The parents do not need to be citizens; they merely need to have consented to be under the laws of the the USA — that is, legal residents.
Both of Rubio’s parents had green cards, and were fully subject to the laws (e.g., taxation) of the USA.
That is not true. That is a fiction that has come about since 1898 on the basis of a faulty understanding of the court's ruling in Wong Kim Ark. The history demonstrates that prior to the late 19th century, Slaves, Indians, British Loyalists after the war, Women married to foreigners, and the children of Foreign Diplomats have always been considered non-citizens even though they were born here. If birth here was the sole criteria, none of these people would have ever been excluded from citizenship.
Not even the English use the "born on the soil" standard for their Chief Executive. No, a King (or Queen) only has legitimacy if they are descended from a member of the Royal Family. The ONLY test for legitimacy in the English Executive is jus sanguinus. Being born in England is simply not good enough.
Both of Rubio’s parents had green cards, and were fully subject to the laws (e.g., taxation) of the USA "
Zatso?
His parents were "fully subject to the laws of the USA?"
As in, they were subject to a draft into the U.S. Military? I'm sure the country's of their citizenship would state otherwise.
How about Jury Duty? Where they subject to being called in for such civic duty? Last I checked, being a resident green card holder specifically exempts one from Jury Duty, for obvious reasons.
In fact, looking at the latest Jury Summons I received, it specifically lists under:
DISQUALIFICATION AFFIDAVIT____A. "I AM NOT A CITIZEN of the United States."
There it is, the very first disqualifier! Not a U.S. Citizen...as in "Green Card" holder.
So no...his parents were most definitely NOT fully subject to the laws of the United States BECAUSE they were NOT citizens.