That is a different question. In a different thread perhaps.
This is about the definition of natural born citizen. Not about who qualifies. If someone fits the definition then they do qualify. I just looked at Harris’ bio. She has two non American parents, neither of whom presented diplomatic credentials to the US State Dept.
They and she were therefore subject to US jurisdiction when she was born on US soil. How can there be more debate. This is the clear specified condition.
And I have just looked at this Nikki Haley person. Born on US soil to parents, neither of whom presented diplomatic credentials to the US State Dept. And thus they and she were subject to US jurisdiction. How can there be more debate.
So are you saying that all these people clearly are natural born citizens, eligible to be president or vice president?
If so then indeed the debate is over.
The reason for the ongoing debate is that many Freepers take the position, that both of your parents must have been citizens at the time of your birth, for you to be a natural born citizen.
If now we are saying, were the parents subject to US jurisdiction at the time of your birth, regardless of their citizenship status, then that changes things.
I don’t know if you have followed the Free Republic debate on this issue, but the key issue has been, were someone’s parents American citizens, and not just living in America and subject to US jurisdiction.
The criteria people use to evaluate this, will decide whether someone thinks these people are natural born citizens.
If everyone agreed that all are natural born citizens, there would not be ongoing debate on this site on this issue.