A popular narrative making the rounds on social media questions the eligibility of ex-Vice President Kamala Harris to run for the presidency, following an executive order issued by President Donald Trump terminating the birthright citizenship. In a surprising spin of events, some have twisted this change to insinuate it could, in a Kafkaesque way, retroactively bar Harris from becoming the president.
Harris was born in 1964, in Oakland, California, making her a natural-born U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. This amendment assures citizenship to anyone born on U.S. territory. It’s quite humorous to note the attempt to force a future change in birthright citizenship to apply retroactively, to strip citizenship from individuals who already possess it—a notion quite contradictory to the constitutional prohibition of retroactive laws.
More amusing is the confidence with which individuals spread misinformation about Harris’ eligibility for the presidency, despite quite clear and established legal precedents and constitutional protections. The groundless assertion regarding Harris’ ineligibility appeared first in 2020 when she was chosen as ex-President Joe Biden’s VP candidate for the 2024 elections.
A former legal advisor to Donald Trump, John Eastman, ignited the unusual legal debate on who qualifies as a ‘natural-born citizen’ in the U.S. Eastman pointed to the residential status of Harris’ parents at her birth time. Harris’ mother and father hail from India and Jamaica, respectively, a point the opponents of Harris were intriguingly eager to highlight.
Spreading the above claim gained momentum after Harris became the Democrats’ expected presidential nominee, following Biden’s announcement on July 21, 2024, that he would step aside. Adding to the comedy of errors, despite the attempt at muddying the waters, Harris failed to win the election against Republican Trump. Such a sequence does make one wonder the effectiveness of such rumors and misinformation efforts.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution outlines that no one except a natural-born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, shall be eligible to be President. It’s easy to see how this could be twisted to steer narratives in varying directions.
The birthright citizenship, which Harris is accused of abusing, is just the constitutional right for individuals born in a country to achieve citizenship, indifferent of their parents’ nationality or legal status. The fundamentalist reading of the Constitution thus contradicts itself amusingly when attempting to disqualify Harris.
An almost robotic reiteration of the Constitution states: “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.”
It is suggested that Harris is contemplating a bid for the 2026 Gubernatorial race in California or perhaps the Democratic nomination in 2028. Whether these stories hold water or are another set of rumors designed disparagingly to shift the focus remains to be seen.
In politics, hope springs eternal, and there is a precedent for failed political candidates running as their party’s nominees in consecutive elections. Citing one instance, Trump won in 2016, faced a loss in 2020, then journeyed back to the White House. It’s interesting to ponder the difference between his and Harris’ political stratagems.
In a world where social media often takes precedence over fact-checking, rumors like these can hold power. However, they often serve as nothing more than smoke and mirrors covering up the failures or pitfalls of those leaders who’re in the spotlight for the wrong reasons.
Throughout this ordeal, it has become evident that Harris and Biden, despite the unsubstantiated rumors and misinformation campaigns against them, somehow manage to remain central figures in the U.S. political discourse. Their political futures, however, seem to hang in the balance.
In conclusion, discerning truth from fiction and constructive criticism from baseless ridicule in today’s political climate can be challenging, but ultimately, it is something we, as responsible citizens, need to strive for. This incident underscores the importance of understanding the legal framework that governs citizenship, especially when it becomes a political weapon.