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 ...
They didn't always. The court in Minor v Happersett recognized that other authorities disagreed.
What do you suppose the effect was of a well known legal book constantly misinforming people on this particular point since 1825? Add to that the additional confusion of how many people simply thought we adopted British common law regarding "subjects" and applied it to our "citizens"?
The earlier cases seem to know the difference, while the later cases went increasingly over to William Rawle's view.
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, Long was not a member of the Federal Judiciary.
But Charles Evans Hughes certainly was. I seem to recall John Marshall also believed Vattel applied to citizenship.
Precisely my point. The judiciary is a big herd. It takes them awhile to move, and they have to want to move. If they see no reason to move, they simply adopt "precedent" and just declare the matter settled. Argumentum ad antiquitatum.
Re: 181 - well, someone needs to put together a compelling argument and who also has standing.
Yeah, I reject your claims. You do not publish a book claiming it is based on the work of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania without it being true.
Reject all you want. Produce a book by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Oh, you can't. Drat.
The court produced a list of British statute titles.
Your author was Samuel Roberts, a solitary judge from the Court of Common Pleas.
You attempted to pass off the work of the common pleas court judge as the work of Justices Tilghman, Yeates, Smith and Brackenridge of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Multiple people caught your deliberate deception.
As previously noted, it is, indeed, thrilling that someone with the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania expressed an opinion you so cherish that you attributed it to four other people you say were at the Constitutional Convention. The author of your book was born in 1763 and died in 1820. The youngest delegate to the Constitutional Convention was Jonathan Dayton, age 26. Your author would have been, at best, 24.
I truly hope that someone, now and in the future, will be just a vigilant in monitoring those that have snuck across our borders and may one day seek power in our government.
Because her parents were citizens of india. The parents could have had india demand her presence , and the us could have done nothing. Haley was a legal citizen of india born to 2 citizens of india who were not naturalized usa citizens. Same with ramaswamey, btw.
How exactly would that work, when Haley was born in the US?
a 34 year old cannot run if they are not of age before Nov election date as you say. they don’t qualify for the position When eldridge Cleaver ran in CAL the sec of state asked for his birth certificate He was too young so she jerked him off the primary and Nov election.
you keep repeating yourself I said it needs a USSC decision yet you name call me. We’re done.
Yet they did not have immunity; they were subject to America's jurisdiction at the time of Haley's birth.
The parents could have had india demand her presence , and the us could have done nothing.
India would have had to actually try to extradite Haley's parents in order to force them to return, and that's usually only initiated by government authorities due to charging them with an extraditable offense. They wouldn't be able to just come to the USA and say "we want the Haleys" back; without an extraditable offense, the United States is under no obligation to remand to their country of origin those who have lawfully immigrated.
Haley was a legal citizen of india born to 2 citizens of india who were not naturalized usa citizens
She literally isn't. Not only does India's constitution forbid dual citizenship, their Citizenship Act of 1955 explicitly states (under the section regarding Citizenship by Descent) the following: "A minor who is a citizen of India by virtue of this section and is also a citizen of any other country shall cease to be a citizen of India if he does not renounce the citizenship or nationality of another country within six months of attaining full age." In other words, even *if* Haley had obtained citizenship by descent through her father (which still needs to be proven, since her parents would have had to register her birth at an Indian consulate with a specific timeframe after her birth regardless; there would be a record of this), she would have automatically forfeited her Indian citizenship within six months of turning 18, as she was automatically a citizen of the United States by virtue of being born in South Carolina.
Unless you have proof that Haley renounced her American citizenship? If so, let's see it.
Same with ramaswamey, btw.
The same situation that Haley went through applies to Vivek, save for the fact that Vivek's parents immigrated directly to America instead of Canada, as Haley's parents initially did.
Vivek was born in Cincinnati, Ohio. He is an American citizen by birth. If he had, at any point, been considered a citizen of India by descent, he would have had to renounce his American citizenship within 6 months of turning 18. As far as we know, that didn't happen.
Therefore, in virtue of America's laws, and the laws of India, Haley and Vivek are not Indian citizens. And for all we know, if their parents never registered their birth at at a diplomatic consulate, they might have never been citizens of India.
End of story.
There is no argument that will compel a court to hear it. They are quite content to leave it alone. There are many here who will not even question their preconceived notions, and will simply insist on believing what they wish regardless of evidence to the contrary.
He literally provided SCOTUS decisions that showcase the court's long-standing interpretation (across multiple court cases of a wide variety over an extended period of time going back over a century) of what "natural-born citizens" are and aren't.
Besides, if you're asking for a specific statutory definition of "natural-born citizen", that's not the job of the judiciary to do. Such an act is explicitly within the purview of the legislative branch, i.e. the American Congress.
Multiple people decided to assert I am incorrect, but that doesn't make me wrong.
I am very much accustomed to being the only correct person in the room. I've dealt with this burden many times during my life. :)
What does the book say?
You just don't like it because it blows a big hole in what you wish to believe.
14th amendment citizen, meaning naturalized at birth.
Not the same as "natural born."
But it's not going to matter, the courts believe the common fallacy and they won't change.
Naturalization only applies to those who are not already citizens by birth.
"Naturalized at birth" is an oxymoron as far as citizenship goes.
Look chum, I dare you to go to the congressional globe and read the debates about the 14th amendment. You can see all the arguments made by all the different Senators and Representatives about why it is needed, and they get deep into the issues of what they wanted to accomplish.
If you do this, you will find out that Congress regarded the 14th amendment as a naturalization tool.
It set naturalization "at birth." And before you get started about "you can't naturalize at birth" nonsense, I advise you to read any of the naturalization acts this nation has produced, such as the Naturalization act of 1952, where it specifically says that these classes of people are being naturalized en mass "at birth."
Catch up to my level of research, and then get back to me.
Oh, and if you want a court case that revoked citizenship based on "naturalization at birth", check out Rogers v Bellei.
The requirements laid out in §1423, §1427, and §1429 completely rule out the prospect of naturalization applying to those who become citizens by virtue of being born in the United States. §1431 clarifies the conditions under which a child born outside of the United States may nonetheless automatically acquire citizenship. §1433 provides for the conditions under which one may apply for naturalization of a child born and residing outside the United States who did not previously acquire citizenship automatically.
You know who isn't mentioned under the US Code for naturalization? Those who already are considered nationals and citizens of the United States due to being born within our country whilst subject to its jurisdiction.
From a statutory prospective, I will reiterate with greater specificity: saying that those who are citizens by virtue of being born within the United States while subject to its jurisdiction are hence "naturalized at birth" is an oxymoron, and is flatly contradicted by the currently applicable statutes.
Oh, and if you want a court case that revoked citizenship based on "naturalization at birth", check out Rogers v Bellei.
Aldo Mario Bellei was born abroad in Italy (i.e. not within the United States, so the 14th Amendment wouldn't even apply), so his circumstances aren't even relevant to the case of Nikki Haley or Vivek Ramaswamy, who were born in the United States.
US code doesn't overrule Constitutional law.
Those who already are considered nationals and citizens of the United States due to being born within our country whilst subject to its jurisdiction.
Doesn't change the fact that the 14th amendment *IS* naturalization. Everyone who gains citizenship by it's effect is a naturalized citizen. All those anchor babies are naturalized citizens.
Aldo Mario Bellei was born abroad in Italy (i.e. not within the United States, so the 14th Amendment wouldn't even apply), so his circumstances aren't even relevant to the case of Nikki Haley or Vivek Ramaswamy, who were born in the United States.
I didn't refer to him as a 14th amendment citizen. I referred to him as a "naturalized at birth" citizen.
And I can see you simply skipped right over your research assignment and came straight back to arguing with me without learning what I urged you to go learn.
The 14th is a naturalization amendment. It is not, and nor can it ever be, a replacement for "natural born citizen."
Which aspect of the US Code that I cited conflicts with the Constitution?
And I can see you simply skipped right over your research assignment and came straight back to arguing with me without learning what I urged you to go learn.
Because I've already seen these debates with you on prior threads, and I've come to the conclusion that you have a particular viewpoint you're rather committed to in spite of the plain language of the Amendment itself.
The 14th is a naturalization amendment.
Notwithstanding that the 14th Amendment deals with much more than just citizenship, let's look at the Citizenship Clause as it is written:
14th Amendment, Section 1, Clause 1: "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."
Zoom in.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"
Increase magnification.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Enhance.
"All persons born or naturalized"
Enhance again!
"born or naturalized"
You call the 14th Amendment purely a "naturalization amendment", when the Amendment itself explicitly differentiates and distinguishes between citizenship attained by birth and citizenship attained by naturalization.
If the part you cited does not presume to define "natural born citizen" then why did you cite it? If it does, I point out that you cannot re-write constitutional law through a statute.
Because I've already seen these debates with you on prior threads, and I've come to the conclusion that you have a particular viewpoint you're rather committed to in spite of the plain language of the Amendment itself.
Your argument that the congress accidentally re-wrote the intentions of the framers in 1787 when they specified "natural born citizen", through the use of the 14th amendment, (which does not say "natural born citizen" in it anywhere) is not something to be regarded as serious.
Unless there was an amendment specifically written to *CHANGE* the presidential eligibility requirements, it remains the same as it was in 1787. I believe this view is regarded as "strict constructionism". I don't do "living constitution" bullsh*t.
You can't amend the constitution through a back door trick. It has to be amended overtly and with full understanding of the change to be made by the congress and the ratifying states.
You call the 14th Amendment purely a "naturalization amendment", when the Amendment itself explicitly differentiates and distinguishes between citizenship attained by birth and citizenship attained by naturalization.
Were former slaves born citizens, or were they naturalized?
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.