Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

natural born Citizen: Kamala Harris

natural born Citizen: Kamala Harris

There are many reasons to vote against Kamala Harris, but she is eligible to be Vice President (and potentially, President), just as were Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz.

There are rumblings that Kamala Harris may not be eligible to be Vice President under the 12th Amendment, by virtue of her not being eligible to be President since she is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ (“no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States”).

The theory is that while she was born in the United States (Oakland, CA), some combination of her parents not being citizens at the time or not being naturally born Citizens themselves renders her not a natural born Citizen.

I examined a similar issue in 2013 with regard to Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Ted Cruz, and concluded in an 11,000-word analysis that they were eligible. See my post, natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz.

I see nothing that distinguishes Harris from those three Republicans, even assuming her parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth in Oakland. There are many reasons to vote against Kamala Harris, but she is eligible.

This is not something I’m eager to write about because the emails will never stop. The new theories will never stop. I’ve looked into the theories of natural law and so on, and addressed them in my prior post. Please read it.

I will repeat here only the Summary and Conclusion sections of that prior post.

1. Summary

There are few eligibility requirements to be President.  You don’t have to be smart, wise, experienced, honest, educated, or a particular gender or race.

Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution provides, in pertinent part (emphasis added):

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

For people currently alive, the three requirements are: “natural born Citizen”; age 35; resident of U.S. for 14 years.

Whether a candidate is a “natural born Citizen” has been the subject of political controversy for well over a century, dating back at least to Chester Arthur, who Democrats at the time alleged was born in Canada, not Vermont.  Among others, John McCain, Barack Obama, and George Romney have had their eligibility questioned.

This political season, the eligibilities of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz are the subject of debate.

As much as we want certainty, the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution, in the writings or history of those who framed the Constitution, or in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time the Constitution was drafted.  Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on the issue, and it probably never will.

The modifier “natural born” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and its precise origins are unclear, although  it is assumed to be derived in some manner from the British common and statutory law governing “natural born Subjects.”

There are two ends of the spectrum as which just about everyone agrees:  (1) A person born in the United States to parents both of whom are United States citizens is a “natural born Citizen”; and (2) a person born outside the United States to parents neither of whom is a United States citizen is not a “natural born Citizen” even if citizenship later is obtained through naturalization.  These are what law professor Lawrence Solum refers to as “cases of inclusion and exclusion.

Rubio, Jindal and Cruz, as did Obama, fall between those points of inclusion and exclusion.  Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to parents neither of whom was a United States citizen at the time; Cruz was born in Canada to parents one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen.

Under the law existing at the time of their birth, each became a citizen of the United States at birth.  Rubio and Jindal by the 14th Amendment, Cruz by statute.

I’ve spent a considerable amount of time examining the issue of what “natural born Citizen” means in this context.  While concepts such as “jus soli,” jus sanguinus” and “natural law” are part of the equation, such concepts do not adequately answer the question, no matter how many times or how vigorously they are repeated.  Similarly, relying on statutes governing citizenship does not answer what “natural born Citizen” means in the Constitution and does not render the question trivial.

There is a false construct all around that this is a purely legal question subject to some absolutely right or wrong conclusion.  We should all just admit that we don’t really know for sure what “natural born Citizen” means or meant between the points of inclusion and exclusion.

So what to do in a constitutionally and politically important area in which there is no clear legal answer?

The key to understanding why I reach that conclusion that Rubio, Jindal and Cruz are “natural born Citizens” requires understanding the problem.

There are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz each being a “natural born Citizen” as that term most reasonably can be understood through its plain text because they became citizens by birth.  Their “natural born Citizen[ship]” also is consistent with the concepts, respectively, of citizenship by birth place (Rubio, Jindal) and parentage (Cruz), from which the term “natural born Citizen” is believed to derive historically.

The arguments that the term “natural born Citizen” excludes Rubio and Jindal (because their parents were not citizens) or Cruz (because he was born abroad to a citizen mother only) at most raise doubts.  Those doubts, however, never rise anywhere near the level of making the case that Rubio, Jindal and Cruz are excluded.  Most of the counter-arguments are historical conjecture, at best, and rely on speculation not connected to the text of the Constitution or any demonstrable actual intent or understanding of the Framers.

In the circumstance of candidates who appear to qualify based on the text of the Constitution and the traditions upon which “natural born Citizen[ship]” is believed to derive, and as to whom there are at worst some doubts raised, I believe the proper constitutional outcome is to leave the issue to the political process.  To exclude apparently eligible candidates based on speculation as to what the term “natural born Citizen” might have meant is no better, and I would argue much worse.

Remember, these are merely eligibility requirements, not requirements that a person be elected.  It would be consistent with the Framers’ demonstrable concerns to consider loyalty to the United States as a political factor, even if not absolutely legally disqualifying.  If you don’t trust the loyalty of a candidate because of how he or she became a “natural born Citizen,” don’t vote for the person.

I set forth below my approach and reasoning.

