This might help:Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:08 am
IIRC, the only case where the Supreme Court said that someone born here to non-citizen parents was a natural born citizen was one where the parents were permanent residents, not tourists or other temporary residents.
In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote:
[T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
...
[T]he Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.
...
To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.
If you are interested, a thorough reading of the case opinion might be worthwhile for you, you can find it here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
I have also learned that there have been unsuccessful attempts to legislate over the Wong Kim Ark decision. Recently Donald Trump talked about issuing an Executive Order to do so, and Lindsey Graham said he would introduce legislation in Congress, but neither have happened.
As I have said before, I could see legislative changes happening depending on the political climate, but I cannot see them happening retroactively in a way that would specifically block Harris from eligibility for office of President. Retroactively taking away someone's citizenship would be a complicated undertaking and kind of a stretch for a country that prides itself on being a beacon of democracy and rule of law.
