Is Governor Bobby Jindal A Natural Born Citizen?
Bobby Jindal, the current governor of Louisianna, has been pushed in many conservative circles as the great hope for the future of the Republican party. I think Bobby Jindal is a wonderful representative of conservatism and a great ambassador for our conservative cause, but under the heading you can’t have it both ways, is Bobby Jindal eligible to run for President of the United States?
For those who believe that President Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States (and is currently usurping the office) based on the one fact that he was born to a Father who was a British Subject under the British Nationality Act of 1948; therefore, also making him a British Subject and a dual citizen at birth, then those same people will also believe that Bobby Jindal is not a Natural Born Citizen due to his Indian parentage.
Courtesy of notablebiographies.com:
Jindal was born in 1971 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to parents who had just moved there from India to attend graduate school.
It can probably be assumed that his parent were in the United States on student visas and were not at the time U.S. Citizens. If you believe both parents must be U.S. Citizens at the time of the child’s birth for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen, then Bobby Jindal has a problem. Under this definition, he would not be a Natural Born Citizen, and therefore, under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, he would not be eligible to be President of the United States. This is why it is imperative that the United States Supreme Court finally make a decision and define for the purposes of Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution clarification of the clause as to what it definitively means to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Update February 25, 2009
Amar and Raj Jindal are the Punjabi-born parents of Governor Bobby Jindal. Raj Jindal’s maiden name was Raj Gupta. According to nola.com:
In fact, it was Gupta’s career move that brought the newly married couple to Louisiana.
Gupta was accepted as a graduate assistant at Louisiana State University when she was pregnant with Bobby. Her husband, who at the time was an assistant professor at a Chandigarh engineering college, was concerned about her moving overseas in her condition. LSU offered her one month of maternity leave if she joined the program, a deal the Jindals agreed was too good to turn down.
They moved in January 1971. Bobby was born soon after, in Baton Rouge.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that at the time of Bobby Jindal’s birth, his parents were not U.S. citizens. In fact they could not have been U.S. Citizens at the time because citizenship in the United States almost always requires 5 years of residency in the United States before qualifying. It is clear that the Jindal’s were only here for a few months before Bobby Jindal was born. Therefore, if you think both parents must be US Citizens at the time of birth, Bobby Jindal is not a Natural Born Citizen and does not qualify under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States.
He's Not My President? 
I also have wondered if Governor Jindal is a natural born citizen. When I first looked into this, I had read somewhere — and I did not save the link — that his mother was 3 months pregnant with him when she and his father arrived in the United States.
There was no mentiton in the article if they became naturalized before he was born, if indeed there was even enough time to become naturalized. If his parents were not naturalized before he was born, he would not be a natural born citizen.
I thought I had read this information in wikipedia, but when I went back there just today, this is what I found:
[blockquote]
Piyush Jindal was born on June 10, 1971 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Punjabi Indian immigrants Amar and Raj Jindal, who had recently arrived for Amar to attend graduate school at Louisiana State University. His father, Amar, left India and his ancestral family village of Khanpura in 1970,[3] and his parents took their citizenship oaths later that year to become naturalized citizens.”
[/blockquote]
If Jindal’s parents were naturalized in 1970, and he was born in 1971, then he is a natural born citizen.
This question can also be asked of Governor Bill Richardson. This is also from wikipedia;
[blockquote]
Bill Richardson was born in Pasadena, California. His father, William Blaine Richardson Jr. (died in 1972), was an American Citibank executive who grew up in Boston, Massachusetts and lived and worked in Mexico City. His mother, María Luisa López-Collada Márquez is Mexican and was his father’s secretary and a socialite. Richardson’s father was born in Nicaragua. Just before Richardson was born, his father sent his mother to California to give birth because, as Richardson explained, “My father had a complex about not having been born in the United States.” Richardson, a U.S. citizen by birthright, was raised during his childhood in Mexico City. At age 13, Richardson’s parents sent him to Massachusetts to attend a preparatory school, Middlesex School in Concord, Massachusetts, where he played baseball as a pitcher.
[/blockquote]
If he was not born to naturalized citizen parents, then he would not be a natural born citizen. It is not clear from the article if Richardson’s father was still a Nicaraguan citizen, a natualized U.S. citizen, or a Mexican citizen. Again, if the requirement is that both parents must citizens, then Richardson is not a natural born citizen.
NeilBJ
February 25, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I’ve updated the post with further information from nola.com
curi0us0nefromthe60s
February 25, 2009 at 5:49 pm
A) It doesnt matter what country his parents are from. You are born here, you are a citizen. Try reading further than article 1 in the contitution.
B) He is your president. Read Article 1 of the constitution.
C) Jindal is a dumb liar. He lied about Katrina. He loves Vocanoes! Jindal Palin 2012!
