born citizen" was hand-written, with the underscore emphasis, by John Jay to George Washington. Jay was in New York and Washington was presiding at Philadelpia.

https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/ldpd:68356

The handwritten letter by John Jay of 27 July 1776 may be viewed at the above link.

Jay stated, "Permit me to hint, whether or not it would be wise & reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen."

Jay specifically cited the Command in Chief of the american armed forces which had not then been decided to be a duty of the President.

There are but two classes of United States citizen, natural and naturalized, Natural citizens become citizens at the instant of birth, pursuant to either the 14th Amendment or statute Federal law. Naturalized citizens are those who become citizens at some time after their birth, by virtue of naturalization law and judicial process. Natural born citizens are those who become citizens at birth. With explicit emphasis on the word born, it is clear that natural citizens are born and do not acquire citizenship after birth via legal process.

All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are born citizens of the United States. Those not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are those who have a parent who enjoys diplomatic immunity, or the child of foreign invaders who are on American land at the time of the birth of the child. Subject to the jurisdiction means subject to our laws. Were aliens not subject to our laws, they could rape and murder and would be immune from prosecution by our judicial process. Such is not the case. Kamala Harris was born in California. Neither of her parents enjoyed diplomatic immunity. She was born subject to U.S. laws. She is a natural citizen. She was born a citizen.

https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%2520CASE%2520LIST.pdf

The Birther Scorecard lists, in alphabetical order, 226 acts of birther futility in attempting to argue birther blather to a court.

Below is a summary of one of the acts of futulity by the article author, Charles Kerchner. Kerchner is case number 92 on the list, found at page 29 of 84. CDR Kerchner not only lost his case, an Order was issued for him to pay the costs of litigation.

Kerchner et al v. Obama et al, D.N.J. (Federal) 1:09-cv-00253-JBS-JS,
DISMISSED
3rd Circuit: H09-4209 DISMISSAL AFFIRMED
Costs taxed against Kerchner Show Cause (Sanctions) Order Issued
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
DENIED (No. 10-446)

William Rawle's treatise on Constitutional law was published in 1825 and it was used at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point as a textbook.

http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_09.htm

A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION
of the United States of America.

BY WILLIAM RAWLE, LL.D.

SECOND EDITION. PHILADELPHIA: PHILIP H. NICKLIN, LAW BOOKSELLER, NO. 175, CHESTNUT STREET. 1829.

CHAPTER IX.
OF THE ENUMERATED POWERS OF CONGRESS.

[excerpt]

It cannot escape notice, that no definition of the nature and rights of citizens appears in the Constitution. The descriptive term is used, with a plain indication that its meaning is understood by all, and this indeed is the general character of the whole instrument. Except in one instance, it gives no definitions, but it acts in all its parts, on qualities and relations supposed to be already known. Thus it declares, 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 to the office of president — that no person shall be a senator who shall not have been nine years a citizen of the United States, nor a representative who has not been such a citizen seven years, and it will therefore be not inconsistent with the scope and tendency of the present essay, to enter shortly into the nature of citizenship.
In a republic the sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people. Those only who compose the people, and partake of this sovereignty are citizens, they alone can elect, and are capable of being elected to public offices, and of course they alone can exercise authority within the community: they possess an unqualified right to the enjoyment of property and personal immunity, they are bound to adhere to it in peace, to defend it in war, and to postpone the interests of all other countries to the affection which they ought to bear for their own.
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that be so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.
The mode by which an alien may become a citizen, has a specific appellation which refers to the same principle. It is descriptive of the operation of law as analogous to birth, and the alien, received into the community by naturalization, enjoys all the benefits which birth has conferred on the other class.

Natural citizenship by birth within the territory and jurisdiction was not a new concept that came along with the 14th Amendment. It was an old and existing concept that was placed beyond the reach of the Congress to change.

In the Senate debate of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment on May 30, 1866, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the clause in question, stated:

Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session
May 30, 1866
Page 2890

"I can’t believe you would actually argue that communist Chinese and Anwar al-Awlaki’s kids are natural born citizens eligible to be President."

I can't believe that you don't understand that your personal incredulity is not a legal argument.