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
Obuma has a good connection for that minor inconvenience.....
They say that Nasty Nancy was the one that protected Obunghole and allowed him to run.
Nasty Nancy was sent home. We shall see if Nimrata gets to stay, and frankly it won't matter if she does. She is not going to beat Trump.
Wouldn't it be funny of Vivek "realizes" that he's not eligible, and then points out to the normies that Nimrata isn't either......... Then folks suddenly remember Hom0bama wasn't EITHER!
Can't wait for that chapter.
I absolutely love how we started using Nimrods real name lol... err i mean Nimrata
You had it right the first time Fren. 😉
Lol
Act 7 maybe? Kek
Scuba Steve?
step by step, starting with Obama they are making the case that the constitution doesn't really matter anymore. to them its a dead document.
I think this is really their position. "Doesn't matter what the Constitution says. We're beyond that now."
She disregards the Constitutional requirements for becoming POTUS but swears she will uphold the Constitution?
This is why I would never support Ted Cruz.
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.
Good job digging!
https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/us/hawaii-health-director-obama-birth/index.html She wasn't dead till divers arrived @ the scene.
Natural Born Citizen. What did the founders mean? How does that requirement affect the president Obama and those running for that office. By RA Love 2016 I'm often stunned to hear officials and lay people try to re-define the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. This phrase appears in the constitution as part of the requirements for the President and Vice President. Article II Section 1.5 states: 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. The statement seems pretty clear except for the first line up to the comma. We need to define NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and what the founders meant by "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution",. Lets tackle the last part of the line first: "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,." Quite simply this lets the founders and other men of age (at that time) to be eligible for the office. Without this wordings there could be no one elected as president because at that time there was no person that fit the definition of Natural Born Citizen ( in the new United States). As part of that definition you had to be a citizen of the United States for 14 years. Because the republic was brand new, the founders were saying that if you were a citizen at the time of the adoption of the document then you were eligible. Now lets take a look at the part in question NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Natural Born Citizen is an interesting phrase. The thought that the framers would use that term for it just to mean a citizen born naturally by natural birth seems strange, as birth and natural born were most likely assumed at the time. So, it must mean something special. The framers new that in order to have a union that was secure and free from outside influence such as elected officials that might be influenced by forigen governments, they had to make sure that the founding documents had some written provision that excluded outside influence. Therefore the term Natural Born Citizen. But what does it actually mean? Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “The Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19, iit reads: § 212. Of the citizens and natives. (bold is mine) “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence
Natural Born Citizen. What did the founders mean? of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Vattel definies the term quite eloquently. This is the meaning that the founders were referring to. But there is a problem. How are we to know that is what the founders were referring? Vattel was French did any of the founders even speak french as well as read the french language? This from the professional interpreter,dated July 4th 2012: Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, first Secretary of State under Washington, and our third President spoke English, French, Italian, Latin, and he could read Greek, and Spanish. Benjamin Franklin, America’s first diplomat and well-known genius spoke English, French and Italian. Our second President: John Adams spoke English, French and Latin. President James Madison spoke English, Greek, Latin and Hebrew. James Monroe spoke English and French. So there we have it. The only thing we need to do is link the founding fathers with Vattel. In the memoirs, coorispondence and misalanience notes of Thomas Jefferson volume 3, Jefferson quotes Vattel in French. He refers to Vattel as an elightened an disinterested judge. This to any should be the final nail in the coffin, however many still are deaf blind and dumb. This by eather by design or ignorance is the crux of the matter. For there can be no doubt of the meaning of the term and what the founders were trying to say. We can also be of no doubt the POTUS (Obama) was never qualified to be president. By his own admission his father was a british subject. Obama's qualification to be president was overlooked on purpose by the democrats and the wording of the document for his qualification was altered just slightly so as to look like it conformed to the constitutional requirements. Nancy Pelosi was right in the middle of the entire conspriacy. This would have been a simple problem to resolve. However our senators, representatives and yes even the Supreme Court refuses to address the issue. The complicit main stream press continues to ignore every piece of evidence licking the boots of the usurper Obama. The 2016 elections: Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth but his father was not. His father later became a citizen. This is not what Vattel was saying. Naturalized citizen is not part of the narrative. Ted Cruz by Definition of natural born citizen is not eligible to be president.
As far as I am concerned, you cannot be a natural born American with any of your parents (and possibly grandparents?) born outside of the USA. It's 100% obviously unconstitutional. No such person is eligible to be President.
Haley is not eligible to be President and must immediately be removed from the ballot.
Also, as I said elsewhere: Haley is not American, naturally born, or a woman (Nikki is short for NICHOLAS?). Haley is a communist, a liberal, a Biden supporter, a traitor, and a committed pedophile
Most of this comment could use a little sauce, handshake.
She was born in Bramberg SC so doesn’t that make her eligible?
It makes her eligible to be prosecuted for treason, yes.
kek
This didn't stop Obama.
