by Sharon Rondeau
(May 21, 2021) — On Friday evening the Twitter account “@kamalakancel” posted what appears to be a naturalization certificate for Donald Jasper Harris, the father of Kamala Harris.
The certificate appears to bear the date stamp “14 SEP 1981,” which, if authentic and accurate, indicates Donald Harris, who was born in Jamaica and arrived in the U.S. on a student visa in the early 1960s, naturalized as an American citizen approximately a month prior to his elder daughter Kamala’s 17th birthday.
Kamala Harris, who was born on October 20, 1964 in Oakland, CA and currently occupies the office of vice president, has been challenged by New York State citizen and registered voter Robert C. Laity on the claim that she is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office as a “natural born Citizen.”
Prior to the lawsuit, Kamala Harris and then-Attorney General William P. Barr declined to respond to Laity’s August filing of a Quo Warranto action in Washington, DC to determine whether or not she would usurp the office of vice president were she and running-mate Joe Biden elected on November 3, 2020.
Whether or not Biden/Harris were legally elected amid thousands of reports of ballot fraud in 6-7 “swing” states remains an open question among many Americans shunned by the mainstream media.
The Framers of the Constitution designated the term “natural born Citizen” solely for the president in Article II, Section 1, clause 5, writing:
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.
Ratification of the 12th Amendment in 1804 mandated the same requirements for the vice president.
Laity and certain constitutional scholars believe that the Framers intended the president, who is also commander-in-chief of the military, to possess a higher level of allegiance than that which they required of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate in Article I.
That elevated level of allegiance, these scholars posit, is represented by the president’s or vice president’s parents having been U.S. citizens at the time of his or her birth and therefore having raised a “natural born Citizen” with undivided allegiance to the United States.
The Twitter account-holder appears to share that view, as along with the document Friday, he/she tweeted:
Election Fraud! How can Vice President Kamala Harris (born in 1964, to a father who naturalized to become a US citizen many years later in 1981) claim to be a “natural born citizen” (as required by the US Constitution)? When will she resign? @KamalaKancelhttp://kamalakancel.com
After facing rejection in the lower courts, last month Laity took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was docketed on the 28th and awaits a May 27 conference to determine its fate.
Kamala Harris has not responded to constituent or media inquiries as to whether or not her parents were naturalized prior to her birth; if authentic, the document released Friday appears to answer that question as to her father.
Kamala’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, was born in India and arrived in the U.S. on a student visa in 1958, according to documents released by the same Twitter account last fall. It is unclear whether Gopalan Harris ever pursued U.S. citizenship; she required a U.S.-citizen sponsor to re-enter the country after having been employed in Montreal, Canada between approximately 1976 and 1995.
According to Donald Harris’s Wikipedia entry, “Throughout his career, Harris has worked on economic analysis and policy regarding the economy of Jamaica, his native country.[2] He served there, at various times, as economic policy consultant to the Government of Jamaica and as economic adviser to successive Prime Ministers.[3][4].”
If one is BORN in the USA one is a citizen. If also one is born anywhere in the world to parents who are citizens – one is also a citizen. (This often applies to those in the military who have children while overseas).
The requirement for “natural born” citizenship came from the book The Law of Nations, which at one time was used in US universities. It was written by Emmerich Vattel in the 1700’s, and according to Benjamin Franklin, who was given 3 copies of the book, it was used extensively by the Founders in the drafting of the Constitution.
For someone to be a Natural Born citizen of the United States of America, the parentS must be citizenS of the USA at the time of the child’s birth in order for the child to be a natural born citizen.
Ted Cruz, Barack Obama, and I think also Vivek Ramaswamy are likewise not eligible to be President or Vice President of the USA. Ted Cruz was born in Canada of a Cuban father. Barack says his father was Barack Obama Sr, who never at any time became a naturalized American.
Everything barack has done ( including since Jan 20, 2021) should be totally nullified. He hates this nation and is a traitor. So is Jb.
Henry Wilson, The law at the time that Kamala Devi Harris was born controls. You should know that. When she was born, the BNA of 1948 had full effect on Harris, regardless of subsequent changes.
Why should I believe something that isn’t true?
Regardless, when Harris was born, both Jamaica and India had achieved independence.
