by Sharon Rondeau

The fourth of four images posted by Twitter account @kamalakancel on September 18, 2020

(Sep. 19, 2020) — On Friday night the Twitter account @kamalakancel posted images of what it said were four documents appearing to show the immigration history of Shayamala Gopalan Harris, the mother of Democratic vice-presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris.

To date, Kamala Harris has not responded to questions about her parents’ citizenship status when she was born in Oakland, CA on October 20, 1964 and, more broadly, whether or not she qualifies to serve as a “natural born Citizen.”

Some interpret the Article II, Section 1, clause 5 requirement for the president and commander-in-chief to signify a person born in the United States without respect to his parents’ citizenship, while others point to the different standard for the nation’s chief executive as opposed to that of “a Citizen” for U.S. senators and representatives set forth in Article I.

While the Constitution is silent on vice-presidential qualifications, the 12th Amendment, ratified June 15, 1804, states in its conclusion:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

On August 12, Chapman University Professor of Law John Eastman, well-respected in many legal circles, posited that Harris might not qualify as a “natural born Citizen” if her parents, at the time of her birth, were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as stated in the 14th Amendment for U.S. citizenship.  “The language of Article II is that one must be a natural-born citizen,” Eastman wrote in a Newsweek opinion column which prompted the editors to issue a lengthy “apology” for having published it, although not its removal. “The original Constitution did not define citizenship, but the 14th Amendment does—and it provides that ‘all persons born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States, and that meant subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully)…”

Further, Eastman raised the prospect that if Harris’s parents were not “lawful permanent residents” when Kamala was born, then she herself “was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers—Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother—and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment…”

Granted, our government’s view of the Constitution’s citizenship mandate has morphed over the decades to what is now an absolute “birth on the soil no matter the circumstances” view—but that morphing does not appear to have begun until the late 1960s, after Kamala Harris’ birth in 1964. The children born on U.S. soil to guest workers from Mexico during the Roaring 1920s were not viewed as citizens, for example, when, in the wake of the Great Depression, their families were repatriated to Mexico. Nor were the children born on U.S. soil to guest workers in the bracero program of the 1950s and early 1960s deemed citizens when that program ended, and their families emigrated back to their home countries.

So before we so cavalierly accept Senator Harris’ eligibility for the office of vice president, we should ask her a few questions about the status of her parents at the time of her birth.

Were Harris’ parents lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth? If so, then under the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark, she should be deemed a citizen at birth—that is, a natural-born citizen—and hence eligible. Or were they instead, as seems to be the case, merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act? If the latter were indeed the case, then derivatively from her parents, Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers—Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother—and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood.

Earlier in his term and reiterated last year, President Trump suggested his administration could abolish the practice of awarding “birthright citizenship” to all individuals born on U.S. soil emanating from a longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment with very rare exceptions, such as children born to foreign diplomats.

Children born in the U.S. to illegal-alien parents are often referred to as “anchor babies,” as the “birthright citizenship” they receive enables their parents to remain in the United States, apply for U.S. citizenship, and later sponsor relatives from their nations of origin.

The aforementioned Twitter account, which is expressed as “Kancel Kamala” in its header, appears to have been opened in mid-August, with the earliest tweet this writer could locate dated August 13, 2020.  At the time of this writing, the account follows no one and has 22 followers.

In commentary accompanying each of Friday’s tweets containing the images, the account-holder included, “Suggest screen grab while up.”

After its initial tweet, the account remained silent until August 19, when it issued the following:

#kancelkamala @kamalakancel To All: Official doc filed circa 1976 by mother of Kamala Harris. “Natural Born Citizen”? No! Suggest quick screen capture (+Have more dox, will post soon)

The document image issued with the tweet is titled, “CANADIAN IMMIGRATION IDENTIFICATION RECORD” with the French translation underneath in italics.

Although Kamala Harris has not, to this writer’s knowledge, extensively discussed her formative years or parents’ citizenship in any setting, her Wikipedia biography and Canadian media sources report that she attended school in Montréal, Quebec, Canada from the age of 12 through her presumed high school graduation.

As The Post & Email reported on September 5, Wikipedia recently revised Kamala Harris’s life narrative to say that she moved to Québec with her mother and sister at age 12 rather than at age 7, and that her mother arrived in the U.S. from India in 1958 and not 1960, as the entry had previously stated.

According to Gopalan Harris’s Wikipedia biography, she “conducted research in UC Berkeley’s Department of Zoology and Cancer Research Lab. She worked as a breast cancer researcher at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and University of Wisconsin. She worked for 16 years at Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research and McGill University Faculty of Medicine.”

When enlarging the initial document, one notes on the third line of the form below its title that the question “Citizen of” was responded to with “India.”  An additional marking in red states “This” and is repeated on a subsequent line indicating that Gopalan Harris, if admitted to Canada, would be accompanied by two daughters as well as on what appears to be the application date of “171175.”

The record indicates that as an “immigrant” who would be working at the “Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research” in Montreal, Quebec, Gopalan Harris arrived in Canada on February 13, 1976, when her daughter Kamala would have been approximately 11 years, 5 months old.

The Twitter account issued nothing further until September 7, when it declared, “Reorganizing account this week, no tweets planned at this time until about the 12th-13th. Stay tuned!

Similarly, the account went dark until Friday night, when it issued four tweets, each with an image concerning Gopalan Harris.

The first image predates the document released on August 19 and indicates that Gopalan Harris completed her Ph.D. in the field of “Nutrition” at the University of California, Berkeley in January 1964, as stated in her Wikipedia entry.  According to the document, Gopalan Harris was seeking a position in which she would perform “Research in Physiology” as a “non-immigrant F-1 student.”  The employment application was signed September 29, 1964, three weeks before Kamala Harris was born.

The second document appears to be a continuation of the application pictured above, indicating that Gopalan Harris’s “Employment” was “authorized” by an “Asst. Foreign Student Advisor” at UC Berkeley.

The third of the four documents released Friday, issued by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), reiterates Gopalan Harris’s “non-immigrant” status and reports that on October 30, 1964, she was granted permission to remain in the U.S. through April 1, 1965.

The last of the documents released Friday is dated January 11, 1967 and reveals that in a letter written on University of Illinois stationery, Gopalan Harris was seeking “an immigrant visa” and that her husband, Donald Harris, was applying for “permanent resident status.”

On Saturday afternoon, @kamalakancel tweeted, “Statement text (as a .jpg), which clarifies initial results of research at this time. Additional documents with expansions on these narratives, and more, will be posted here in near future.  @kamalakancel #kancelkamala“.

The attached “Statement” reaches several conclusions, including that Gopalan Harris “exploited” the U.S. immigration system, constituting “a breach of the public’s faith.”  Further, the tweet claims, Gopalan Harris eventually “obtained a separate passport from Canada (while stating she resided in Oakland, CA).”

Of the vice-presidential candidate, @kamalakancel contended:

Kamala declared her US citizenship as being based on “birth in the US” and not “through parents” in a sworn petition.  Could this be interpreted as a legal admission that Kamala Harris is not a “natural born” citizen  of the US (as is required for a Vice-President)?

In his closing paragraph, @kamalakancel wrote, “Legal implications of available records may apply to eligibility for ballots, the Electoral College, and related court filings…”


Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Section 350 of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, applies to Kamala Harris, Obama, Cruz, etc. There are dozens of court cases and Board of Immigration Appeals decisions.
    (Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166 (D.D.C. 1951)
    (Gualco v. Acheson, 106 F. Supp. 760 (1952)
    also see: Kawakita v. United States, (find your own link) the bad that can happen with dual nationality, wittingly or unwittingly.
    (7 FAM 1200 APPENDIX C
    On October 10, 1978, the President signed Public Law 95-432 which repealed INA 350 effective that date.
    The report of the House Committee on the Judiciary reaffirmed that the repeal of the law was prospective.
    Pubic Law 95-432 did not restore citizenship to anyone who lost citizenship under Section 350 INA prior to October 10, 1978.
    Effective October 10, 1978, anyone who had not completed the three years continuous residence in the foreign state of which he or she was a national at birth was no longer subject to loss of nationality under Section 350 INA.
    INA 350 provided for loss of citizenship if a dual national sought or claimed benefits of nationality of a foreign state.
    Persons who had acquired U.S. or foreign nationality by naturalization as defined in Section 101(a)(23) INA were not subject to this provision.
    The benefits need not actually have been granted; merely seeking or claiming the benefits was contemplated by INA 350. A benefit must have accrued by reason of having the nationality of the foreign country.
    I don’t know how any of this makes anyone a “natural born”, i want to know how they got their papers stating they are citizens, and passports, before they won a senate election, and before they made an “election” of citizenship.

  2. Birth on U.S. soil + citizen father + citizen mother = natural born citizen, PERIOD. Only two offices require a natural born citizen, the presidency and the vice presidency.

  3. She was the Attorney General of California, why do you think you know better? Courts have recently looked at this like Arkeny and found no merit. Why do you think you know more than the courts, lawmakers and attorneys? Since 2009, over 200 legal challenges have been bounced, 0% success rate. Don’t you think that’s a sign?

    1. It is a sign. A sign of non-feasance and malfeasance in office as well as misprision of espionage and treason on the part of the courts and congress. Usurpation of the Presidency by fraud, during time of war is a capital offense.

    2. Response from Joseph DeMaio:

      “First, the “Arkeny” [sic] case to which Mr. Blank refers is probably “Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana.” (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914b120add7b049347573b9). The significant intellectual infirmities and non-precedential weight of that State of Indiana Court of Appeals (ahem…, not the U.S. Supreme Court) decision – including its mischaracterization of the dictum in the Wong Kim Ark case as “holding” – are addressed here (https://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/24/of-presidential-eligibility-doubling-down-and-linguistic-torts-part-3/).

      “Second, the fact that Kamala Devi Harris was elected Attorney General of California merely proves two things: (1) protracted challenges and counting of post-election provisional and mail-in ballots in California – the land of “discovered uncounted ballots” – can often alter the course of elections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Attorney_General_of_California_(2011%E2%80%932017) and (2) the people of California, as elsewhere, can make big mistakes. The issue of KDH’s constitutional eligibility was not at issue back then: one does not need to be a natural born Citizen to be either Attorney General of California or a U.S. Senator from California, whereas the 12th Amendment specifically requires that for a Vice-President (https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/08/13/kamala-devi-harris-vs-the-12th-amendment/).

      “Third, assuming the truth of the statement that “since 2009, over 200 legal challenges have been bounced, [with a] 0% success rate…, [d]on’t you think that’s a sign?”, yes it is a sign: it is a bright, buzzing, flashing, canary yellow neon sign that the U.S. Supreme Court is continuing to evade addressing and resolving the issue (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu6OiTiua08). Unless and until that judicial insouciance disappears – and short of a constitutional amendment – the debate will continue.”

      1. “yes it is a sign: it is a bright, buzzing, flashing, canary yellow neon sign that the U.S. Supreme Court is continuing to evade addressing and resolving the issue”

        Could it also be a sign that the Court agrees with lower court rulings?

        Especially as Justice Thomas wrote that children born overseas to American citizens is a natural born citizen.

        1. Response from Joseph DeMaio:

          “All of the myriad cases challenging Obama’s, McCain’s and Cruz’s constitutional eligibility, if carried forward on attempted review by the U.S. Supreme Court, have resulted in a ruling of certiorari denied. Unlike a ‘dismissal for want of a substantial federal question,’ which constitutes a ‘ruling on the merits’ of a case, a denial of certiorari means neither an agreement nor a disagreement with the lower court’s ruling, but only that review will not be undertaken by the Court. Indeed, in the Ankeny case, a certiorari petition was not even attempted.