Here’s the Conclusion:

* * *

14. CONCLUSION – It’s The Text

By now your heads must be spinning. It’s understandable. This is a very confusing area as to which scholars acting in good faith disagree, although there is a clear weight of authority. But those disagreements, in a sense, are the solution.

A reasonable reading of the plain text of the Constitution supports Rubio, Jindal and Cruz being “natural born Citizen[s]” because they were citizens by birth. There is no clear, demonstrable intent otherwise from the Framers or clear, commonly understood use of the term to the contrary at the time of drafting the Constitution. The British term “natural born Subject” as well as concepts of “natural law” were not clearly relied upon by the Framers, and are in themselves not clearly contradictory to this plain reading of the text.

The burden should be on those challenging otherwise eligible candidates to demonstrate through clear and convincing historical evidence and legal argument why such persons should be disqualified. That has not happened so far, and if two hundred years of scholarship is any indication, it never will happen.

The ultimate arbiter on the issue likely is to be voters, not Supreme Court Justices.

It is for these reasons that I believe Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz are eligible to be President.

There you go. You want the reasoning, read the prior post.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“There are few eligibility requirements to be President. You don’t have to be smart, wise, experienced, honest, educated, or a particular gender or race.”

Given half a chance I’ll bet Chief Justice John Roberts could find all sorts of eligibility requirements undetectable even with an electron microscope. He is the undisputed king at legal hallucination and wishful judicial thinking.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | August 12, 2020 at 9:01 pm

Professor, my bets are on Democrats spreading that meme….just like the bed jumping Russian…..

Antifundamentalist | August 12, 2020 at 9:02 pm

Last I checked, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution states that persons born in the US are citizens of the US. No mention made there of citizenship status of the parent. So, like it or not, Harris is a natural born citizen. And all the more reason for non-dems to get out and vote in person at the ballot boxes this November.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | August 12, 2020 at 9:09 pm

There are bigger Kamala fish to fry…….

Harris support child abuse per Tucker interview tonight

AS SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY, KAMALA HARRIS’S OFFICE STOPPED COOPERATING WITH VICTIMS OF CATHOLIC CHURCH CHILD ABUSE

https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/kamala-harris-san-francisco-catholic-church-child-abuse/

Victims question Kamala Harris’ record on clergy abuse – AP

Eligible, but MAN, she is low rent.

    Anybody heard any good Kamala Harris jokes? (The following are original, btw:)

    Has anyone heard about Kamala Harris’ new semen-resistant lipstick?

    After she loses the election, what motel chain will Harris be a spokesperson for?

    What’s the difference between Kamala Harris and Stormy Daniels? Stormy Daniels serviced better clientele.

    What’s the difference between Kamala Harris and Stormy Daniels? Stormy Daniels actually worked for a living.

    Why was Kamala Harris booted out of NASA’s astronaught program? Because NASA figured she’d make too much of a mess in a zero-g environment.

    Carnak says: Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Mooochelle Obama and kamala harris. What is a snob, a blog, a slob and a swab?

    Why does Kamala Harris love air travel? Because every plane has a cockpit.

    Why does Kamala Harris never wear panties? Because one never know when an easy job in politics might pass your way.

    ****************

    Attention, all hypocrites: Here are David Letterman’s foul sex jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughter:

    https://newrepublic.com/article/50212/lettermans-slut-jokes

    You’ve got to give Sarah Palin this: she didn’t whore her way up.

      The new name of the Biden/Harris ticket: Joe Blow

      I never bought into Palin’s Pentecostalism, but when Tina Fey and others joked about her thinking Russia was right next to Alaska, it made me ashamed to be a sophisticated [?] East Coast person.

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Kepha H. | August 13, 2020 at 12:30 am

        Assemblies of God

        malclave in reply to Kepha H. | August 14, 2020 at 3:25 am

        I thought Tina Fey’s joke about seeing Russia from her house was funny. I certainly don’t think it was wrong for Fey, as a comedian, to have capitalized on her resemblance to Palin. Instead, I was put off by Lorne Michaels and others in their decision to ONLY mock the GOP.

        Even more so, I disliked the derivative jokes by Leno and others. Not only were they lazy, they were misleading. Sure, people recognized them as jokes, but I ran across plenty of people who thought Palin, not Fey, made the “from my house” statement because of Leno.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to TheFineReport.com. | August 13, 2020 at 12:52 am

      Why don’t you ever see Kamala and Juicy Smollett
      in the same place at the same time?????

      WAITING for the punch lines…….

She will pull the same tricks as Obama. She and Biden will attack Trump viciously, but every time he says anything bad about her, the Dems will cry “Racist, Sexist!!”

