Falsehoods about Kamala Harris' citizenship status, racial identity resurface online as she becomes likely Democratic nominee

CBS News ^ | July 23, 2024 | Julia Ingram and Cait Bladt

[Macho MAGA Man]

Not long after President Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris, false claims targeting her began resurfacing on social media.

Many of the falsehoods have followed her for years and focus on her citizenship status, racial identity and political achievements. Here are some of the claims.

False claims that Harris' foreign-born parents make her ineligible to run Shortly after the president's endorsement, a false narrative claiming the fact Harris' parents were not born in the U.S. makes her ineligible to hold office recirculated on social media. Posts pushing the claims received millions of views.

Harris was born in Oakland, California, to Jamaican and Indian immigrants. The fact that her parents are immigrants does not disqualify her from serving as vice president or president.

False claims about Harris' citizenship were a flashpoint last time she was on the ticket. Some have used an op-ed, written by pro-Trump lawyer John Eastman and published in Newsweek in 2020, to promote the argument that the Constitution does not grant citizenship to children of people born outside of the United States. An editor's note later appended to the opinion states: "All of us at Newsweek are horrified that this op-ed gave rise to a wave of vile Birtherism directed at Senator Harris."

[Fuzz]

That’s not a thing.

[Macho MAGA Man]

You must be born to Citizen parents to ensure sole allegiance to the United States.

[Macho MAGA Man]

(She’s eligible.)

Based on what specifically?

[RideForever]

definition of natural born?

There are only two kinds of citizens defined in the Constitution: natural born and naturalized. Mere citizenship does not satisfy the 'natural born' citizen status of having citizen parents at the time of birth, regardless of location. The 'feckless fackchuck' leaves out these concise words of qualification that are clearly written on the document. Furthermore, only Harris' dad became an 'immigrant' and became a naturalized US citizen. That is called a lie of omission, which is what you can expect to get from 'See? BS'

[WildHighlander57]

faithhopecharity wrote:

“
Hi
Mama Shyamala Gopalan (Harris) received USA Permanent Reidency 09 April 1968
per
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/foia/Shyamala_Gopalan_Harris.pdf

Daddy Donald Harris shows as having Jamaican and USA citizenship today at wiki. According to websites such as Blackpast.org,
“earned his PhD at UC in 1966 .. he later became a naturalized US citizen” so his USA citizenship dates from 1967 or later

Kamala was born Oakland CA on 29 October 1964.
Thus, not just one both both of her parents were NOT citizens of USA when she was born.
“

Many thanks for the info!

[one guy in new jersey]

The hell it’s not, Fuzz!

Points for concision, though.

—OGINJ

[one guy in new jersey]

“No epidural, vaginal birth, white parents with video evidence of the copulation that resulted in the original pregnancy, narrated by Tucker Carlson.

Read the constitution!”

adolescence much?

[Maris Crane]

OMG...the CBS crackpots are HORRIFIED....HORRIFIED.

Where do these people come up with such crap.

[Trump_Triumphant]

Cry me a river. Stop defending slime, CBS, and become a real news organization again.

[Trump_Triumphant]

Fake but accurate.

[faucetman]

“Definition of natural born?
Born on US soil to two US citizen parents

Absolutely CORRECT.

[faucetman]

“a false narrative claiming the fact Harris’ parents were not born in the U.S. makes her ineligible to hold office”

WRONG!

The fact of where her parents were born has ZERO bearing on her eligibility.

It is whether they were U.S. Citizens at the time of her birth.

That only applies to the “office” of president and vice president.

THANKS OBAMA!

[Political Junkie Too]

What if the 14th amendment were interpreted to mean the following:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject [solely] to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Isn't that really what was intended by the grammatical structure of the sentence? Wasn't "solely" implied?

If a person is in the United States on a student visa and still carries the passport of their home country, aren't they also subject to the jurisdiction of their home country simultaneously with being subject to our laws while here?

For example:

1. Suppose a person in another country has taken a sabbatical from their job and is now here in the United States on a student visa for a higher degree at a major university.

2. Suppose that person had taken some research they had been working on from their company and sold it to someone while here in the United States.

   Let's assume that:

   1. Taking the documents was theft of intellectual property according to the laws of the person's home country.

   2. Selling the documents while here was a crime according to the laws of the person's home country.

3. Wouldn't that person still be subject to arrest in their home country for stealing and selling that company's trade secrets? Being in the United States doesn't suspend their liability to the laws of their home country while here, right?

4. If the home country found about the selling of trade secrets and requested extradition of the student to face charges back home, wouldn't the United States comply? That person would be subject to the jurisdiction of their home country and also subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, right?

So didn't the 14th amendment intend for people who were born here and subject to the jurisdiction of ONLY the United States to be citizens of the United States? Wouldn't that suggest that people who were here via a passport from another country would have children adopt the citizenship of their passport country because the parents were subject to more than one jurisdiction when their child was born?

-PJ

[blitz128]

So if I was born say in France to two US born citizens I would not be eligible to be elected president?

[Kleon]

Any argument against a candidate’s eligibility that relies on the existence of a third class of citizen who is neither natural born nor naturalized is so legally dubious that it will never be taken seriously.

[fireman15]

Sorry Brian your link in post 18 does not work.

[ridesthemiles]

SHE IS A CITIZEN......

SHE IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE

LEARN IT

[ridesthemiles]

WHO WERE CITIZENS BEFORE CHILD WAS BORN

[Political Junkie Too]

Were you subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when you were born in France?

-PJ

[blitz128]

Let me try this again, family mother and father are US BORN citizens, vacationing in France and I am born there

Am I eligible to become president?