Posted on 07/31/2012 2:58:34 PM PDT by Perdogg
I would like to address an issue that is apparently of concern to a significant number of people. In my “Ask Fred” column, several people have expressed concern (some have been adamant and angry) that Marco Rubio should not be selected as the Vice Presidential nominee because he would not be eligible to be President, if the need arose. They contend that at least one of his parents were required at the time of his birth to have been a citizen for him to fulfill the constitutional requirement of eligibility, even though he was born on American soil.
(Excerpt) Read more at fredthompsonsamerica.com ...
No need to apologize. I completely understand why you had that reaction. The birthers cause my hair to hurt. And..you are more than welcome.
The bottom line is that to be a natural born citizen means that it is not necessary to be naturalized to become a citizen. Anyone born on American soil with the exception of those whose parents are here as an official representing a another nation is a NBC. Rubio and Jindle are both NBC.
Well put.
Fred....You are wrong and your arguments is synthetic sleight of hand.
Seen it before.
BTW, Fred...Did you vote for Senate Resolution 511?
Where you affirmed in that vote that John Sydney McCain was qualified because he was born of two American Citizens on a US Military Base?
How about radical “birther” certificate fraud nonsence?
Now that’s a ‘Brilliant’ idea! These folks on our side , that have sold our constitution down the river for the sole purpose of getting their own ineligible candidates in the oval office, are going to be shocked when their partners in crime on the other side of the aisle show them no such deference when their time comes! The dems will be screaming from the rooftop that Rubio is not eligible. Mark my word.
Nope.
There were born with divided citizenship and loyalties.
If they were drafted into war by the United States they could easily exercise their citizenship in Cuba or India and return.
The US wouldn’t do a thing to them either.
Does HI State Registrar Alvin Onaka make your hair hurt now too, since he indirectly confirmed to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that the birth record Hawaii has for Obama is not legally valid?
Citizenship is hereditary..... You get it from your parents.
No parental us citizenship at birth means NO natural-born (jus sanguines) citizen child.
IMHO, the confusion comes because the Founders only originally accounted for the two types of citizens...natural-born and naturalized. They also used the terms native an natural interchangeably (which doesn't help matters either)
With the passage of the 14th Amendment, a 'new' type of citizenship emerged. A foreigner's child born on the soil (jus soli) is a NATIVE born citizen. He is basically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment.
But the still doesn't make him natural-born.
Also:
in the rare instance when a judge has said that a NBC must have parents who are citizens, it has not been part of the decision in the case. Such comments have been gratuitous or “dictum,” as the lawyers say. That is, not necessary to the actual holding in the case.
Good way to resolve that would be to present the specific case to SCOTUS ... IIRC it's never been specifically addressed before.
Oh, that's right, apparently no one in the USA has proper standing to raise the issue.
Congressional Research Service
“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.[1]
Birth within the United States
Main articles: Birthright citizenship in the United States and Jus soli
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:
Is born in the United States
Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States
Has parents that are in the United States for business
The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[6] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[7]”
The RINO Rubio is way down on my list for VP. West would be good. So would Gov. Walker from Wisconsin, but I understand that the badger folk want to keep him. I get it. That’s cool.
I think a hard-core retired Marine general might fit in as VP. Somebody has to clean up the Aegean stables that Holder’s “peeples” are occupying.
“Senate Resolution 511”
You ARE aware that SR511 had NOTHING to do with those born in the USA...aren’t you?
You think I care what the Congressional Research has to opine on this matter? I don’t. Lol
We don't need no steenkin' Constitution anymore.
It matters not what you think what his loyalties might be, the fact is that Rubio is a NBC,
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
John Adams
I don’t guess it would matter to you at all that the supreme court disagrees with you on law and history:
“[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States…the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words….in this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution…The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
...
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898)
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.