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
Per the Constitution, even anchor babies can be President. Doesn't matter where the warmonger's parents were born as long as she was born on US Soil.
That is patently incorrect.
Tell me how so?
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Read that again: they are citizens, not natural born citizens.
The 14th amendment refers to citizenship, not presidential eligibility.
This has already been established in the court. In the eyes of the law, someone born on US soil is a natural born citizen and thus eligible to run for the presidency.
Untrue. Anchor babies is a modern thing not a founding thing.
Natural Born Citizen is the only qualification regarding citizenship. That is a US Citizen at birth, or someone who did not need to go through a Naturalization process.
The original intent of the founders was that the parents had to be citizens to produce citizens by birth. If they were not citizens, then their children were not citizens.
They also expected that people had to earn citizenship, not have it granted just for showing up.
“[T]here is a wide difference between closing the door altogether and throwing it entirely open; between a postponement of fourteen years and an immediate admission to all the rights of citizenship. Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of at least a probability of their feeling a real interest in our affairs.” ~ Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) American statesman, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, The Examination, No. 8 (January 1802).
Another way of explaining it is this:
If the parents are not citizens, then that means they are citizens of ANOTHER COUNTRY, and have a LOYALTY AND DUTY to that other country.
The children, then, grow up with some loyalty to that other country, too, which makes them loyal to that other country.
I can't tell if you're having this argument in good faith or not, because I think you know that Hamilton (writing as Crassus) was referring to immigrated aliens after a large boon after their previous census. Not in regards to birth-right citizenship. If one were to take "The parents had to be citizens to produce citizens by birth. If they were not citizens, then their children were not citizens." and birthright citizenship didn't exist, 'natural born citizens' would die off in a few generations and you'd be left with a vast majority of Naturalized citizens only.