Wong Kim Ark never mentions the term Natural Born Citizen. It merely says citizen at birth.
And further, 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."
Because Wong was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,†the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically makes him a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray authored the opinion on behalf of a 6-2 majority, in which the Court established the parameters of the concept known as jus soli—the citizenship of children born in the United States to non-citizens.
Not saying I agree, but there is precedent here.
You would have to prove that the parents of Kamala Harris were not legal residents.
This could be difficult.
Even then, I believe (whether or not it is right or wrong), the court would use the "jus soli" arguement.
I don't believe it would get overturned.
As Eastman states in the article:
"The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Wong Kim Ark is not to the contrary. At issue there was a child born to Chinese immigrants who had become lawful, permanent residents in the United States—"domiciled" was the legally significant word used by the Court. But that was the extent of the Court's holding (as opposed to broader language that was dicta, and therefore not binding). Indeed, the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen."
Yet, then says:
"Were Harris' parents lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth? If so, then under the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark, she should be deemed a citizen at birth—that is, a natural-born citizen—and hence eligible."
And a caveat:
"Or were they instead, as seems to be the case, merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act?"
Admits:
"I have no doubt that this significant challenge to Harris' constitutional eligibility to the second-highest office in the land will be dismissed out of hand as so much antiquated constitutional tripe."
He is right to ask and bring it up, I agree.
I just do not believe the courts will touch it, and if they do, they will claim "jus soli".
