Posted on 06/01/2019 9:25:05 AM PDT by upchuck
There is one reason and one reason only why Kamala Harris made a big splash when she declared her candidacy for president in January and then shrunk in a crowded field since then:
Harris is not who she presents herself to be.
And that realization tends to dawn on people after she exhausts her talking points and must demonstrate more than being telegenic and effusive.
Harris looks dazzling at first sight. She has a great personal story. She’s been wildly successful in her career at every step of the way.
But Harris’ story of who she really is eventually douses cold water on the hot flames of emotion that she is trying to inspire in Democratic voters. Her record as San Francisco’s District Attorney and California’s Attorney General are at odds with her candidacy for the Democratic nomination...
To begin with, Harris is not a progressive, and anyone who says she is probably is on her payroll. California’s state legislature is trying to place unprecedented controls on law enforcement and the elephant in the Democratic primary is not Trump. It’s Harris’ record as state AG.
What can we say about that record except that it is not in the spirit of legislation seeking to restrict use of force by police and bills to stop rogue cops like Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones from abusing their authority.
As AG, Harris was always deferential to cops and other prosecutors. She was as reluctant to prosecute cops as the current occupant of the AG job, Xavier Becerra.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
His mother was a US citizen when he was born and had renounced her UK citizenship.
No.
Foreign national parent(s) bequeath foreign nationality.
Natural born citizens are naturally citizens because they cannot be anything else and have only one nationality.
Potential divided loyalty was what the founders were excluding.
Thanks.
Just got back from a week in God’s country.
do you have a source for his mother renouncing her UK citizenship?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trumps-immigrant-mother
She naturalized in 1942, in those days it was mandatory that you renounce all previous citizenships to get US citizenship.
nice try
The reference only says,
“As the Second World War raged in Europe, on March 10, 1942, the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn made Mary Trump a naturalized citizen.”
You added the “in those days ... “ business.
Do you have a reference that backs up your claim about “back in those days” naturalization automatically renounced prior citizenship?
Here’s my source:
U.S. Immigration Law Allows Dual Citizenship
It would be nice if the U.S. Congress had, at some point, simply spelled out within the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.) that dual citizenship is allowed by the United States. It hasn’t done so. In fact, you won’t find any formal or official recognition of dual citizenship as an immigration status.
What’s more, the oath of allegiance that immigrants must take in order to become naturalized citizens declares that the immigrant will:
renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.
That’s enough to make anyone think that they must choose between whether to be a citizen of the U.S. or of their home country.
Nevertheless, U.S. practice, as upheld in various court decisions, is to allow dual citizenship. (You can see this on the U.S. State Department’s website, for example, where it explains that: “U.S. law does not . . . require a person to choose one citizenship or another.”)
The United States will not ask naturalizing citizens to take any steps to formally renounce the citizenship of their home country. Nor will it stop U.S. citizens from later adopting citizenship in another country – though if their intention is to give up U.S. citizenship, they can certainly do so. You may continue to vote in your home country, if it allows it.
from:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dual-citizenship-allowed-naturalizing-us-citizens.html
Show me where she exercised UK citizenship ever again after attaining US citizenship,.
Yeah, I liked it and not just cause of Kathleen Roberston sex scenes, was unhappy with that cancellation (President Kiefer is on season 3, ugh).
I heard they want to bring Fraiser back, yeesh, Grammer was excellent in a meaty dramatic role.
I don’t know how they could improve on Frasier, especially 15 years after it ended. How you can behave as a younger character (well, not that he was “young”, though he did play the character from 29 starting on Cheers for 20 straight years) is going to look sad and pathetic for an almost 65-year old. John Mahoney is dead, so that’s a negative. You’re not going to be able to duplicate the Niles quietly lusting after Daphne bit that dragged out a bit too long, either.
His character moved to San Francisco in the finale, and if he’s still there, it would only be him (presuming he didn’t marry again). They’d probably cast some “young hunk” for the son role (he’d be 30 now), but I wouldn’t put it past them to make him a fag (despite he was clearly hetero as a kid).
par.
She's also not eligible as president. Neither of her parents was a US citizens when she was hatched.