If she were to get elected, it would also be like with Obama, where you couldn’t criticize the President, or you’ll get accused of being a racist. It’s about time that everyone discovered the new definition of “racist:” Anyone who doesn’t vocally advocate left-wing politics.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to OldProf2. | August 13, 2020 at 12:38 am

    Unlike Manchurian Candidate Obama who was purposely kept off the record on everything in his fake stealing of Elections up till his announcement to run for president and 2008, Kamala and Biden are on the records with thousands and thousands of Clips documenting their Insanity, un-Americanism and treason!

    All the Republicans have to do is run ads with nothing but the words of Kamal and Biden.

    Louis Davout in reply to OldProf2. | August 16, 2020 at 5:17 am

    Oh come on now, this is 2020…

    The term “racist” is so 2019… It does’nt mean shit anymore…

She’s a nothing, just like most VPs. Biden will never give it up, even when he needs certain measures of assistance.

Gotta wonder if she and Bill Kristol have a personal relationship. Speaking of cuckholds, what do we hear from George Conway?

Trump will have more flexibility, after the election.

    Biden won’t have a choice on “giving it up” after a certain point in his deterioration.

    The question is whether it will be Jill or Kamala (or another puppet master) running the show.

    malclave in reply to NotKennedy. | August 14, 2020 at 3:33 am

    Democrats in the past argued for removing Trump through the 25th Amendment. I could see the 25th legitimately used against Biden if he is elected and continues to deteriorate.

Thank you, Dr. Jacobsen. I teach government in HS, but worked as a consular officer for several years. For that work, you had to know US immigration law backward and forwards.

When teaching, I let slip I supported Cruz for president, and got bombarded because “He isn’t a natural-born citizen”, then berated for having opposed Obama, supposedly because all conservatives thought him a Kenyan–protestations that I never doubted his citizenship but just didn’t like his views on a number of issues. When I tried to explain to people that both the US and Canada recognize both Jus Solis and Jus Sanguinis citizenship, my interlocutors seemed utterly incredulous.

A major issue with Harris is that she wishes to criminalize the mere questioning of ths climate change narrative. As a high official and lawyer, she should know the First Amendment is bedrock. But she strikes me as someone who’d really like to chip away at Constitutional liberties in order to empower her clients and hang onto power herself.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Kepha H. | August 12, 2020 at 10:33 pm

    KKKommonist KKKamala is NO moderate.

    She is a full blown Communist, and a watermelon Communist at that- Green on the outside to deceive but 100% Communist Red, on the inside.

    See the posted Tucker clip above for the details.

How is citizenship of an unPlanned child who is subject to two or more jurisdictions resolved? For example, alien mother and citizen father, or both aliens?

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to n.n. | August 13, 2020 at 12:33 am

    Well heck, a Kenyan citizen has already been POTUS.

    Milhouse in reply to n.n. | August 13, 2020 at 2:15 am

    Each country determines its own citizenship laws, and not those of any other country. If a child’s parents are citizens of different countries, and both of those countries’ laws bestow their citizenship on the child, then the child is a citizen of both countries. If the child is born in a third country then it will likely be a citizen of all three. Or more, since each parent may have more than one citizenship.

    PLEASE don’t tell me you’ve never heard of dual (or more) citizenship. Literally millions of people, including hundreds of thousands of Americans, hold multiple citizenships.

      Not that they should, but many do. (Gets into that whole 1812 War thing.)

        Milhouse in reply to GWB. | August 13, 2020 at 11:40 am

        There’s no reason they shouldn’t. The War of 1812 was not about dual citizenship but about the right to renounce citizenship. The sailors in question were former UK citizens, at least as far as they and the USA were concerned, but the UK didn’t recognize the renunciation and thus felt entitled to draft them. (Many European countries were doing this right up to about 20 years ago; emigrants’ children could not visit their parents’ homeland without being arrested for draft dodging.)

      lawgrad in reply to Milhouse. | August 13, 2020 at 11:29 am

      Many people end up with dual citizenship. In many cases, when they become adults, they renounce one of their citizenships in order to avoid dual taxation.

With the greatest respect, I understand her citizenship of the United states is not the issue but rather her citizenship of India and Jamaica.

My question is simply:- Can a citizen of India be POTUS?

    daniel_ream in reply to Rob. | August 13, 2020 at 1:19 am

    This is the central point of the arguments I’ve seen – they don’t dispute that she’s a natural born citizen of the US, they point out that under Indian or Jamaican law she is a citizen of those countries, having been born to citizens of those countries. Allegedly there’s no evidence that she’s ever renounced those citizenship(s). The US doesn’t allow dual citizenship; what happens in this corner case?

      NavyMustang in reply to daniel_ream. | August 13, 2020 at 6:47 am

      My wife is a dual citizen of the US and Germany. Kept her German citizenship due to business dealings we had in Germany.

      And I am a dual citizen of the US and Ireland. My parents were born and raised in Ireland.

      As it stands now, if a child has one parent who was born in Ireland, even if they are not still an Irish citizen, that child is an Irish citizen.

      The US government doesn’t even blink about someone being a dual citizen.