          “Stated otherwise, ‘cert. denied’ creates no precedent, one way or the other, because ‘a denial of certiorari imports no expression of opinion on the merits of the case.’ See Teague v. Lane (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/288/).

          “As for Justice Thomas’ statement in his concurrence (and dissent) in Zivotofsky v. Kerry (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-628), all he was apparently doing was characterizing what the Congress had done in enacting one of the statutes under its “Uniform Rule of Naturalization” powers under Art. 1, § 8, Cl. 4 of the Constitution, i.e., 8 U.S.C. § 1401. That current statute, of course, is descended from the very first ‘naturalization’ statute enacted by Congress in 1790 (1 Stat. 103), repealed in 1795 (1 Stat. 414) and carried forward – without reference to ‘natural born citizens’ – to today.

          “Whereas 1 Stat. 103 seemingly attempted improperly to amend the Constitution via a statute – mischaracterizing children born of citizen parents ‘beyond sea’ as ‘natural-born citizens’ – by repealing that language, and substituting for ‘natural born citizens’ the different term ‘citizens,’ Congress corrected its prior error. No naturalization statute enacted by Congress after 1795 has ever added back into its terms the words ‘natural born citizens’ in reference to children born to U.S. citizen parents outside of the United States. These issues are addressed in more detail here: (https://www.thepostemail.com/2016/04/26/the-decisions-in-elliott-v-cruz-and-williams-v-cruz-conclusion/)

          “Finally, at minimum, even if Justice Thomas’ words are taken at face value, rather than being misspoken or erroneously included by a law clerk, they still constitute dictum unrelated to the issues adjudicated in the Zivotofsky case. As the Supreme Court has noted: ‘dictum settles nothing, even in the court that utters it.’ Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335, 351, n. 12. (2005). (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/543/335). Indeed, since it was Justice Thomas who confirmed that the Supreme Court is ‘evading’ the eligibility issue (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu6OiTiua08), it is unlikely that even he would describe his words in Zivotofsky as anything other than dictum.”

    3. Benedict Arnold was a Major General in the Continental Army and Commandant of West Point Military Academy, certainly of higher stature at that point in America’s history than a lowly AG of one of 50 states, and he wound up being a traitor.

      Why do you think numerous members of Congress (mostly Democrats) introduced numerous bills from 2004 through 2008 to either remove the verbiage “natural born Citizen” from Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 or define said verbiage as meaning all manner of acquiring citizenship EXCEPT being “born in the country to citizen parents of the country”? All of them bounced, 0% success rate. Don’t you think THAT’S a sign?

  4. What do Chester Arthur, Obama II, Hillary RICO Clinton, Joke Biden, Kamala and Lyin’ Ted the Undocumented Fed have in common?

    They are all educated, and then licensed, as attorneys.

    That means they should know better than all non-attorneys (like all us laymen) what the true legal meaning of “natural born Citizen” was to the Founding Fathers. Intentionally refusing to obey the original non-amended meaning of “natural born Citizen” of 1787 makes them all attorney-criminals, I believe.

    Defining “natural born Citizen” is much easier than defining, say, “liberty” and “pursuit of happiness”. If you ask 100 people off the street what “liberty” means, you may get 100 different interpretations of “liberty” relative to its mention in the US Constitution.

    Not so with the discrete specificity of “natural born Citizen”. There can only be one discrete definition of “natural born Citizen” for the highest office in the land, lest confusion and panic reign. This specificity was obeyed for most of 1787- 2020: https://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/All-U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud

    If you ask those same 100 people what “citizen” means, they will likely all agree that a “citizen” is one who is born within, or duly naturalized within, any given country, like “Indian citizen” or “Jamaican citizen”, etc.

    When you ask them what “born Citizen” is they will all likely agree it is one who is a citizen of a given country by being born within that given country; born in US makes one a US citizen; born in Canada makes one a Canadian citizen, etc. How can one be born in one country and be a “born Citizen” in any other country on planet Earth?