Citizen.born Citizen.natural born Citizen PRECEDENTIAL PRESIDENTIAL and VICE-PRESIDENTIAL PARENTS
Rather than continue endless legal stalemates today from debating just what “natural born Citizen” meant 1789- TODAY, I believe the indisputable understanding of “natural born Citizen” can be found by PRECEDENTIAL INTERPRETATION, i.e., “the proof is in the pudding”.
If 46 Presidents are born in the USA to 46 sets of parents who are all US citizens at time of each President’s birth, and if 49 Vice-Presidents are born in the USA to 49 sets of parents who are all US citizens at time of each Vice-President’s birth, then, by precedent alone, this particular group of 285 US-citizen-persons (= 3 x 46 + 3 x 49) should be sufficient evidence to reveal that all previous generations of US political leaders interpreted “natural born Citizen” to mean “born in US jurisdiction to US-population-citizen-parents”, don’t you think?
Of course, the actual historical group of said 285 souls appears to contain some foreign-citizenships, such as Chester Arthur’s Irish-citizen father.
However, if it can be proven beyond any doubt that only, say, 10 foreign-citizenship parents are a discernable part of said group (thus, 275/285 = 96%), for any reason, would the meaning of “natural born Citizen” today continue to be interpreted as being “born in US jurisdiction to US-citizen-parents” going forward for the rest of this century, or would some lawyers and some judges rule that today’s “inclusion” and “diversity” over-rule yesterday’s historical “precedent”, or that precedential 275/285 = 96% was mere historical “coincidence” and not deliberate historical “interpretation”?
Children of foreign diplomats do NOT acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not born under the “Jurisdiction of the United States”. Both of Kamala Harris’s parents were non-citizen permanent residents when Kamala was born. Both of her parents were also British Subject/Citizens under provisions of the British Nationality Act. Kamala Harris was born a British Subject as was Obama.
There’s no evidence that Harris, Obama, or their parents are subject to the British Nationality Act or are citizens of the United Kingdom.
The British Nationality Act of 1948:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/11-12/56/enacted.
Proof is in the Pudding.
I’ve read it.
The British Nationality Act of 1948 is obsolete. There have been numerous, significant amendments to the United Kingdom’s citizenship laws since then.
The actual, current law governing the United Kingdom has no application to Obama, Harris, or their parents.
Thank you for article.
Everybody here knows the deal. Our forefathers could not see what was coming, so here we are. Supreme Corrupt Court didn’t want to clarify NBC…hence, barry barack hussein soetoro obama (hold on, did I put those names in correct order?), and king kamala harris. Now it’s too late, I’m tellin’ ya. And I’m not trying to be negative here. Laity, Taitz & others have a winning case unequivocally. But it’s the same as if you were to venture back in the boondocks to attend a cockfight wearing a “SAVE THE ANIMALS” tee-shirt.
It’s ironic Laity & Taitz both have “ai” in their names. It’s also ironic that the late infamous WWE/WWF Professional Wrestler “KING KAMALA” & kamala harris share the same last name, “harris.” I felt sorry for “KING KAMALA” before he passed away. And he was one of the biggest wrestling stars ever. But the poor guy had diabetes, ended up getting both his legs amputated at the knees before he died. And something tells me that yours truly, king kamala harris, will get “cut off at the proverbial knees”…whether Trump does it, or our Almighty God.
Trump is actually #43. Arthur and Obama were usurpers. Orly Taitz and I share three letters in our last names “ait”. T “ait” z and L “ait” y.
You are incorrect about the Suprme Court not clarifying NBC.Since 1814the Supreme Court has defined NBC. I’ll state it here in it’s simpliest form. Justice Grier — “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” Not only that but in the Perkins v Elg case Ms Elg was called a NBC and then defined as to why: Born in NY to naturalized citizen parents BEFORE she was born. There never has been another natural born citizen definition used by the Supreme Court. Born in U.S. to U.S. citizen parents. Seems pretty clear the Supreme Court has clarified what the definition of NBA is. I can’t see how it can be any clearer.
Anchor Baby! Not eligible.
I don’t see the point of this article. So what if her father naturalized in 1981? It is well documented her mother never naturalized.
Are saying if he had naturalized in 1961 (before her birth) she would be a natural born citizen?
Lately I’ve seen a number of tweets from conservative types saying it takes one parent to be a citizen for the child to be natural born.
Is this the set to make Don Jr. or Ivanka eligible?
