According to some "FReepers", any one of these people would be eligible for POTUS....if they're born here:
It makes Rubio a native-born citizen. According to most interpretations of the founders' intent, he does not meet the requirement of natural born citizenship since his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth.
------------------------------------------------------------
Correct. It's inconceivable that the framers would have considered a dual national who owes dual allegiance at birth to be considered a "natural born Citizen." The mere thought, in 1787 America, would have been absurd.
According to some "FReepers", any one of these people would be eligible for POTUS....if they're born here:
Hmmm - the concern of the founders was ALLEGIANCE. And it is absurd to believe that the allegiance of Rubio’s parents was with any nation but the USA, having been exiled from Cuba.
The Constitution is ABSOLUTELY silent on the definition of Natural Born. Therefore, when searching for a definition to inform us in regards to this phrase used in the Constitution, but not defined there, we must look for guidance in the common, if not universal, useage/knowledge of the time.
Considering that Blackstone’s legal commentaries is the second (to the Bible) most frequently cited source in the politically related correspondence of the founding fathers, we should then look there to inform us as to the founder’s common understanding of the term:
“The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the allegiance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligament, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.”
Again, Blackstone’s major concern in defining the term is to allegiance (and he explores this further in situations of ambassadors and such). We see the same concern for allegiance in the correspondance of the founders. I think we can confidently conclude that allegiance of the parents is of primary importance. Again, the allegiance of Rubio’s parent was obviously to the USA, not to Cuba. Unless you want to make the argument that their allegiance was to the etherial Free Cuba, and I won’t dispute that assertion. However, if this allegiance to an etherial kingdom is disqualification to the presidency, then almost every US president held office illegally; including Washington and Lincoln, because most of the presidents, and most definitely Washington and Lincoln, claimed their FIRST allegance was to the Kingdom of Heaven.