Check Out WHY KAMALA HARRIS Might Be REMOVED from Office as Theory around her CITIZENSHIP resurfaces

Mike Wood
3 Min Read
Disclosure: This website may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. I only recommend products or services that I personally use and believe will add value to my readers. Your support is appreciated!

A resurgence of a longstanding conspiracy theory challenging Vice President Kamala Harris’ eligibility for office has ignited heated discussions on social media platforms, fueled by a meticulous examination of the landmark Wong Kim Ark case.

- Advertisement -

The controversy surrounding Harris’s eligibility first surfaced when she was selected as the running mate for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. Recently, a post on X (formerly Twitter) by user @Prolotario1 has rekindled the debate, leveraging the Wong Kim Ark case as evidence to question Harris’s natural-born citizenship status.

Allegations and Wong Kim Ark Connection

- Advertisement -

According to @Prolotario1, Kamala Harris’s parents, Donald Jasper Harris, a Jamaican national, and her mother from India, were not naturalized US citizens at the time of her birth in 1964. The post argues that this could render Harris ineligible for the presidency and vice presidency, citing the 12th Amendment and Article II of the Constitution.

Delving into the Wong Kim Ark case, the user contends that every non-US parent of a baby born in the US has natural citizenship rights based on the laws of their home country. However, @Prolotario1 argues that Kamala’s father’s Jamaican citizenship plays a crucial role in determining her eligibility, referencing Jamaican law stating that “every person born outside Jamaica shall become a citizen of Jamaica.”

- Advertisement -

The Heart of the Controversy

The controversy hinges on the jurisdiction test established by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark decision. @Prolotario1 contends that Kamala fails to meet the criteria, emphasizing the requirement that birth parents must have a permanent domicile and residence in the US.

The post questions the validity of considering a student residence as a permanent domicile, highlighting Kamala’s father’s status as a full-time student at the time of her birth. Concerns are also raised about Kamala’s time in Canada, suggesting that claiming Canadian citizenship during that period could impact her eligibility under the Wong test.

Debunking the Claims

Dispelling these assertions requires consideration of the constitutional framework set by the Founding Fathers. The Constitution restricts the presidency and vice presidency to “natural-born citizens,” excluding naturalized individuals. However, it allows individuals born in the US with foreign citizen parents to be considered “natural-born citizens.”

Despite potential disagreements with this policy, enforcing the constitutional rule is deemed appropriate to address concerns about foreign influence. Kamala Harris, born to non-naturalized citizens, fits within the category of “natural-born citizens,” as emphasized in an op-ed by Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law, published in Newsweek.

As discussions surrounding Harris’s eligibility persist, it is essential to navigate through the constitutional intricacies that shape the qualifications for the highest offices in the nation.

BOTSHIELD-CONTENT-ID:DUAfbnYQlZCETi5Y
- Advertisement -
TAGGED:
Share This Article
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted