Is Beto now a 'beta'? New York Times has decided that Kamala Harris shall be the Dem nominee

American Thinker ^ | 12/31/2018 | Monica Showalter

[gundog]

What difference, at this point, does it make?

[Lurkinanloomin]

They’d just blame it on a video on Youtube,

[gundog]

Would you want to be Kamala Harris if Hillary thought you were the only thing standing between her and the Dem nomination?

[x]

California's primary will come at the beginning of the primary season in 2020, rather than at the end. That could give Kamala an early lead in delegates and votes. She could also knock a close competitor out of the race - Corey, Liz, Bernie.

But she won't do as well in the East, since so many of her rivals for the nomination come from northeastern states. And she won't do well in the Midwest. Not a good fit with the region.

She'll also have problems in the South. She's Black, and that will help there. But she's not the kind of Black woman that Black women like (grew up in Canada, Asian mother, White husband, no kids, no church, hoity-toity, stuck-up, bougie manner).

I doubt Harris will win, but if a white guy gets the nomination, she's the obvious choice for VP. The other contenders are mostly from the Northeast and the Democrats aren't going to run a ticket of people from the same corner of the country. As a more or less Black woman, Harris checks the boxes.

Democrats might run a White woman from the Midwest for vice president - a sort of Tim Kaine in a skirt - but more African-Americans would stay home. They might come out to vote with Harris as VP, even if they don't love her.

[x]

Surely one of her competitors will play the Natural Born Citizen card.

I don't think so. That might mean questioning Obama's qualifications. And there will probably be other candidates later with parents who weren't US citizens when the candidate was born.

It would be fun if somebody in the debates started talking about her growing up in Canada. Maybe that's why Mark Cuban would run - to say stuff like that, stuff that nobody else would say.

[Svartalfiar]

that he was going to FORMALLY renounce his CANADIAN citizenship. What NATURALLY BORN US citizen has to do such a thing?

Theoretically, lots of them. If one of the parents was naturalized, and marries a citizen, that now qualifies as two citizen parents, giving birth to a natural-born citizen. But, several countries automatically give citizenship to the sons of their citizens, no matter where they're born, or if they've emigrated. So their kid, a natural-born US citizen, can have citizenship with another country.

If natural-born meant having no other citizenship, ever, Iran could just declare that all US citizens are granted Iranian citizenship. Now there's no one alive eligible for the Presidency... Chaos!

[Svartalfiar]

What natural born citizen is born with multiple citizenships?

See my post 66. Foreign citizenship laws don't affect our laws - just because another country grants a US citizen citizenship, doesn't mean that US citizen is necessarily not a natural-born citizen.

[morphing libertarian]

well no one alive is an exaggeration. I believe Obama and Harris are clear. Foreign parents. So I can do that easy. I am not a scholar and i didn’t write the article I posted, I cited the poster.

If the parents are both US naturalized or otherwise then I would think we have a NBC no matter what Iran claims or anyone else. The “free from other countries” is problematic, but we have to look at the situation. That’s what the courts have to man up.

[dennisw]

82 year old ex-San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, his wife ... www.lipstickalley.com › … › Celebrity News and Gossip Jun 05, 2016 · Harris caught Willie Brown’s eye in her 20s

The first time she ever appears in a Nexis.com search of California news is March 22, 1994, when she was Assembly Speaker Willie Brown’s date at his 60th birthday party.

^^^^^ Yikes! Konfused Kamala had old man Willie clambering on top of her (or whatever) in her Twenties when she was still nice and semi-exotic looking..... Sad and pathetic.

[Svartalfiar]

well no one alive is an exaggeration.

Nope. If Iranian law stated that every US citizen was also an Iranian citizen, then every single person in the US would have the dual citizenship and be ineligible. Which is why, as my following post to DMZFrank stated, that you have to ignore foreign citizenship laws when you define your own citizens.

If the parents are both US naturalized or otherwise then I would think we have a NBC no matter what Iran claims or anyone else.

Except that's not what you/your cite said. (I didn't realize you cited all that, it wasn't italicized or anything.) The cite asked why any natural born citizen would have a foreign citizenship they need to revoke. And I gave a scenario - a naturalized citizen's children (born after naturalizing, of course) would be natural born citizens, yet their original country could pass the parent's original citizenship to the child because the parent was one of the foreign country's citizens. Hence, an NBC with foreign citizenship. The Iran part was an extreme example.

