As has been noted, they do not claim she was an "anchor baby". An anchor baby is when someone who isn't a citizen has a kid in the US, because then the kid receives citizenship which makes it harder to deport the parent. Their assertion is that Harris isn't a natural-born citizen, so they're not accusing her of being an anchor baby. It should be noted they do attack Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy on these same grounds of not being natural-born citizens in their view.
But let's take a look at their "evidence" from
their platform that is cited (page 37). Unfortunately, it is rather terse on the details. I will be fair and say that perhaps they go into more detail on some of these things somewhere else, though a quick search on their website didn't find anything. Still, I'm a bit familiar with some of these claims, so I can make some strong guesses as to what they're referring to.
Although it looks like it's only getting attention right now, this platform was made last year, as shown by the fact it talks about the Republican primary as if it's in the future. But anyway, let's go through what it says on the subject.
WHEREAS: An originalist and strict constructionist understanding of the Constitution in the Scalia and Thomas tradition,
A "strict construction understanding of the Constitution in the Scalia... tradition"? Let's see what Scalia had to say about strict constructionism:
"Textualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism, which is a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute.
I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be-though better that, I suppose, than a nontextualist. A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means." -Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation
Scalia explicitly
rejected the label of "strict constructionist" and said no one should be one. This is ultimately a minor point, but it sure doesn't make someone look good if they're appealing to his supposed strict constructionism after he made the above statement.
And speaking as someone who does believe people should follow "an originalist understanding of the Constitution in the Scalia and Thomas tradition" (this does not mean I agree with every one of their decisions), it is quite clear to me that a natural-born citizen is someone who acquires their citizenship at birth, and an originalist understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment says that, aside from children of visiting sovereigns, ambassadors, occupying armies, or Native Americans living on tribal land, anyone born in the United States gains citizenship at birth and is therefore a natural born citizen. Legislation has also extended natural-born citizenship to some others (Native Americans on tribal land have their children gain citizenship automatically due to the later Indian Citizenship Act, and there are various laws that can give automatic citizenship to children of American citizens born outside of the US), who would therefore also be natural born citizens.
as well as precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases below, have found that a "Natural Born Citizen" is defined as a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child's birth:
It lists cases, but does not explain anything about how they prove this. I am therefore going to have to make some guesses as to what is being referred to based on what I have seen from other people who have cited these cases for this argument.
Venus - 12 US 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The claim is that these cases "have found that a "Natural Born Citizen" is defined as a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child's birth". But
this case's decision never uses the phrase "natural born citizen" even once.
What I believe is in mind is this portion:
"The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.""
(it goes on to give more paragraphs from Vattell, but the above is the only portion that concerns us)
The claim that "the natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens." There are multiple problems with this citation. First, it says nothing about natural born citizens at all. Second, this was not a majority opinion, but a concurirng opinion by a single justice. Third, the mention of children following the conditions of their fathers in citizenship isn't particularly important to the larger point the opinion is making (which is why the actual full quote is much longer). Fourth, this was from
before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause and thus must be looked at cautiously. Fifth, the term "natural born citizen" is never used, so he was never making any statement on that specifically.
One brief note to make. Those who try to claim natural born citizens are only those of citizens will sometimes cite a translation of Vattel's work "The Law of Nations" that says "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." What they don't mention is that this translation into English only existed years
after the Constitution had been passed (the prior translation, which is what the concurring opinion above is quoting, says nothing of "natural born citizens" and instead translates it as "natives"), that "natural born citizen" is a counterintuitive translation for the French word in question ("naturels", which was translated as the more reasonable "natives" int he earlier English translation), the new translation was done in
Britain rather than the United States, and we don't have the faintest idea who even translated it, as it's uncredited. Rather than a counterintuitive translation from a French text done years after the US Constitution was passed, it is far more likely the term "natural born citizen" was taken from Blackstone's Commentaries on English law where he used the term "natural born subject" thusly: "Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it." He also remarksm even more explicitly, "The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien." Note his distinction is the
location of the birth, not the identity of the parents, and he notes this as being different than that of France (which is where Vattell was from).
Shanks v DuPont - 28 US 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
The term "natural born citizen"
never appears in the decision. It only appears in the dissent, which is obviously not precedent.
