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
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.