by Sharon Rondeau

(Dec. 31, 2020) — On Thursday afternoon, the Twitter account @kamalakancel posted a letter directed to the secretary of the Senate asking for distribution to all members and an “investigation” into whether or not vice-presidential candidate Kamala D. Harris is eligible to serve as vice president or president in keeping with the U.S. Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” requirement.

Harris ran as Democratic presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden’s running mate, with the duo reported to have garnered more than the necessary 270 electoral votes to win the November 3 election over President Donald Trump during meetings of the Electoral College on December 14.

Thousands of citizens have filed complaints, provided sworn testimony and described their eyewitness accounts to widespread fraud before, during and after the election, and Trump has not conceded to Biden. Rather, Trump has continued to say his campaign won the election “by a lot” and urged his supporters to rally in Washington, DC on January 6, when Congress meets in a constitutionally-mandated joint session to observe the opening of the electoral certificates delivered to Vice President Mike Pence, the National Archives and other parties.

Beginning in late summer, the @kamalakancel account began posting documents it appeared to have acquired from official sources demonstrating that Harris was born on October 20, 1964 to non-U.S.-citizen parents who were not considered by the U.S. government to be “immigrants,” as some have claimed.

Born in Oakland, CA, Harris’s parents entered the country several years before on respective student visas, her mother from India and her father from Jamaica. To this publication’s knowledge, its own direct inquiries and those of a number of its readers, Harris has not addressed questions regarding her parents’ citizenship at the time of her birth nor whether or not her mother ever became a U.S. citizen.

Her father, Donald J. Harris, claims to have naturalized but does not provide the year on his Stanford University Professor Emeritus page.

As noted by a number of constitutional writers, scholars and attorneys as well as Chapman University Professor of Law John C. Eastman, the status of Harris’s parents when she was born may be a crucial factor as to whether or not she qualifies under the Article II, Section 1, clause 5 “natural born Citizen” requirement reserved for the president alone in the original Constitution and later extended by the passage of the 12th Amendment to all vice-presidential candidates.

Similar questions remain unanswered regarding former Oval Office occupant Barack Hussein Obama II given that his claimed father was a British, and later Kenyan, citizen present in the United States on a student visa between 1959 in 1964. Adding yet another layer of doubt are multiple mainstream reports published prior to Obama’s seeking the U.S. presidency stating that he was born in Kenya or Indonesia and not Hawaii, as he claims.

The letter goes on to reference one written by Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey to a constituent, Jeffrey Harrison, who raised concerns about Harris’s eligibility prior to the November 3 general election. In his response, Toomey wrote that Harris is eligible under the 14th Amendment due to her birth in the United States to “immigrant” parents, while conflating the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.”

“This statement is incorrect,” the letter claims. “Documents obtained from the US national archives state that the parents of Kamala D. Harris were not ‘immigrants’ at the time of her October 20, 1964 birth. The parents of Kamala D. Harris were in fact ‘non-immigrants’ (per titles of the sworn documents they signed as part of their applications for Student Visas, which permitted their presence in the USA in 1964).”

According to federal law, legal immigrants must reside in the United States for five years, with certain exceptions, before they are eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship. Additional requirements include proficiency in English and passing a civics test, among others.

Referencing two active court cases which have not fully adjudicated the question of Harris’s eligibility, the letter contends that, “Factual and legal issues of this sort will require investigation” as well as raising a new question: “What are the legal implications, and potential liabilities, should members of the Electoral College act to certify an ineligible candidate for office?”

The final paragraph of the letter suggests the issue could be included in any “potential objections” lodged prior to the January 6, 2021 joint session, which is congressional members’ constitutional prerogative should they determine anything to have been amiss with the presidential election.

As The Post & Email has reported, Atty. Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey has suggested that presidential and vice-presidential candidates could “win” an election, only to be declared ineligible when Congress applies the provisions of the 20th Amendment, which states in Section 3:

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Through a letter of his own issued by the U.S. Allegiance Institute (USAI), Apuzzo is urging all concerned citizens to contact their members of Congress both about not only alleged election fraud and “invalid” electoral votes stemming therefrom, but also regarding whether or not Harris qualifies to be vice-president or president should she and Biden be sworn in and Biden become unable to perform his duties.

The letter is signed, “A CONCERNED CITIZEN” and directs the reader to the Twitter account and website of the same name. A postscript at the bottom reads, “Documents also evidence that Kamala D. Harris was born in the USA as a result of fraud committed by her mother from 1958 to 1965 (in violation of immigration statutes). This may impact her legality as a citizen, required for her to hold office as a US Senator.”

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. Article II, sec 1, clause 5 and the 12th Amendment very clear on what a Natural born citizen is….. John McCain, Barack Obama and Kamala Harris do not quality at anytime for President or Vice President. Why is the Supreme Court not speaking up. Do they need to be fired for submission?

    1. The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the term “natural born citizen.”

      Some lower courts have ruled on what the term means, but the U.S. Supreme Court has never intervened.

      In 2016, for example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. That case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it declined to hear the case.

  2. Unfortunately, Jeffrey Harrison and others, our founding fathers did not foresee JOHN G ROBERTS JR! And, you can tell him I said so! Only problem is, even though I am a military veteran, retired law enforcement officer, conscientious taxpayer, Independent-registered voter, and law-abiding American citizen, Roberts and his eight other Supremes don’t consider me to have any “STANDING!” As far as I’m concerned, our highest of high courts is making a mockery of our constitution.

  3. Hey, Congressman GT Thompson, you stated to me that the issue of Obama
    was “water under the Bridge”. Well, water has a way of recycling. Up to date
    we have Kamala Harris being recycled too. The Constitution should be honored and defended. Here we have failure from congress, the senate, and the media. Let’s abide by the law and leave the Natural Born Citizen intact and defended. It ain’t broke, and doesn’t need to be adjusted… It is fine as
    is. Our founding fathers had a great idea here.

  4. They both need to be investigated by an impartial group of people well versed in constitutional law. We have no honest people in government anymore so a military tribunal should be implemented. If this is not resolved, what good is our supposed right to vote for eligible candidates? We may as well just stay home and let the PTB place whoever they want in there. Kinda like our parent govt in the uk.

  5. Please do not feel offended but in my humble opinion, asking Congress to validate what is very plainly in the Constitution is a total waste of time. With possibly only one or two exceptions, they are unanimously wrapped up in their own little comfort zone and refuse to be pulled out of it by hook or by crook.

  6. The debate leading up to the enactment the 14th Amendment was long, hard, and – well – debatable. The debate continues to the present, because the phrase: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” still exists in the 14th Amendment and that phrase remains highly debatable and is often misinterpreted or even fully ignored.

    The words of the 14th Amendment set the authority of “US-born” citizenship by two methods: 1.) A person is a US citizen who is born in the USA to at least one US citizen parent via man-made positive STATUTORY US law(s) and affirmed by Article I of the US Constitution. 2.) A person is a natural born (US) Citizen through natural law by being born in the USA to two (2) parents who already are US citizens.

    For those persons not born in the USA, i.e., those born outside of the USA to one or even two US citizen parent(s), they are US citizens through man-made positive STATUTORY US immigration laws as authorized by Article I of the US Constitution, provided that these persons’ parents apply for their US citizenship through US law(s) upon their entry in the USA.

    Consider reading the below article while sipping on your hot chocolate or warm beverage of your choice while welcoming in 2021 – the first year of the next four years of President Trump enticing swamp creatures to rise to the surface to get a reality-check of THE TRUTH through sunlight.

    My conclusion: all foreigners existing on US soil, and their offspring who are born in the USA, are aliens who are not completely “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” until they become a US citizen by man-made positive STATUTORY US law(s). These foreigners are still natives of and fully subject to the laws or whims of the country where they originated until such time as they are granted US citizenship through man-made positive STATUTORY US law(s).

    It’s a travesty of the US Constitution to allow foreigners existing on US soil to bestow US citizenship on their offspring. Real corrections to my comment posts are always welcome.

  7. We all know, here at the P & E, that Harris is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States. I have been “busy as a bee” filing formal charges with the U.S. Secretary of Defense and others. We are in a time of war. I had a Secret Clearance in the Navy. I know what access to our nation’s secrets involve. There are severe ramifications that occur when persons not qualified by law to receive access to such classified material, obtain access by usurpation and under color of authority. There is a name for this. It is called Espionage and Treason. I had access to our nation’s secrets after an extensive FBI background investigation. Years ago the Canada Free Press wrote an article entitled “Obama could not pass a national security clearance investigation”. It was due to his foreign influences and misrepresentations. What makes anyone think that Harris OR Biden or Pelosi can pass such an investigation. They are all complicit with treason.

    1. Thank you for your service Rob, both then and now.
      On the subject of security clearance investigations, it’s a moot point for the people you mention because they are not required to have an FBI security investigation.
      Mostly by executive order, the need for a background check to see classified information was removed for many people. One especially suspicious E.O. is E.O. 13467, which was signed in late June of 2008 by GWB and mandated by Congress to be in effect by January of 2009, just in time for Barry. This E.O. was only in effect during Obama’s 8 years. In a last minute E.O. signed by Obama in January of 2017, a completely revised E.O. procedure on security clearances and how they are handled and by whom was signed by Obama, just in time for President Trump. You can bet this was not done to make things better or easier for the incoming Trump administration…..
      Here is a link to Obama’s January 2107 E.O. on security clearances:

      And this is something I wrote on this subject. It was published here under the name, “Tom Deacon”. Please take a look at the links in the article, they are still available:
      Thank you.

      1. Addition to my post above…..this is from page 7 of the Congressional Research Service, ( lawyers who work for Congress), and it answers the often ask question of, “how did ? ever pass an FBI security check”? Most often the answer is, they are not required to get one:

        Security Clearance Process: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, Congressional Research Service, this from page 7:
        According to the Office of Personnel Management(OPM), “clearances are based on investigations requested by Federal agencies, appropriate to specific positions and their duties. Until a person is offered such a position, the government will not request or pay for an investigation for a clearance. ”17Are Constitutional Officers (e.g., the President, Members of Congress) Required to Hold a Security Clearance to Access Classified Information?

        Security clearances are not mandated for the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, or other constitutional officers. The criteria for election or appointment to these positions are specified in the U.S. Constitution, and except by constitutional amendment, no additional criteria (e.g., holding a security clearance) may be required.18Further, “by tradition and practice, United States officials who hold positions prescribed by the Constitution of the United States are deemed to meet the standards of trustworthiness for eligibility for access to classified information.”19Additionally, as Commander-in-Chief, the President has the authority to establish the standards for access to classified national security information. This authority is typically exercised through the issuance of executive orders. Executive Order 13467, which covers suitability checks and security clearances for federal employees, applicants, and contractors,includes a determination of which executive branch individuals are covered and which are exempted.”Covered individual’ means a person who performs work for or on behalf of the executive branch, or who seeks to perform work for or on behalf of the executive branch, but does not include:(i) the President or (except to the extent otherwise directed by the President) employees of the President under section 105 or 107 of title 3, United States Code; or(ii) the Vice President or (except to the extent otherwise directed by the Vice President) employees of the Vice President under section 106 of title 3 or annual legislative branch appropriations .

        National Security is mostly a mirage……….

