Harris has only been Biden's choice for less than a week, and has not yet been nominated and voted on by Democratic convention delegates. But the racist attacks have begun, this time disguised as a rebirth of birtherism.
Here's how Karen Tumulty describes the start of the obscene attacks in The Washington Post:
Well, that didn’t take long.
A non-White American citizen born right here in the United States has gotten a spot on the Democratic presidential ticket, and the birthers have come scurrying out from whatever rock they have been living under since Barack Obama left office.
Within hours of former vice president Joe Biden’s announcement Wednesday of his history-making running mate, once-reputable Newsweek posted a story posing “Some Questions for Kamala Harris About Eligibility.”
The author, John Eastman, a conservative law professor, wrote that “some” are “questioning” whether Harris might be “constitutionally ineligible” to be vice president because, should she have to step into the presidency, she might not meet the Constitution’s Article II requirement that this country’s chief executive be a “natural born” citizen.
Jenna Ellis, who appears frequently these days on cable television as a “senior legal adviser” to the Trump campaign, quickly embraced this nontroversy, retweeting a link to Eastman’s article and later declaring Harris’s eligibility an “open question.” So we are left to assume that the president’s reelection campaign is on board with this line of inquiry, which is reminiscent of President Trump’s own leadership of the “birther” movement when it was first launched against Obama.
Harris is the daughter of immigrants. Her father (from Jamaica) and her mother (from India) were not citizens at the time of her birth in 1964. A birth that — Have I mentioned this? Stay with me here, because this is important — happened in Oakland, Calif., which was then and is now in the United States of America. That means Harris was a U.S. citizen from the first second of her life.
The theoretical and esoteric question of whether first-generation Americans are eligible to be president is booted around from time to time in law-professor circles. It’s something of a parlor game, rooted in case law from the 19th century. In the real world, it is made moot by history: At least a half-dozen U.S. presidents have been the sons of immigrants, a possibility that is actually part of the American Dream of opportunity that has lured people to our shores for centuries.
But — funny coincidence — it seems to arise in modern presidential politics only when the candidate in question is a non-White Democrat. . . .
Newsweek defends its decision to publish Eastman’s tripe, though it initially failed to include a relevant bit of biographical information: The author in 2010 ran for attorney general of California. He lost the Republican primary to a candidate who was subsequently trounced by … Kamala Harris.
Amid the backlash, Newsweek editors Nancy Cooper and Josh Hammer published a pushback in which they claimed, laughably, that Eastman’s argument “has no connection whatsoever to so-called ‘birther-ism.’ ”
Sure it doesn’t. And if you believe that, I have a bridge in Oakland I’d like to sell you.