Posted on 01/19/2023 2:41:10 PM PST by rdl6989
Not true. She has what is called “birthright citizenship.”
“Birthright citizenship in the United States is the legal principle that any person born on U.S. soil automatically and immediately becomes a U.S. citizen.”
https://www.thoughtco.com/birthright-citizenship-4707747
Are you saying that a citizen of the USA cannot run for the presidency? If Ms. Haley is not a US citizen, of which country is she?
What country are her parents from? Were either of her parents citizens of these United States at the time of her birth?
The 14th Amendment says:
“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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Ms Haley was born in the United States, so she is a citizen. But you are saying that a citizen of the United States cannot run for President? You are unequivocally incorrect.
And by this sophistry, citizenship ceases to have any meaning.
The 14 amendment makes you a citizen but it doesn’t make you a natural born citizen
And your definition of a “natural-born citizen” is???
And what is your definition of “natural born”?
So just because someone goes to an event that implies they go along with everything said and done at the event???
Born on US soil to two US citizen parents
same as vattel born in country to 2 citizen parents. I believe children of diplomats and military serving abroad would be natural born if parents citizens (MCCain for example)
What is you definition?
If the USSC decided just the father had to be a citizen I might support that. two foreigners, I do not.
Where is that defined in the Constitution?
Where is that defined in the Constitution?
It isnt defined in the Constitution...but
In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a
sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth [20].
Consequently, the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen father cannot be a natural born citizen [41].
Thus, the modern-day consensus opinion (that birthplace alone confers natural born citizenship), though widely held, appears to be an assumption, not
settled law or established
Reason 5: Supreme Court precedent
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), all children born in the United States were divided into two categories: those whose parents were U.S. citizens, and
those whose parents were not. The Court used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to members of the first category. The Court doubted
whether members of the second category were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens [22]:
The Constitution does not,
in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At
common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in
a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born
citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the
jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor
v. Happersett, 1874).
Since a child acquires “natural born citizen” status only at birth [07], and since the Supreme Court (in Minor v. Happersett) “distinguished” natural
born citizens from aliens or foreigners, it follows that natural born citizens are persons who, when born, are not aliens or foreigners, i.e., are neither
foreign-born nor foreign citizens/subjects.
Presidential Eligibility Tutorial http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
21 of 167
Well that’s the problem now isn’t it Not defined and the recent USSCs refused to take cases on Obama. From the 1700s we have Vattel’s definition and the letter from Jay to Washington.
Cannon fodder.
now waiting for your definition and source.
No, no, and no!!!!!!
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.