But where were her great-great-grandparents born?
Oh fabulous, we get to have the birther thing all over again.
Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis on Thursday shared a Newsweek op-ed that baselessly claims Sen. Kamala Harris may be ineligible for the vice presidency because both of her parents were not naturalized citizens at her birth.
Harris was born in Oakland, Calif. She is an American citizen and is eligible for the office. Critics, including many Republicans, denounced the piece as a new attempt at “birtherism” — the conspiracy theory that President Obama was not actually born in the U.S. — targeting the first woman of color on a presidential ticket.
Not that it looks the slightest bit racist to keep saying black Americans are not citizens.
The op-ed, penned by conservative law professor John Eastman and published Wednesday, argues that Harris might not be considered a natural-born citizen because a clause in the 14th Amendment — “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof [the U.S.]” — could preclude her given her parents’ citizenship.
Eastman’s view on birthright citizenship and presidential eligibility is not accepted by constitutional law scholars.
But hey let’s just throw it out there anyway because this kind of thing is such fun.
Ellis doubled down on her retweet, telling ABC News’ Will Steakin that she believes Harris’ citizenship is “an open question, and one I think Harris should answer so the American people know for sure she is eligible.”
Right because that’s how it worked for Obama, he produced his birth certificate because Trump was doing such a bang-up job of promoting the Not Borrn Heer bullshit and Trump went right on promoting the Not Borrn Heer bullshit just the same.
By the way, that first question is the kind of thing that I’ve seen a lot of people on Twitter demanding that some reporter ask for years now. And I think this demonstrates why it’s a waste of time.
This Birtherism 2.0 should be shoved in the face of every Republican officeholder. I’d like to know which of them are coming along for this ride, too. Hey Ted “born in Calgary” Cruz, any thoughts on the issue?
The last POTUS not “Born in the USA” did a pretty good job. A lot of failings, but he sure makes this POTUS look like a POS.
For a nation founded and built on immigrants, surely the use by of this provision has long passed.
Yes, one represents a requirement, and the other is a traditional nicety (upheld by how many POTUSs?), but maybe they should start by countering “we’ll show birth certificates when you show tax returns”?
@Roj Blake,
William Henry Harrison?
Obama. Note the ” “.
I know. I was being disingenuous (though technically, as the last president born before the Declaration of Independence, WHH was the last president that wasn’t born in the US). (Also, he didn’t have time to do anything bad in office, though his death gave us President Polk. So, mixed record at best.)
The same people saying Harris (and Obama before her) isn’t a ‘natural born’ US citizen have also decried so-called ‘anchor babies’, and they see no contradiction in this.
I’m interested in John Eastman’s theory that foreigners in the United States are not subject to its jurisdiction. Maybe that explains the American Carnage of lawlessness. All those foreigners driving up and down hooting and hollering and ripping up parking tickets because they’re not subject to the jurisdiction. Kind of like “sovereign citizens,” but not white. And the police can’t even arrest them!
Re “anchor babies”: the complainers have called Harris an “anchor baby”; they don’t want these children to be citizens, and seem to have declared Harris a non-citizen by fiat. It’s a stupid position, but I think it’s reasonably consistent.
Re “subject to the jurisdiction”: isn’t that an “out” so that children of diplomats are not citizens? There has to be a clearer way of putting that.
I’d support dropping the “natural born” requirement. I’ve also seen, relatedly, calls for opening the vote to non-citizens, and I learned that has actually been a fairly common practice in the US, moreso in the past.
I really don’t see why anyone pays any attention to what trump or his mouth pieces say?
Sackbut,
Re “subject to the jurisdiction”, that’s what I thought, but Heather Cox Richardson, who knows more about that era in US history than almost everyone, has a different explanation:
I understand the founders were worried about British agents sneaking into the country and becoming citizens only to gain the presidency and return the US to British rule. We totally would have done that and the founders were clever to make that impossible. But I am not interested in being a sleeper agent for the Crown and nor are any other British immigrants. Same goes for any other nationalities. I’m old enough to remember when Republicans supported getting rid of the “natural-born” requirement because they wanted Arnold Schwartzenegger to run for President. Funny how these principles change with the wind.
But hey, if you allow naturalized US citizens run for office, some of them might be a shade of brown that doesn’t come from a tanning salon. And if you are natural-born but not white (or whatever the fuck that makeup is that Trump wears), well, there must be some evidence that you’re not really a proper citizen. Even if it has to be made up.
Even worse – Harris attended school for 4 years in Montreal, Canada! How can she claim to be American?
https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2020/08/12/kamala-harris-selection-as-joe-bidens-vp-cheered-in-her-montreal-high-school/