MEAWW.COM / NEWS / POLITICS

Conspiracy theory around Kamala Harris' US citizenship resurfaces as Wong Kim Ark case used as 'proof'

Theories surrounding Kamala Harris' status as a natural-born citizen have circulated ever since she was named the running mate of President Joe Biden

WASHINGTON, DC: A longstanding conspiracy theory challenging Vice President Kamala Harris' eligibility for office based on her US citizenship has resurfaced, gaining momentum and fueling intense discussions on social media platforms.

The theory, rooted in a meticulous examination of the landmark Wong Kim Ark case, alleges that Harris may not be a natural-born citizen of the US, a prerequisite for holding the office of Vice President.

Notably, the controversy first began when presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden selected Kamala as his running mate.

Claims challenging Vice President Kamala Harris' US citizenship resurfaces 

Recently, particularly a post on X (formerly Twitter) by user @Prolotario1, has reignited the debate, citing the Wong Kim Ark case as a crucial factor in questioning Kamala Harris' citizenship status.

According to the user, Kamala's father, Donald Jasper Harris, a Jamaican national, and her mother, from India, were not naturalized US citizens at the time of her birth in 1964.

This, the argument goes, could make Harris ineligible for the presidency and, consequently, the vice presidency, as per the 12th Amendment and Article II of the Constitution.

The post delves into the Wong Kim Ark case, asserting 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, the user contends that Kamala's father's Jamaican citizenship plays a crucial role in determining her eligibility. They draw attention to Jamaican law, which apparently states that "every person born outside Jamaica shall become a citizen of Jamaica."

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

The user also questioned 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.

Moreover, @Prolotario1 raised concerns about Kamala's time in Canada, writing, "When Kamala was 12, her mother moved Kamala and her sister to Canada for graduate work at McGill University. Kamala attended high school in Westmount, Quebec, graduating in 1981. Which is something people have not brought up at all." 

They continued, "Did she claim Canadian citizenship during that period? That would put her under the jurisdiction of the British Crown with regard to the Wong test. Occasionally, a student residence can be used as legal domicile, if the person has the provable intent to make it permanent."

"The evidence is clear that Donald had no intention of making his Berkeley address at the time of Kamala’s birth his legal domicile. He moved 3 different times. With no intention for permanent residence. Plus, he was a full-time student who was not here on business," added the post. 

Debunking the claims surrounding Kamala Harris' citizenship

While dispelling the assertions looming around Kamala Harris' citizenship, it's crucial to consider the constitutional framework set by the Founding Fathers.

The Constitution, while expressing a limited skepticism of immigration, specifically restricts the presidency and vice presidency to "natural-born citizens," excluding naturalized individuals.

There was a fear among the Framers that immigrants might maintain allegiance to their home countries, posing a potential threat to the highest offices in the nation. Despite potential disagreements with this policy, enforcing the constitutional rule is deemed appropriate.

The qualifications outlined by the Framers further delineate the criteria for presidential eligibility as the president must be either a "natural-born citizen" or a "citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."

Additionally, there is a requirement of having been a resident within the US for 14 years, serving as a screening mechanism to address concerns about foreign influence.

Notably, individuals with foreign ties, such as being married to a foreign citizen or having children with foreign citizenship, were not automatically disqualified. Instead, the decision to elect such individuals was left to the political process, underscoring that constitutional disqualification did not apply.

This principle extends to individuals born in the US with foreign citizen parents. Under English law, they were considered "natural-born subjects" and, by extension, "natural-born citizens" to the Framers.

Kamala Harris seamlessly fits within this category, according to an op-ed by Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law, published in Newsweek.