I've read the article and this issue has been heavily debated, especially during the last election, specifically in the case of Cruz and Rubio. Numerous law professors have weighed in on this issue, but precedents have been set on this issue and I think it would be legally very difficult to refute that Harris is not a natural born citizen.
The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen", and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States. As to those born elsewhere who meet the legal requirements for birthright citizenship, the matter is unsettled.
The first nine presidents were all citizens at the adoption of the constitution in 1789, with all being born within the territory assigned to the United States by the Treaty of Paris. All presidents who have served since were born in the United States. Of the 44 individuals who have become president, there have been seven that had at least one parent who was not born on U.S. soil.
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship.
Because of t his case, I think one would be hard pressed to legally fight that Harris is not a natural born citizen.
Personally, IMHO, those born in the U.S. and neither parent is a U.S. citizen, shouldn't be a U.S. citizen...I see them as illegal. I don't think that's how most legal gurus see them, nor the law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen
BZZZZ!!! Wrong!!!
Jus sanguine (right of blood) has been the accepted definition for “natural citizen†and that is a child borne of two citizen parents. Jus soli (right of soil) is citizenship deriving from being born in the US.
Nowhere in Wong Kim Ark is the term “natural-born citizen†to be found.
Natural-born citizenship is citizenship by blood (Jus Sanguine) that passes from citizen parents parents to their children.
Here's the SCOTUS on natural born citizenship:
Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1875).
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."
In fact, SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereofâ€
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens,
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
(A)ll children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
