Here We Go With Birtherism 2.0

Trump shows that he's trying to run his 2016 campaign again in 2020. But it's not 2016 anymore.

By
205

The Birtherism 2.0 brouhaha began the way so many do.

A Trump sycophant, in this case Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis, handed the president a hot-take opinion piece as if it was breaking news. Mere hours later at a press conference, he acted as if that op-ed was a settled legal ruling from a court or perhaps his office of legal counsel: Kamala Harris is ineligible to be vice president because her parents weren’t yet U.S. citizens when she was born—on American soil.

When asked about the claim, Trump took the bait.

“I just heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements,” Trump said. “And by the way, the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer.”

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
205
By
Comments (205)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ray Salemi

    It seems we should be able to gather all the undecided voters in a room, feed them donuts, and let Sarah Longwell focus-group them to death.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Realwoodies

    "On the other hand, Eastman and his co-religionists on this issue weren’t as enthusiastic about using the presidential bid of Republican John McCain (born in Panama) as fodder for their theories, not to mention Ted Cruz (born in Canada)."

    Completely different comparison. Both McCain and Cruz's parents (at least one) were American citizens. That would be consistent with policies in other countries too, and it happens to be the policy here. Interestingly, Trump did play the birther card against Cruz, and it helped Trump. There are enough Americans that believe you need to be born in this country to be president to change their mind about voting. This may have the same effect for Harris, but I doubt it.

    Collapse
  3. Colin Burch

    Semantics, perspective, however you see it, it has been a distraction to some. Yes, it should not be an issue.

    Collapse
  4. Jaybrown

    I've read through 150+ comments on several articles here in the past few days and honestly found few or no comments worth replying to, since they are starting to read like comment sections on NRO articles, just people talking past each other to make their "points," which are usually just warmed over talking points of whatever interest group they belong to. When it gets to sounding like the FoxNews comment sections, bye. The early days of The Dispatch were much better.

    Collapse
  5. CatoTheElder

    I knew it would happen, but I started skimming the comments anyway. “They” showed up. Again, and again, and again. “They” don’t like this.... “They” are stupid.... “They” are lying.... “They” eat babies for breakfast and puppies for lunch...

    With all due respect to the non-binary, I select “they” as my pronoun crowd, there are times when I ponder just how to severely restrict the use of “they” to persons explicitly trained and licensed to do so.

    As soon as this topic leaped from the chaotic void to the figurative equivalent of the front pages of extra editions, even mainstream media were reporting on the new “conspiracy theory”, and fainting couches were on backorder. Since then, innumerable people, groups, and keyboard-pounding lemurs have started using this birtherism 2.0 nonsense as a the Preferred Cudgel of the Day.

    If you’re posting on the topic and find yourself keying in the word “they”, may I beg you to pause and reconsider? Is this really a good, wise decision? I mean, c’mon...what will they think if you lower yourself to the cognitive-ability standards of a snapping turtle?

    Collapse
    1. CatoTheElder

      Since they’ve already complained, let me say that I should have typed “I-select-‘they’-as-my-pronoun”. And I reiterate: This is not meant as a pejorative. Just in case some weren’t clear on the matter.

      Collapse
  6. The BFJ

    First let me say that I believe Kamala Harris is a natural born citizen.

    Now for my quibbles:

    There were groups of NBC advocates that absolutely did go after Ted Cruz based on, in my opinion, a misunderstanding of what constitutes NBC. The Constitution demands NBC status so we should all be NBC advocates. And correct me if I'm wrong, but John McCain birtherism required congressional hearings and a congressional resolution. NYT even raised the question of his birth. This isn't just fringe elements on the right. His process to determine his NBC status went further than any other under actual government review, unlike other birtherism claims that never had actual official government review.

    Now about the 14th amendment:

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

    If you leave out "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and your interpretation of this sentence doesn't change, I would contend that your interpretation is wrong.

    What gives people citizenships at birth is congressional law. Been that way since the very first naturalization act. And one of the laws as it exist now and at the time of Kamala's birth is that people born on US soil are granted automatic citizenship and do not have to naturalize. This law makes them subject to the jurisdiction thereof in a way that the congressional exclusion of children of diplomats makes those children not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore even though they would pass if the only Constitutional requirement were "persons born or naturalized in the United States" they still aren't citizens despite being born on US soil.

    After a long analysis on Advisory Opinions about this, Sarah Isgur gave an easier explanation I've used before. If you are a citizen of the US, and you never needed to naturalize, you are a natural born citizen. Put another way, the most plain interpretation of the Constitution is that if the the condition of your birth grants you citizenships, then you are a natural born citizen. This applies to McCain, Obama, Cruz and Harris. Any order reading would require some penumbra or emanation found nowhere in the text.

    And because this is already too long, I believe Congress can change the law about citizenship for people born on US soil. It would only be effective from the day it was instituted on and would not apply to anyone in a negative way who was born before the law change. This would likely still be blocked by a Robert's court on institutional grounds (not like that helped Oklahoma, however). Interestingly a law change in 1986 did backdate a timeframe to include more people as NBC that wouldn't have applied to them based on the law the year they were born. Grandfather clauses generally works in the favor of the citizens, not against.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mack

      "If you are a citizen of the US, and you never needed to naturalize, you are a natural born citizen."

      Of course Eastman runs this argument backwards. Since Harris was not born a citizen, and was never naturalized, she is therefore not a citizen now, and thus ineligible for the Senate as well.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Mack

    Jonah writes: "On the other hand, Eastman and his co-religionists on this issue weren’t as enthusiastic about using the presidential bid of Republican John McCain (born in Panama) as fodder for their theories, not to mention Ted Cruz (born in Canada)."

    This isn't true is it? Hasn't Eastman published on both these topics? And in National Review, no less?

    Collapse
    1. Luke Thompson

      Cruz, at least. https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/ted-cruz-natural-born-citizenship-eligibility-president/

      His arguments center around the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof " clause (which Mr. Goldberg for some reason left out of the quote), so neither Cruz or McCain were really relevant to his position.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Mack

        The fact that Eastman has written about the citizenship status of Cruz and McCain is relevant to the question of whether Eastman only cares about the citizenship of Democrats and non-whites.

        Jonah wrote of Eastman: "It seems that having elected officials who are supposedly less than 100 percent American is only terrifying when those officials are Democrats, particularly nonwhite Democrats."

        Of course, there's no evidence that Eastman is "terrified" either.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Mack

    I don't think its fair to call Eastman's argument "Birtherism." As Jonah points out, the argument doesn't accuse Harris (or anyone) of lying or any dishonesty.

    Birtherism about Obama's birth certificate was a calumny against a decent man. Eastman's argument is a legal question that doesn't impugn anyone's character. That's an important difference.

    Collapse
  9. Colin Burch

    There are real issues and distraction issues. Kamala's birth place is clearly a distraction issue. There are far more serious issues with Kamala's history and world view.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mack

      Kamala's birth place isn't a "distraction issue" because it isn't an issue whatsoever. Kamala Harris was born in Oakland. No one of note disputes this.

      Collapse
  10. Bob Bell

    Presented solely as a historical curiosity: https://www.nytimes.com/1964/09/05/archives/citizen-issue-raised-in-goldwater-suit.html In 1964 attorney Melvin Belli (who later appeared in a Star Trek TOS episode) filed suit to have Barry Goldwater removed from the California ballot on the grounds that Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory, before it became a state, and was thus ineligible to be President.

    Collapse
Load More