Nikki Haley – not a natural born citizen

Two days ago CNAV treated the (lack of) sincerity of Ambassador Nikki Haley as a patriot, as opposed to a globalist. (One can be patriot or globalist, but not both; anyone who suggests one can be both, is lying, or naive.) Now comes an article by a contemporary Constitutional scholar, who has the ear of the President (the real President, not that doddering old fool who presently resides in the White House), who also supports using the Vattel Criteria to decide who is, and who is not, a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution. By those criteria, the eligibility of Nikki Haley even to be Vice-President is in serious doubt.

Who is eligible to the offices of President and Vice-President?

Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution reads:

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In 1804, Amendment XII provided for the first time for separating, on the ballot, the elections of President and Vice-President. That Amendment reads in relevant part:

[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Therefore, Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates must all satisfy the same criteria.

But what is a natural born citizen? For that, turn to Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book XIX, Paragraph 212, which reads:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Notice that Vattel, in order, defines the word citizen, then defines natural born citizen, then sets forth his reasoning. As an aside, Vattel speaks of fathers to reflect the tendency to treat women as second-class citizens even in Roman law. Today every serious Constitutional scholar refers to both fathers and mothers, with equal station and standing for each.

On September 20, 2019, Mr. Paul Engel treated the question of whether Vattel was a go-to reference by the Framers. He disclaimed any ability to find written or other evidence that the Framers referred regularly to Vattel. So, to define a natural born citizen, he applied one criterion only. But he did not apply the English common-law principle of jus soli (Law of the Soil). Instead he applied the Roman legal principle of jus sanguinis. But he applied it somewhat loosely, holding that either parent can confer natural born citizenship on his or her children. (See this article for a complete treatment of these two principles.)

Jus sanguinis only? Not so fast!

This would vindicate the claims of Presidents Chester A. Arthur and Barack H. Obama to natural born citizenship. Each man had one citizen parent at the time of his birth. But what about Thomas Jefferson? By the criteria Engel applies, Thomas Jefferson was a natural born citizen, though he was born in France. Both his parents were American colonials at the time. (Independence conferred American citizenship upon all American colonials, retroactive to their births.) So why did the Framers see fit to include the phrase

or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

as an optional criterion of Presidential eligibility? Are we really to conclude that no such person as a natural born citizen existed prior to July 4, 1776? Absolutely no principle of natural law so provides. Therefore the Framers included that provision in order not to declare Thomas Jefferson ineligible to an office he might seek. And yes, that still means Chester A. Arthur and Barack H. Obama skated on this eligibility criterion.

This also leaves out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Though his mother was a citizen, his father was a Cuban natural who never bothered to get himself naturalized. Furthermore, in another violation of the Vattel Criteria, he was born in Edmonton, Alberta Province, Canada. (But some have proposed the admission of Alberta as a State within the United States. Such action would then confer citizenship-by-birth on all its present and former residents. This would count as a “privilege” within the meaning of Article IV Section 2.)

The (in)eligibility of Nikki Haley

Does Nikki Haley satisfy the Vattel Crtieria for natural born citizenship? Paul Ingrassia, the contemporary Constitutional scholar, says: NO. He sets forth his concerns on his Substack page, the site American Greatness, and at The Gateway Pundit.

First, who is Paul Ingrassia? Let him speak for himself:

Paul Ingrassia is a Constitutional Scholar; a two-time Claremont Fellow, and is on the Board of Advisors of the New York Young Republican Club and the Italian American Civil Rights League. He writes a widely read Substack that is regularly re-truthed by President Trump. Follow him on X @PaulIngrassia, Substack, , Instagram, and Rumble.

CNAV accepts his credentials. Turning now to whether the Republican nomination race is “a two-person race” as Nikki Haley insisted,

Mr. Ingrassia would seem to agree. Though Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) finished ahead of her in the Iowa Caucuses, he didn’t finish very far ahead. Moreover, Laura Loomer reports confidently that DeSantis has dissolved the staff that were running his War Room account on X.

Therefore, Ingrassia considers DeSantis out of the race, awaiting only his admission of that fact.

So does Donald Trump meet the Vattel Criteria? Yes:

• Birthplace: Queens, New York City, New York, in 1946.
• Father: a citizen by birth.
• Mother: a naturalized citizen, who achieved naturalization comfortably before Trump’s birth.

Now examine the case of Nikki Haley. She was born in Bamberg, South Carolina, 1972. But Laura Loomer, the Queen of Receipts, strikes again! On Christmas Eve of last year, she published this investigative report, which, as ever, has the receipts! Nikki Haley ran for President in 2015, and people questioned her eligibility then. This quote comes from her office:

Haley’s parents were Indian immigrants who did not become U.S. citizens until after her birth in 1972. Her father, Ajit Randhawa, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1978, Haley’s office said. Her mother, Raj Randhawa, became a U.S. citizen in 2003, a year before Haley won a seat in the S.C. House.

Full context

The link is to a Wayback Machine rival that has an archive of an article in The State, that contains the quote. The context is even more important. Several other Presidential candidates had questioned her eligibility to the office, because clearly neither parent was a citizen at the time of her birth. This might explain her recent statement about illegal immigrants somehow commanding respect.