Otto
March 25, 2009 at 7:22 pm
If you would like to add to the discourse it would be helpful if you would site facts to back up your assertions. For instance in response to your three comments:
A) Nobody said he wasn’t a citizen. Of course he is a citizen; he is just not a natural born citizen which is a requirement to be POTUS. Please point to the portion of the Constitution, its Amendments or other citizenship related cases that state a natural born citizen by definition only need to be born on U.S. soil. Please site where you can prove that the requirement does not also include that the person must also be born to two U.S. citizen parents. You act so authoritative on the Constitution, yet you site nothing to back up your assertions.
B) Apparently, you didn’t get the part where ideologically he is not my President. I refer to him throughout my blog as President Obama. Of course, I know he is my President as unfortunate as that circumstance is. If you had any intellectual honesty you might have read more of my blog to understand my point of view and to actually contribute to the discussion here.
C) I have been kind enough to post your comments even though you have added absolutely nothing to the discussion. Perhaps you could be a bit more intellectually honest with yourself and make a contribution rather than making blanket uninformed claims without any facts to support your positions.
curi0us0nefromthe60s
March 26, 2009 at 12:22 am
“Of course, I know he is my President as unfortunate as that circumstance is.”
Barry is not a natural born citizen and is NOT, therefore, your president – he is a usurper and a traitor. He will get no respect from me.
prsmith
October 23, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Sandra Dalene VanAlstine – Wanted to introduce myself
Thanks
Sandra Dalene VanAlstine
Sandra_Dalene_VanAlstine
August 1, 2009 at 5:03 am
Re: “Therefore, if you think both parents must be US Citizens at the time of birth, Bobby Jindal is not a Natural Born Citizen and does not qualify under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States.”
Therefore,if you think both…
If you want to say that some people think that Jindal is not a Natural Born Citizen, you are right. If you say that it is a fact that Jindal is not a Natural Born Citizen, you are wrong.
Jindal himself thinks that he is Natural Born. As a lawyer, he is familiar with the origin of the phrase, which was used in the US Colonies before the Revolution and simply meant that someone was born in the colony and hence a citizen of the colony REGARDLESS of the number of parents who were citizens.
And that is why such prominent Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
smrstrauss
August 5, 2009 at 5:19 pm
The term has never been defined in the U.S. Constitution nor in any federal cases since. There is no U.S. statutory definition that we know of for natural born citizen. Some people hold that the founders were using Emerich de Vattel’s definition from his treatise written several decades before the U.S. Constituion that defines the term natural born citizen as someone born in the country whose parents are citizens of that country. Until the matter is adjucated properly, or until the Constitution is amended to define the term, the definition of the term natural born citizen remains allusive.
curi0us0nefromthe60s
August 5, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I think you might find this web site of interest. . .
http://thebirthers.org/misc/logic.htm
prsmith
October 23, 2009 at 7:03 pm
I agree but must add two points:
1.) The Law of Nations (Vatel or other) is mentioned by name in the Constitution which adds authority to the supposition it was used as the definition of NBC.
2.) The SCOTUS all but defined the phrase in:
Minor Vs. Happersett:
“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”
prsmith
December 5, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I agree with you on the significance of the Minor v. Happersett case; however, I disagree with you that Vattel’s Law of Nations was used in the Constitution.
I understand that in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution the following enumerated power is included:
“To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;”
I also understand that in the original text that Law of Nations is capitalized; however, I am not certain that Vattel’s text was actually being referred to here, but rather the general understanding of the law of nations and natural law that bind us all. I’m not saying you are incorrect, but rather, that the evidence in this matter is inconclusive.
It is clear that the Founders were familiar with Vattel’s work. What is even more clear to me is that Vattel’s definition is the only definition that ensures no political allegiance by the person to another sovereign. That for me is the crux of the matter, but it still must be decided in our courts rising to the Supreme Court, or through the Constitutional Amendment process.
KJ Kaufman
December 5, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I think we’re in agreement except that I can read it no other way than that outlined in the Law of Nations (I don’t think it matter’s whose compilation you use). The founding fathers clearly had a reason for including that term in the requirements. Putting yourself in their shoes, wouldn’t the prevention of foreign influence on the American President be uppermost in your mind? What better way than to insist on a person born on the soil of parentS who are citizenS?
prsmith
December 5, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)”
Consider the source. I doubt that idiot has even read the Constituition and I KNOW he hasn’t read any of the relevant court decisions. Check out http://thebirthers.org/misc/logic.htm
prsmith
October 23, 2009 at 7:07 pm
You need to work on your use of the word whom.
Me
December 5, 2009 at 2:41 pm
I cannot argue with you. I certainly make a mess of the use of the words whom and who. The article has been corrected.
Thank you for your help.
KJ Kaufman
December 5, 2009 at 3:26 pm
This is precisely the reason the matter should have gone to the Supreme Court when McCain’s eligibility was being questioned. We need a legal definition for Natural Born Citizen, and the Constitution does not provide one.
myth buster
December 6, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Agreed.
KJ Kaufman
December 6, 2009 at 11:33 pm