Under Chapter 2 of the Constitution of Jamaica, a person born in Jamaica after August 5, 1962, or born outside Jamaica after that date to a parent who is a Jamaican citizen, is automatically considered a Jamaican citizen at birth. Furthermore, under current Jamaican legislation, citizens of Jamaica can hold multiple nationalities. And this status does not prohibit serving in the legislature of Jamaica!
Imagine that: a vice president or president of the United States with concurrent citizenship with another foreign government — a person with clearly divided loyalties and an ability and opportunity to participate in governmental proceedings of another country, travel on another country's passport, and legally take up residence in that country.
She is as eligible as Ted Cruz or Obama....
Wouldn’t this just be resolved by renouncing the foreign citizenship?
Blah blah blah - Barack Obama - blah blah blah. The Republicans let that horse out of the barn when they failed to stand up against Barry the Usurper.
Harris is an anchor baby. A person in line for the presidency may not hold dual citizenship.
Not that it matters.
My opinion is that she isn’t. But my opinion doesn’t matter.
There are a lot of opinions on this topic and everybody says “I’m right, here’s why …” and none of that matters.
What we need is a Supreme Court decision on what the Constitution means by Natural Born Citizen. Until that happens, it’s very hard to say “So-and-so isn’t eligible.”
This is nonsense. She was born in US. She is an American citizen. She is not responsible for Jamaica conferring citizenship on her. She does however, have to renounce her Jamaican citizenship.
The media will make sure that the public doesn’t hear about any doubts that there might be. But the moment Ted Cruz was in the running, up to the moment when he dropped out, the media was doing its best to place doubts in the mind of the public about his eligibility.
Gee I’ve missed birther threads.
The problem with all of these arguments is that people self appoint as the arbiter and authority on the clause “Natural Born Citizen” as cited by the U.S. Constitution. Then they cite Vattel, they cite English common law, they cite Free Republic and proclaim that their particular version of what constitutes a natural born citizen is the only one that is correct.
Worth a bucket full of spit.
The Supreme Court has never issued a decision on the natural born citizen and they never will. The Court considers it a political matter and they are going to let the politicians sort it out. I expect to see my favorite SCOTUS citation on this thread, it always makes an apperance. That, of course, Minor v. Heppersett which has nothing to do with natural born citizen questions, but is about women’s suffrage. People need to learn how to read SCOTUS Opinions if they want to pretend that they are experts.
Harris will be eligible if she gets the nod for VP and if she appears on the ballot in all states. Get over it.
This ship sailed long ago. There’s no unambiguous definition of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, not in legislation, nor decided upon by the Supreme Court... and even if there was, the current makeup of the supreme court means that a definition would be drawn in such a way that it would include all the edge cases that get discussed on this forum (Harris, Cruz, Obama, Rubio, Haley, etc...)
The argument made in this piece is even more specious because it contends that the citizenship laws of another nation are effectively superior to America’s. If Zimbabwe were to, for some reason, encode into it’s set of laws a declaration that every American citizen also a Zimbabwean citizen at birth, then by this author’s logic, nobody could be president.
By some people’s logic, orphans, adopted children, or children who don’t know their true parentage would also not be considered natural born citizens unless both genetic parents were identified and confirmed as US citizens without dual loyalties to another nation.
I don’t know where surrogacy, invitro fertilization or C-section births fit in this discussion, but it makes an absurd argument even moreso.
Can see it already... Biden’s team appoints her. Repubs declare her ineligible, Dems scream racism!
The Constitution is optional, per SCOTUS. No need for Kamala to worry about Constitutional sop.
If you look black, the rules don’t apply.
That ship sailed with Obama.
It’s not that hard to come up with a cogent and reasonable definition of natural born citizen as it applies to qualification for the Office of the President. Lurkinanloomin’s not bad, but his opinion and this author’s opinion doesn’t count. Fodder for cocktail party chatter.
Those two versions are not the only ones out there. Lots of variables in this one. I have not heard a new and original idea since the birther threads in the Obama era. None of them were resolved. I think that I will go back to my watch over the Flynn case.
Except Stacey Abrams, who would love the chance to call herself the “real Vice President” regardless of the result, :)
Could somebody please “put a bug” in Clarence Thomas’ ear and get this issue settled with a firm definition. Pretty please?
You have answered your own question. The Constitution is no longer valued. Social Justice, fighting racism[whatever that is],Black Lives Matter, Fighting White Privilege[ whatever that is. is what is valued today. America’s god barrack obama declared the Constitution to be a flawed Document. America agreed.
Here’s a question: WHY did the founding fathers require natural born citizenship? It’s because they wanted LOYAL presidents. My opinion is that any case brought before the court would have to show proof of the candidate’s loyalty.
More from the article: “...Kamala Harris, United States senator, former candidate for the president of the United States, and current prospective candidate for vice president in the upcoming election, has competing foreign citizenship with the country of Jamaica and preferential status with the country of India.
“If Harris is picked by Biden, what does that say about the vetting process? Americans would be asked to vote for a ticket that has a foreign citizen candidate — precisely the type of candidate that the Founding Fathers were trying to preclude. What sense does that make? The whole purpose of Article 2 and the natural born citizen requirement is to ensure that the president and commander-in-chief have no foreign influence whatsoever.
“Clearly, Kamala Harris has no respect for the Constitution. Her lack of transparency regarding her background combined with her naked political ambition is an affront to all law-abiding citizens and those who seek to uphold the Constitution. Others from both parties have chosen to subvert Article 2 [Article II, Section 1, Clause 5]in the past three election cycles.”