[morphing libertarian]

nope not if the court says they can’t. This is the reasons e need the USSC to rule. They could address those example sin questions or in the opinions. It would be nonsensical to surrender that type of control to a foreign country.

It isn’t all or nothing. The courts can address situations

[morphing libertarian]

PS once again I didn’t cite anything. I posted another posters comments.

[morphing libertarian]

I don’t mean they tell Iran what to do, they would say Iran;s policy doesn’t apply to our definition of NBC because they are doing a generalized version of citizenship and we don’t recognize blanket inclusion.

Now that’s it for me. Best wishes. You might enter into a dialogue with the guy who put the info together.

[DMZFrank]

“Foreign citizenship laws don’t affect our laws - just because another country grants a US citizen citizenship, doesn’t mean that US citizen is necessarily not a natural-born citizen”.

Just as ours do not negate theirs...See MY post #57. The framers of the constitution did not want to take a chance on a POTUS with potential divided loyalties for ANY reason...Remember, The NBC clause has only ONE constitutional applicability, that is to be eligible to assume the office of POTUS. Nothing else.

One is not a lesser citizen in any other sense, all other privileges, rights, and obligations are the same for any other class of citizen, whether they be statutory (Puerto Ricans) 14th amendment, (Womg Kim Ark, Kamala Harris,) or native born (A tribal American Indian that was made a US citizen by act of Congress in 1924.)

This provision has only applied to 45 US citizens in the nation’s history anyway. Grover Cleveland was not an NBC either, due to his father, but no one challenged his status legally, so he got away with it. In Obama’s case, the SCOTUS just punted and kicked the can down the road.

[DMZFrank]

Part of the international acceptance of the nature of citizenship is the generally accepted principle among nations that the children of citizens born abroad are also citizens of that nation. OUR laws say that a child born to a US citizen, anywhere in the world, is a US citizen also. BUT THERE MUST BE ONE US CITIZEN PARENT. It is COMMON for most nations to accept this reality. It is unheard of, by means other than conquest, for a nation to pass a law declaring citizens in another country their citizens also and the parent has no citizenship ties to the nation, simply by declaring the whole or part of a sovereign nation’s citizenry their own citizens by fiat.

Such a move would undoubtedly trigger the end of diplomatic relations with that nation, and possibly even war.

[Lurkinanloomin]

One of the conditions of naturalizing as an American is renouncing previous citizenship.

[Lurkinanloomin]

It was Chester A. Arthur that was questionable, but he destroyed most of the evidence so it is still debatable.

[Svartalfiar]

Part of the international acceptance of the nature of citizenship is the generally accepted principle among nations that the children of citizens born abroad are also citizens of that nation. OUR laws say that a child born to a US citizen, anywhere in the world, is a US citizen also. BUT THERE MUST BE ONE US CITIZEN PARENT. It is COMMON for most nations to accept this reality. It is unheard of, by means other than conquest, for a nation to pass a law declaring citizens in another country their citizens also and the parent has no citizenship ties to the nation, simply by declaring the whole or part of a sovereign nation’s citizenry their own citizens by fiat.

Except tourist babies aren't a foreign conquest, and for some reason we allow their kiddies to become citizens, even though neither parent is a citizen, or even a LPR. Same as illegal aliens.

I'm not saying it happens, I'm simply saying that if we required the definition of natural-born citizen to include the requirement that he have NO OTHER citizenship, it would be easy for another country to disrupt that if they so wished. We already don't have much in the way of diplomatic relations with several countries (like Iran), and no one would seriously go to war over something so dumb as granting citizenship to another country's populace. It would be mocked and laughed at, but it would still be legal.

[Svartalfiar]

One of the conditions of naturalizing as an American is renouncing previous citizenship.

Yes, but is that in any way enforced? No. The US doesn't require a confirmation from your originating country that you are no longer their citizen. I know a couple people who have naturalized, and they all still have passports from their original countries. It can make travel in certain areas (really, anywhere outside of the Caribbean) much easier if you use a non-US passport.

Just because you state as part of your citizenship swearing that you renounce other citizenships, doesn't mean the other countries will respect that either. I would guess most, if not all, naturalized US citizens could easily go to their originally country's embassy (or fly there), and would not need to re-naturalize back, they would still be considered a citizen of that country.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Lying on your naturalization should invalidate it.