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
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.