Unless Nikki's father renounced or is no longer a citizen of his birth country and her mother is solely a U.S. citizen...Nikki shouldn't even be running for President. Unfortunately no one cares about what our Founders thought or cares what our Constitution says on the matter. The fact that our Founders wanted only Natural Born Citizens to sit in that highest of offices doesn't matter anymore apparently because we thought it was ok for Ted Cruz to run, Barak Obummer sat there for 8 years (his own brother claims he was a citizen of Kenya), Vivek has never been questioned and he's not a Natural Born Citizen and now Nikki Haley!
If we ignore the Constitution at just one point, we might as well not have a Constitution at all...which we all can see that we actually don't...we are being run as a Banana Republic...and both the Republicrates and the Demicans are both as guilty as the other!
Please stop this, I don't want to see "Fact Checks" and articles all over claiming Trump and his supporters are promoting another "conspiracy theory" and hear them bring up the "dubnked" Obama birth certificate again. Trump has her beat on the issues, no need to do stuff like this that gives the media another angle to attack us.
The globalists are surrounded and we need to fire at them with all we have got. Small, medium, or large memes, info bits, etc are all welcome to be used. I don't see how your "fact checkers" could do anything but expose themselves and their lies.
So ... you don't want to follow the Constitution, huh?
That means you don't want to follow the law.
If you don't want to follow the law, then don't give us any fucking bullshit about "the issues," which are ideas to ... PASS INTO LAW.
You are not allowed to have ANY opinion on issues -- which are meant to become law --- if YOU WANT TO IGNORE THE LAW.
So... you like to make assumptions? Where was she born? The article summary doesn't mention it and instead focuses on HER FATHER, which we can safely take to mean she was born here. The Constitution doesn't define the term "natural born Citizen". A court already ruled on parental citizenship NOT being required in Lynch v. Clarke (though this case wasn't specifically about Presidential eligibility).
Which means all this is just stirring up shit that is going to make us look bad and let the media drag out the Obama birth certificate thing again to attack Trump. Trump is going to crush Never Nikki and because of that, there is no need to go down this path.
Answer the question: Do YOU want to follow the LAW ... or not?
Uhhh, yes, but where did anyone even suggest we not follow the law? The Constitution uses a term it doesn't define. A lower Court already ruled you're a natural born citizen by basis of being born here, regardless of your parents status. This is why anchor babies are a thing.
“[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).
Clarification on Natural Born Citizen:
https://greatawakening.win/p/17s5kMc4Qi/natural-born-citizen-explained--/c/
Why spin on this. If nominated, then worry, otherwise she has massive baggage to prevent that, oh and The President of the USR, Trump.
Just curious - where is this legislation that says a 'natural born citizen' is one who has 'natural born citizen' parents?
Nimrod was born in South Carolina. That is a state in the USA. That makes her a natural born citizen.
As a means to protect the loyalty and allegiance to the USA, the framers of the Constitution required (Based on Vattel's Law of Nations) that both parents have to be citizens at the time of the child's birth.
Exactly.
Loyalty was the issue, which is why the office of President had a unique qualification.
And today, we see the effect of ignoring this.
Obama has ZERO loyalty to America, and in fact wants to destroy it from within.
This is the EXACT REASON why they put this clause in.
Vivek has no loyalty, either. He is only loyal to the globalists. Same thing you see with the non-British prime minister of UK and non-British mayor of London (both of whom look a lot like Vivek, BTW, and not like the British people).
People who are not loyal to the nation will SUBVERT AND DESTROY the nation.
Nope. Anchor baby citizenship is totally illogical. And has no basis in historic and Constitutional fact.
Not if her parents were not US Citizens.
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.
False.
A} the court has made mistakes and misinterpreted the Constitution as they see fit {or purposely circumvented the Constitution... We see it even now}
B) the 14th amendment is about immigrants being granted citizenship through naturalization. There is no question Nikki Haley is a citizen. Which is not the same thing as natural born.
That is where the courts got it wrong.
But let's go with your stance...Roe vs Wade has been overturned by the court and that's the final decision. Right?
RIGHT??!!!
Actually ...
A) The case that the subverters always point to is Kim Wong, which was a 14th Amendment case, and NOT an Article 2 case. They take the phrase "natural born citizen" out of context in that case, to make their false claim.
B) The 14th Amendment had NOTHING to do with immigrants. It was to grant citizenship to the newly-freed SLAVES, who could not prove who their parents were or what citizenship they had.
Later -- MUCH later -- this amendment was fraudlently used via REGULATION (NOT LAW) to further subvert by saying ANYONE could be a US citizen if born on US soil.
What they ALWAYS ignore and leave out of the conversation is that the person has to be "born in the US, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURSIDICITON THEREOF."
Anchor babies are subject to the jurisdiction of the country where their parents are citizens.
If Mexico decides it wants daddy to come back to Mexico to fight a war, guess what? Daddy is SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF MEXICO -- BECAUSE HE IS STILL A CITIZEN OF MEXICO -- and better get his ass back to his homeland to fight.
The children are citizens of wherever their parents are, until they turn 18 and can decide for themselves.
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.
You cannot use Hamilton as an authority. He wanted a king. He wanted things that nobody else agreed to. He formed the first central bank (controlled by the Rothschilds).
He was a puppet.
