The Georgia Republican Assembly Has a Birther Resolution of Its Own
Yesterday, we told you about a resolution adopted by the National Federation of Republican Assemblies in December 2023 that cites the despicable Dred Scott decision as a favorable precedent. The resolution is absurd, and the National Federation of Republican Assemblies should be derided and mocked. The same goes for anyone who tries to defend the inclusion of the Dred Scott decision in the resolution.
Today, we’re going to tell you about a similar resolution adopted by the Georgia Republican Assembly discovered by Loren Collins, a Metro Atlanta attorney who is documenting the activities of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies and the Georgia Republican Assembly.
Collins recently posted a Georgia Republican Assembly-passed resolution aimed at Nikki Haley’s eligibility to serve as president. The resolution states that Haley’s parents were not born in the United States, which, in their small minds, makes Haley ineligible for the presidency. Haley’s parents immigrated to the United States from India. Haley was born in Bamburg, South Carolina. (Full disclosure: I voted for Haley in the Virginia Republican presidential primary.)
“WHEREAS: A [sic] originalist and strict constructionist understanding of the Constitution in the Scalia and Thomas tradition, as well as multiple U.S. Supreme Court cases, have found that a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is defined as a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth,” the resolution states. “WHEREAS: Several states, candidates, and majority political parties have ignored this fundamental Presidential qualification, including candidate Nikki Haley whose parents were not American citizens at the time of her birth.”
Image courtesy of Loren Collins
Unlike the resolution adopted by the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, the Georgia Republican Assembly doesn’t cite specific cases. It makes only a vague mention of “multiple U.S. Supreme Court cases” that “have found that a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is defined as a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth.” Of course, we can reasonably assume what cases they’re talking about because of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, which includes Dred Scott.
I should note that Georgia Republican Party chairman Josh McKoon is a member of the Georgia Republican Assembly.
Another Georgia Republican Assembly member, Kandiss Taylor, has tweeted some in recent days about Vice President Kamala Harris’s qualifications to serve as president or raised questions about it simply because her parents are immigrants. Examples of those tweets are here and here.
Taylor, who serves as 1st District chair of the Georgia Republican Party, has also dabbled in flat earth conspiracy theories, QAnon adjacent conspiracy theories, and apparently believes that Taylor Swift practices witchcraft. She claims the 2022 Republican gubernatorial primary was rigged against her after she got 3.4 percent of the vote. So, you know, take what she says with a grain of salt.
Taylor has given us her opinion on the citizenship nonissue as well, writing in a tweet, “Natural born citizens means more than being born here. Means at least one of your parents are an American citizen at your birth. [Harris’s parents] were not. There are varying legal opinions on this.”
There isn’t any relevant case law that defines citizenship this way. The Fourteenth Amendment settled issues around citizenship after the end of slavery. Additionally, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that people born in the United States have citizenship at birth, regardless of the status of their parents.
In this case, Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to parents who immigrated to the United States from China. He traveled to China to visit. Upon his return, he was detained, and despite being born in the United States, his citizenship was questioned. Anti-Chinese sentiment was especially significant at the time. Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 to prohibit immigration from China. The Court rested on Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the common law principle of jus soli for its decision. Common law is the foundation of our legal system.
The Court stated in its opinion:
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the 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. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;’ and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'”
While there may be “varying legal opinions” on what makes someone a natural-born citizen, the only opinion that matters is the Supreme Court. What’s amazing is that Alex Johnson and others involved with the Georgia Republican Assembly are lawyers and either are unaware that the Court’s opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark is still precedent or are aware but don’t want to admit it. Either way, this is a horrible look for anyone involved in the Georgia Republican Assembly, not limited to its leadership but also its members.