Perhaps what is in mind is this portion:
"If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country."
The problem is, this is saying nothing about natural born citizens. Even if we were to insert "natural born" between "a" and "citizen", still all this would be saying is that people in this circumstance are natural born citizens, but
not that no one else can be. And again, one should also note that any cases on this subject prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause must be viewed with caution.
Dred Scott v Sandford - 60 US 393 (1857)
Dred Scott v. Sandford, as has been noted, is widely considered one of the worst Supreme Court decisions. It's considered so notorious that it's used as a cane to wack judicial philosophies or decisions one disagrees with by trying to connect them to Dred Scott in some way.
While I think the derision towards Dred Scott is a little over the top, and the opinion isn't
completely worthless, one is going to have to be very careful as to how they use it.
There is an additional problem with Dred Scott. Even if someone thinks Dred Scott was decided correctly--and there have been some brave souls in modern times who have attempted to defend it as a legally right (if morally wrong) decision--it makes lousy precedent because so much of the decision is moot. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were partially passed to
overturn the decision.
But we run into a much larger problem, which is that the majority opnion Dred Scott
never uses the term natural born citizen. The portion that opined on it was a concurring opinion by a single justice, citing the Vattell passage discussed above, this time with the "natural-born citizen" translation. But the point here was not to say anything about natural-born citizens, but to argue that it shows how slaves weren't citizens (again, a claim rendered moot by the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, and (even if slavery did still exist) being overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause).
While one could say that the concurring opinion does not deserve to have the same notoriety as the majority opinion in Dred Scott, it's still affiliated with it in that the author of the concurrence signed onto the majority opinion without, as far as I am aware, any disagreements with it. Even if we were to ignore that, we run into similar problems as in The Venus. We are not talking about the majority opinion, but a concurring one. The purpose of the mention is not to make a point on natural born citizens. Finally, this happened prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and thus is of much more shaky precedent.
Minor v Happersett - 88 US 162 (1875)
This is presumably what is being appealed to in
Minor v. Happersett:
"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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
However, it then immediately goes on to add:
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
So Minor v. Happersett is of little use either way. The Supreme Court affirms there is no doubt that children of citizens born in the United States are citizens and therefore natural-born ones, but there is question about those who are born in the United States to non-citizens, but it does not opine on the subject as it is unnecessary for the current case. This is the opinion that has "found that a "Natural Born Citizen" is defined as a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child's birth"? An opinion that explicitly avoids ruling on the subject?
United States v Wong Kim Ark - 169 US 649 (1898)
Is this some kind of joke?
Wong Kim Ark declared that a child of non-citizen parents
did gain automatic birthright citizenship! This decision is probably the strongest precedent
against the claim. You can't cite Wong Kim Ark as precedent in your
favor against Harris/Haley/Ramaswamy; you have to either say it was decided incorrectly or try to differentiate the facts of the case from Harris's situation. Citing Wong Kim Ark in their favor is utterly nonsensical.
Perkins v Elg - 307 US 325 (1939)
I'm not sure what
Perkins v. Elg is being cited for. I don't see it as providing any evidence for the claim. Glancing over it, the case was about someone who was born to a citizen father (the status of her mother does not seem specified, so I assume she was not a citizen). There seemed to be no dispute over the fact she was a natural-born citizen, the question was rather whether this was lost later on due to her parents and her moving back to Sweden while she was at a young age. Perhaps the reason for its citation is supposed to show that since her father was a citizen, it apparently shows that it matches the requirement of having a citizen parent? But I do not see in the opinion--though I admit I skimmed it--any indication that this was seen as a requirement, particularly because it obviously wasn't a requirement in Wong Kim Ark, which this case references with no indication there is anything wrong with it.
It then asserts based on those that:
WHEREAS: Several states, candidates, and major political parties have ignored this fundamental Presidential qualification, including candidates Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Kamala Harris whose parents were not American citizens at the time of their birth.
I'll give them a little bit of credit here: They also claim Haley and Ramaswamy are disqualified, so I suppose at least it's
consistent in its bad reasoning. There's a little more they say, but the above is all of the important parts.
