Nikki Haley’s flagrant defiance of the Constitution’s textual prerogative, if allowed to continue, will thrust all that remains of the Framers’ now-enervated handiwork into inexorably aimless waters.
Consistent with the earlier decisions, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision in Perkins v. Elg that a person born in the United States and raised in another country was a natural born citizen.
The Supreme Court decision in 1939 is the latest so it takes precedent. Unless my history is wrong, 1939 came after 1875. I can't believe how many people on this post either can't read or do math.
If you're born in the United States to an American parent of course of course you're a Natural Born Citizen but that's not the case with Haley, neither of her parents were citizens when she was born.
Parentage plays no role in citizenship at birth for those born on US soil unless one of the parents happens to have diplomatic immunity as a foreign ambassador for example. In that case the child would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and would not be a citizen (natural born citizen). Haley's parents did not have immunity thus Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley is a natural born citizen.
What? Congress has never said that parental citizenship matters. They could not because that would violate the 14th Amendment. Why don't you tell us where they did?
Why don't you go review Senate Resolution 511 whereby they declared Johnny McCain to be a Natural Born Citizen because his parents were Americans, they had two constitutional law experts enter legal opinions into the Congressional Record supporting the resolution.
The courts have generally view citizenship as anything Congress says it is and with Resolution 511, they declared one's parents have to be citizens in order to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen.
McCain was born outside the country to a father on active military duty so he has an exemption to being born in the country to be a natural born citizen.
I have read Senate Res. 511. It was a non binding resolution passed to help one of their own John McCain. It was about his situation exclusively. No one questioned Senator Obama's eligibility since he had been born in Hawaii and by that fact alone was a natural born citizen.
You are continuing to show your ignorance. How about the Supreme Court? I guess you didn't read that far. The Supreme Court states if you were born in the Unites States no matter whether you were raised in the United States or in another country you are a natural born citizen. That is the highest courts decision. Incase you are too stupid to understand The Supreme Court is a federal court.
Consistent with the earlier decisions, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision in Perkins v. Elg that a person born in the United States and raised in another country was a natural born citizen.
You are misreading the dicta in Minor v Happersett. First of all the case wasn't about who were natural born citizens. It was about whether the 14th Amendment gave women the right to vote. However, even in dicta the court only said that citizens born to citizen parents were natural born. It went on to say that others might also be natural born citizens but we aren't here to decide that. Twenty years later the court in US v Wong Kim Ark settled the question about children of aliens. Also the 19th Amendment made the ruling in Minor moot.
WKA was all about natural born citizenship since WKA by law could not be naturalized (the Chinese Exclusion Acts forbade it), so in order for Wong to be a citizen he could only be a natural born citizen. The court has said multiple times there are only two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized. In their oppostion in lower court the government lamented if the courts found for Wong he would be eligible to be president.
One of the leading legal scholars of the day William Dameron Guthrie wrote in an article about the case: "The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in United States of alien parents and permanently domiciled here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws."
WKA wasn't running for president. The issue was his citizenship. However it is beyond your limited powers of reason to read the decision and understand that the court said Wong could not be a naturalized citizen and the only other option is that he was natural born under Amendment 14 and common law. It is really basic stuff.
That's why WKA has been cited in cases like Ankeny and numerous other failed Birther cases. Real constitutional scholars cite it too.
WOW! ChiliDogg says he is smarter than all of the immigration judges, Immigration attorneys and the Supreme Court. He is even smarter than all of the Democrats, Republicans and Independents. That is because all of the people listed say she is a natural born citizen. I can't imagine what his intelligence will be like when he graduates elementary school.
Your ignorance is showing. Congress makes the laws but the Supreme Court has the last say. You obviously don't have any knowledge of the government or the law. Email an immigration attorney unless you think you know more than a professional about immigration law. It won't cost you anything and you might learn something.
I have seen Birthers lie that they remember being taught that a natural born citizen has to have citizen parents. However they never seem to be able to produce a copy of their civics book that said that.
Oh Birthers, a term liberals created to try and insinuate anyone who questions one's eligibility as crazy. We'll buddy no one is questioning her birthplace, but we do know from Congress that persons like Harris, Haley and Ramaswamy whose parents aren't US citizens when they're born aren't Natural Born Citizens. Go sell your lemons somewhere else.
We know from Congress what? Show me what legislation Congress passed that declared Harris ineligible. The term Birther was expanded to include all the poor deluded Obama deniers who had to invent the two citizen parent falsehood in 2008 after the born in Kenya crap got stomped into the ground by Hawaii.
The 14th amendment was all about allegiance that’s why they included the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof, they didn’t want person beholden to a foreign country that’s why Native Americans were excluded.
Sorry you are too stupid to understand a Supreme Court Ruling. A person born in the United States is a Natural born citizen regardless of the parents status according to the Supreme Court. Just in case you don't understand what a Vice Chancellor is, that is another term for Supreme Court Justice.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field wrote:
"After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen."
When you use the word" likely" it tells me that you are guessing and have no facts to back it up.
This is from a Supreme Court Justice.
Stephen J. Field associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote this: After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.
This is the law. If you don't know what a CRS report is, look it up.
The interpretation of natural born being the equivalent of a citizen at birth was repeated in a 2011 CRS report and a 2016 CRS report. The 2011 report stated:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction.
You can't apply different standards for the Natural Born Citizen requirement, Congress declared John McCain to be a Natural Born Citizen because his parents were Americans, two Constitutional Law experts entered legal opinions into the Congressional Record affirming that resolution. Can't have it both ways either parents' citizenship is material, or it isn't and Congress through declaring John McCain a Natural Born Citizens because of his parents declared that it is.
This is what the legal analysis by Tribe and Olson entered in to the Congressional record during the debate said about John McCain's eligibility: " There is a second and independent basis for concluding that
Senator McCain is a ``natural born'' citizen within the
meaning of the Constitution. If the Panama Canal Zone was
sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain's
birth, then that fact alone would make him a ``natural born'' citizen under the well-
established principle that ``natural born'' citizenship
includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the
United States. See, e.g., Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655-66. "
So according to the legal analysis used as the basis for Senate Res. 511 parentage does not matter if one is born in a state or a territory under the jurisdiction of the United States. They then go on to make the case that the Canal Zone was such a territory:
"There is substantial legal support for the proposition that
the Panama Canal Zone was indeed sovereign U.S. territory
when Senator McCain was born there in 1936. The U.S. Supreme
Court has explained that, ``[f]rom 1904 to 1979, the United
States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal and the
surrounding 10-mile-wide Panama Canal Zone.'' 0'Connor v.
United States, 479 U.S. 27, 28 (1986). Congress and the
executive branch similarly suggested that the Canal Zone was
subject to the sovereignty of the United States. See, e.g.,
The President--Government of the Canal Zone, 26 Op. Att'y
Gen. 113, 116 (1907) (recognizing that the 1904 treaty
between the United States and Panama ``imposed upon the
United States the obligations as well as the powers of a
sovereign within the [Canal Zone]''); Panama Canal Act of
1912, Pub. L. No. 62-337, Sec. 1, 37 Stat. 560, 560
(recognizing that ``the use, occupancy, or control'' of the
Canal Zone had been ``granted to the United States by the
treaty between the United States and the Republic of
Panama''). Thus, although Senator McCain was not born within
a State, there is a significant body of legal authority
indicating that he was nevertheless born within the sovereign
territory of the United States."
Don't feel too badly though. Birthers have misrepresented what Res. 511 actually said since 2008 and they still do to this day. You are only the latest.
Your wrong the founders wouldn’t have allowed persons who owed allegiance to and subject to another country’s jurisdiction to ascend to the Presidency. That’s the very things they were afraid of.
So the founders were so afraid of foreigners they let France send over Lafayette and a bunch of his fellow French come over to fight against the British during the Revolution? Maryland even proclaimed Lafayette and his heirs were natural born citizens henceforth. Recall at the time countries in Europe had a habit of bringing in foreign princes who were heirs to their monarchs to be installed as rulers. The US didn't want that to happen. The idea that someone who was born as a US citizen could not become president would have been ludicrous to them.
They most certainly afraid of foreigners and their influence. John Jay the man likely responsible for the Natural Born Citizen clause in the first place wrote George Washington Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Weeks after this letter the clause was inserted into the constitution.
Jay's letter, the old Birther standby! It is interesting to note that at the time of Jay's "hint" the duties of the president had not even been defined and the commander of the army could have been a separate person. It doesn't matter what you believe Jay had in mind. The courts have never disqualified any candidate who was the child of one or no citizens at the time of his or her birth. Birthers tried hundreds of cases against Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 election cycles and all failed. Harris was also challenged in 2020. Those failed too. You are beating a very, very dead horse.
Those cases didn’t go anywhere because Obama had been sworn in and the judges knew if they ruled he was ineligible it would create a constitutional crisis that would be difficult to unravel.
And your proof that the judges went in the tank is? Actually the cases were dismissed for a variety of reasons including standing and lack of jurisdiction. In several cases the judges commented that Obama was indeed a natural born citizen. Some of the cases filed in 2012 tried to remove from the ballot. Those failed too.
Just saying "Obama is ineligible" is worthless. In our country we proceed according to laws. Obama was elected twice by both popular and electoral majorities and certified by Congress in joint sessions. That ended any real discussion on eligibility at least for someone of Obama's circumstances. If you are willing to accept the bleatings of a guy two years out of law school who has never tried a case over the opinion of real constitutional scholars everywhere then that speaks poorly on your judgement.
Nice to be able to read the minds of the authors of the Constitution hundreds of years later.. Yet those same founders allowed anyone who was a citizen at the time of the ratification of Constitution to be eligible regardless of when they came to the Colonies/USA. Someone could have immigrated in 1787 and would have been eligible to be president.
First, it's not reading minds, when Congress rarified the 14th amendment, they excluded American Indians because they were subject to tribal jurisdictions, so clearly Congress didn't want individuals with divided allegiance to be citizens they most certainly wouldn't have wanted those same persons with divided allegiances to be President. Secondly, they allowed those who were citizens at the time because the United States was a fledgling republic, and they knew it would take time for the nations to created Natural Born Citizens, it's not rocket science to know their intent.
You are arguing against something that was settled 130 years ago in US v Wong Kim Ark. At the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment Indians were considered as members of conquered nations. Neither the white population nor the US government were quite ready to assimilate these people into their citizenry. So they decided to exclude them by claiming that the US didn't have jurisdiction over them. The 14th Amendment says nothing about allegiance. It is about jurisdiction.
For the same reason children of invading armies were excluded in the 14th Amendment. In the case of the Indians as it was about freed black slaves it was about racism. The 14th Amendment was passed to undo the racial stain inflicted by the Dred Scott decision and to correct a mistake the authors made by not including a citizenship clause in the original document.
The US assumes that if you are a US citizen from birth and choose to reside here then you are loyal to the US. Other countries citizenship laws do not determine who can be our president.
In the majority holding in Wong Kim Ark the court said Wong would have been a [natural born] citizen by the common law in place even before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. It is how citizenship worked in this country except when racism was interjected. The reason the government fought to deny citizenship to Wong was that he was Chinese as we had passed Xenophobic exclusion laws to keep those evil Chinamen out. If Wong was instead Sean from Dublin his birthright citizenship would never have been questioned.
Can't you read? It says A PERSON BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.
Consistent with the earlier decisions, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision in Perkins v. Elg that a person born in the United States and raised in another country was a natural born citizen.
Can’t you read it says subject to the jurisdiction thereof 100% complete jurisdiction, Nimarata likely has foreign citizenship and dual citizens aren’t completely under the jurisdiction of the USA in fact the US government explicitly says so.
I can't believe how people can make up stuff like this. You throw out your opinion without any proof. It must be an ego trip and it makes you feel good. Read this.. It has been decided in the courts and the Supreme Court of The United States has never ruled different. I have given you legal precedent from 1939 to 2009.. The next you go to post something do a little research first.
Consistent with the earlier decisions, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision in Perkins v. Elg that a person born in the United States and raised in another country was a natural born citizen.
In a 1999 Circuit Court decision, the U.S.-born children of two non-citizen parents were spoken of as "natural born citizens".
In 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor,[70] the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens", regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
No where in Elg do they call her a natural born citizen you're just making that up. Again Ankeny is a state case and is meaningless in the context of this argument.
How about Tisdale v Obama? It was a federal case in Virginia. From the ruling dismissing the complaint:"It is well settled law that those born in the United States are natural born citizens."
Of course you cannot name even a single case in any court, state or federal where someone who was born to non citizens on US soil was ruled to be ineligible to be president. Not one, nada, zilch. Neither can the young dufus who wrote the article.
Here are the legal presidents. Here are the laws you say doesn't exist. Anyone that reads this post will know you don't know what you are talking about. There were a lot more cases, but I don't know how much I can put in one post.
Interpretations by the courts[edit]
1800s[edit]
Although eligibility for the Presidency was not an issue in any 19th-century litigation, there have been a few cases that shed light on the definitions of natural born and native born citizen. The leading case, Lynch v. Clarke[54] of 1844, indicated that citizens born "within the dominions and allegiance of the United States" are citizens regardless of parental citizenship. This case dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents' nationality. In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:
Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.[55]
And further:
Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.[56]
The decision in Lynch was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases, and reinforced the interpretation that "natural born citizen" meant born "within the dominions and allegiance of the United States" regardless of parental citizenship. For example, in an 1884 case, In re Look Tin Singg,[57] the federal court held, that despite laws preventing naturalization of Chinese visitors, Chinese persons born in the United States were citizens by birth, and remained such despite any long stay in China. Citing Lynch, Justice Stephen J. Field wrote:
After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.[58]
Consistent with the earlier decisions, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision in Perkins v. Elg that a person born in the United States and raised in another country was a natural born citizen.
In a 1999 Circuit Court decision, the U.S.-born children of two non-citizen parents were spoken of as "natural born citizens".
In 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor,[70] the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens", regardless of the citizenship of their parents. The court referred to the case of Wong Kim Ark, and provides a compilation of the arguments pertaining to this topic.
William Rawle, formerly the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania (1791–1799) defined natural born citizen as every person born within the United States, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. In an 1825 treatise, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, he wrote:
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. ... [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. ... Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed ... no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.[
The interpretation of natural born being the equivalent of a citizen at birth was repeated in a 2011 CRS report and a 2016 CRS report. The 2011 report stated:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.
Unlike Chin and White, Mary McManamon, Professor of Law at Widener University School of Law, has argued in the Catholic University Law Review that, aside from children born to foreign ambassadors or to hostile soldiers on U.S. territory, both of whom owe allegiance to a different sovereign, a natural born citizen must be born in the United States. She claims that common law provides an exception for the children of U.S. ambassadors born abroad and the children of American soldiers while engaged in hostilities. Thus, with these two limited exceptions, she equates "natural born" with "native born".
Professor Robert Clinton at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University is also of the opinion that "natural born citizen" means "born in the United States."[96] University of Chicago Professor Eric Posner also concludes that "natural born citizen" means a "person born in the (United States)".[97] Former Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals, Sol Wachtler, concludes the same.[98] Their conclusion is consistent with the position that the eighteenth century legal usage of the term "shall be considered as natural born" in the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Chin concurred with that assessment, stating, "there is agreement that 'natural born citizens' include those made citizens by birth under the 14th Amendment."[105]
Similarly, Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, found "quite persuasive" the reasoning employed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had concluded "that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents"
Tisdale v Obama was a federal case. in DC Eastern Virginia. Judge Gibney wrote "It is well settled law that those born in the United States are natural born citizens." The 4th Circuit upheld the decision.
Both McCain and Romney would have had standing to challenge Barack Obama. But they didn't. Do you know why? Because their attorneys knew better.
You didn't read everything. It was an immigration law judge that told him that. Now tell me you are more knowledgeable than an immigration law judge. I've given you the law, but you are too dumb to understand it. You can make up stuff all you want, but intelligent people know what a NBC is. Call
Dunham & Jones Immigration Lawyers · FREE Consultation Nationwide Immigration Practice
800-528-4044. Or you can just keep posting about something you don't know anything about.
People said McCain was born outside the U S so he wasn't a U S citizen. Congress determined since his parents were U S citizens that would make him a U S Citizen. The difference here is Haley was born in the U S. Resolution 511 doesn't apply here. There is an easy way to settle this. A natural born citizen doesn't have to apply for citizenship. Instead of showing your lack of knowledge of citizenship you should contact your state and federal representatives and see what they have to say. Those people are the lawmakers and if anyone knows about citizenship laws they would know for sure. My senator said people that are born on U S soil are natural born citizens no matter what citizenship their parents are. That was what an immigration law judge told him. Now unless you know more about immigration law than an immigration law judge, that is the law. Ramaswamy was born in the U S, but only one of his parents is a U S Citizen. His mother became a naturalized citizen 2 years after he was born, but his father is still a citizen of another country. According to your argument Ramaswamy would not be a NBC either. He was born on U S soil and that makes him a NBC. Obama was born, supposedly, on U S soil. His mother was a U S citizen, but his father wasn't. Obama was found to be a NBC. You have to know and understand all of the immigration laws, not just one or two.
Your statement makes no sense you can't apply a criteria to one person and not have it apply to all. Your Senator should speak with his colleagues who issued Resolution 511 which by the way had legal opinions in support of entered into the Congressional Record by two Constitutional Law experts.
That Resolution stated that the one's parents must be US citizens in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. One can't have it both ways either parental citizenship is material or it isn't and in Resolution 511 Congress said it matters.
There's also the Supreme Court where the Chief Justice Morris Waite wrote Under the common law, according to the court, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." The Chief Justice of the court is defining what a Natural Born Citizen is in a legal majority opinion and he says the citizenship of one's parents matters.
Your parents have to be US Citizens in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. End of Story!
McCain's father was on active duty in the military so he gets a special exemption and is a natural born citizen. Vivek, Nikki and Obama aren't NBCs. I've told you several times there isn't any law defining NBC so your Senator doesn't know what it means.
That's true,m but they can't deport a baby that is a U S citizen.. The parents would have 2 choices. Either leave the baby in the care of someone or take the baby with them. Unless the parents are found to be unfit they have every right to leave the country with the baby.
One thing that’s missing is Senate Resolution 511 where Congress declared John McCain to be a Natural Born Citizen because his parents were citizens. The Senate had legal opinions of two constitutional law experts entered into the Congressional Record affirming their resolution.
The courts have generally sided with Congress on citizenship matters essentially holding the view that citizenship is whatever Congress says it is.
What’s incredible is that no one has asked Haley if she holds or has held foreign citizenship, if either is true she wouldn’t be Natural Born Citizen. Given her parents were Indian and resided in Canada it’s a fair question to ask.
Dual Citizens owe allegiance to and are required to obey the laws of both nations to which they hold citizenship, meaning they’re subject to a foreign country’s jurisdiction. The founders would have never stood for that, in fact it’s the very thing they were worried about.
Take it a step further, the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof means 100% jurisdiction of the United States, that was made clear when Native Americans were excluded from the 14th amendment by congress because they are subject to tribal jurisdiction. So if Haley holds Indian or Canadian citizenship she wouldn’t even qualify for the 14th amendment.
Consistent with the earlier decisions, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision in Perkins v. Elg that a person born in the United States and raised in another country was a natural born citizen.
The Supreme Court decision in 1939 is the latest so it takes precedent. Unless my history is wrong, 1939 came after 1875. I can't believe how many people on this post either can't read or do math.
If you're born in the United States to an American parent of course of course you're a Natural Born Citizen but that's not the case with Haley, neither of her parents were citizens when she was born.
Both your parents have to be citizens or else you have dual citizenship which means you have divided allegiance and you're not a natural born citizen.
Parentage plays no role in citizenship at birth for those born on US soil unless one of the parents happens to have diplomatic immunity as a foreign ambassador for example. In that case the child would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and would not be a citizen (natural born citizen). Haley's parents did not have immunity thus Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley is a natural born citizen.
Parental citizenship does play a role the government has just been misapplying the decision in Wong Kim Ark.
Can’t apply different standards to different people, Congress has said parental citizenship is material Nimarata isn’t a Natural Born Citizen.
What? Congress has never said that parental citizenship matters. They could not because that would violate the 14th Amendment. Why don't you tell us where they did?
Congress has never said anything about who is a natural born citizen.
Why don't you go review Senate Resolution 511 whereby they declared Johnny McCain to be a Natural Born Citizen because his parents were Americans, they had two constitutional law experts enter legal opinions into the Congressional Record supporting the resolution.
The courts have generally view citizenship as anything Congress says it is and with Resolution 511, they declared one's parents have to be citizens in order to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen.
So, there I told you exactly where.
McCain was born outside the country to a father on active military duty so he has an exemption to being born in the country to be a natural born citizen.
I have read Senate Res. 511. It was a non binding resolution passed to help one of their own John McCain. It was about his situation exclusively. No one questioned Senator Obama's eligibility since he had been born in Hawaii and by that fact alone was a natural born citizen.
Stop lying! The court doesn't say in Elg that she was a natural born citizen!
You are continuing to show your ignorance. How about the Supreme Court? I guess you didn't read that far. The Supreme Court states if you were born in the Unites States no matter whether you were raised in the United States or in another country you are a natural born citizen. That is the highest courts decision. Incase you are too stupid to understand The Supreme Court is a federal court.
Consistent with the earlier decisions, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision in Perkins v. Elg that a person born in the United States and raised in another country was a natural born citizen.
The Supreme Court also said in an 1875 majority opinion that one parents must be US citizens in order to be a Natural Born Citizen
You are misreading the dicta in Minor v Happersett. First of all the case wasn't about who were natural born citizens. It was about whether the 14th Amendment gave women the right to vote. However, even in dicta the court only said that citizens born to citizen parents were natural born. It went on to say that others might also be natural born citizens but we aren't here to decide that. Twenty years later the court in US v Wong Kim Ark settled the question about children of aliens. Also the 19th Amendment made the ruling in Minor moot.
Wong Kim Ark never addressed Natural Born Citizenship. The Chief Justice defined who were Natural Born Citizens.
WKA was all about natural born citizenship since WKA by law could not be naturalized (the Chinese Exclusion Acts forbade it), so in order for Wong to be a citizen he could only be a natural born citizen. The court has said multiple times there are only two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized. In their oppostion in lower court the government lamented if the courts found for Wong he would be eligible to be president.
One of the leading legal scholars of the day William Dameron Guthrie wrote in an article about the case: "The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in United States of alien parents and permanently domiciled here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws."
Wrong! If the courts meant that they would have explicitly said he’s a Natural Born Citizen but they didn’t! Go take your globalist BS somewhere else.
WKA wasn't running for president. The issue was his citizenship. However it is beyond your limited powers of reason to read the decision and understand that the court said Wong could not be a naturalized citizen and the only other option is that he was natural born under Amendment 14 and common law. It is really basic stuff.
That's why WKA has been cited in cases like Ankeny and numerous other failed Birther cases. Real constitutional scholars cite it too.
WOW! ChiliDogg says he is smarter than all of the immigration judges, Immigration attorneys and the Supreme Court. He is even smarter than all of the Democrats, Republicans and Independents. That is because all of the people listed say she is a natural born citizen. I can't imagine what his intelligence will be like when he graduates elementary school.
Your ignorance is showing. Congress makes the laws but the Supreme Court has the last say. You obviously don't have any knowledge of the government or the law. Email an immigration attorney unless you think you know more than a professional about immigration law. It won't cost you anything and you might learn something.
I said the two citizen parent theory is nonsense. I have a list of quotes from over 300 books and articles that equate citizenship at birth to natural born citizenship and presidential eligibility. http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/view-of-constitution-of-united-states.html
I have seen Birthers lie that they remember being taught that a natural born citizen has to have citizen parents. However they never seem to be able to produce a copy of their civics book that said that.
Those are just personal opinions. There's no law nor federal court case that specifically defines the term natural born citizen.
Oh Birthers, a term liberals created to try and insinuate anyone who questions one's eligibility as crazy. We'll buddy no one is questioning her birthplace, but we do know from Congress that persons like Harris, Haley and Ramaswamy whose parents aren't US citizens when they're born aren't Natural Born Citizens. Go sell your lemons somewhere else.
We know from Congress what? Show me what legislation Congress passed that declared Harris ineligible. The term Birther was expanded to include all the poor deluded Obama deniers who had to invent the two citizen parent falsehood in 2008 after the born in Kenya crap got stomped into the ground by Hawaii.
The 14th amendment was all about allegiance that’s why they included the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof, they didn’t want person beholden to a foreign country that’s why Native Americans were excluded.
Sorry you are too stupid to understand a Supreme Court Ruling. A person born in the United States is a Natural born citizen regardless of the parents status according to the Supreme Court. Just in case you don't understand what a Vice Chancellor is, that is another term for Supreme Court Justice.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field wrote:
"After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen."
That's dicta.
Congress who is responsible for citizenship says otherwise, sorry it's such a challenge for you to grasp this reality.
When you use the word" likely" it tells me that you are guessing and have no facts to back it up.
This is from a Supreme Court Justice.
Stephen J. Field associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote this: After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.
This is the law. If you don't know what a CRS report is, look it up.
The interpretation of natural born being the equivalent of a citizen at birth was repeated in a 2011 CRS report and a 2016 CRS report. The 2011 report stated:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction.
You can't apply different standards for the Natural Born Citizen requirement, Congress declared John McCain to be a Natural Born Citizen because his parents were Americans, two Constitutional Law experts entered legal opinions into the Congressional Record affirming that resolution. Can't have it both ways either parents' citizenship is material, or it isn't and Congress through declaring John McCain a Natural Born Citizens because of his parents declared that it is.
This is what the legal analysis by Tribe and Olson entered in to the Congressional record during the debate said about John McCain's eligibility: " There is a second and independent basis for concluding that
Senator McCain is a ``natural born'' citizen within the
meaning of the Constitution. If the Panama Canal Zone was
sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain's
birth, then that fact alone would make him a ``natural born'' citizen under the well-
established principle that ``natural born'' citizenship
includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the
United States. See, e.g., Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655-66. "
So according to the legal analysis used as the basis for Senate Res. 511 parentage does not matter if one is born in a state or a territory under the jurisdiction of the United States. They then go on to make the case that the Canal Zone was such a territory:
"There is substantial legal support for the proposition that
the Panama Canal Zone was indeed sovereign U.S. territory
when Senator McCain was born there in 1936. The U.S. Supreme
Court has explained that, ``[f]rom 1904 to 1979, the United
States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal and the
surrounding 10-mile-wide Panama Canal Zone.'' 0'Connor v.
United States, 479 U.S. 27, 28 (1986). Congress and the
executive branch similarly suggested that the Canal Zone was
subject to the sovereignty of the United States. See, e.g.,
The President--Government of the Canal Zone, 26 Op. Att'y
Gen. 113, 116 (1907) (recognizing that the 1904 treaty
between the United States and Panama ``imposed upon the
United States the obligations as well as the powers of a
sovereign within the [Canal Zone]''); Panama Canal Act of
1912, Pub. L. No. 62-337, Sec. 1, 37 Stat. 560, 560
(recognizing that ``the use, occupancy, or control'' of the
Canal Zone had been ``granted to the United States by the
treaty between the United States and the Republic of
Panama''). Thus, although Senator McCain was not born within
a State, there is a significant body of legal authority
indicating that he was nevertheless born within the sovereign
territory of the United States."
Don't feel too badly though. Birthers have misrepresented what Res. 511 actually said since 2008 and they still do to this day. You are only the latest.
"
Re legal analysis of question whether Senator John McCain is
a natural born citizen eligible to hold the office of
President.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Leahy: Pursuant to a request received from
the staff of your Committee, I enclose for your and your
Committee's consideration a copy of my and Professor Laurence
Tribe's analysis of the question whether Senator John McCain
is a natural-born citizen eligible, under Article II of the
Constitution, to hold the office of President of the United
States. Professor Tribe and I are in agreement that the
circumstances of Senator McCain's birth to American parents
in the Panama Canal Zone make him a natural-born citizen
within the meaning of the Constitution.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further
assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Theodore B. Olson.
The idea that Nikki Haley who was born in the Untied States is not a natural born citizen is complete rubbish. de Vattel himself wrote that countries outside Europe like England had different citizenship rules. The definition of the term natural born comes from English common law, which the authors of the US Constitution were very familiar. This article details what is wrong with the nonsense theory you espouse. https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2019/09/17/for-the-thousandth-time-anyone-born-on-us-soil-under-the-jurisdiction-of-the-united-states-is-a-natural-born-citizen-period/
Your wrong the founders wouldn’t have allowed persons who owed allegiance to and subject to another country’s jurisdiction to ascend to the Presidency. That’s the very things they were afraid of.
So the founders were so afraid of foreigners they let France send over Lafayette and a bunch of his fellow French come over to fight against the British during the Revolution? Maryland even proclaimed Lafayette and his heirs were natural born citizens henceforth. Recall at the time countries in Europe had a habit of bringing in foreign princes who were heirs to their monarchs to be installed as rulers. The US didn't want that to happen. The idea that someone who was born as a US citizen could not become president would have been ludicrous to them.
They most certainly afraid of foreigners and their influence. John Jay the man likely responsible for the Natural Born Citizen clause in the first place wrote George Washington Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Weeks after this letter the clause was inserted into the constitution.
Jay's letter, the old Birther standby! It is interesting to note that at the time of Jay's "hint" the duties of the president had not even been defined and the commander of the army could have been a separate person. It doesn't matter what you believe Jay had in mind. The courts have never disqualified any candidate who was the child of one or no citizens at the time of his or her birth. Birthers tried hundreds of cases against Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 election cycles and all failed. Harris was also challenged in 2020. Those failed too. You are beating a very, very dead horse.
Those cases didn’t go anywhere because Obama had been sworn in and the judges knew if they ruled he was ineligible it would create a constitutional crisis that would be difficult to unravel.
And your proof that the judges went in the tank is? Actually the cases were dismissed for a variety of reasons including standing and lack of jurisdiction. In several cases the judges commented that Obama was indeed a natural born citizen. Some of the cases filed in 2012 tried to remove from the ballot. Those failed too.
Just saying "Obama is ineligible" is worthless. In our country we proceed according to laws. Obama was elected twice by both popular and electoral majorities and certified by Congress in joint sessions. That ended any real discussion on eligibility at least for someone of Obama's circumstances. If you are willing to accept the bleatings of a guy two years out of law school who has never tried a case over the opinion of real constitutional scholars everywhere then that speaks poorly on your judgement.
Nice to be able to read the minds of the authors of the Constitution hundreds of years later.. Yet those same founders allowed anyone who was a citizen at the time of the ratification of Constitution to be eligible regardless of when they came to the Colonies/USA. Someone could have immigrated in 1787 and would have been eligible to be president.
First, it's not reading minds, when Congress rarified the 14th amendment, they excluded American Indians because they were subject to tribal jurisdictions, so clearly Congress didn't want individuals with divided allegiance to be citizens they most certainly wouldn't have wanted those same persons with divided allegiances to be President. Secondly, they allowed those who were citizens at the time because the United States was a fledgling republic, and they knew it would take time for the nations to created Natural Born Citizens, it's not rocket science to know their intent.
You are arguing against something that was settled 130 years ago in US v Wong Kim Ark. At the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment Indians were considered as members of conquered nations. Neither the white population nor the US government were quite ready to assimilate these people into their citizenry. So they decided to exclude them by claiming that the US didn't have jurisdiction over them. The 14th Amendment says nothing about allegiance. It is about jurisdiction.
For the same reason children of invading armies were excluded in the 14th Amendment. In the case of the Indians as it was about freed black slaves it was about racism. The 14th Amendment was passed to undo the racial stain inflicted by the Dred Scott decision and to correct a mistake the authors made by not including a citizenship clause in the original document.
The US assumes that if you are a US citizen from birth and choose to reside here then you are loyal to the US. Other countries citizenship laws do not determine who can be our president.
In the majority holding in Wong Kim Ark the court said Wong would have been a [natural born] citizen by the common law in place even before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. It is how citizenship worked in this country except when racism was interjected. The reason the government fought to deny citizenship to Wong was that he was Chinese as we had passed Xenophobic exclusion laws to keep those evil Chinamen out. If Wong was instead Sean from Dublin his birthright citizenship would never have been questioned.
Natural Born Citizenship wasn’t settled on Wong Kim Ark.
Can't you read? It says A PERSON BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.
Consistent with the earlier decisions, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision in Perkins v. Elg that a person born in the United States and raised in another country was a natural born citizen.
Can’t you read it says subject to the jurisdiction thereof 100% complete jurisdiction, Nimarata likely has foreign citizenship and dual citizens aren’t completely under the jurisdiction of the USA in fact the US government explicitly says so.
I can't believe how people can make up stuff like this. You throw out your opinion without any proof. It must be an ego trip and it makes you feel good. Read this.. It has been decided in the courts and the Supreme Court of The United States has never ruled different. I have given you legal precedent from 1939 to 2009.. The next you go to post something do a little research first.
Consistent with the earlier decisions, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision in Perkins v. Elg that a person born in the United States and raised in another country was a natural born citizen.
In a 1999 Circuit Court decision, the U.S.-born children of two non-citizen parents were spoken of as "natural born citizens".
In 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor,[70] the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens", regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
No where in Elg do they call her a natural born citizen you're just making that up. Again Ankeny is a state case and is meaningless in the context of this argument.
How about Tisdale v Obama? It was a federal case in Virginia. From the ruling dismissing the complaint:"It is well settled law that those born in the United States are natural born citizens."
That was thrown out on standing anything else is dicta.
Oh how Birthers like to move the goal posts.
You can't use a case that was thrown out before it even began to base your claim on! That's just lying.
Of course you cannot name even a single case in any court, state or federal where someone who was born to non citizens on US soil was ruled to be ineligible to be president. Not one, nada, zilch. Neither can the young dufus who wrote the article.
Here are the legal presidents. Here are the laws you say doesn't exist. Anyone that reads this post will know you don't know what you are talking about. There were a lot more cases, but I don't know how much I can put in one post.
Interpretations by the courts[edit]
1800s[edit]
Although eligibility for the Presidency was not an issue in any 19th-century litigation, there have been a few cases that shed light on the definitions of natural born and native born citizen. The leading case, Lynch v. Clarke[54] of 1844, indicated that citizens born "within the dominions and allegiance of the United States" are citizens regardless of parental citizenship. This case dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents' nationality. In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:
Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.[55]
And further:
Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.[56]
The decision in Lynch was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases, and reinforced the interpretation that "natural born citizen" meant born "within the dominions and allegiance of the United States" regardless of parental citizenship. For example, in an 1884 case, In re Look Tin Singg,[57] the federal court held, that despite laws preventing naturalization of Chinese visitors, Chinese persons born in the United States were citizens by birth, and remained such despite any long stay in China. Citing Lynch, Justice Stephen J. Field wrote:
After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.[58]
Consistent with the earlier decisions, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision in Perkins v. Elg that a person born in the United States and raised in another country was a natural born citizen.
In a 1999 Circuit Court decision, the U.S.-born children of two non-citizen parents were spoken of as "natural born citizens".
In 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor,[70] the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens", regardless of the citizenship of their parents. The court referred to the case of Wong Kim Ark, and provides a compilation of the arguments pertaining to this topic.
William Rawle, formerly the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania (1791–1799) defined natural born citizen as every person born within the United States, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. In an 1825 treatise, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, he wrote:
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. ... [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. ... Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed ... no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.[
The interpretation of natural born being the equivalent of a citizen at birth was repeated in a 2011 CRS report and a 2016 CRS report. The 2011 report stated:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.
Unlike Chin and White, Mary McManamon, Professor of Law at Widener University School of Law, has argued in the Catholic University Law Review that, aside from children born to foreign ambassadors or to hostile soldiers on U.S. territory, both of whom owe allegiance to a different sovereign, a natural born citizen must be born in the United States. She claims that common law provides an exception for the children of U.S. ambassadors born abroad and the children of American soldiers while engaged in hostilities. Thus, with these two limited exceptions, she equates "natural born" with "native born".
Professor Robert Clinton at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University is also of the opinion that "natural born citizen" means "born in the United States."[96] University of Chicago Professor Eric Posner also concludes that "natural born citizen" means a "person born in the (United States)".[97] Former Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals, Sol Wachtler, concludes the same.[98] Their conclusion is consistent with the position that the eighteenth century legal usage of the term "shall be considered as natural born" in the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Chin concurred with that assessment, stating, "there is agreement that 'natural born citizens' include those made citizens by birth under the 14th Amendment."[105]
Similarly, Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, found "quite persuasive" the reasoning employed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had concluded "that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents"
None of those cases ruled specifically that the person was a natural born citizen. Ankeny is a state case not federal therefore holds no sway.
Tisdale v Obama was a federal case. in DC Eastern Virginia. Judge Gibney wrote "It is well settled law that those born in the United States are natural born citizens." The 4th Circuit upheld the decision.
Both McCain and Romney would have had standing to challenge Barack Obama. But they didn't. Do you know why? Because their attorneys knew better.
You didn't read everything. It was an immigration law judge that told him that. Now tell me you are more knowledgeable than an immigration law judge. I've given you the law, but you are too dumb to understand it. You can make up stuff all you want, but intelligent people know what a NBC is. Call
Dunham & Jones Immigration Lawyers · FREE Consultation Nationwide Immigration Practice
800-528-4044. Or you can just keep posting about something you don't know anything about.
People said McCain was born outside the U S so he wasn't a U S citizen. Congress determined since his parents were U S citizens that would make him a U S Citizen. The difference here is Haley was born in the U S. Resolution 511 doesn't apply here. There is an easy way to settle this. A natural born citizen doesn't have to apply for citizenship. Instead of showing your lack of knowledge of citizenship you should contact your state and federal representatives and see what they have to say. Those people are the lawmakers and if anyone knows about citizenship laws they would know for sure. My senator said people that are born on U S soil are natural born citizens no matter what citizenship their parents are. That was what an immigration law judge told him. Now unless you know more about immigration law than an immigration law judge, that is the law. Ramaswamy was born in the U S, but only one of his parents is a U S Citizen. His mother became a naturalized citizen 2 years after he was born, but his father is still a citizen of another country. According to your argument Ramaswamy would not be a NBC either. He was born on U S soil and that makes him a NBC. Obama was born, supposedly, on U S soil. His mother was a U S citizen, but his father wasn't. Obama was found to be a NBC. You have to know and understand all of the immigration laws, not just one or two.
Your statement makes no sense you can't apply a criteria to one person and not have it apply to all. Your Senator should speak with his colleagues who issued Resolution 511 which by the way had legal opinions in support of entered into the Congressional Record by two Constitutional Law experts.
That Resolution stated that the one's parents must be US citizens in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. One can't have it both ways either parental citizenship is material or it isn't and in Resolution 511 Congress said it matters.
There's also the Supreme Court where the Chief Justice Morris Waite wrote Under the common law, according to the court, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." The Chief Justice of the court is defining what a Natural Born Citizen is in a legal majority opinion and he says the citizenship of one's parents matters.
Your parents have to be US Citizens in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. End of Story!
McCain's father was on active duty in the military so he gets a special exemption and is a natural born citizen. Vivek, Nikki and Obama aren't NBCs. I've told you several times there isn't any law defining NBC so your Senator doesn't know what it means.
That's true,m but they can't deport a baby that is a U S citizen.. The parents would have 2 choices. Either leave the baby in the care of someone or take the baby with them. Unless the parents are found to be unfit they have every right to leave the country with the baby.
They deport the parents of US citizens all the time.
One thing that’s missing is Senate Resolution 511 where Congress declared John McCain to be a Natural Born Citizen because his parents were citizens. The Senate had legal opinions of two constitutional law experts entered into the Congressional Record affirming their resolution.
The courts have generally sided with Congress on citizenship matters essentially holding the view that citizenship is whatever Congress says it is.
What’s incredible is that no one has asked Haley if she holds or has held foreign citizenship, if either is true she wouldn’t be Natural Born Citizen. Given her parents were Indian and resided in Canada it’s a fair question to ask.
Dual Citizens owe allegiance to and are required to obey the laws of both nations to which they hold citizenship, meaning they’re subject to a foreign country’s jurisdiction. The founders would have never stood for that, in fact it’s the very thing they were worried about.
Take it a step further, the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof means 100% jurisdiction of the United States, that was made clear when Native Americans were excluded from the 14th amendment by congress because they are subject to tribal jurisdiction. So if Haley holds Indian or Canadian citizenship she wouldn’t even qualify for the 14th amendment.
Nikki Haley is not a Natural Born Citizen!