India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 Feb 2016 20:06

Question is settled for passing on citizenship through father, not mother. Women have traditionally had fewer rights under English Common Law.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 02 Feb 2016 20:14

Question is settled for passing on citizenship through father, not mother. Women have traditionally had fewer rights under English Common Law.

US laws are not based on british common laws.

link to law review

And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Feb 2016 20:43

ThiruV wrote:As long as at least one of the parent was US citizen at time of birth, citizens are considered natural-born rather than naturalized citizens. Presidential candidates cannot be naturalized citizens and none of them were. Raising questions about Ted Cruz's birthplace was a dickmove by Trump's campaign strategists.

The question with Ted Cruz's issue was a figment of Trump's imagination and was a tactic he has previously used on Obama. The issue is however not settled since its not gone in front of a judge but most legal minds agree that its largely a non-issue. When this issue was brought up against McCain the congress rallied but Cruz's isn't liked by more than a handful of his palls even within the tea party and freedom caucus so its unlikely, that outside of the courts this issue can be put to rest so that trump or his proxy's don't bring it out in the future. However, Trump won't really be challenged by Cruz until march so its not in his interest to use this angle of attack. In Iowa he was trying to chip away the evengelical base where cruz enjoyed strong popularity, however even in South Carolina the base isn't as large as it was in Iowa and are unlikely to impact the positions like thy did there.

Unless Ben Carson drops out, him and Cruze will continue to compete for the small evangelical groups in NH and possibly SC so even if Trump rises in polls there he has a fairly low ceiling using that demographic alone. The more mainstream republicans, and fiscal conservatives are either fragmented or will start rallying around Rubio. Prior to Iowa, Trump's strategy was to win a huge chunk of the non-establishment vote but now he met pull a sizable establishment segment if he wants to grow his ceiling. That will be a challenge since the so called establishment voters are themselves divided into a bunch of boxes based on what issues they value and Trump hasn't really shown a grasp of policy or made policy as a centerpiece of his campaign.

With Iowa its always about picking momentum as they head towards march..Cruz's victory only means that he picks up 1 extra delegate compared to trump or Rubio so its all about using the momentum to build more support in NH, SC, Nevada and on to March madness. There are only 3 candidates that can claim momentum here, Cruz, Rubio and Sanders all the rest under-performed the average of polls over the last 30 or so days.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 02 Feb 2016 21:03

brar_w wrote: When this issue was brought up against McCain the congress rallied but Cruz's isn't liked by more than a handful of his palls even within the tea party and freedom caucus so its unlikely,

Reminds me of this interview I read somewhere

Reporter: You seem to have taken an instant dislike to cruz before listening to his views and positions on various issues. Why do you think that is happening to a lot of voters?
Citizen: saves time.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 02 Feb 2016 21:36

Citizen: saves time.
Yep. When you KNOW he is a POS (Person of Stature)...

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 02 Feb 2016 21:56

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/open-letter-UCI

All the Indian sepoys in US academia are not up in arms about some chairs being funded in the UC Irvine by hindu philanthropists.

And a certain academic by the name of "Audrey Trushke" has come up with another pile of horsesh!t about "Sanskrit in the Mughal court"...as if we don't have enough marxist "history" poop on that subject already.

‏@AudreyTruschke
Scholars peak out against religious litmus test and other problems with the #Hindu right funding chairs

"Scholar of Indian cultural history" it seems.

The same sphincters of Audrey's ilk in Academia have no trouble with saudi funding of islamic studies of course.

Prevailing normative codes at public Universities and standard academic procedures require an advertised search where qualified candidates are vetted by established scholars selected from a wide pool of academic expertise. Reshaping academic selection via criteria based on ethnic origin or religious belief opens the door to discriminatory practices that are consequential for educators and students everywhere, not just at UCI.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 Feb 2016 21:57

ThiruV wrote:
And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Unfortunately, the term "natural born" is in the constitution. Congress cannot make a law or clarify it without amending the constitution. It will have to be interpreted by the judiciary.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 02 Feb 2016 22:00

vera_k wrote:
Unfortunately, the term "natural born" is in the constitution. Congress cannot make a law or clarify it without amending the constitution. It will have to be interpreted by the judiciary.