        The US government doesn’t even blink about someone being a dual citizen.
        And this, to me, is an undermining of our Constitution. We fought a war over it (War of 1812). It’s part of the Foggy Bottom program of assimilated globalism. (When I turned 18, I had to announce my choice of citizenship, because my birth country – born to American citizens – wasn’t one of the handful favored with dual citizenship. Things have changed much in 4 decades.)

          Milhouse in reply to GWB. | August 13, 2020 at 11:49 am

          No, we didn’t fight a war about dual citizenship, we fought a war (ostensibly) about the right to voluntarily renounce citizenship and be free of the obligations that come with it.

          At least as far as US law is concerned you didn’t have to renounce your foreign citizenship, but it used to be Foggy Bottom’s policy to bamboozle people into doing so anyway. That is what happened to you. They finally stopped that policy about 20 years ago, because too many people were on to it.

          Now you’re showing your colors, Milhouse. You’re being pedantic, as well as ignoring context and foundational premises of our nation.

          You’re also wrong wit this statement:
          At least as far as US law is concerned you didn’t have to renounce your foreign citizenship

          You’re a pretty knowledgeable dude, but on this one you’re very wrong.

          Milhouse in reply to GWB. | August 13, 2020 at 6:20 pm

          No, GWB, you are incorrect.

          Not one of our nation’s foundational premises rejected dual citizenship.

          Your assertion that we fought a war against it is just wrong. We did not. The difference between allowing dual citizenship and requiring it is not pedantry, it’s fundamental.

          And so is your claim that you were forced by US law to renounce your foreign citizenship. You were likely misled into thinking that was so, but it was not.

        herm2416 in reply to NavyMustang. | August 13, 2020 at 9:20 am

        However, it DOES blink at dual loyalties.

      The US has no choice about dual citizenship. It is now recognized because the US cannot change the nationality laws of other countries.

        GWB in reply to exfed. | August 13, 2020 at 9:22 am

        Untrue. It certainly has the right to revoke the US citizenship of anyone who exercises citizenship under the authority of another country. All it practically has to do is mark them as citizens of another country, and act on that premise in its dealings with them (such as denying re-entry and the right to vote). Legally, it would need to revoke the dual citizenship laws/regulations.

          Milhouse in reply to GWB. | August 13, 2020 at 11:45 am

          No, the USA does not have the right to revoke the US citizenship of anyone who exercises citizenship under the authority of another country. The US constitution forbids it. US citizenship, once validly obtained, cannot be revoked for any reason without the person’s consent. And there is nothing Congress can do, no law it can pass, that would change that. It would require a constitutional amendment.

          Yes, Milhouse, it does. Or there’s absolutely no sovereignty at all.

          The US constitution forbids it.
          OK, now you’re just making sh*t up. It does no such thing.

          without the person’s consent.
          That would be considered given by the person exercising the privileges of citizenship in another country.

          Milhouse in reply to GWB. | August 13, 2020 at 6:25 pm

          GWB, once again you’re just wrong. There is no dispute that the US constitution forbids involuntarily revoking US citizenship.

          And no, exercising the privileges of citizenship in another country does not automatically signal an intention to renounce US citizenship. It might indicate such an intention, but the person can deny he intended it, and he wins. In fact he can even explicitly renounce US citizenship, but if he can show that he didn’t mean it, e.g. by producing a letter he sent the local US embassy beforehand informing it of his intentions, then he keeps his citizenship. That’s the constitution.

    Milhouse in reply to Rob. | August 13, 2020 at 2:24 am

    Rob and Daniel, the only “issue” being raised is whether she’s a natural born citizen of the USA. The answer is, yes she is. Her potential citizenship of other countries is not being raised by anyone, because it is NOT even potentially an issue.

    A citizen of India can absolutely be POTUS; there is not even the slightest question about that.

    And Daniel, the US certainly does “allow” dual citizenship — it has no power not to allow it. This is not a “corner case”. I have no idea whether she holds any foreign citizenships, but if she does more power to her. It might be good politics for her to renounce them, but she is not required to do so.

      A citizen of India can absolutely be POTUS; there is not even the slightest question about that.
      And this is where I would vehemently disagree. The “natural born citizen” bit was specifically so that someone who held allegiance to another nation couldn’t be in charge of ours. Europe had dealt with that for centuries, and the Founders didn’t like the results. Given that they designed the gov’t around the will of the citizens of the USA, giving executive power to someone with strings to another country was a total non-starter.

      it has no power not to allow it
      Baloney. All it has to do is revoke US citizenship if citizenship of another power is declared. Period. It has all the power in the world to do so – if it wills.

        Milhouse in reply to GWB. | August 13, 2020 at 11:53 am

        No, it has no power to do that. The constitution says US citizenship cannot ever be revoked. It doesn’t even say it can be voluntarily renounced, but that’s understood. But involuntarily it can never be taken away — provided, of course, that the person was a citizen in the first place.