    When you ask them what “natural born Citizen” is, the inclusion of “natural” may stump them all, or most of them, and produce a litany of confused uncertain responses, like “born in a given country naturally without a doctor present”, or “born with no C-section”, etc.

    So, naturally, we have to go to the attorneys to tell us exactly what “natural” in “natural born Citizen” means, due largely to the historical context of that legal term of art at the time it was proposed in 1787; as a minimum, this “natural” component means something other than “citizen” and “born Citizen”. Even folks right off the street will agree to that observation without ever having passed a bar exam.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural >>> being in accordance with or determined by nature

    Countries are man-made. Citizenship is man-made. Humans are nature-made. A “natural born [US] Citizen”, then, is a born US citizen in accordance with or determined by nature, not determined by man = a nature-made citizenship at birth, NOT ANY MAN-MADE CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH.

    All citizens must naturally have parents. To be born in USA with nature-made citizenship, or to be a “NATURAL US CITIZEN”, then, there must be no artificial ingredients/allegiances ( = man-made “naturalization-citizen”) or other man-made (foreign) citizenship(s), or dual citizenship (= half NATURAL CITIZENSHIP mixed with some man-made citizenship) attached to nature-only citizenship.

    Just as parents naturally pass on their traits, DNA, blue eyes, skin color, ethnicity, etc., they will naturally raise their children by passing on their own childhood citizenship-acquired habits, customs, language, politics, religion, values and affections. It is only natural that Jamaican and Indian citizen-parents, for example, would raise and teach their children to know what they, the foreign-citizen-parents, know, because, naturally, THAT’S ALL THE PARENTS HAVE NATURALLY BEEN LIFE-SENSITIZED AND INGRAINED TO KNOW.

    By the non-negotiable forever laws of Nature, then, any US president and US Vice-president must be A NATURAL US CITIZEN born in USA of US-CITIZEN-ONLY PARENTS, which attorney-criminals Arthur, Obama II and Kamala, too, and Cruz insist on violating with impunity…as long as we let them!

  5. Do they these documents tell us something we didn’t already know?

    Professor Michael Ramsey (his natural born citizen article was cited by Judge Mason in Apuzzo’s 2016 New Jersey ballot challenge) addressed Eastman’s article and pointed out a flaw in his argument.

    “Dean Eastman attempts to avoid the effect of Wong Kim Ark by distinguishing between children of permanent residents (as in Wong Kim Ark) and children of temporary visitors – that is, between the Marco Rubio category and the Kamala Harris category. But nothing in the Amendment supports this distinction. Both categories are born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States to the same extent: they are born under U.S. sovereign authority. Neither category is born subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States – but the Amendment doesn’t require exclusive U.S. jurisdiction for citizenship.l

    Basically, both children born in the US to permanent resident aliens and those born to aliens here on temporary student visas are equally “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Both being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States makes both citizens of the United States. And according to Professor Ramsey both are natural born citizens.


  6. Recap:
    1.) Marco Rubio was born in the USA to two citizen parents of Cuba. Because Marco Rubio is a statutory US citizen and not a natural born Citizen, he is not eligible for Article II jobs.

    2.) Bobby Jindal was born in the USA to two citizen parents of India. Because Bobby Jindal is a statutory US citizen and not a natural born Citizen, he is not eligible for Article II jobs.

    3.) Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His father was born a Cuban citizen and may have acquired Canadian citizenship prior to Ted’s birth. Ted’s mother was born a US citizen and may have acquired Canadian citizenship prior to Ted’s birth. Ted Cruz released a Canadian birth certificate, but never any US naturalization documentation. He did renounce his Canadian citizenship though. Ted Cruz’s US citizenship is suspect due to his insistence in keeping his US citizenship documentation confidential, so Ted Cruz could be a statutory US citizen, but never a natural born Citizen, and therefore not eligible for Article II jobs.

