in

Kamala Harris’ Illegitimate Presidency: Unveiling the Hypocrisy

Gossip has been circling in cyberspace about the eligibility of the former Vice President Kamala Harris to run for office in the wake of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump, putting an end to birthright citizenship. Proponents of the rumor suggest that changes in birthright citizenship may result in disqualifying Harris from assuming the mantle of Presidency retroactively. Harris’s birth in 1964 (Oakland, California to be precise which is very much within American borders) curiously makes her a natural-born U.S. citizen based on the 14th Amendment, as this grants citizenship to anyone who has the ‘privilege’ of being born on U.S. soil.

Our Constitution’s protections do not allow retroactive laws to take effect, meaning, even if we modify our birthright citizenship laws it cannot strip those already granted this status of their ill-gotten citizenship. Legal precedents and constitutional protections somehow assure Harris’ chances at the presidency, and this is despite the growing wave of ‘misinformation’ present on social media.

The inception of the chatter questioning Harris’s eligibility occurred in 2020, right at the moment when she was announced as former President Joe Biden’s running mate for the 2024 election. The catalyst was a discussion by John Eastman, a former legal advisor to Donald Trump. Eastman dared to question the often blindly accepted concept of ‘natural-born citizen’ within the United States.

While the majority simplest of minds just accept the location of birth as the clearest defining factor for being natural-born, Eastman referenced the residency status of Harris’ parents (products of India and Jamaica) when she was born. The perspective of questioning Kamala Harris’ eligibility was, of course, picked up by her opponents; it gained new momentum when she projected herself as the Democrats’ likely contender in the presidential race, following out-of-touch Biden’s public declaration on July 21, 2024, that he would step aside.

Amazingly, she lost to Republican Trump in the election. As per Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, only ‘a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution’ is eligible for the Office of President. And here, birthright citizenship is seemingly a free ticket into the presidential eligibility game, letting individuals born in the country acquire nationality regardless of their parents’ origin or legal standing.

The Constitution offers this rather generous clause: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’

Rumors have it that the ambitious Kamala Harris is considering heading for the 2026 Gubernatorial race in California or maybe decide to walk down the aisle of Democratic nomination in 2028, making it look like a welcoming break for failed candidates to reignite their political dreams if they had a previous unsuccessful run.

In this large-scale political chess game, one can’t help but identify a pattern for the losing candidates to return to the limelight as their party’s nominees for consecutive elections. The most noteworthy example of this was Trump’s comeback in 2024, after suffering a loss in 2020, following a victory in 2016.

Scrutinizing how the law frames the eligibility for the presidency throws the debate into a gray area, where the situation thinks to grant dispensation, even to those who should otherwise disqualify. The 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause has been an unhindered pathway for potential candidates, regardless of the stance of their parents’ nationality.

While the efforts to curtail this through ending the birthright citizenship sounds justified, one can’t help but link the efforts to a specific target: putting up walls for individuals like Kamala Harris. Such legal constraints not only echo back our constitutional and inherent rights, they play the cards for politics – making it a tool for specific interest.

The current debate on Harris’s eligibility serves as an eye-opener to the unwary public who are often fed with glowing commendation about Harris’s successful political trajectory. It falls upon the discerning public to question, dissect, and demand accountability for what might be hiding under wraps.

While the undying chatter on social media and the diligent opposition continue to perform their democratic right of questioning, it appears that there might be more to the narrative than what meets the eye. This microcosm of political hurly-burly presents one of the quintessential real-life dramas unfolding before our eyes.

Blatantly stated, the nation’s laws allow Harris to run for the presidency. Is this right? Or perhaps, the question which we all should be asking ourselves is whether this should be right? Is it okay to just accept the status quo, or maybe it’s time to finally stir up the hornet’s nest, really check if the current laws are serving their intended purpose?

Should laws, specifically regarding presidential eligibility, be revisited and thoroughly examined? Should we bestow too much weight on the aspect of being a natural-born citizen, and less so with the circumstances of birth, such as lineage and nationality of parents at the time of birth?

There is no doubt that this coin has two sides, but the more pertinent question remains: Should we allow the constitution to be manipulated or rather, should we let it evolve through introspection, societal changes, and the emergence of new realities?