..but, but, but... we’ve been told that some Frenchman at the time of the founding defined Natural Born as both Citizen parents and Domestic birth and that French law should apply here.
Actually, Rubio has another technicality that could help him above even that argument. Cuba at the time of his parent’s birth, had a protectorate status of the US from the Spanish/American war. There is a case to be made that they did have protectorate citizenship.
I am curious about another issue though. The big argument on NBC is regarding ‘dual allegiance’. How does this apply to Native Americans. ‘Tribes’ (they are called Nations) have a special place under US law in which they have their own governments and can establish their own laws, etc. I’m both a Natural Born US Citizen as well as a ‘citizen’ of the Citizen Band Pottawatomie Nation. Would someone consider this ‘dual allegiance’?
Really? And what "French law" exactly?
“Cuba at the time of his parent’s birth, had a protectorate status of the US from the Spanish/American war.”
If that isn’t a strech!!!!!
Now THAT is a very interesting question. It seems to me that tribal “sovereignty” is superseded whenever something important (e.g. tax revenue etc.) is at stake.
For example, in Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (SCOTUS, 2005) the court looked at a case in which the tribe imposed its own tax on gasoline sales and had sued to block collection of the state tax.
In a majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court held that the Kansas tax is “nondiscriminatory” and “poses no affront to the [Potawatomi] nation’s sovereignty.”
In many if not most cases, you would be a “citizen by statute” in other words a “naturalized” citizen.
Unless you were born in the continental United States, your “Natural Born” status is in question. Alaska & Hawaii could be a problem depending on WHEN you were born. In Obama’s case, WHERE was he born.
The citizenship and naturalization laws are complex regarding territories etc. Many people THINK they know all about it, they are wrong!
If you study this for awhile as I have, you will realize, “you don't know, what you don't know”.
Were your parents citizens when you were born? (I am assuming they were probably born here as well, being so-called “Native” Americans).
Then you are a natural born citizen. Indian, Native American, Hindu, Flat Earther, doesn't matter. Born in the U.S. to U.S. citizens, you are a “Natural Born” citizen”
You’ve identified the whole problem of trying to integrate sovereign Indian tribes: national loyalty.
“There is a case to be made that they did have protectorate citizenship.”
No there isn’t.
Cuba was an ‘unincorporated territory’ and it’s people were not granted ‘U.S. citizenship’.
“The provisions for governing American possessions as well as their status vis-à-vis the United States have varied greatly over time. A series of Supreme Court decisions in 1900 and 1901 known collectively as the Insular Cases distinguished between two groups of U.S. territories: incorporated and unincorporated. Incorporated territories such as Hawai’i followed the path taken by other contiguous portions of the United States toward eventual statehood and citizenship for the inhabitants. Unincorporated territories, the Court held, were “appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States.” Residents of unincorporated territories were not granted U.S. citizenship.”
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/protectorates-and-dependencies#ixzz1tG65kGGp
That is an interesting question. Mind you, it wouldn’t be unprecedented - Charles Curtis was a member of the Kaw Nation (born prior to the passing of the 14th Amendment) and was elected Vice-president in 1928.