He was the original "Federalist," which really meant that he wanted a BIG government (like a monarchy), and not a small government, which is what the word "federalist" actually meant in those days.
This is why the real federalists called themselves the "Anti-Federalists," as a way to push back on Hamilton's deception.
ALL of the founders, including Hamilton, conceived of other BRITISH (WHITE) people potentially immigrating to the new nation. When they wrote of "foreign aliens," this is who they were referencing. They did not want anyone who was secretly loyal to the King of England. They didn't even consider Mexicans, Indians, or Africans as possible citizens.
Indians were "other persons" and blacks were either slaves or "other persons."
That is the CONTEXT in which all their writings must be understood.
No. The parents had to be citizens for their children to be "NATURAL BORN citizens" at birth. ANY OTHER was not "natural born." It might be a citizenship at birth or a citizenship after birth, but in both of those cases those types of citizenship would be GRANTED by Congress in the Naturalization Act.
In the case where the Act gave automatic citizenship, there was no need to apply for citizenship. In the case where it was not automatic, it had to be applied for and approved.
ONLY in the case of citizen parents was the Naturalization Act ... NOT RELEVANT.
IF both parents were NOT citizens, THEN the Naturalization Act was relevant to determine if the child would have to apply for citizenship or be given it automatically.
No. There was an exception in the Constitution for the founding generation, since the USA did not exist when they were born.
After they were gone, then ONLY those who were born to citizen parents would be "natural born citizens," eligible for POTUS.
Anyone else was not a natural born citizen, and then the Naturalization Act, passed by Congress, would determine citizenship.
The 14th Amendment was passed so that the newly freed SLAVES could become citizens because their birth parents' citizenship were UNKNOWN. Often, their parents were also unknown.
WHY do you think it was passed in 1866?
It had nothing to do with the office of President, AND it has nothing to do with anchor babies.
The concept of "birthright citizenship" ... TODAY ... is NOT LAW. It was not then, and it is not today.
Today, it is ONLY A REGULATION, NOT A LAW.
It is "policy" to pretend that anchor babies are citizens. Congress NEVER passed a law to make it so.
The 14th Amendment says that any person who is (a) born on US soil, AND (b) SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE US ... is a US citizen.
A child born on US soil to 2 Mexican parents is "subject to the jurisdiction of" ... MEXICO.
The slaves had no known documentation of ancestry, so the southern States would not allow them to be citizens. This is why the 14th was passed.
It wasn't until the 1960's that this was abused by those who want to subvert the law.
I wasn't using Hamilton as an appeal to the Founding Fathers, the other person was.
I'm also simply saying, that unfortunately, as the law has been interpreted for quite a while - even children born in American waters and Airplanes flying over the States or Territorial Airspace have citizenship Jus soli 'right of the soil'
ALL I was saying that the 'gotcha' this post seemed to imply about birdbrain's parent's... doesn't matter. She won't be President, but she legally could. Downvote away if that hurts feelings I guess. I didn't write the damn law, or interpret it in the that way in the courts, or enshrine in in the many other Acts of Congress for the last 150 years.
Don't you remember Trump fighting Birther Tourism and having the State Department issue Visa restrictions against it in 2020, because HE even knew it's a huge legal problem. Libs got way upset.
Killing the messenger, ffs.
I know you didn't, but none of that is true.
a) It is not written in the law the way you claim. The law starts with the Constitution, and we know from the debates what they meant.
b) It has not been interpreted in the courts the way you claim. The main case that the usurpers point to was a case about the 14th Amendment, not Article 2, and an off-handed remark by the writer of the opinion was talking about citizenship in the 14th Amenement. People take that out-of-context to try and claim what you are claiming.
c) No act of Congress has changed the meaning, either, since Congress has no power to define what the Constitution means.
The main thing about your statment about Hamilton is that he was not talking about a birther type of argument, which is what is at issue today.
He was talking about the White British people who might want to immigrate to America, now that it was independent from Britain.
The Hamilton quote you responded to had nothing to do with the office of President, or a "birther" argument. Both are issues we are discussing today. But the birther concept did not exist then.
He was talking about people like him, who might want to become Americans.
Many others, who he was debating, did not want anyone who might be loyal to the British king in America.
Hamilton kinda liked the British king, so his argument was designed at allowing more British in, as opposed to others who did not want that.
Really, not what we are debating today.
But what we ARE debating today has been bastardized by false arguments, which are the ones you raised: what the Constitution says, what the courts have (or have not) had to say, and what the Congress has done (and what it has no power to do).
Anyway, time to move on from this discussion, I guess.
None of the original citizens were natural born, however, they understood what would happen if they granted citizenship to everyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or not. This was one of the basic fundamentals of immigration once it was apparent so many immigrants wanted to be an American. That is why citizenship is earned, and not granted. They were very protective of the sacred right to vote, as well. You not only had to be a citizen, but a landowner, as well. That was to show you had skin in the game, so to speak.
It was understood back in that day that in order to be born with citizenship, at least one parent had to already be a citizen. Had that not been the case, there would have been no need to protect the borders, nor for Ellis island. What would have been the point?