More to the point, this article treated the birthright citizenship controversy. Eight candidates had questioned the concept – including then-candidate Trump and Senator Cruz. (And Bobby Jindal, who did not satisfy the Vattel Criteria, either, and on the same grounds.)

Nikki Haley, at the time, waffled onbirthright citizenship. Her then Press Secretary, Chaney Adams, released this statement:

The Governor believes the nearly 150-year old constitutional guarantee of citizenship to children born in America has served our country very well and should continue for those who enter our country legally. While she appreciates discussion of the issue of birthright citizenship, she believes it’s one that distracts from the serious problem Washington politicians, including members of Congress and presidents, have for years failed to address, and that’s illegal immigration. Once we get illegal immigration under control, the citizenship question will be a non-issue, as it was for most of the last 150 years.

That Amendment is Amendment XIV, which begins:

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.

And on that Amendment, Nikki Haley explicitly stands. As far as she’s concerned, to be born in the United States is to be a natural born citizen of the United States. Vattel? Who’s he?

More support for Vattel

Remarkably, Laura Loomer’s article shows a quality of Constitutional scholarship at least equal to that of Ingrassia. She, too, quotes Vattel. In addition, she cites Supreme Court precedents, of which she found many. This Georgetown Law Center review article cites them:

• Hassen v. Colorado, holding that Amendment XIV did not treat natural born citizenship within the meaning of Article II.
• Minor v. Happersett (1874), holding that a child born in-country to two citizen parents was a natural born citizen. (That case also explicitly said that “resort must be had elsewhere” than Amendment XIV.)
• U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), holding that a person born in-country to non-citizens who nevertheless were lawful residents, is a citizen by birth within the meaning of Amendment XIV.
• Perkins v. Elg (1939), holding that a child born in-country to naturalized citizens, is a natural born citizen. Such a citizen retains the privilege even if his parents return to their home country.

Beyond that, she cites at least two other articles, all making the same point: the natural born citizenship requirement was a check against foreign influence over America’s leadership. Given that maxim, surely the criteria would be the strictest within common understanding at the time. If the Constitution did not define the phrase natural born citizen, then that definition went without saying.

Don’t give the globalists a foot in the door

One of the authors she cites, Jay Weller, makes a further point:

The forces towards globalism and weakened State sovereignty, more than perhaps any time in the history of the United States, require that Natural Born Citizen be defined in its most restrictive manner. To weaken the requirements for a person to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen, because of the modern goals of globalism, and vanishing borders favored by some, is directly treasonous to the principles promulgated by the United States Constitution and the United States Constitution itself. Such a conception is an affront to the United States Constitution, the principles held by Emmerich de Vattel, of the sovereignty of States, natural law, and the intentions of the founding fathers. A Natural Born Citizen can only be a person who is born in the United States, or its Territories, and is born to two parents, both of whom were Citizens of the United States at the time of the birth of the party in question. Equipped with this definition, the determination of the eligibility of numerous persons to the Presidency is quite simple.

That’s exactly what Vattel said – except that Vattel also considered a person born:

• Aboard a ship of the country’s navy or merchant marine while in international waters (Paragraph 216), or
• On any military station or in an embassy, consulate, or other diplomatic station (Paragraph 217)

to have been born in-country. Aircraft, military or of civilian registry, would also qualify.

The point is that Nikki Haley might have been born in-country – but she was not born to two citizen parents. Accordingly, Loomer and Ingrassia both call on her to drop out of the race.

Nor is this the only reason to vote against her. Grant Stinchfield describes her as “transactional.” Which means she’ll say what she has to say at any given time. He also called her a “globalist profiteer” in disguise. Stinchfield described her in greater detail in this podcast:

Given that, Jay Weller’s cautionary statement becomes even more important.

Paul Ingrassia brought up another point. John Marshal Harlan the Elder, dissenting in Wong Kim Ark, said this about Presidential eligibility:

I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

Before anyone accuses Justice Harlan of racism, remember that he also dissented in the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

In sum: Nikki Haley does not qualify

For all the above reasons, Nikki Haley does not qualify as a natural born citizen for Presidential eligibility. Donald Trump would be triply foolish to dub her his running mate:

1. Nikki Haley, as shown, is not eligible to that office, per Amendment XII.
2. Neither does she have that good a following. (She won one Iowa county, and then only by encouraging Democrats in that “university county” to cross over.) But more direly still:
3. Whoever is financing her, might engineer Trump’s assassination to install her as a “Manchurian Candidate.” (CNAV would encourage Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, James Gregory, Angela Lansbury, and Khigh Dhiegh to call their agents. Sadly, all these actors have died.)

Who else qualifies – or does not?

Vivek Ramaswamy must settle the question of his parents’ naturalization before anyone could properly consider him eligible to the office of Vice-President. Thus far he has demonstrated unfailing loyalty to the United States of America and its ideals. This speaks to his upbringing and the lessons he drew from it. He was definitely born in-country, and no one has alleged that his parents were not lawful residents. But they must have been citizens at the time of his birth. Until we know definitively whether they were or not, he is not eligible. (But someday, perhaps, his son could be.)

But yesterday afternoon, Mike LaChance quoted an NBC News report that Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) has Donald Trump’s active attention. Which is to say, he is considering naming her as his running mate. After she famously shellacked the Three University Presidents, President Trump would have great difficulty finding a better candidate. But he definitely should not pick Nikki Haley, no matter what anyone says.