There are many people on both sides of this argument but the truth is there is no settled law one way or another.
If you go by the original context if the 14th Amendment she is not but if they use a laxer interpretation, she is. Only the Supreme Court can answer the question.
This article is only meant to lay out the arguments offered by both sides and not in making a determination, as I am not qualified to do so. The results of a SCOTUS decision could be devastating to Harris because if you go by the original interpretation, she would be ineligible to be a Senator.
Decisions at the Supreme Court level can be a little off the beaten path as seen by the ruling in the Roe V Wade case.
Since they could not find anything in the constitution about the right to kill babies, they used penumbras and emanations.
Penumbras are shadows and emanations are something that flows. But that is another argument for another day.
I am curious though. What if we were to use a liberal trick and change the name to make it more acceptable. Instead of the word fetus, what if we called them guest children or undocumented babies?
Dr. John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of law & community service and former dean at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law and he wrote an op-ed for Newsweek making the case that Kamala Harris is not eligible to be vice president and could not succeed Joe Biden in case he is too addled to serve.
The language of Article II is that one must be a natural-born citizen. The original Constitution did not define citizenship, but the 14th Amendment does—and it provides that “all persons born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and that meant subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully). Such was the view of those who authored the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause; of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1872 Slaughter-House Cases and the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins; of Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional treatise writer of the day; and of the State Department, which, in the 1880s, issued directives to U.S. embassies to that effect.
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.
Again, there is no settled law and no one can know the answer until the Supreme Court rules and this article does not support the cases of the pros or the cons.