Janice R. Andrews
The US Constitution stipulates that only a “natural born citizen” or someone who was a citizen when the Constitution was adopted can become President. This requirement, along with age and residency criteria, determines presidential eligibility.
“Natural born citizen” typically refers to individuals who are citizens from birth without naturalization. This includes those born on US soil, regardless of parental citizenship, and some born abroad to US citizen parents. Legal experts generally agree that Kamala Harris, born in California to immigrant parents, qualifies as a natural born citizen and is eligible for the presidency.
Despite this consensus, former President Donald Trump has previously challenged opponents’ citizenship status. Recently, some supporters have made similar unfounded claims about Vice President Kamala Harris. The National Federation of Republican Assemblies, a conservative group, argues that Harris is ineligible because her parents weren’t US citizens at her birth. Legal scholars dismiss this as a misinterpretation of the Constitution.
The federation’s argument relies on a controversial interpretation of the “natural born citizen” clause and cites the outdated 1857 Dred Scott decision. This stance has been criticized for echoing exclusionary sentiments by questioning the legitimacy of candidates with immigrant parents.
These claims against Harris lack substantial legal basis. Similar unfounded assertions were made during the “birther” controversy involving President Barack Obama. Such tactics appear to aim at delegitimizing candidates based on their backgrounds rather than addressing policy issues.
Kamala Harris, born in Oakland, California, meets all constitutional requirements for the presidency. However, the spread of misinformation about her eligibility highlights ongoing debates about race, identity, and citizenship in American politics.
