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
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.
Edit hit enter too soon:
From the Majority Opinion: