There is not doubt that Bobby Jindal was an anchor baby. His parents were here on student visas, and she was already about 6 months pregnant when they arrived. It had to have been years afterward that they finally received their US citizenship. The clearly could NOT have fulfilled any residency requirement by the time of his birth. Bobby Jindal was born a citizen of the nation of India, the nation to which his parents owed allegiance.
In short, if Bobby Jindal is eligible to the presidency, then so is Anwar al Awlaki’s children who were born anchor babies in the US while he was here studying. I hear he also became a US citizen afer a while. So, is it wise to let Anwar’s kids run for the presidency? How about hypothetically allowing Ahmadinejab of Iran visit the US with one of his wives pregnant and ready to deliver? Should we allow that anchor baby to be eligible for the presidency?
“Natural Born Citizen” MUST mean something different than the phrase preceding it... “citizen”... referring to those who were “citizens” prior to the adoption of the Constitution. After the adoption of the Constitution, “citzen” was no longer acceptable as a standard, and something that had to have been more stringent, “natural born” became the standard.
Jindal is a great governor and probably would be a wonderful senator.
>It doesn't matter. You emotional claim that Jindal was “an anchor baby” is false. His parent were in the US with the permission of the US Govt, as opposed to illegals who by definition cannot accept the jurisdiction of the US.
2. Bobby Jindal was born a citizen of the nation of India, the nation to which his parents owed allegiance.
>As stated many times, this has nothing to do with allegiance only obedience as defined in the 14th amendment.
3. How about hypothetically allowing Ahmadinejab of Iran visit the US with one of his wives pregnant and ready to deliver?
> More emotion. The 14th amendment does not allow this. Given that a child born to the president of Iran does not accept the jurisdiction of the US. Neither would the children of foreign ambassadors or enemy combatants have nbC status. Your arguments show your lack of knowledge of the 14th amendment.
4.“Natural Born Citizen” MUST mean something different than the phrase preceding it... “citizen”... referring to those who were “citizens” prior to the adoption of the Constitution. After the adoption of the Constitution, “citzen” was no longer acceptable as a standard, and something that had to have been more stringent, “natural born” became the standard.
>Then why don't you contact your Senators and Congressman to propose an amendment to the Constitution to define this. We all bash Roberts for writing things into the Constitution that aren't there, let's not do it ourselves.