There is no one contesting the congress's interpretation at this time, so this is all mostly irrelevant.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 02 Feb 2016 22:21

Narayana Murthy exposes his genius once again

Just goes to show a lot of money in your pocket can't buy you common sense. Maybe this moron should put his own money towards his idea before asking for the govt. to spend billions of US $s to improve the US workforce.

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 02 Feb 2016 22:23

Isn't the department at Stanford, that this Truschke is a faculty of, funded by a Paki, with the specific aim of glorifying the Mughals?

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 02 Feb 2016 23:04

Nandu wrote:Isn't the department at Stanford, that this Truschke is a faculty of, funded by a Paki, with the specific aim of glorifying the Mughals?

Unable to determine who is funding sooth asia studies in Stanford, but won't be surprised if it was a paki. won't be the first time.
Christine Fair, who is apparently popular in India these days has added her voice to his petition -- one a paki-lover, always a paki-lover.
Both these fools..I mean, scholars, seem to think the likes of Aurangazeb were all moderately enlightened (like the pakis claim to be). Apparently, if you are an american, knowing some punjabi or hindi and watching bollywood movies makes you an expert on all things Indian.

CFair proclaimed she just signed this petition at UCI -- she is mostly irrelevant in the US and in India anyway, not withstanding all her twitter admirers.

‏@CChristineFair 4h4 hours ago
I just signed this petition. Open Letter to the University of California, Irvine http://ipt.io/anlei via @ipetitions

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Feb 2016 23:16

ThiruV wrote:Narayana Murthy exposes his genius once again

Just goes to show a lot of money in your pocket can't buy you common sense. Maybe this moron should put his own money towards his idea before asking for the govt. to spend billions of US $s to improve the US workforce.

Could be related to the outsourcing squeeze coming up. He might be offering a trade.
$5B/year in student funds for his DOO coolie ops.

Someone of his stature wont be making trivial statements.

saip · Post by **saip** » 02 Feb 2016 23:32

NRao wrote:
KJo wrote:Ted Cruz was born in Canada. How is he even eligible to be POTUS?
His mother is a US citizen, who was in Canada when she delivered. He has the option of selecting his nationality. He can also opt for dual citizenship, but then he cannot run for he presidency.

His father was Cuban. So may be he has triple citizenship.

This is going to come up if he is nominated and may go to SC to sort out.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 02 Feb 2016 23:34

ThiruV wrote: There is no one contesting the congress's interpretation at this time, so this is all mostly irrelevant.

it was irrelevant for obama as well, but the birther thing had mileage in some circles even after the publishing of long form.

if trump sees mileage among primary voters, he will be raising doubts about cruz eligibility - legality, common sense, congress, relevancy, general election voter alienation etc be damned.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Feb 2016 00:05

it was irrelevant for obama as well, but the birther thing had mileage in some circles even after the publishing of long form.

The problem here is that the same demographic to whom the birther appeals also has a lot other things that influence them, and Cruz checks many of those boxes. On top of that the hardcore conservative, tea party endorsing news media section has so far not migrated towards trump with some quite influential players in that segment actually openly siding with Cruz. Bill Kristol said this back in October, that with his current strategy Trump is going to be stuck in a position where he has a high base and a low ceiling. While the base may well be decided and may never even look at another candidate he cannot win using them alone unless Cruz looses his base of supports across the board, and the number of candidates does not decrease. With Kasich, and Christie essentially stuck with NH as their last battle we may as well see 3 or 4 fewer candidates headed to SC.

