She was born in Oakland CA, so I think they'll insist she's eligible. It's true that her parents are foreigners - her mother was born in India and her father in Jamaica, making Kamala an anchor baby - but I don't think the rules say anything about that.
Could be a fight but I wouldn't count on it keeping her out.
Except that the Constitution's natural born clause was not intended to cover jus soli but only jus sanguinis. Meaning, the only factor that mattered was the status of your parents and the allegiance to whom they owed. In order to be a natural born citizen, at least one of your parents must be a US citizen (originally father only, but was expanded to mother for obvious reasons and rightfully so). Doesn't matter where you're born, but just to whom. That's why Tim Tebow is eligible, despite being born in the Philippines.
Doesn't matter that SCOTUS previously made their jus soli anchor baby ruling. They were wrong.
So the only question that matters is whether at least one of her parents was a US citizen or was at the very least, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the USA, meaning had a green card and already renounced citizenship to country of origin or previous domicile.
At the time of the creation and ratification of the Constitution, Vattel was the western authority when it came to the Laws of Nations, hence the title of his book. Framers were well aware of him and his work, and cited as influence. And what did Vattel say? In short, jus sanguinis.
Do not fail to maintain the context of the entire sentence from the 14th: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A foreign national is not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, but is rather subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, the government of which to whom they maintain allegiance.
Unfortunately, what the SCOTUS rules is the law of the land.
SCOTUS renders rulings in individual cases and no more. Such rulings indicate how the Court would likely rule again in similar cases, so most challengers will just cower and stop enforcing the law as is called for. That's not how it should work. When the Court errs, they are to be ignored and resisted. That's why it's essential to have strong local and state government officials with backbones to do what is right.
Mr. Marshall has made his made his ruling. Let him enforce it.
She was born in Oakland CA, so I think they'll insist she's eligible. It's true that her parents are foreigners - her mother was born in India and her father in Jamaica, making Kamala an anchor baby - but I don't think the rules say anything about that.
Could be a fight but I wouldn't count on it keeping her out.
Except that the Constitution's natural born clause was not intended to cover jus soli but only jus sanguinis. Meaning, the only factor that mattered was the status of your parents and the allegiance to whom they owed. In order to be a natural born citizen, at least one of your parents must be a US citizen (originally father only, but was expanded to mother for obvious reasons and rightfully so). Doesn't matter where you're born, but just to whom. That's why Tim Tebow is eligible, despite being born in the Philippines.
Doesn't matter that SCOTUS previously made their jus soli anchor baby ruling. They were wrong.
So the only question that matters is whether at least one of her parents was a US citizen or was at the very least, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the USA, meaning had a green card and already renounced citizenship to country of origin or previous domicile.
At the time of the creation and ratification of the Constitution, Vattel was the western authority when it came to the Laws of Nations, hence the title of his book. Framers were well aware of him and his work, and cited as influence. And what did Vattel say? In short, jus sanguinis.
Do not fail to maintain the context of the entire sentence from the 14th: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A foreign national is not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, but is rather subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, the government of which to whom they maintain allegiance.
SCOTUS renders rulings in individual cases and no more. Such rulings indicate how the Court would likely rule again in similar cases, so most challengers will just cower and stop enforcing the law as is called for. That's not how it should work. When the Court errs, they are to be ignored and resisted. That's why it's essential to have strong local and state government officials with backbones to do what is right.