Nikki Haley (Nimarata Nikki Haley (née Randhawa)) was born Jan. 20, 1972
Her father became a naturalized citizen on Oct. 18, 1977—five years after Nikki was born.
Therefore, Nikki’s father Ajit Singh Randhawa was NOT a natural born U.S. Citizen. He was born in Amritsar, Punjab, India.
Ajit Signh Randhawa. (Oct. 18, 1977). Petition for Naturalization, Cat. No. 2216867, Nikki Haley father. D.S.C., Columbia Division. Source:
https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/2805:2504
Click to access 1977-10-18-Ajit-Signh-Randhawa-Petition-for-Naturalization-Cat-No-2216867-Nikki-Haley-father-DSC-Columbia-Division-Oct-18-1977.pdf
this may true... but they still let oblamo be president..... that requirement is apparently just a recommendation.....
There is a case for him and being a natural born citizenship based on the mother. Harvard law review actually has a great article on this subject. Nikki and Kamala do not.
The crux of the 14th is who has jurisdiction. Most every other nation defers to the father’s nationality. We did until 1790 when we made a carve out for the mother being a citizen if the father had resided in the US for a time. They eventually made the statuses the same for both the father and mother meaning only one needed to be a citizen for their child to be a citizen at birth.
Problem with Nikki and Kamala are that neither of their parents were citizens at their birth so whose jurisdiction should they fall under. Obtuse assholes use this to mean magic dirt since they are in the US jurisdiction meaning the child belongs to the state not the parents.
Not a law fag.
Doesn’t answer everything but provides context on what citizenship has meant via our law at several points in time. https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
Clarification on Natural Born Citizen:
https://greatawakening.win/p/17s5kMc4Qi/natural-born-citizen-explained--/c/
Thanks. Just providing more context. Never said I agreed with harvard but they do provide history of our laws and how they came to be. They never really address magic dirt but they focus intently on the status of the parent which I think is an admission that it is the parent that determines citizenship not the dirt.
The status of the male parent, the father. This issue has either been obfuscated or overlooked by the "experts".
That Harvard article is complete bullshit.
You have to read the article VERY carefully, because they mix concepts in a subtle and deceiving way.
They mixed the concept of "natural born citizen" with the concept of "citizen" and tried to claim that they are the same thing.
They are not.
The authors claim that anyone who is born to ONE citizen parent is a citizen. That is NOT what NATURAL BORN CITIZEN means.
The authors claim that anyone who is a "citizen" at birth is necessarily a "natural born citizen."
That is nonsense.
The authors even toss in the British concept of "natural born SUBJECT," which also is NOT the same, but want the reader to think it is.
When referencing the Nationality Act of 1790, the authors fail to mention that the 1790 act said that only WHITE people could become citizens.
That was not changed until 1965 when the commies infiltrated to subvert America.
So, who are the authors of this misleading "Harvard Law" opinion?
(1) Paul Clement - Honored by the Jewish Leadership Conference
https://www.jewishleadershipconference.org/speakers/
(2) Neal Katyal - Indian who also appears jewish, and is married to a jewish wife
https://www.tvguidetime.com/people/neal-katyal-faith-what-religion-does-he-follow-details-about-the-lawyer-369851.html
Does that have something to do with the writing of a deceptive and fraudulent article?
I don’t disagree. Thank you for providing more details to research. This is an interesting subject because it is the center of how our country has been subverted.
Yes, these people are experts at subversion (that seems to be their only real skill).
You almost have to understand the issues BEFORE you read their opinion of the issues, because they twist things out-of-context and the unsuspecting reader will have a hard time figuring that out.
Harvard lied for the Great Reset and I'm sure a bushel of dollars.