Which is it none, one or two? Pick one and stick with it.
The point is that someone appears to have obtained a document responsive to questions asked of Kamala Harris in the recent past which she chose not to answer. https://www.thepostemail.com/2017/12/04/california-constituent-sen-kamala-harris-not-natural-born-citizen/
The sole Trump child that is eligible to be President is Tiffany. She will be eligible just in time to run for President in 2028., when she is 35 y.o. The Daughter of two US Citizens, Donald Trump and Marla Maples, Tiffany was born in the USA and is therefore a Natural Born Citizen.
To answer the questions: Yes; no.
Who, exactly, ever said that her father was a U.S. citizen at the time of her birth?
Neither parent was an American citizen at the time of her birth. Thus Kommiela is NOT a NATURAL born citizen and therefore INELIGIBLE to be VPOTUS (12th Amendment) or POTUS (Article II). Harris is merely a NATIVE born citizen pursuant to the misinterpreted “anchor baby” provision of of the 14th. Amendment. Time for the USSC to get off it’s butt and weigh in on the issue and uphold the Constitution. Enough with the “No Standing” BS!
Technically, Children of Foreign diplomats do NOT acquire citizenship at all under the 14th Amendment since they are not born” under the jurisdiction of the United States”. He was an “economic policy consultant to the Government of Jamaica…prime ministers”.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649 (1898) is the relevant legal precedence in this matter. Ark was determined (erroneously, in my opinion, but held as precedence today) to be a CITIZEN due to his birth on US soil to non-citizen parents. Both of his parents were foreign nationals legally in the country but NOT citizens on October 20, 1964, the birthdate of the Harris. During the debate on the 14th amendment, Congressman John A. Bingham, the author of section 1 of the 14th amendment clearly stated during the debates over the amendment that the “subject to the jurisdiction of” clause meant that these united States had to exercise EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over the person for citizenship to apply. The fact than positive law had to be applied to Harris precludes the concept of natural born citizenship for her. The law allows for only two kinds of citizenship, naturalized and natural born. As per the common law of nations, every sovereign nation has the right to determine its own citizenship requirements. The two principles involve are Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis. From the soil and from the blood. Harris may have been born on our soil, but the blood of her parents brings into question the LEGAL fealty. Again, refer to the Ark decision. Her circumstances are exactly the same as Arks were in 1898. Nothing has change. She is only a citizen off this nation, not an NBC. Until she provides naturalization documentation showing BOTH parents being naturalized prior to October 20, 1964, she is not constitutionally eligible for the office she now holds and is not eligible to serve in the office of president.
What, exactly, did you base your answers upon?
I’m guessing previous court decisions.
Human-filled courts throughout the world are filled with homo sapiens who can and have made judicial mistakes. Only one human and his Mother (Mary) in history was without sin, faults, and mistakes – Jesus, and they hanged Jesus on a cross for his effort while his Mother watched.
Every judge who considered the eligibility question on the merits concluded a natural-born citizen includes those born in the United States (a few minor, inapplicable circumstances excepted; when she was born, Harris’ parents were students, not diplomats). No judge came to the opposite conclusion.
Of the few eligibility challenges filed against Harris, none received a ruling on the merits. This is because none was filed by attorney; a competent attorney should know how to draft a complaint (and which court to file in) that would avoid a dismissal on grounds such as standing. That no attorney filed a case also is an indication that there’s no there’s no serious legal question.
Regardless, Harris’ parents’ naturalization status has never been disputed or even relevant: No one has claimed she was eligible only due to the status of her parents’ citizenship.
Kamala’s parents were not subject to the “complete” jurisdiction of any state of the Union (USA) and therefore not politically-affiiated with any state of the union. In order for Kamala to be a plain-vanilla (STATUTORY) US citizen, then that would have happened if one of her parents had naturalized as a US citizen before her birth.
From the following website you will find the two following paragraphs:
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provide the answer, with Trumbull declaring:
The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
So, the previous intent of the last two paragraphs are aptly found in the Congressional Record. Look for it yourself. I am not going to do all your work for you, those who choose not to accept the truth and the significant difference between a “natural born (US) Citizen” and a “plain-vanilla STATUTORY (US) citizen”.
Columbo says: One last thing, ThePost&eMail trolls – Look for the the phrase “natural born Citizen” in any current US law and cite the law for me when you find it. I doubt if you will find that phrase, because Congress cannot make anyone a natural born Citizen through positive man-made law. Only US citizen parents (plural) who have their child born in the USA can make natural born Citizens.
No judge has agreed that a natural-born citizen must have two U.S. citizen parents, and several have expressly disagreed.
You may believe these judges are wrong, but your disagreement doesn’t invalidate their rulings. And no judge believes these the judges who have ruled on the meaning of natural-born citizen were wrong.
The suggestion that Harris isn’t even a U.S. citizen is contradicted by her near two decades of public service for offices that require U.S. citizenship.
Minor v. Happersett says otherwise Sir. Also see US v. Wong Kim Ark. Harris is only a citizen as per the Ark decision.
Henry Wilson’s trollish comments on this website are beginning to severely devolve via the Nazi Joseph Goebbels process of repeating a lie often enough in a futile attempt to make it a truth. Never once in your reply did you address the facts called out in the Federalist article. Too hot to handle?
The baseless accusation of lying doesn’t even specify what might be a lie. The insinuation notwithstanding, there is no lie: judges have consistently and repeatedly rejected the argument that, for those born in the United States, a person’s parents’ citizenship is relevant to status as a natural-born citizen.
I have no idea what that random blog is, or who P.A. Madison is. This Madison person may, of course, have an opinion. But the author isn’t a judge, and the article is flatly contradicted by rulings from actual judges. It is also a poorly written article, as it avoids the case that answered this “question”: U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
Kamala Harris is NOT a Natural Born US Citizen. Point out ONE case in which the “Merits” on the eligibility issues were ruled on by a Judge? ONE case. Several Attorneys have filed eligibility suits on the eligibility issue. I KNOW how to draft a legal complaint. I have been doing so since 1972. I have represented hundreds of clients in the federal sector for almost fifty years.
Ankeny v Daniels, No. 49A02-0904-CV-353.
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Decided: November 12, 2009
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.” 15”
“The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs’ case.16 See generally McCalment v. Eli Lilly & Co., 860 N.E.2d 884 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (holding that the plaintiffs’ arguments had been sufficiently addressed by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and therefore the trial court did not err when it granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir.1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”), cert. denied 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S.Ct. 3112, 77 L.Ed.2d 1367 (1983).”
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s grant of the Governor’s motion to dismiss.”
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1501011.html
Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana ruled on the merits; its ruling crafted a definition for natural born citizen.
As stated, no attorney filed an eligibility challenge against Harris.
Laity’s claims of experience and competence notwithstanding, his complaint was quickly dismissed, and its dismissal was summarily affirmed. An attorney would have known better than to file in a federal court, as evidenced by no filing against Harris was filed by an attorney.
Interesting fact about the Ankeny v Daniels ruling is that it is a published opinion by the Appeals Court of Indiana and the Indiana Supreme Court refused in an unanimous decision not to hear the appeal.
“THIS MATTER HAS COME BEFORE THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT ON A PETITION TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE PETITION WAS FILED PURSUANT TO APPELLATE RULE 57. THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. ANY RECORD ON APPEAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COURT FOR REVIEW, ALONG WITH ANY AND ALL BRIEFS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ALL THE MATERIALS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER OF THE COURT HAS VOTED ON THE PETITION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THAT JUSTICE’S VIEWS ON THE CASE IN CONFERENCE WITH THE OTHER JUSTICES. BEING DULY ADVISED, THE COURT NOW DENIES THE APPELLANT’S PETITION TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION. RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. KJ 04/05/10”
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase/#/vw/CaseSummary/eyJ2Ijp7IkNhc2VUb2tlbiI6Imkta2VtTTJMMGFqM2VZaU52NUk2aVV5eWJCX1p5d01jZ2JuRExYNnljWG8xIn19
A published opinion by the highest appeals court to hear the case makes it a precedent in Indiana.
In Indiana, by law, the definition of a natural born citizen is governed by the Ankeny decision.
Not the rest of the nation however…
Regardless.
It is intellectually dishonest, to put in nicely, for anyone, especially a judge, to proffer that the Framers were so dumb/naïve as to intend “natural born Citizen” to include someone born with allegiance to three different countries.
Judges do not conduct seances to determine the Framers’ feelings.
Rather, judges research the applicable law and apply it. Their explanations for their reasoning and conclusions are well documented.