Eastman, John C. (August 12, 2020). "Some questions for Kamala Harris about eligibility | Opinion". Newsweek. Retrieved August 14, 2020. Were Harris' parents lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth? If so, then under the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark, she should be deemed a citizen at birth—that is, a natural-born citizen—and hence eligible. Or were they instead, as seems to be the case, merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act? If the latter were indeed the case, then derivatively from her parents, Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers—Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother—and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood .. If neither was ever naturalized, or at least not naturalized before Harris' 16th birthday (which would have allowed her to obtain citizenship derived from their naturalization under the immigration law, at the time), then she would have had to become naturalized herself in order to be a citizen. That does not appear to have ever happened, yet without it, she could not have been "nine Years a Citizen of the United States" before her election to the U.S. Senate.
--------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eastman#cite_note-39
Cohen, Noam (October 28, 2021). "VIPs expect special treatment. At Wikipedia, don't even ask. - No, John Eastman, you can't edit your own article here". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 31, 2021. In the early afternoon of Jan. 7, only hours after addressing the 'Stop the Steal' rally outside the White House that fed into the assault on the Capitol, John C. Eastman began working on the first draft of history: He rewrote his own Wikipedia page to reflect a more biased view in favor of him and his activities. Where the article said that Eastman, a professor at Chapman Law School at the time, was helping President Donald Trump 'to annul the voting processes and, by extension, the electoral college selections' of at least four states, Eastman substituted a less accusatory description. In his version, Trump hadn't tried to annul the results but had simply 'challenged the electoral votes in four states in which elections officials had violated state law (and hence Art II of the U.S. Constitution) in the conduct of the election.'
= new reply since forum marked as read