        All so-called “expatriation” cases are about people who were pretending to be citizens and it’s now discovered that are not, e.g. they were lying about their birthplace, or their naturalization was invalid, or that terrorist from Alabama whose father was a foreign diplomat when she was born.

          The constitution says US citizenship cannot ever be revoked.
          The word “citizen” occurs 23 times in the original text* and the amendments. Not once does it speak of removing or denying citizenship.
          (* So, including all the bits that have been excised by various amendments.)

          It doesn’t even say it can be voluntarily renounced
          The Constitution doesn’t talk about a LOT of things. That doesn’t make them un-doable.

          You’re arguing an idiotic line of reasoning (aside from you being wrong) that would make our Constitution and laws into a suicide pact, and unrecognizable by the men who wrote them.

          Please stop it, because you’re embarrassing yourself.

          it can be voluntarily renounced
          And, again, exercising the privileges of any other citizenship – except to a globalist, to whom borders and sovereignty don’t matter – would be a voluntary revocation (in a sane world) of US citizenship.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | August 13, 2020 at 6:32 pm

          No, GWB, you’re embarrassing yourself, because what I’m writing isn’t in any dispute. Consult any expert on the subject and you will find out exactly what I’m telling you. The Supreme Court was very clear on this, longer ago than most of us have been alive. The 14th amendment says anyone born here, or naturalized, is a citizen. Not “can be”, or “is provisionally”, or “unless Congress says otherwise”. It defines such a person as a citizen, end of story.

          Voluntary renunciation is just assumed to be valid, but there’s no textual basis for it. But exercising the privileges of another citizenship does not in any way prove the person intends to renounce this one. Most dual citizens want both citizenships, and don’t want to lose one by exercising another. And without such an intention the citizenship stays.

Great question

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | August 13, 2020 at 1:25 am

Hmmmmmm…..

Zero Hedge Fund

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich

“The notion that New Zealand is serving as a refuge for billionaires wary of a global crisis originated from a January 2017 story in the New Yorker entitled “Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich.” Venture capitalist Sam Altman told the publication in 2016 that he planned to fly with Thiel to New Zealand in the event of a global pandemic.”

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/why-us-billionaires-want-property-in-new-zealand

They ALL knew in 2016 exactly what was going to unfold in 2020.

Even Jack Ma from China.

What a cosmic coinkydink.

    Don’t be an idiot. There is nothing in that piece to indicate they had any idea what was coming in 2020. Everybody in 2016 knew that sooner or later there would be another global pandemic, just as everyone now knows that after this one is over there will eventually be another one, and another one after that, and so on. If you didn’t know that in 2016 you’re probably the only one in the world.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | August 13, 2020 at 1:50 am

Food for thought….

“Trump Destroys Abusive Democrats In Stimulus Showdown
President Trump won re-election this weekend with his four executive orders.

We haven’t even reached the DNC convention in Milwaukee and it looks to me like this election season is over.

I know the polls keep trying to convince me that Joe Biden, most likely suffering from dementia, is leading President Trump but I just don’t buy it.

And neither do the Democrats.

Because if they did they wouldn’t be so desperate to push through unlimited mail-in voting as their political hill to die on.

And die on it they have.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi held up a new round of stimulus legislation over this issue. The massive gap between the GOP and DNC proposals highlight only part of the political divide between the two sides (see graphic, H/T Zerohedge).
The real divide was in enshrining in law the kind of mail-in voting which would ensure near unlimited cheating and ballot harvesting which would give the Democrats their best chance at “winning the election.”

Pelosi thought she had Trump cornered on this because he had to cave to spend that $1.7 trillion he’s already collected through treasury auctions which prove the Big Lie that the dollar is about to die false.

But all he had to do was make payroll tax irrelevant for a majority of taxpayers in this country…..”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/luongo-trump-won-re-election-weekend

While I accept that the current consensus is that people who are born US citizens abroad are “natural born citizens”, if (as seems very likely) the term was directly taken from the common law term “natural born subject” then Harris (and Rubio, Jindal, and McCain) qualifies but Cruz (and George Romney) doesn’t.

As Blackstone explains, a “natural born subject” of a sovereign was one who was born under the protection of that sovereign’s laws. Basically, had someone tried to murder the child at birth, whose police would have arrested them and under whose laws would they have been tried.

Harris, Jindal, and Rubio were all born under the protection of US law. So was McCain, since his father was US military and thus the family was protected by US law, much like those of diplomats. Whereas Cruz and G. Romney were not protected at birth by US law; had they been murdered at birth the US would have done nothing about it. Young Rafael was protected by Canadian law, and Baby George by Mexican law. So according to Blackstone their “natural” loyalty was owed to those sovereigns, not to the USA.

    lichau in reply to Milhouse. | August 13, 2020 at 10:02 am

    Interesting.
    As I recall, McCain wasn’t actually born on the military base, he was born in the civilian hospital.
    The case I have found curious was Goldwater. He was born in Arizona before it became a State. No one challenged his citizenship, but he was going to lose in a landslide anyway.

      Milhouse in reply to lichau. | August 13, 2020 at 11:56 am

      In my opinion it doesn’t matter whether McCain was born on the base; the fact that his parents were there as a US military family made them subject to US jurisdiction, just like diplomats.

      There was never any question about Goldwater. The Arizona Territory was part of the United States. The whole idea that he might not have been born a citizen is absurd. It’s like claiming that someone born in DC is not a citizen because DC is not a state!

        Kepha H in reply to Milhouse. | August 13, 2020 at 2:03 pm

        If you are a US citizen who has lived five years in the USA, two of which were after the age of 14 years, you transmit citizenship to a child born abroad, even if you are a teacher living on the other country’s local economy and emlployed by one of its public or private entities. That was my situation when my elder son was born. You don’t have to be born to US military or diplomatic personnel. Our jus sanguinis citizenship covers many more Americans abroad.

        The USA and a lot of other countries (often nice, nespectable ones) make loss of nationality hard. That was one reason why Sen. Cruz ended up renoncing his Canadian nationality in the course of his presidential campaign–and my own guess is that he was probably scarcely aware that he was Canadian under Canadian law after spending his life as an American.

        For the USA, becoming head of state or policy-level official in a foreign government is the way to lose US nationality. Perhaps the most noteworthy case of loss of US nationality was Bhumibol Adulyadej, the late king of Thailand, who was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts while his father was studying public health (and mother accompanying his father).

        As for jus solis citizenship, even at the height of anti-Chinese sentiment in the USA, the US Supreme Court determined that Wong Kim Ark’s birth in SF made him a US citizen, and not excludable under the Chinese Exclusion Act (US v. Wong Kim Ark, 1896).

        Much as I was never an Obama supporter and disliked his policies immensely, I always thought that American conservatives did nothing but bark up the wrong tree and embarrass themselves in trying to prove he was not a “natural born” citizen.

        Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | August 13, 2020 at 6:39 pm

        Kepha, nobody denies that your son was born with US citizenship. Not by the 14th amendment, but by statute. The question is whether that means he’s a “natural born citizen” and is thus eligible for the presidency.

        The current legal consensus seems to be that he is, because it reads “natural born citizen” as the same thing as “citizen at birth”.

        But Blackstone would indicate otherwise. In Blackstone’s day a child born abroad to a UK subject was not a “natural born subject” of the UK, unless the father was one of “the king’s embassadors”. And he explains why; UK diplomats abroad are still under UK jurisdiction, but ordinary subjects are under the local jurisdiction. UK law protects its diplomats abroad, but local law protects ordinary UK subjects. So if the framers had Blackstone’s definition in mind, then they would have intended that your son, although a US citizen at birth, would not be eligible for the presidency.

    Except Blackstone (by your quote) totally ignores people living illegally in that sovereign’s jurisdiction. They are arguably still loyal to their home country, and that should be an important determining factor (arguably a more important one) beside the “who will arrest them.”

    Yes, before you throw down with your pedantry, the question of “illegal aliens” was … well, alien, to folks back then. This is because in no case, at that time, did the people exercise sovereignty over their nations. Therefore, who was a citizen subject had no ramifications beyond “more people to tax” and “more people to press into military service”.

    When placing the power of gov’t into the hands of the people (with caveats and restrictions) it becomes a much different matter to determine who is and isn’t a citizen. Around that concept turns the very idea of self-government. It’s why the 3/5ths compromise mattered, and why it pained so many of the Founders to have to make it. It’s why the 14th Amendment exists.

    You can quote Blackstone for a great many things, but not on a concept foreign to (or at least not in operation for) him.

      Kepha H in reply to GWB. | August 13, 2020 at 3:07 pm

      How are illegal aliens not subject to the country of residence’s jurisdiction? If Illegal Joe blow shoots someone in the USA, he’s arrested and tried in a US court. Hence, he’s under US jurisdiction. Now, persons in diplomatic status or visiting heads of state are another matter.

        GWB in reply to Kepha H. | August 13, 2020 at 3:39 pm

        Again, the argument says that 1) “under the jurisdiction” is more than “who arrests them” (they can call on another sovereign’s help when in trouble) and 2) their loyalty is not to the US (by virtue of not entering legally).

        Feel free to argue against it.

          UserP in reply to GWB. | August 13, 2020 at 5:46 pm

          If the U.S. declared war against Mexico, whose side would Mexican citizens who are here illegally be on?

      Milhouse in reply to GWB. | August 13, 2020 at 6:51 pm

      Blackstone says the parents’ citizenship and loyalty is irrelevant. What matters is the child’s natural loyalty, which under the notions current in the 18th century belonged to the sovereign whose laws protected the child at birth.

IF elected she will be America’s First Anchor Baby President
It would be fitting as DACA is now the law of the land according to the judges.

    NavyMustang in reply to Skip. | August 13, 2020 at 6:42 am

    A child which fits the criteria of DACA is NOT an anchor baby. They entered the US illegally with their parents and were not born here.

    And the Supremes have not said that DACA is the law of the land. The majority are just being prissy about PDT’s reasons for ending it. It was a “back to the drawing board” decision, not a slam dunk against the government.

    Milhouse in reply to Skip. | August 13, 2020 at 11:59 am

    She was not an anchor baby. An anchor baby is one that is born in the USA for the purpose of procuring some advantage to its parents. Harris’s parents were already US residents, so her birth gave them no advantage. Her mother gave birth here not for any legal reason, but simply because this was her home.

“I see nothing that distinguishes Harris from those three Republicans” Not quite: Ted Cruz was not born in the United States which by no stretch of the imagination make him a natural born citizen

    Dusty Pitts in reply to MarkS. | August 13, 2020 at 11:58 am

    The Fourteenth Amendment says only that those born in the U.S. must be considered natural born citizens. It does not say that only those born in the U.S. may be considered natural born citizens.

    Congress is therefore left with discretion to define whether and how persons born outside the U.S. to one or more parent who is a U.S. citizen, may also be considered natural born citizens.

    The law in effect when Cruz was born classified him as a natural born citizen. Even if the law were changed since then, the law that applied when he was born would be the rule in his case.

      Milhouse in reply to Dusty Pitts. | August 13, 2020 at 6:53 pm

      The law in effect when Cruz was born classified him as a citizen. It didn’t say anything about whether he was a “natural born citizen”. The citizenship statutes don’t use that term. So the question is, does it mean “citizen at birth”, in which case Cruz qualifies, or does it mean something else?

the intent when written no longer matters. a ruling dealing with naturalization from scotus nullified the meaning. and for a whole host of reasons people from all sides of political spectrum are happy to allow it to happen as it benefits them at times.
we all know scotus is infallible. bring back dred scott.

In order to retain the respect of the general public, the Constitution must be applied using simple rules and fairly. Reading the 14th Amendment as saying, “if you are born in the US, you are a citizen” is simple and fair. If the US moves to a more complex set of rules, it will confuse people and will be subject to selective enforcement. By the way, if the rule was “if you are born in the US to non-citizen parents, you are not a citizen” then there would be a naturalization process for such people. I can’t imagine a situation where two parents and their foreign-born children are naturalized and their US-born child is left in limbo because he/she can not be naturalized. At the time, there was no path for Sen. Harris to be naturalized because the rule was that she was already a citizen.

We seem to be getting out into the weeds on this issue. Let’s backtrack a bit.

The simplest definition of a natural born citizen of the US, is a person who was conferred citizenship at birth, regardless of the location of that birth or the citizenship of the parents of that person. Now, in the constitution, the only mention of conferring citizenship through birth exists in the 14th Amendment and confers citizenship upon any person born within the boundaries of the US or naturalized therein. All other conference of citizenship is governed by federal law.

So, in the case of Cruz and McCain, they would be entitled to be granted citizenship based upon the laws existing at the time of their birth. Jindal and Harris would obtain citizenship by right of being born within the confines of the United States. So, there is no credible case for claiming that Harris would not be qualified for the Office of President.

The situation with Barack Obama was quite different, however.

First of all, there were credible reports that the child, Barack Obama, II, was not born within the boundaries of the United States. A simple long form certificate of live birth from Hawaii would have put this claim to rt instantly. None was produced until late in Obama’s Presidency and then showed credible evidence of being a forgery. Also, only one of his parents, his mother, was a US citizen and, under the law at that time would not be able to automatically confer citizenship upon her child, due to her age, if he was born outside of US territory.

Second, Barack Obama, the child, was reportedly granted Indonesian citizenship while residing there. He was legally adopted by his mother’s then husband and his name reportedly changed to Barry Soetoro. While not stripping him of any US citizenship, to which he was legally entitled, it would have suspended such citizenship until application was made to restore it. No such application, or the granting of which has ever been produced and evidence exist that Barack Obama may have been claiming Indonesian citizenship even after he reached adulthood and was living in the US.

Third, the accuracy of supporting documents, such as social security number and selective service registrations were suspicious in nature. State Department travel records were suddenly sealed, when questions were asked.

So, the question concerning Barack Obama was not whether he was a natural born citizen but whether he was who he claimed to be. Think of the legal brouhaha that would have ensued if Donald J Trump ran for the Office of the Presidency with Obama’s baggage. The question of natural born citizenship is one thing. Potential identity theft is another.

    GWB in reply to Mac45. | August 13, 2020 at 1:35 pm

    confers citizenship upon any person born within the boundaries of the US or naturalized therein
    Actually, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. It can be argued that “having loyalties to another sovereign” would make them not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, since they would have cause to call upon their sovereign for help. (This is the case for refining the meaning of the 14th Amendment to exclude “anchor babies”. I’m not arguing it’s a solid case, but it is one.)

