WERE THEY BOTH USA CITIZENS BEFORE HE WAS BORN HERE???
LOTS OF ‘LEGAL IMMIGRANTS”.
NOT ALL BECOME USA CITIZENS
That definition has been moot since Obama and possibly since 1968 and Henry Kissinger who as SoS was in line to be president.
Vivek has a better claim to NBC status than Obama, and Kissinger, as it is not clear Obama was born in the US. He has a better claim than Ted Cruz (Who I like) who was born in Canada and lived there as a child.
The new, defacto, definition of NBC is that the parents were legally in the country when the person was born. You and I may not like that, but there it is. What I want to see is no dual citizenship. I am assuming Vivek renounced his Indian citizenship when he turned 18. The issue for me is “no allegiance to foreign princes” Renouncing the other citizenship at 18 to 21 does that. FWIW, I believe and have stated that this, not the birth certificate issue was how Republicans should have attacked Obama’s eligibility. Did his Indonesian stepfather adopt him and make him an Indonesian citizen? If so, did he legally renounce that citizenship when he was 18 to 21? I don’t think he did. Obama was ineligible to be President because he holds, even if unused or acknowledged, Indonesian Citizenship. Much easier to prove than the birth certificate.
Incidentally, I feel that I have forfeited my NBC status because I hold dual citizenship. (US and HK) Since I took that duality up of my own free will as an adult, it wasn’t something I was born with, even if I renounce my HK citizenship I am no longer an NBC. Also, my wife worked as a consultant for the PRC and one of my daughters is a commercial banker for Citic Ka Wa Bank in Shanghai (A state-owned bank). I cannot say I don’t have at least a tenuous alliance to a foreign prince. It is possible that Vivek would have a better argument for being an NBC than I do.
FRgards