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

[fishwax]

41. no -- my post was affirming as factual what you were speculating as counterfactual

Though I certainly could have been more clear about it.

Your post said:

Both Cruz and Kamala Harris meet that test so the rest of his argument is entirely superfluous unless he wants to argue that Harris is not a citizen at all.

My post said: his argument is, in fact, that Harris may not be a citizen at all.

____________________

This is significant because it makes his argument rather more sinister than simple hypocrisy or self contradiction. It serves instead, to provide the nutjobs fodder for the same the sort of endless racist investigations into her parents that the birther conspiracy did for Obama.

His argument here assumes (as you state, and as he argued more explicitly in the Cruz article) that to be a citizen at birth makes you a natural born citizen.

However, he also claims that to be a citizen at birth by virtue of being born in the United States, one must have a parent who is either a citizen or a permanent resident.

NOTE: He offers no evidence to support this claim--certainly not from case law--and it stands in contradiction to pretty much every expert's reading (and the plain English reading) of the Wong Kim Ark case.

He continues: Since we don't know whether her parents were permanent residents (as opposed to having visitor status or student visas), then we don't know for sure if she was a citizen at birth. (Or, even, if she ever became a citizen).

If one buys his stupid claim, then it gives cause to endlessly investigate and build conspiracy theories around the status of her parents.