        1. IMHO, it is unconscionable that candidates for POTUS, V-POTUS, Congress and SCOTUS don’t have to undergo and pass an FBI national security clearance background investigation. In In 1965 my acceptance to an Army electronics school was delayed for two months and almost denied because, while investigating my background, the FBI discovered that, when my father was stationed (and we were living) in Munich Germany my younger sister (17 at the time) was hanging out a nightclub known to be a KGB hangout.

    2. That’s a good point. Harris is already on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence so she’s had access to all this info. She wasn’t supposed to tell anybody, including Biden, but there are rumors she did. That should be invesitgated too.

      How is the Laity v Harris going? It would be perfect if you won before 1/6, that would be the final nail in Congress to reelect President Trump. Any chance that can happen? Hopeful. Thank you for your Patriot efforts here.

  8. Does the fact that VP nominee Kamala Harris is NOT A NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN per Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution INVALIDATE or cause to be ILLEGAL (certainly it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL) the Biden-Harris Democrat ticket? There is still time for our so-called Supreme Court to take up the question (the NBC question) and rule on it. But, that would not serve the motives (activist and political) of our current high court, and might be more than just a little embarrassing. Don’t you think so, John Roberts and fellow God-like colleagues for life? What you did in the case of Barack HUSSEIN Obama, who had been a citizen of three different countries (British Kenya, Indonesia, and maybe, just maybe, the United States) and obviously was constitutionally ineligible, WILL HAUNT YOU, THE SUPREME COURT, AND OUR COUNTRY, WHOSE CITIZENS YOU VICTIMIZED AND DISENFRANCHISED, FOR A LONG TIME TO COME IF NOT FOREVER! Of course, that assumes that you have a conscience!

  9. No mention of the FACT that Harris was born a DUAL CITIZEN of Jamaica if we are to assume she gets birthright citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment. The Constitution of Jamaica says so!

    1. Kamala Harris was actually born a citizen of not one, not two, but three different sovereign countries — America, Jamaica and India. Although she gets birthright citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment, she doesn’t get natural born citizenship because the 14th Amendment says nothing about same.

      However, the primary framer of the 14ht Amendment, Congressman John Bingham, said this about natural born citizenship two years prior to authoring the 14th Amendment: “All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and in compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural born citizen except what is said in the Constitution in relation to [Native American] Indians”. — John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1862

      Concurrent with discussion about the 14th Amendment he said this about natural born citizenship: “I find no fault with the introductory clause of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”. — John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866

      Adjectives matter. Every red Corvette convertible (natural born citizen) is also a convertible (citizen). However, not every convertible (citizen) is also a red Corvette convertible (natural born citizen).

      1. India does not allow dual citizenship. It does however bestow certain benefits and privileges to those of direct Indian parentage who hold American passports. Jamaica does allow dual citizenship and it is clear that Harris was born with every right and privilege of Jamaican citizenship and could exercise her claim to foreign citizenship this very day. Obviously this is a red flag and an obvious legal and constititutional impediment to her desire to be VPOTUS or POTUS.

  10. Looking at the KamalaKancel documents, I don’t see evidence of immigration fraud. Her mother came to the US on a student visa, later applied under US law to become an immigrant. From the documents, she applied for and received extensions to her visa and when she applied to become an immigrant, it was granted.

    Where is the fraud?

    1. Obviously you do not understand the MAIN issue, as you reference only your minor “smoke screen” as do all the Dems and RINOs. Face the truth before it comes back and bits you in the rump.

      1. I was just pointing out that there is no evidence of fraud in the immigration documents produced so far.

        No point in making accusations if you don’t have the evidence.

        1. An updated narrative, which cites and clarifies the documentary evidence of immigration fraud by the mother of Kamala D. Harris, has been uploaded. You can review it for yourself, via the “Kamala Kancel” Twitter account (referenced in this thread) or also the backup website at

  11. The letter is referring to Robert Laity’s case, which was dismissed for lack of standing, in the District Court for the District of Columbia, and the pending appeal of that case in Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.

    The appeal won’t address the merits, just standing.