Third tier law professor John Eastman had an op-ed in Newsweek

[fishwax]

32. well, that was a slightly different issue, and doesn't really contradict what he's saying here

Last edited Fri Aug 14, 2020, 01:36 AM - Edit history (1)

The issue with Cruz was that he wasn't born on American soil. But this was actually a non-issue because he was still a natural born citizen based on blood, which is what Eastman is arguing in the article from 2016.

The non-issue with Harris is that she was born in Oakland but to non-citizens. It's a non issue, because she was born on U.S. soil and her parents weren't invaders, or diplomats, or alien enemies. (Those are the exceptions to Jus Soli citizenship that the Supreme Court offered in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark.) But Eastman is trying to claim that in addition to those exceptions the court also excluded anyone whose parents weren't permanently living in the country. The problem is, the court didn't actually say that. WRT Harris, Eastman is wrong. But that won't stop the trump humpers from trumpeting the argument long and loud, I'm sure. There will be investigations into the residency status of both of her parents.