Posted on 02/17/2016 6:07:02 PM PST by patlin
Born to an Indian Sikh family
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3398376/posts?page=40#40
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki_Haley
My two cents is the woman is first generation. She has no clue of the American heritage. How in the Holy Heckoli did she ever get herself elected Gov?
There is a good reason for the natural born citizen clause for President in the Constitution.
Agree.
Yeah, birds of a feather, stick together ... natural born naturalized anchor babies!
Coulter got it right, elected becoz she was pretty, not that she was competent.
That is debatable.
In 2000, Rep. Barney, I can't "Frank"-ly understand why Ma. keeps reelecting him, introduced H.J. Res. 88, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for Office of the President a person who has been a citizen for twenty years. This is the 1st bill introduced where we have extensive testimony on the subject of "natural born citizen" before the Subcommittee of the Constitution because Barney does [n]ot favor putting obstacles on the ability of the people to choose who they wish] to elect.
Mr. Candy who is chairing the subcommittee opens by stating:
"The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation."
And Mr. Candy is quite right. The qualification was put in place specifically for national security & sovereignty reasons. It was put in place to protect the citizens of the newly formed Republic from ever becoming "subjects" to foreign sovereigns or an all powerful central Monarchy. Mr. Candy has done his homework and thus is the reason I believe that this never made it out of committee. However, let's review a bit more testimony.
We shall start with the testimony from an immigrant, Balint Vazsonyi, of the Center for American Founding who immigrated in 1959.
"The Constitution, which created a country unlike any other, also brought forth a Nation populated by people who are unlike any other. It is as if an umbrella had been erected over this country inviting all the people of the world to come here and become something else than they were in the moment of arrival. Indeed, Americans are different. I noticed this soon after I had arrived in this country 41 years ago. I daresay, I have spent a great deal of my life trying to understand, first of all, in what way Americans are different and why, but the fact remains that they are. So when the framers of the Constitution made this provision, perhaps they were already aware of the fact, as indeed perhaps instinctively or through inspiration they were aware of so many other things, that already then Americans were different because they did something nobody else had done before them. One of the best examples of that is precisely Congressman Frank's resolution. It is unthinkable, ladies and gentlemen, that a legislator in another land would actually spend time proposing that some foreigner could become the first citizen of that land. So, Congressman Frank, you are as good an example as I have met to show that Americans pour their hearts out and want to share everything, even the Presidency. I would say respectfully that describing this provision of the Constitution, as I said, and I will say once again, one of the solitary miracles of human history, as victimizing immigrants or being unjust to be able to run for President is not a right. It is very important not to confuse the system of government with rights. Where would such a right come from? It is a well-thought-out provision of our Constitution."
Continuing on about foreign influences & national security, Vazsonyi states:
"I am here to tell you, after 41 years of making the most strenuous efforts of becoming American, not just legally but in every sense of the word, and having spent 40 of those 41 years living with a native-born American, that I still have not been able to even approach the temperament, the natural tolerance, the unfailing good will toward the world that Americans are famous for. Foreigners come here and have to learn it. It is a miracle that within one generation they can do so. I think it would be expecting something even more than the impossible that they can do it within the same lifetime, and that they can forget everything they had grown up with. The question of foreign influence has already been discussed. I would just like to add that having grown up in Hungary, I would find it very difficult to make decisions, not so much affecting Hungarians, but those toward whom Hungarians hold an animus. What if somebody of a certain birth would have to just express an opinion about immigration quotas from a country with which the native land had been at odds? This is just a tiny example. Of course, the matter of being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is much more important. To say that the world is a more peaceful place today is a very temporary condition. It can turn into something else tomorrow or the day after. The constitutional provisions are not there to serve this week or next week. They have served this country for over 200 years, and I hope and we all hope that they will continue to do so. So I would like to conclude with a general comment on constitutional amendments. I believe they are rarely necessary, hardly ever justified, and perhaps entirely untimely right now, when Americans seem to be considering even the very nature of this country, whether it is a Republic or a democracy. Therefore, with due respect to the proposal, I would like to cast a vote for rejecting it."
In the Vazsonyi's written testimony turned over to the committee, Vazsonyi further address the importance of the "natural born" qualification in regards to foreign influences and national security:
"It is well known that the Founding Fathers were mindful in the extreme of foreign influences, and the dangers therefrom to the Republic. While experience has shown that a native-born Chief Executive is not necessarily immune to foreign influence, the odds are certainly more favorable if the president is an American plain and simple, who has never been, and is not at the time of taking office, anything else. Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Mr. Chairman, it is an incontrovertible fact that the inhabitants of most countries are not only unfamiliar with what we call the Rule of Law, but find the concept virtually incomprehensible. Again, it is a miracle that so many immigrants are able to operate within the American system of laws, contracts, and agreements on a handshake. Equally of concern is the new appetite for, and silent acceptance of, dual citizenship. It would be naive at best to believe that neither has any bearing on what used to be unconditional loyalty and commitment to America. Those who favor the proposed amendment will no doubt point to exceptional persons of their acquaintance who, in their view, would fulfill any and all expectations with regard to the office of president, though being of foreign birth. Yet the laws of this country never have been written with the exceptions in mind. Among other things, the Framers of the Constitution distinguished themselves by writing few laws, and employing language at once broad and concise, so as to be applicable to all circumstances at all times."
It is a quite lengthy article with further testimony before Congress, and note, all this testimony has been in the past 15 years. Congress knows the truth, they simply do not want to uphold the truth by upholding the Constitution they took an oath to uphold.
https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/the-%e2%80%9ccongressional%e2%80%9d-natural-born-citizen-part-ii-shocked-outraged-or-ambivalent/
OOPS!!!
“naturally” born naturalized anchor babies
Haley showed who she was during the State of the Union response.
No surprise she supports Rubio.
Certainly a pack of people whom Haley fooled. And this uncovering of Haley also supports why she would back Mr. Amnesty, Mr. Facebook/Zuckerberg boy— Rubio. that’s the ticket.... fake out the people who put you there, same as Rubio did in FL— only FL is not forgetting this about him.
never trust a politicians who talks through her ( or his ) smiling front teeth ..... sure sign
Question: Doesn’t she have a 50 percent approval rating? (Read that recently).
No, no, she is going to be rolling tacos, tamales and enchiladas for Rubio to sell in his push cart.
I agree.
Primary her!
"You can express your feelings before a subcommittee, you can express yourself on Facebook and you can write articles but where is it getting us?" he said. "Unless a judge slams down a hammer and issues a ruling, nothing's going to be done."
Nikki Haley Ping
South Carolina Governor
Send FReepmail to join or leave this list.
I just can’t get warm and fuzzy with anyone who refuses to use their given name. Additionally, I am DONE with any politician who identifies as a hypenated American.
Cuban-American
Indian-American
African-American - no such thing exists but hey, it works for them.
Please voters, bounce her out of there!
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.