I get that, and it was poor drafting on my part. I was responding more to the argument than the quoted post. The clause says nothing about parents. But yes, if it did it would still be a nonsensical argument because her parents were clearly subject to US jurisdiction.
Where do you get that Cruz is non-white?
In my quick read, I don’t think anyone addressed this specifically. In the Harris case, she would be one of the children, the anchor baby, if you will. In your case, why would those children be allowed to remain in the US, unless they were actually citizens?
Because he’s Hispanic? I mean, I was mostly being flippant— only non-white candidates have these arguments in Newsweek, Cruz’s was in Newsweek, therefore… and I don’t really care about these classifications, so I’m happy to be corrected. But I assume that (at least for these purposes) someone of Hispanic origin would be non-white.
“Hispanic” is an ethnic descriptor, not a racial one. Ted Cruz is white, being mostly of Spanish (Canary Islander) and Irish descent. He is not mestizo or mixed-race, having little if any African or American Indian ancestry.
(adding on) Yep, which is why you get descriptors like, white nonhispanic, or white Hispanic, which I assume is Cruz’s descriptor.
In some circumstances, it’s perfectly appropriate for a lawyer to argue a novel legal theory to push for a change in the law – even when that means arguing against existing precedent by pointing out that earlier seemingly on-point statements were dicta, and discounting other, distinguishable, precedents.
In the article, though, I think his presentation of his argument is disingenuous, as this would generally be viewed as settled law, and he should be more transparent that he is saying the courts should reconsider the prior construction of the relevant clauses.
As it is, he seems to suggest this is a more open question, and then he is just asking questions about the facts, none of which he actually seems to have ascertained. No reputable journalistic outlet should have published that drivel.
Then he’s full of shit.
They wouldn’t be - which is why Eastman did not refer to Harris as an “anchor baby”. Because whatever else he is, he’s a lawyer and he knows that calling her an “anchor baby” is conceding that she is ,in fact, a citizen.
(What people usually mean when they refer to “anchor babies” is the inaccurate idea that the parents of those US citizen children are safe from deportation -which is not true )
Yes, I think that was the OP’s point about the term “anchor” being misused, but then the OP also inadvertently shows how Eastman is wrong, since there doesn’t seem to be any question that the kids (and Harris would be analogous to one of the kids) would get to stay if they had proper care.
Maybe it’s just me, but I expect people who want an answer to a question to do a minimal amount of research themselves, rather than just jump in and ask a question that may be ignorant. This is especially true when spreading the idea that something is a legitimate question might have negative consequences (see below).
I also tend to expect that, if you’re interested in an answer, you won’t really argue with the answers given. You’re asking a question–you don’t know what to think, so why would you have a position on it to argue? Sure, you might have clarification questions about things you don’t understand from the answer, but you won’t argue against it.
And, finally, I kinda expect some common sense to be used before asking. I expect you know that this is clearly an attempt from the Trump campaign to attack the Biden one. You don’t want to accidentally make a propaganda question look legitimate.
And then there’s something that applied equally to Obama: do you really think the Democratic Party is so stupid that they would run with someone whose ability to take office is in question? Harris was even handpicked, unlike Obama. But even Obama wouldn’t have been trying to run without making sure he was eligible, same as Harris.
Given the above, the OP should have been asked in the form “I know he’s wrong, but can anyone show me the legal reasoning that proves it?”
Again, in my opinion. It’s not a lecture, but me giving my thoughts on the matter.
A Canadian court came up with the term Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant to refer to Sovereign Citizen nutjobs. That doesn’t quite apply here but the pseudolegal argument part certainly does. Eastman’s argument is certainly no more convincing than SovCit ones (and has the same racist odor to it).
I will agree to drop any further discussion of other political candidates so we don’t divert this thread away from what John Eastman said about Kamala Harris.
If the OP feels like Kamala is trying to pull a fast one, I would encourage them not to vote for that ticket then. Or perhaps they are just eager to once again to show how us all how unwilling they are to give the benefit of the doubt to a non-white person.
It seems no doubt that Harris is a citizen of the United States as she’s a Senator. Since the Senate passes on the qualifications of Senators to hold office they must agree. As there is absolutely no evidence that she’s been naturalized as a citizen (I assume. Absence of evidence and all that but it seems to me that someone claiming she’d been naturalized would bear the burden of proof.) As there are only two types of citizens, it follows that Harris must be one of the natural born ones, doesn’t it?
In the abstract, if, as a lawyer you think you have a better way to analyze a question of law – even a well-settled one – it’s perfectly legitimate to argue for it. And you are most likely to be doing so if you see some advantage in doing so. So saying, no one has challenged her citizenship before doesn’t necessarily prove the novel legal theory wrong.
But, as I said above, the actual tactics and argument here reek. The set up and argument are disingenuous. And the reasons for making the argument are pretty clear. Eastman doesn’t make it and then point out that Harris would not pass his suggested new test. Instead, he presumes facts that should be pretty easily ascertainable, like whether her parents were here on student visas when she was born, and whether her father is a naturalized citizen. It’s obvious to me that this far fetched legal theory plus Just Asking Questions by Eastman is meant to give racists a comfortable explanation for why they don’t like/won’t vote for a ticket with Harris on it. Giving people operating by motivated reasoning some “reasoning” to hold onto.
And, if they were not hypocrites, then they would also demand that everyone in their own family tree, including themselves, be stripped of United States citizenship gained through birthright.
That’s true, but not relevant. The Senate allows for naturalized citizens.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
That’s not as strict a requirement as for President, and does not eliminate those who are not natural-born citizens, which seems to be the entire point the chuckleheads are trying to make.
But then (and to be clear, I think it’s obvious Eastman is JAQing off and giving cover to racists), she never went through the naturalization process, meaning that she must either (a) be implicitly recognized already as a natural born citizen by virtue of serving in the Senate, or (b) not a citizen, and it’s just no one ever noticed until now.
And, again, the obvious answer is (a).