It’s therefore both valuable and necessary to explain carefully why this theory is incorrect as a matter of constitutional law.
To do that, you need to start with the theory itself. It starts with the constitutional provision of Article II that says, “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.” (To be vice president, you have to meet the eligibility requirements to be president.)
According to the attack theory, the meaning of “natural born” should be derived from the 14th amendment, which says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The attack on Harris’s eligibility focuses on the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The basic idea is supposed to be that those words modify the words “born in … the United States.” The theory asserts that children of non-citizens aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. If that is so, runs the argument, they aren't citizens.
Think about that for a moment. Accepting this theory wouldn’t only mean Harris is ineligible to serve as vice president. It also would lead to the conclusion that Harris isn't a citizen at all. And nor are all the other children of immigrants in the United States.
That's not a pure coincidence. This attack is derived from an earlier attack on birthright citizenship, one that was being pushed most recently in 2018, when I last wrote about it. The anti-immigrant fringe has just taken this earlier argument and aimed it at Harris.
It’s an incoherent idea that was squarely rejected by the Supreme Court over a century ago. In 1898, a landmark decision called U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark held that children of immigrants who are born in the U.S. are citizens. It mentioned three categories of children who might have been excluded by the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”: Native American children; children of foreign diplomats; or children of foreign occupiers who were invading the United States at the time the children were born there. Obviously, none of these categories applies to Kamala Harris.
This also aligns pretty closely with the original meaning of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th amendment. This is all usefully explained in a law review article by the scholar Gerard Magliocca, the author of the leading biography of John Bingham, the main draftsman of that 1868 amendment.
The original purpose of the natural born citizen requirement in Article II (which dates back to the draft Constitution of 1787) was probably to keep specific foreigners from becoming presidential candidates. (I wrote about this issue, too, a couple of years ago in a different column.) Tom Lee, a brilliant scholar with an uncanny penchant for uncovering the framers’ original intent, suspects it was specifically aimed at preventing the Marquis de Lafayette, who was popular in post-revolutionary America, from being made commander in chief.
In any case, there would be no conceivable reason to try to apply that exclusion to a child of immigrants who was born in the United States. To reach that conclusion, you basically have to be an anti-immigrant zealot who opposes birthright citizenship altogether.
The upshot is that the attack on Harris's eligibility is standard-issue xenophobia, albeit dressed up in a fringe constitutional theory.
The framers would be proud, not threatened, to see a child of immigrants running for the vice presidency. Whatever their flaws — and they were many — the framers understood that the United States was a nation of immigrants. Article II allowed immigrants to become president, provided they were citizens at the time of ratification. The 14th amendment formalized birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants. These are settled legal facts — and will remain so.
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.