Posted on 12/26/2023 5:52:00 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Laura Loomer, a die-hard Trump supporter, is taking a page out of Hillary Clinton’s playbook by going into full birther mode.
'Nikki Haley Is An Anchor Baby Who Is Unqualified To Be US President,” an article posted to her website on Christmas Eve insists. Her piece argues that since her parents were Indian immigrants who didn’t become naturalized U.S. citizens until after her birth, Haley is an “anchor baby” with birthright citizenship and doesn’t qualify as a “natural born citizen."
She shared her article on X/Twitter, and users promptly flagged it with a Community Note.
NEW:@NikkiHaley Is An Anchor Baby Who Is Unqualified To Be US President
MUST READ! 👇🏻 https://t.co/7070uvKLqa— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) December 25, 2023
Loomer was livid when a Community Note flagged the post. "Why do @CommunityNotes censor factual posts?" she asked in a follow-up post on X/Twitter. "Read this article and see for yourself how this is wrongfully community noted. Natural born citizenship isn’t the same as birthright citizenship."
There were plenty of her supporters agreeing with her, as well as those calling her out for being flat-out wrong.
But what are the facts? Here’s what the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University says on the matter:
A natural born citizen refers to someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth, and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life. Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship. One can be a citizen while not being a natural born citizen
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
See McCain.
John McCain, b. 1936, Panama.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/pan001.asp
Hay-Bunau Treaty, 1903
ARTICLE IIIThe Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority.
"would possess … if it were the sovereign" establishes the United States was not the sovereign.
The 14th Amendment applied to all those born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. McCain was not born within the territory of the United States.
Act of May 24, 1934; 48 Stat. 797, "To amend; the law relative to citizenship and naturalization, and for other purposes, starts out amending Section 1993 of the citizenship law.
"Sec. 1903. Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States...."
And Congress showed off its intelligence and logic. They reasoned, if you can call it that, that "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" would cover all who were not born "within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States." What they were looking for was "out of the territory or jurisdiction of the United States. They wiffed at the required logic.
McCain was born in no-man's land outside the territory of the United States, but where the United States exercised jurisdiction as if it were the sovereign. He was born within the jurisdiction of the United States and neither fell within the 14th Amendment, nor the statute law. Looks like he was born an alien in Panama because Congress had a misplaced sense of logic.
The screwup was soon brought to the attention of Congress and they wrote a new Act.
Act of August 4, 1937, 50 Stat. 558, "Relating to the citizenship of certain classes of persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House o f Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.SEC. 2. Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
Approved, August 4, 1937.
The 1934 Act was botched. McCain was born in 1936. The Act of 1937 sort of fixed the problem for everyone not running for President. It appears the question is whether one born an alien can become a natural born U.S citizen retroactively.
In ark the court said he was a native born citizen. In some of the cases you posted they used that term. I conclude the use of native born is to avoid the term NATURAL BORN in ark they state the president should be NATURAL BORN a term they admit is not defined in the constitution.
You are entitled to your personal conclusion, but it is not shared by the United States government.
In the real world, someone of alien parentage has been sworn in five times as either President or Vice-President. Haley was born in South Carolina and she is a natural born citizen. Similarly, Chester Arthur (R) (VT, VP and Prez), Barack Obama (D)(HI, Prez twice) and Kamala Harris (D)(CA, VP) were born in the United States to foreign parents. Each was a natural born citizen and held office.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030101.html
8 FAM 301.1ACQUISITION BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021)(Office of Origin: CA/PPT/S/A)
8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION
(CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021)a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person's birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes; and
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person's citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called "citizenship by descent" or "derivative citizenship", is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
[...]
(2) The Court also concluded that: "The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States." Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
By the way, “Native” born citizen is not a “Natural” born citizen. An anchor baby assumes the country allegiance of the Father, in this instance India.
This is nonsense. U.S. citizenship is a domestic decision determined by U.S. law alone. The U.S. does not tell India who are citizens of India.
https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030101.html
8 FAM 301.1ACQUISITION BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021)(Office of Origin: CA/PPT/S/A)
8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION
(CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021)[...]
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
You say it was when Obama was elected. But here are a few other events that I've heard cited as finally killing the Constitution. (I've heard many other dates and events beyond those on this list.)
* The JFK assassination and LBJ's Civil Rights Bills.
* FDR's New Deal.
* The 1913 Federal Reserve Act.
* The Civil War.
* George Washington's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion.
You're not serious. LOL! Thanx and what does allegiance mean, not able to be the citizen of another country I suppose. I started my posts with the qualification we need a USSC decision defining NBC and addressing the foreign parents issue. Everything else is non-binding opinion
Why? Determining jurisdiction of federal courts is the function of Congress, save for certain areas that grant original jurisdiction solely to the Supreme Court (such as in court disputes between states, cases involving ambassadors or diplomats, controversies wherein the United States itself is a party, etc.). Defining who is and is not a citizen is strictly within the purview of the legislative branch; the only point wherein the judiciary would get involved is if there is a conflict between certain legislation and what the Constitution itself prescribes (and at this junction, there is no legislative/judicial conflict involving the meaning of "natural-born citizen".
Everything else is non-binding opinion
There is an overwhelming body of SCOTUS case law validating the position that the children of illegal aliens are considered natural-born citizens, to the point where we'd need either massive legislative updates to legal statutes and/or a constitutional amendment to change that classification.
It's hardly "non-binding opinion".
BTW holding office which requires a person be a NBC just means they got away with it.
Never take advice from Loony Loomer is the first, best option.
overwhelming. think not. There has been an overwhelming avoidance of the issue by the USSC,.
Let’s hope Haley bombs in NH, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she polled a significant vote.
Ever consider there MIGHT be a reason for that?
She is definitely not a natural born citizen, nor was 0bola, nor Cruz.
It ain’t that difficult folks. The chick and Obama were born on US soil. They can run for President after age 35 if they have lived as American citizens (i.e. lived in the US and weren’t like a Canadian draft dodger living in a foreign land.) They are both citizens and had/have the right to run for the Presidency. The labeling of different types of citizenship is irrelevant! Never listen to a Loony Loomer.
>>”I start by saying we seriously need a USSC decision on this definition.”
Agreed. And if their ruling were to grant people like Haley, Cruz, etc. (people born in the U.S. from parents who were not both U.S. citizens at the time of birth) natural born citizen status, a constitutional amendment is in order IMO to explicitly reject the concept. Add to that, an amendment requiring members of Congress to be natural born citizens as well, or at least citizens at birth.
“If illegal aliens are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, it means they can rob your house, kill your dog, rape your wife, and give you a penectomy and bilateral orchidectomy, and nothing could be done more than to deport them.”
If a foreign soldier as part of an army committed war crimes, and we caught him, would we have to return him to his home country because we could not prosecute him?
Don’t be STUPID!
I agree that it isn’t that difficult. You’re wrong, plain and simple.
>>”The labeling of different types of citizenship is irrelevant!”
Nonsense. If it were irrelevant then the framers wouldn’t have used the specific term “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, instead of simply using the term “citizen”.
Foreign soldiers have no diplomatic immunity and could be charged, tried and convicted of crimes.
Only accredited diplomats and visiting royalty enjoy immunity from our jurisdiction.
Border jumping illegal aliens are neither soldiers nor accredited diplomats.
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1
[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]
8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
In the early days of the 0bola illegitimate presidency long reasearch threads discussed the accepted understanding of “natural born citizen” using historical references. It is clear that at that time the meaning was born on the soil, to citizen parents. Jus solis, jus sanguinus. At that time, and for some time after, a woman non-citizen who married a US citizen, automatically assumed his US citizenship status. But that changed at some point.
Kameltoe is not a NBC, as both her parents for not only foreign nationals, they didn’t even have green cards, they were here on student visas. And any person born of one Jamaican parent is a automatically at birth a Jamaican citizen, where ever they are born. She is not eligible to be VP as the requirements for VP are the same as for POTUS.
At birth haley and her parents were subject to the jurisdiction of india. Therefore, they weren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the ysa.
BTW holding office which requires a person be a NBC just means they got away with it.
Yeah, five times in a row, spread across more than a century.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.