Is Kamala Harris Eligible to Be POTUS?

I was listening to a local radio show when a caller stated that Kamala Harris was not eligible to become POTUS because she is not a 'Natural-born Citizen' as defined in the Constitution.
This caller was immediately deemed another wacky 'birther' and laughed at. During coffee this morning, I decided to do a little digging on the subject and came up with the following article about the subject.

www.thepostemail.com...

According to US law, a person with foreign citizenship during the 1960s had to be in the U.S. for 5 full years before applying for naturalization. During this waiting period, they were considered foreign nationals via their country of birth.
Kamala's mother was a citizen of India and arrived in the US in 1960. Her father is Jamaican and arrived in the U.S. in 1961.
Kamala was born in 1964. It would therefore be impossible for her to meet the criteria for becoming POTUS.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution:

§ 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.”

It seems pretty straight forward to me. Kamala's parents could not have been citizens at her time of birth. The Constitution spells out that a Natural Born Citizen is one that is born on U.S. soil of two CITIZEN parents.
Some will claim that it's no big deal. My response is that people FAR smarter than any of us thought it big enough a deal to include requirements to become POTUS into the legal document that founded this country. Once we start ignoring the law of the land...the land will cease to exist.

Thanks for reading!

a reply to: MrBuddy

I would say it really doesn’t matter.
She isn’t going to win.

a reply to: MrBuddy


Kamala Harris was born in the US, therefore, she is a natural born citizen and eligible to serve as POTUS.

Interesting.
Democrats tend to ignore little things like laws and rules.

a reply to: IAMTAT


Did Harris have to apply for naturalization, or was she automatically granted "birthright citizenship"?

Kamala Harris was born on October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California, to a Tamil Indian mother and a Jamaican father.

There's no there,there.

Kamala Devi Harris (/ˈkɑːmələ/ KAH-mə-lə; born October 20, 1964) is anAmerican attorney, politician, and member of the Democratic Party

That right there though is enough to make me Vote for Trump again.

en.wikipedia.org...

Make Trump Prez Again!

Not eligible?? Like it matters anymore?

She an anchor baby, she’s legal

She slept her way to the top, that’s better than sleeping your way to the bottom

You are wrong. While she is a citizen, she is not eligible for POTUS because BOTH of her parents were citizens of other countries at her time of birth.
If you took the time to read the snippet of the Constitution I provided you'd see that in order to be a Natural Born Citizen a person must be born in the U.S . to two parents who themselves are citizens.
One cannot argue that either of Kamalas parents were citizens because they were NOT. They weren't in the U.S. for the minimum 5 year requirement.

Using your logic, a terrorist from Iran could come to the U.S., give birth to an an anchor baby, who could then become POTUS. The reason the Founding Fathers put the Article 2 clause in the Constitution requiring that only Natural Born citizens could become POTUS is to be sure that allegience is to the U.S., not another country.

Your confusion on the laws of this country is the exact problem and why the opposition is winning the war.

a reply to: MrBuddy

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution:

§ 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.”

Why can't I find this text in The Constitution?

[Removed: this does nothing to heal our divisions]

Sorry ATS

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You are right

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.

At least in the context this is precisely what Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says

Is the quoted text in his post case law? In any case, it says "natural born citizen" OR "a citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of this Constitution"

Seems I am wrong, sorry Sookie

A little more:

§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country

press-pubs.uchicago.edu...

The 1833 commentary continues:

...

A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman.

It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.

A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By "residence," in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States.

No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification.

Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.

originally posted by: JBurns
[Removed: this does nothing to heal our divisions]

Sorry ATS

Didn't read it before your edit, but I appreciate the retraction! I've also posted things I had to retract.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: MrBuddy

I would say it really doesn’t matter.
She isn’t going to win.

Bingo. Biden will be the Dim nominee.

Nikki Haley-Ivanka Trump 2024

Kamala who dis?

a reply to: MrBuddy

While I am no fan of Kamala Harris, this does not seem credible.

Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the US Constitution:

5: 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.

Not:

§ 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.”

May I ask where you got that excerpt?

Your link states Harris may not be eligible due to "prevailing theory" of natural versus native-born citizenship. Prevailing theory is not applicable unless backed up by a settled Federal court decision that clearly identifies it as such. So, while I agree in principle that the legal theory should be the one you espouse, I find no legal grounds to agree that it is.

I am open to further information, however, if you have any.

TheRedneck

a reply to: thedigirati

If Nikki Haley runs, I will not vote for that ticket.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: MrBuddy

I would say it really doesn’t matter.
She isn’t going to win.

Bingo. Biden will be the Dim nominee.

Do you think Hillary won't be running again?
I can still see a potential Clinton-Harris ticket coming for the Dems.

The courts have always equated birthright citizenship to natural born citizenship. Ergo, Harris is a natural born citizen.