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
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.
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?