    So, there is no credible case for claiming that Harris would not be qualified for the Office of President.
    We should probably pass clear laws (ha!) to preclude any question for the future, though.

    None was produced until late in Obama’s Presidency and then showed credible evidence of being a forgery.
    It showed evidence of not being an original, but not really of forgery.

    reportedly granted Indonesian citizenship while residing there
    THIS.

    Barack Obama may have been claiming Indonesian citizenship
    Yes, this was the REAL issue.

    suspicious in nature
    There was a lot of lying and cover-up when – if what they said was true – they didn’t have to. “Suspicious” is exactly the right term.

      Mac45 in reply to GWB. | August 13, 2020 at 6:52 pm

      Illegal aliens ARE under the jurisdiction of the United States as they can be arrested, fined and imprisoned for violating state and federal laws, and be deported for being in the country in violation of those laws. That seems abundantly clear.

      Actually, the Certificate of Live Birth presented by the Obama WH was presented as a true copy of a document on file with the State of Hawaii. It also showed overwhelming evidence of having been photo-shopped in such a way as to make it appear to be a document related to Barack Obama, something that making a simple copy would not have been done. But, would have been necessary if no Certificate of Live Birth existed for Obama. If such is the case, then this constitutes forgery of n official government document.

      It all remains suspicion simply because no responsible government agency was willing to investigate the allegation and, in some cases, actively obstructed any such investigation. Sound familiar?

      Now, if Barack Obama was actually who he claimed to be, yet did not file for a reinstatement of his citizenship upon obtaining his majority back in the USA, this would have been a minor point, as he would still have had that option prior to running for Congress. However, if he never reinstated it and took advantage of being a citizen of a foreign country, that could prove problematic in other areas.

        randian in reply to Mac45. | August 13, 2020 at 6:59 pm

        It was suggested that Obama’s college application and/or financial aid application listed him as a citizen of a country other than the US. The college either refused to produce them or purged them, I can’t recall which.

    Carl in reply to Mac45. | August 13, 2020 at 3:07 pm

    And, as I recall, Obama’s Passports (which would show country of birth) and passport applications file have been suppressed (or destroyed).

Is this blog owned and moderated by milhouse??

For the opposite view of why Kamala Harris is NOT a “natural born citizen” and therefore NOT qualified for the office of Vice-President see this https://www.newsweek.com/some-questions-kamala-harris-about-eligibility-opinion-1524483

hmmmm… Who will be the first to sue? Will a court give standing to sue?

Like it or not Senator Harris, under our current interpretation, is a Natural Born Citizen. She was born to parents that were legally domiciled in the U.S. And.within the US. If one meets those two points there isn’t any other hurdle to overcome.

The status of the offspring of parents who are not legally present in the U.S. may be debatable but that isn’t the case with Harris. Read Wong v United States for more information.

Nikki Haley is eligible, too. Her parents arrived from India in 1969 and she was born on US soil in 1972.

    Barry Soetoro in reply to WarrenPeese. | August 19, 2020 at 12:44 am

    Haley is a natural-born Indian, and as such is ineligible to hold either the presidency or vice presidency. At the time of her birth, her Indian father had not resided in the US nearly long enough to become a naturalized US citizen so retained his Indian citizenship, which was passed on to Haley by natural law, the basis for our Republic.

Barry Soetoro | August 17, 2020 at 8:47 pm

Under natural law place of birth is irrelevant. One inherits the citizenship of one’s father at birth regardless of location of the birth.

https://youtu.be/h9PxdDvgQks

Further, interpreting “natural born citizen” to mean “born citizen” violates rules of constitutional construction by failing to honor the word, “natural.” Interpreting “natural born citizen” to mean “natural born subject” is laughably untenable.

The initial paragraph of the Declaration of Independence makes it clear our nation is founded on natural law. A key document our Founding Fathers relied on to inform them of natural law was Vattel’s “Law of Nations,” which defines natural born citizen thusly:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
-Emmerich de Vattel, 1758, The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Book I, Of Nations Considered in Themselves, Chapter XIX, Of Our Native Country, and Several Things that Relate to It, translated from French

Vattel was such an essential reference document for our Founders that President Washington checked out the NYC Library’s copy and failed to return it.

The Professor’s long winded and clearly untenable interpretation only serves the globalists’ subversive interests. I find myself wondering why he is pushing such garbage.

    Terence G. Gain in reply to Barry Soetoro. | August 17, 2020 at 9:59 pm

    I completely agree with you.

      Barry Soetoro in reply to Terence G. Gain. | August 19, 2020 at 12:52 am

      Thanks, but you have no choice to agree if you embrace the Anglo-American Enlightenment and respect facts, logic, the Constitution, and rule of law. If the Prof’s assessment held any water at all, the natural-born British East African would have welcomed his eligibility being litigated. Nullification of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is a linchpin in the cosmopolitans’ effort to install shitholers, like Obama, in the White House to bring about the destruction of the Republic and the further enslavement of the Europoid subrace.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend