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 ...
I am well aware of what current law says, and what liberal judges have pushed 40-60 years ago. Abortion became legal due to that sort in Roe - but it was WRONG!
You cannot be “subject to the jurisdiction” if every breath you take is taken while actively violating the law! EVERY SECOND they spend in the USA is spent in active rebellion against the government!
I can’t help it if the 60s on have seen the Courts push to make being here illegally acceptable. But it is WRONG.
There was also considerable questioning re McStain too, IIRC. Not sure if it was ever pinned down with certainty as to whether he was in fact born on-base (Panama, I think?), which would be considered to be on U.S. soil.
I'd encourage peeps to read up on Vattel's "Law of Nations", which much of our Constitution was modeled on. Summary at link below is a good start: (Edit: I'm still too dumb to figure out how to make the link be a hyperlink. For that, please accept my apologies).
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/emmerich-de-vattelthe-law-of-nations-1758
You do realize that "United States vs. Wong Kim Ark" was decided in 1898, right?
more than 5 times think of the primary candidates.
How?
Her parents lawfully immigrated to Canada in 1964 so her father Ajit could pursue a scholarship at the University of British Columbia; once he got his PhD, he moved to South Carolina to become a biology professor at Voorhees College in 1969. Nikki Haley was then born in Bamberg, SC in 1972.
In what sense was Nikki Haley not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the moment she was born?
I agree Swamp Skank Nikki not eligible.
but courts nowadays aren’t very honest or constitutional.
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.
Your ignorant, non-binding opinion is taken under advisement. Your incessant citing of your ignorant, non-binding opinion in preference to that of azny recognized legal authority is noted.
Your comment that we need a USSC decision means there is no U.S. law on anything until the USSC says so. The People issue the Constitution as the Supreme law and only empower the Court to interpret what is already law.
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."
Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. 583 (1844), as published in New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845
It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents.[...]
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. 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.
In re Look Tin Sing, Fed. Rep. 905, 906 (1884), Justice Field
The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside." This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This ex-territoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents. Persons born on a public vessel of a foreign country, while within the waters of the United States, and consequently within their territorial jurisdiction, are also excepted. They are considered as born in the country to which the vessel belongs. In the sense of public law, they are not born within the jurisdiction of the United States.
In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. Rep. 382, 386 (1896)
The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States must be controlling upon the question presented for decision in this matter, irrespective of what the common-law or international doctrine is. But the interpretation thereof is undoubtedly confused and complicated by the existence of these two doctrines, in view of the ambiguous and uncertain meaning of the qualifying phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which renders it a debatable question as to which rule the provision was intended to declare. Whatever of doubt there may be is with respect to the interpretation of that phrase. Does it mean “subject to the laws of the United States,” comprehending, in this expression, the allegiance that aliens owe in a foreign country to obey its laws; or does it signify, “to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States,” in the sense that is contended for on the part of the government? This question was ably and thoroughly considered in Re Look Tin Sing, supra, where it was held that it meant subject to the laws of the United States.
Nobody on the conservative side seems to get that.
South African born Elon Musk would make a 100x better president than Kenya born Obama.
more than 5 times think of the primary candidates.
There are no constitutional requirements to be a candidate, or to be elected.
A 34-year old could run and be elected. To exercise the office he or she would have to be 35 years old on inauguration day.
By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents. McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy. 118; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy. 353, 21 Fed. Rep. 905; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.
In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. Rep. 382, 386 (1896)
The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States must be controlling upon the question presented for decision in this matter, irrespective of what the common-law or international doctrine is. But the interpretation thereof is undoubtedly confused and complicated by the existence of these two doctrines, in view of the ambiguous and uncertain meaning of the qualifying phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which renders it a debatable question as to which rule the provision was intended to declare. Whatever of doubt there may be is with respect to the interpretation of that phrase. Does it mean “subject to the laws of the United States,” comprehending, in this expression, the allegiance that aliens owe in a foreign country to obey its laws; or does it signify, “to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States,” in the sense that is contended for on the part of the government? This question was ably and thoroughly considered in Re Look Tin Sing, supra, where it was held that it meant subject to the laws of 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 301.1
ACQUISITION 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 are correct. The law is crystal clear regarding “Citizenship”...In this case “Birthright Citizenship”.
Dig a little deeper. The fathers allegiance is determined by his citizenship, and not where he resides at her birth. In this case India...He is a citizen of India, and Nikki is a “Citizen” of the US. I wish I could quote chapter and verse, but I know what I read.
The thread discussed “Natural” Born Citizenship which stipulates that at least one parent be a US citizen at the time of little Nikki’s birth. She is not eligible.
I am well aware of what current law says....
Then link, cite and quote it.
...and what liberal judges have pushed 40-60 years ago. Abortion became legal due to that sort in Roe - but it was WRONG!
So if you say a Scotus opinion is wrong, it doesn't count? For decades I argued that Roe was wrongly decided. I believe it was correctly returned to state jurisdiction.
I can’t help it if the 60s on have seen the Courts push to make being here illegally acceptable. But it is WRONG.
Your argument boils down to you do not like the applicable law.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-executive-branch/
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/19/1158172815/a-visit-to-nikki-haleys-hometown-where-race-still-exists
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/21/9187547/birthright-citizenship-anchor-babies
All lying garbage sources that I would not trust to tell me the sun was up.
The key to what they meant is in the word "citizen." The correct and proper term used to refer to people who owed allegiance to a nation was "subject."
The use of "subject" was universal at that time, and only one nation in the entire world used the word "citizen." That nation was Switzerland, which was a Republic.
This is clear evidence that we adopted the Vattel definition because if they had wanted to keep the English law connection, they would have continued to use the word "subject."
Rejecting "subject" is rejecting Jus Soli.
If she was born in the United States, which she was, as was her mother. She is as American as you when it comes to running for President. She is a “real” citizen. She is a “born” citizen. She can run for president because she is a “citizen” as defined by the Consititution. Good enough for you Citizen mbrfl? It really ain’t that tough.
The English did not use the term "citizen." They used the term "subject."
In the English of 1787, "citizen" meant someone who lives in a city. I've looked it up in several period dictionaries, and I have yet to find one that describes the word "citizen" as meaning someone who owes allegiance to a nation.
A natural born subject is indeed defined in English common law, but not a "citizen."
By changing to "citizen" we eschewed the English common law source of meaning, and embraced the Emmerick Vattel source of meaning.
In Switzerland, they used the word "citizen." They were the only nation in the world to use it thus at the time.
When that was written, it wasn’t possible to simply be born in the United States to be a citizen.
Thus, Natural Born Citizen always required two citizen parents, AND born in the United States.
The idea that a court ruling or congressional legislation can change that without passing a Constitutional Amendment is false.
UNLESS, YOU FIRST DESTROY THE RULE OF LAW.
No she isn't, and i've researched this issue far more than most people have.
We have all been misled by William Rawle when he wrote his book "A view of the Constitution" in which he said that "natural born citizen" comes from English common law.
This book was enormously popular, and spread this false claim all across the early legal practitioners of the era.
The trouble is, it was not true, as the Pennsylvania Supreme court had made clear to him on more than one occasion.
Rawle was deliberately lying, and he *KNEW* he was deliberately lying. He was trying to make the argument that slaves were citizens too, and therefore could not be slaves, and so he misled everyone in an effort to free the slaves through the back door of citizenship law.
He had been trying this tactic since the 1790, and the courts kept rejecting him.
His efforts to free the slaves has only caused the rest of the nation to be confused about what the framers intended in 1787 when they insisted on "natural born citizen."
No. The English law didn't make one a citizen, hence the slaves were not citizens, but the children of citizens were.
And this is also why they adopted the 14th amendment. It was the only way to bestow citizenship on the slaves because they could never inherit it from being born here.
I could go into far more detail about what happened and why, but suffice it to say we've all been misled and lied to about what really happened in this era.
The Constitution only uses the term “natural born citizen” when describing the requirements President. In the sections on Senators and members of the House, it simply uses the term “citizen”. If you want to ignore that and pretend that the phrase “natural born citizen” has no particular meaning, then stay ignorant.
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.