In that scenario (where Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson and Bush and possibly Paul) Trump would need to grow his base to cover Rubio, Carson and Bush supporters and hope that Carson ( with evangelicals) and Paul (with libertarians) eat into Cruz's base or at least prevent Cruz from growing his base once those voters realize that their candidate isn't viable. This is unlikely to happen. In polls, trump doesn't score very high as voter's second choice candidate and Carson may not make it past South Carolina, most likely benefiting Cruz come the march states. IMHO only 2 candidates have a clear path to the nomination - Cruz or Rubio. Cruz's path requires pulling massive amount support or potential support from Donald Trump and Ben Carson and hoping that Bush keeps spending millions in attacking Rubio. Rubio can be the nominee if post South Carolina only him and Bush remain the so called establishment candidates and Bush runs out of money soon thereafter. This could allow him to coalesce long time party operatives and voters in the states around him, and mount a challenge on both trump and cruz that would then be fighting for each other's supporters.

Trump would need to pull voters from all angles, and given his polirizing nature and given the fact that would have heralded personal insults at nearly the entire lineup it would be tough for him to pick up those candidate's supporters. It can still happen but his path to the nomination is probably the hardest of the three top candidates out of Iowa.

if trump sees mileage among primary voters, he will be raising doubts about cruz eligibility - legality, common sense, congress, relevancy, general election voter alienation etc be damned.

It would depend on the timing and what's going on at the time. At this time, with NH next week, Trump's target will be Rubio and perhaps John Kasich (probably just rubio). By the time Trump runs into a state where Cruz has a great ground game the crowd would have thinned out and Trump would have other potential voter pool to woo. Come to think of it, Trump barely held the second place in Iowa, a state which traditionally picks the most conservative out of the lot. Had Bush not spent millions in the last week attacking rubio, he would have likely been no.2 and trump a distant third..If Trump couldn't do better than Cruz in Iowa, pending a drastic change in cruz's standing among hard-core conservatives it looks unlikely that he does any better in the southern, as or more conservative states. This leaves the moderate republicans as his target potential pool and a lot of them would never accept him if they haven't already. Its hard to imagine a hardcore bush, or rubio follower moving away towards trump if they think these two aren't viable candidates. Most of the die hard 'believers' have already migrated to trump and are likely to stay there. But he can only win or stand a chance at winning with just those as long as the field stays large which is unsustainable unless he himself begins to fund candidacies of say a Christie, or Kasich etc.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 03 Feb 2016 00:55

Brarji: I would not have given Trump any chance at all in Iowa. He is a Big-City Slick Operator, Real-Estate Tycoon, much-divorced. Gambler, Operator of Dens of Vice. Atlantic City Mafioso. That's a Black Hat if I ever saw one. Why would Conservative Gawd-fiyaring, corn-growing, ethanol-luvin' Iowans vote for him? They spend their few non-frozen days standing out and protesting plans for airports, hotels, pretty-much any development - forget Casinos.

OTOH, Trump managed to display Palin on stage at one of his shows. Palin is more T- than T-Rex and has canines to match. So let's not underestimate his T-Party appeal. OK, Cruz is a lot worse so Texans will vote for Cruz (how can ANYONE elect him Senator!!)

I would have expected Bush to sweep Iowa hands-down, but his flop there indicates that he is pretty-much washed out.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 03 Feb 2016 01:02

saip wrote: This is going to come up if he is nominated and may go to SC to sort out.

If that was the case, it would have been done for Obama -- no one really thinks the SC is going to disagree with the congress on this one, given that the current interpretation has been around for a really long time.

There is a difference between challenging this law and using people's ignorance of the law for political advantage as was done to Cruz and Obama.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 03 Feb 2016 02:21

So US academics like Christine Fair seem to think that requiring to forge partner ships with Indians for a study on Indian religions can be challenged in court..that's a new one. Is that because UC Irvine is a publicly funded school? Or is CFair talking through an orifice not on her face, like she does a lot? The following is a quote from the qualifications for the chair at UCIrvine.

@spfrantz "Candidates will be required to forge partnerships w/ the Vedic & Indic heritage community in the Western diaspora"

@Cchristinefair: I don't see any potential lawsuits in this under-taking at all!

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 03 Feb 2016 02:21

deleted. duplicate

MurthyB · Post by **MurthyB** » 03 Feb 2016 02:24

ThiruV wrote:
Nandu wrote:Isn't the department at Stanford, that this Truschke is a faculty of, funded by a Paki, with the specific aim of glorifying the Mughals?

Unable to determine who is funding sooth asia studies in Stanford, but won't be surprised if it was a paki. won't be the first time.
Christine Fair, who is apparently popular in India these days has added her voice to his petition -- one a paki-lover, always a paki-lover.
Both these fools..I mean, scholars, seem to think the likes of Aurangazeb were all moderately enlightened (like the pakis claim to be). Apparently, if you are an american, knowing some punjabi or hindi and watching bollywood movies makes you an expert on all things Indian.

CFair proclaimed she just signed this petition at UCI -- she is mostly irrelevant in the US and in India anyway, not withstanding all her twitter admirers.

‏@CChristineFair 4h4 hours ago
I just signed this petition. Open Letter to the University of California, Irvine http://ipt.io/anlei via @ipetitions

Indeed, there is an Islamic Studies at Stanford program funded by Sohaib and Sara Abbassi. Sohaib Abbasi is a Paki who made his fortune at Oracle it appears. The director of the program, one Robert Crews, and another faculty there by the name of Joel Beinin have been on the radar of the Zionist lobby and deemed hostile and anti-Israel as documented here. Another of theirevents on terrorism was reviewed here. Truschke herself appears to be a faculty affiliate, but could be funded entirely by them and has joint participation in many of their programs as seen hereand here. In the latter seminar, Crews is a featured speaker, as isRichard Eaton, thefavorite for the Aurangzeb worshipping crowd. Note that the anti-Israel-pro-Palestinian crowd is generally from the far left islamopasand tribe of cultural marxists generally.

Of-course, the Israeli crowd has been monitoring the creeping leftism and sharia on campuses for years, possibly decades, through groups such as campuswatch, memri etc. Yindoos will also have to do this soon, so that at least their brand value is kept limited.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Feb 2016 03:00

UlanBatori wrote:Brarji: I would not have given Trump any chance at all in Iowa. He is a Big-City Slick Operator, Real-Estate Tycoon, much-divorced. Gambler, Operator of Dens of Vice. Atlantic City Mafioso. That's a Black Hat if I ever saw one. Why would Conservative Gawd-fiyaring, corn-growing, ethanol-luvin' Iowans vote for him? They spend their few non-frozen days standing out and protesting plans for airports, hotels, pretty-much any development - forget Casinos.

OTOH, Trump managed to display Palin on stage at one of his shows. Palin is more T- than T-Rex and has canines to match. So let's not underestimate his T-Party appeal. OK, Cruz is a lot worse so Texans will vote for Cruz (how can ANYONE elect him Senator!!)

I would have expected Bush to sweep Iowa hands-down, but his flop there indicates that he is pretty-much washed out.

If this were a regular cycle than I would agree. Trump however is a marketing genius that is tapping into a storm the extreme faction of the GOP itself unleashed because they somehow thought they were robbed in 08 and 12. He is merely tapping into the same, and showing how those were not ideologically driven folks deep rooted in conservative belief.

Can someone imagine that someone that has done this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NsrwH9I9vE

would be the frontrunner of the GOP at least in the umpteen polls leading up to the actual primary? That said, the calculated positions that he has taken however have placed him in a position where he really has to mend a lot of fences to grow and I don't think the traditional GOP voters are that forgiving. Think of those that had once supported the two Bush's, and now would prefer to support JEB or Rubio (or perhaps explore Christrie , Kasich and perhaps Carson). If these folks haven't already joined the Trump bandwagon why would they do it now? I believe that he will find it hard to penetrate those sub-groups not only till the establishment crowd is strong but even afterwards. That leaves the more vulnerable tea-partiers.