    4.) Tulsi Gabbard was born out of country in American Samoa to two US citizen parents. Because Tulsi Gabbard is a naturalized statutory US citizen and not a natural born Citizen, she is not eligible for Article II jobs.

    5.) Andrew Yang was born in the USA to two citizen parents of Taiwan. Because Andrew Yang is a statutory US citizen and not a natural born Citizen, he is not eligible for Article II jobs.

    6.) Kamala Harris was born in the USA and not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” PERIOD in addition to the individuals listed in 1.), 2.), and 5.) above. Curse that W(r)ong Kim Ark US Supreme Court decision. Kamala Harris is fraudulently seeking the Article II job.

    1. What’s your point? That makes her a NATIVE born citizen pursuant to the 14th Amendment prevailing interpretation. The 14th Amendment was ratified 80 years after the Constitution. It makes no mention of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Harris is INELIGIBLE to be VPOTUS (12th Amendment) or POTUS (Article II), the only two jobs in America that mandate NATURAL BORN citizenship.

      1. I’m trying to figure out what new information these documents contain. It doesn’t seem change what was already known about Harris being born in the United States.

        1. Professor John Eastman’s communication to me this evening:

          “I do [find this interesting]. Based on these documents, it appears that there may also have been some immigration fraud going on. Harris’s mother claims to have received her PhD in January 1964. She was on an F-1 Visa. That required her to depart the country within 60 days unless she got an OPT (occupational training) extension before the end of the 60 days. But she did not apply for the OPT permit until end of Sept. 1964—6 months after the 60 day grace period expired. And that document asserts (falsely?) that she arrived in the U.S. in Sept 1963.”

        2. Professor Eastman is incorrect about OPT.

          Harris’ mother’s form appears to be an application for an extension. Line 9 says she had previously applied for an extension and it was granted. In 1964 an F-1 student could apply for a 6 month permit to work with two 6 month extension. The professor who signed off on the application, wrote “final period” which may mean this is her third and final extension.

  7. As I read the data on those new documents it looks to me that Kamala Harris is not even a basic U.S. Citizen under the 14th Amendment or the Wong Kim Ark (1898) U.S. Supreme Court decision. It looks like she has been committing citizenship identity fraud since birth, which she never corrected as an adult.

    But it is factually certain that Kamala Harris was born a Citizen of Jamaica via her Jamaican Citizen and foreign national father, per the Jamaican Constitution and their Constitutional Monarchy form of government with the Queen of Jamaica/England as their Sovereign. Jamaica is not a Republic and they maintained the Queen as their Sovereign when they voted for independence but adopted a Constitutional Monarchy form of government. The United States is a Republic and we severed all ties to the English royalty in 1776. We kicked them out. The Jamaican’s did not do that. They retained Queen Elizabeth II as their Sovereign Queen. And as a Citizen of that country at birth, Kamala Harris was born owing homage and allegiance to the Queen of Jamaica/England: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/09/19/kamala-harris-owes-homage-and-allegiance-to-queen-of-jamaica/

    CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

      1. Running as an unconstitutional candidate and thus defrauding the American voters and donors. She was put on notice in December 2017 by me – in writing – that she was constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS.

    1. “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, . . . and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson
      Kamala Harris from 1789 to 1897 would not even be a citizen at all. There was no law or statute making a child of a Jamaican father a U.S. citizen.
      It was a law, created outside of the legislature and constitution, that decided a child of aliens but born on U.S. soil was a ‘citizen at birth.’ That was Wong Kim Ark in 1898.
      That new law was conflated into the current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment’s ‘born in the United States.’ Here, Jefferson speaks against judicial tyranny: “One single object… [will merit] the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.”
      A child can be made a citizen by many different naturalization statutes . . . not natural born, but natural-ized. It was a 1952 statute that gave Ted Cruz citizenship-at-birth. (INA §301g)
      Again, from 1789 to 1897, Kamala would not even be considered a citizen . . . it took unconstitutional mandate from the judiciary, in conflict with both the legislature and constitution itself.