I take this as a concession that you have no reference to support your claim that Donald Trump could only have been a U.S. citizen at birth, one of the theories of “natural-born citizen” of birthers.
By law and precedent, it is clear that Trump is a “natural-born citizen.” By this time, there are something like 1,000 actions by administrative officials (acting as magistrates) and judges with respect to placing the names of persons on the ballot who lack one or two of the following three conditions: (1) having a mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of birth, (2) having a father who was a U.S. citizen at the time of birth, or (3) having been born in the United States.
Among the people who were challenged have been: Vice President Charles Curtis (mother was a registered member of an Indian tribe and born on an Indian reservation), (2) Senator Barry M. Goldwater (born in Arizona Territory), (4) Governor George Romney (grandparents had left the country for Mexico), (3) Senator John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone), (4) President Barack Obama (born of a non-U.S. citizen father and possibly outside the U.S.), (5) Senator Ted Cruz (born of a non-U.S. citizen father and born in Canada), and (6) Senator Marco Rubio (born of two non-U.S. citizen parents).
Among the birthers who questioned whether Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were natural-born are the New York Times and the Washington Post. Of course, they had “good reasons” to do this, while demeaning other birthers. Actually, I don’t question the motivation of anybody. But, I do recognize the role of law and precedent in resolving controversies.
As to why a person should be a natural-born citizen, look at the two naturalized Muslim females we have in Congress. It is clear that they hate this country and the majority of us, and also clear that they are fundamentally ignorant of our history, our heritage and the ideals for which this country stands and for which so many of us, over the generations, have sacrificed. The hardcore of the Democratic Party, it seems to me, hates this country, many because they have no real ties to this country and others because they are self-haters (actually, these people are both narcissist and self-haters). But, among the Democrats are many people, such as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, whom I respect as fellow Americans.
I take that as a concession that you have no reference to Trump’s mother having UK citizenship after 1942.
Good try to salvage something out of your original argument. You have indeed conceded the point I made in post #106 (with a reference), that under U.S. law and precedent, she retained UK citizenship; and, so, President Trump could have claimed UK citizenship by lineage.
Now you ask me to prove something I never said. Did the President’s mother assert UK citizenship after becoming a US citizen. Although extraneous to the issue of whether Donald Trump had no option other being a U.S. citizen at birth (your theory of “natural born”), this is potentially significant for Donald Trump’s children (his mother’s grandchildren).
Under U.S. law, overseas nationals who do not revive their citizenship can only pass citizenship to the next generation. Thus, the grandchildren of the Confederates who fled to Brazil after the U.S. Civil War are not U.S. citizens by lineage. Similarly, the Mormons who fled to Mexico could not pass U.S. citizenship by lineage to their grandchildren. So, since Donald Trump never asserted his right to be a UK citizen, his children don’t have a right to claim UK citizenship. At least, this is US law.
Let me close with a quote from Winston Churchill, when he spoke before a joint session of the U.S. Congress. He said my mother was an American, and my father an Englishman. Thus, I speak to you as Prime Minister instead of as President. He understood our laws with regard to “natural-born.”
. Similarly, the Mormons who fled to Mexico could not pass U.S. citizenship by lineage to their grandchildren.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You just undercut your own argument about George Romney.
Ted Cruz is as eligible as Churchill.
In the case of the Mittster, all 50 states and DC put him on the ballot in 2012 in the general election; plus, he appeared on the primary ballot in all states holding Republican primaries in 2008 and 2012. So, opinion among those having a say in the matter was unanimous: he was “natural born.”
As I stated in Post 114, “Under U.S. law, overseas nationals who do not revive their citizenship can only pass citizenship to the next generation.” This means of course that the Mittster did NOT inherit natural-born U.S. citizenship from his grandparents. So, how was he a natural-born U.S. citizen:
#1 His father, George Romney (who was the 4th person I had in a list in Post 112), “returned” to the U.S. and thus revived the lineage.
#2 His mother, Lenore Romney, was born in the U.S.
#3 He himself was born in the U.S.
George Romney was born in Mexico and was ineligible.
George Romney was born in Mexico and was ineligible.
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.