Cruz is also great at getting at the grass roots, building a base and engaging thousands of volunteers. Its one thing to stop him from growing his support base within this demographic but another to steal a majority of the existing support base from him. There is also a more rationale sub-group that would naturally distance itself from Trump if Trump were to pursue a more aggressive rhetoric in an effort to pick into Cruz supporters. Not only has Trump shown no sign of a ground game anywhere, he hasn't shelved out the cash required for one either unlike cruz who had invested a lot of time, money and workforce in Iowa and is claimed to have done the same in the southern states.

Although this GOP primary is nearly impossible to predict but I feel Trump has the hardest path to nomination. Not only must he break the Cruz and Rubio momentum and do so fairly soon (or else they raise a ton of money by march) but he must also eat into significant shares of their base supporters since those that are undecided by Feb. or March are unlikely to be hardcore / reliable trump supporters.

Cruz laid out his strategy to his donors conference call and it was essentially to keep his support and let the establishment crowd fight it out till march or even later. He could have in that case held on to his share while positioned himself as a more electable (general election) candidate for the other crazy's that were supporting trump (as absurd as this sounds but I guess Cruz probably believes in that

) However Trump went all in in Iowa and therefore started a confrontation with Cruz months before Cruz expected. This was Trump's first folly.

On the so called establishment side, both Christie and Kasich are likely to run out of money by the end of NH, or at most end of SC. Carson, if he decides to stay would have been marginalized while Bush supports and more importantly DONORS would begin to move towards Rubio who is now picking up senators, congressmen at a much faster pace than Bush. Cruz feared an early establishment consensus candidate and Paul Ryan's ' circular firing squad' comment pointed towards the party not tolerating this much after NH. If that is to happen than Trump would essentially have to somehow defeat a Rubio and Bush for establishment vote and support and I just don't see this happening.

Also, it takes time to develop a ground game. IOWA showed that celebrity status and large rock-concert like rallies have shown no benefit for trump there so if this strategy doesn't work in SC, or Nevada he has very little time to develop a data driven ground game ( which Bush, Cruz, and Rubio have nationwide ). Trump will probably hold on to his spot in NH or perhaps be edged out but NH is a lot different from South Carolina, and other southern states that follow.

All of this however would have to wait till South Carolina. In New Hampshire, there is likely to be a Trump-Christie-Bush coalition that would spend money (R2R) and use every possible public event or debate (Christie, Trump, and Bush) to put Rubio out. R2R tried that in Iowa where it spent something like $26 Million and its likely to do the same in NH and SC. Propping up Bush looks like a loosing financial proposition so the R2R strategy appears to be to play whack a mole and go after whoever is looking to put distance in the so called establishment lane. I think Bush's surrogates will continue to do this until the donor base moves away and the establishment essentially takes sides or is rather forced to. I predict that this will happen well before the Feb. 20 South Carolina primary and if it does it makes Trump's job much harder. Trump and to a lesser extent Cruz want this to continue well into March but I doubt that even a Bush surname can sustain that.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Feb 2016 05:02

ThiruV wrote:As long as at least one of the parent was US citizen at time of birth, citizens are considered natural-born rather than naturalized citizens. Presidential candidates cannot be naturalized citizens and none of them were. Raising questions about Ted Cruz's birthplace was a dickmove by Trump's campaign strategists.

As it was explained by a CNN anchor/analyst, Trump (and cohorts/advisers) are not raising the question but are saying that it is dem Dems who are going to go against him come presidential elections. Trump himself is cool about it but Dems are not going to be cool and would go to court (redux of FL Gore vs. Bush).

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Feb 2016 05:04

vera_k wrote:Question is settled for passing on citizenship through father, not mother. Women have traditionally had fewer rights under English Common Law.

In oh so advanced Switzerland too.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Feb 2016 05:09

ThiruV wrote:
Citizen: saves time.

Who? Citizen Kane?

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Feb 2016 05:12

ThiruV wrote:"Scholar of Indian cultural history" it seems. The same sphincters of Audrey's ilk in Academia have no trouble with saudi funding of islamic studies of course.

ThiruV: There are a lot of, as you say, "sphincters" in both UCI and UC Riverside. All sepoys onlee.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Feb 2016 05:18

MurthyB: I keep seeing "Sohaib and Sara Abbasi" name on several plaques dedicated to philanthropists around town here - Public Library, University and all. IMHO, they are, at the end of the day, good people at heart. Hope I am not proved wrong in the future.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Feb 2016 05:22

ramana wrote:Could be related to the outsourcing squeeze coming up. He might be offering a trade.
$5B/year in student funds for his DOO coolie ops.

ramana: Even though I agree with you regarding the bolded part, is he proposing that he would pony up the $5 B or does he want the monies to come from GoI coffers? If the former, I would say god speed. What he means is still up in the air, as far as I am concerned. Somebody needs to pin him down on what he really wants to do. May be one of his professors at IITK.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Feb 2016 05:26

The students to pony up from their own channels or GOI

meanwhile : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohaib_Abbasi

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 03 Feb 2016 05:54

vayu tuvan wrote: ThiruV: There are a lot of, as you say, "sphincters" in both UCI and UC Riverside. All sepoys onlee.

This petition is by other Indian origina faculty from places other than UCI/UCR. You would think these "academics" would actually want to look at other points of view, especially from the people/culture they claim to be studying. They create a pile of snot in the name of "research" in social sciences or anthropology and then refuse to accept viewpoints that will rubbish their claims by preemptively labeling people as bigots, like they are smearing all hindus in the US with this petition.

MurthyB · Post by **MurthyB** » 03 Feb 2016 06:09

vayu tuvan wrote:MurthyB: I keep seeing "Sohaib and Sara Abbasi" name on several plaques dedicated to philanthropists around town here - Public Library, University and all. IMHO, they are, at the end of the day, good people at heart. Hope I am not proved wrong in the future.

They may well be. But being Islamic Packees, they have more echandee then some sell out yindoos who prefer self hatred. So it's possible that they have ensured that their chair @ stanford does do islampasand work. Of course, the wind is in their sails since left wing marxists are eager to be islam pasand to begin with.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 03 Feb 2016 07:38

vayu tuvan wrote: Who? Citizen Kane?

I meant someone who could vote in the US election. Blame auto-correct for the capitalization of the C.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Feb 2016 21:42

A NRI, 50 years resident, after Iowa results: "Devi has arrived!"
BRF: What do you mean? She is a Baptist and antithesis of all devis!
NRI: No she will change America as a woman President is unprecedented in their history.
BRF: They said same thing about Ombaba about how all will change!
NRI: Ombaba was for external face!
BRF: What history! Women got right to vote after blacks. If Hillary gets elected true to history!
NRI: no answer.

Pre 1965 NRIs are the old Baby boomer generation. World citizens and all that.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 03 Feb 2016 22:59

Ramanaji,

Once a chair gets setup and alternative research starts taking place, more of them will be established. The outsiders will be FORCED to DEBATE with FACTS. This is a very critical battle. Indology and Sanskrit cocoon will crack wide open.

I like to think of this conflict like the US invasion of Iraq. Once one country sets up an alternative oil invoicing system outside dollar, what's to stop other countries from doing the same? Those holding power have to call down the thunder to keep others in their sphere of influence.

RMji knows this.

saip · Post by **saip** » 03 Feb 2016 23:09

ThiruV wrote:
saip wrote: This is going to come up if he is nominated and may go to SC to sort out.
If that was the case, it would have been done for Obama -- no one really thinks the SC is going to disagree with the congress on this one, given that the current interpretation has been around for a really long time.

There is a difference between challenging this law and using people's ignorance of the law for political advantage as was done to Cruz and Obama.

In Obama's case no one has filed a case. There is one case in TX now and if it, hypothetically, goes against Cruz (it will be moot if he is not nominated) then it will have to be decided by the SC.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 03 Feb 2016 23:33

In Obama's case no one has filed a case. There is one case in TX now and if it, hypothetically, goes against Cruz (it will be moot if he is not nominated) then it will have to be decided by the SC.

Just to note the the Congress's interpretation does not allow the presidential candidate to be born anywhere outside the continental united states at this time, and includes mexico and central america. Cannot be born in Asia or Africa in this interpretation.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 03 Feb 2016 23:50

Thiruv,

You are mischaracterizing Obama's situation as being similar to Cruz. It is not because Obama stated he was born in the US on the state of Hawaii. When he was born, Hawaii became a state, not a territory. The hoopla began when the extreme right nutters or the tea baggers as I like to call them, claim that he wasn't born in Hawaii but was born in Kenya or Indonesia and that he faked his birth certification. Then lawyers got involved and claimed even if he wasn't born in Hawaii but somewhere else, it was still a non-issue because he was born to a US citizen and according to the laws of US, if you were born to a US citizen outside of US you are considered as a natural born citizen of US. That law was never really challenged upon or debated because before Obama or Cruz, there wasn't really a candidate running for Presidency that would run across that law.

However that point became moot with Obama, when he finally dug up his long form certificate (apparently after a long search for it because nobody really keeps their birth certificate with them at all times) and settled the issue once and for all. But of course certain idiots such as Trump keep bringing this up for no reason except only god knows.

Cruz's situation is different because he was born outside of US but the question turns on the issue of whether he is a natural born citizen or naturalized because he was born with a father of US citizenry.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Feb 2016 00:07

AFAIK, Once a chair is setup the donor has no role in it. That's the condition for acceptance of the donation. The Uty might inform the donor family and most likely the appointee is aligned with donor objectives but no recourse.
All these chairs are in South Asia studies departments. The rot is there.

RMji is unhappy that our own are funding these for petty fame.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 04 Feb 2016 00:11

Hitesh, Like I said earlier, the law is more or less clear on what is allowed and what is not. Does not mean politicians and their strategists won't misrepresent it to use it against political opponents. Not really interesting topic for me, anyway. Not like demagoguery is unexpected in elections.

MurthyB · Post by **MurthyB** » 04 Feb 2016 00:31

ramana wrote:AFAIK, Once a chair is setup the donor has no role in it. That's the condition for acceptance of the donation. The Uty might inform the donor family and most likely the appointee is aligned with donor objectives but no recourse.
All these chairs are in South Asia studies departments. The rot is there.

RMji is unhappy that our own are funding these for petty fame.

Isn't that the point with the DCF UCI chair? That the donors have insisted that they have a role in appointments and yearly reviews? They also use the emic-etic distinction to demand that the chair be occupied from someone from within the tradition and sympathetic to it. Ultimately, the 3 million strong NRI community needs to have courses in Indian philosophy taught in a straightforward way without any lenses for its progeny here. At the undergrad level, the emphasis should be on teaching these subjects in respectful way. The research etc. is secondary. The marxist insistence that these are not seminaries holds no water since kids going to college want to be able to learn of their traditions without any marxist bs being added on to it. To that extent, if DCF wins it will be good. Hope they stand their ground and use the examples of others, especially the islamic chairs that universities have openly stated won't be occupied by 'zionists'.

MurthyB · Post by **MurthyB** » 04 Feb 2016 00:34

BTW, Scott Adams seems to have become Sanghi