Is Marco Rubio an anchor-baby?

Self ^ | 04/22/15 | Self

[thetallguy24]

Since Marco Rubio was born in the U.S. to the parents that were not U.S. citizens, does that make him an anchor baby?

I personally think at least one parent should be a U.S. citizen before citizenship is granted upon birth.

I haven't really seen many people talking about this.

[Hot Tabasco]

Rubio should take his parents and family BACK to Cuba. Be rid of him and them.

Why would you say that about any LEGAL productive members of this country? Would you say the same thing about my two step-sisters who are now naturalized citizens from Canada or my BIL who is also a naturalized citizen from Honduras?

Get over yourself kid and stick to your internet search for cuddlers..........LOL!

Reno89519: Single, looking for a cuddler. About. Smokes Occasionally with Athletic body type. City. Reno, Nevada.

[Talisker]

That is ABSOLUTELY right, and the logic came from an Amicus Curiae brief by Ed Meese and John Eastman in the Hamdi case. Means Vitter is getting GOOD advice on the issue, because that is the thing to zero in on. There should be a massive groundswell to support him.

I agree. The pertinents clause in the 14A specifies: "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."

Note that first use of "and" - that is what Vitter is pointing out. The 14A clearly states that being here isn't enough - you also ("and") have to be" subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But BY DEFINITION, someone here ILLEGALLY is NOT "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, in the sense that their illegal status means that they have rejected the jurisidiction (acceptance of the laws) of the US by the WAY they arrived - illegally.

Go, Vitter, go!

[Regulator]

That's close. To be "subject to the jurisdiction of" means you have to be incorporated into the nation in some way, within the laws of that nation. It doesn't mean simply being on that nation's soil, because visitors are here temporarily and they are certainly bound by the laws.

Think of what it means to be a "Subject" of the King. It means that within his domain of people, you are considered one of them. You claim nationality to his group, and that nation lives on his territory. Thus you are under his jurisdiction as one of his nationals. This travels with you too (this is a key point).

Since in the United States the People are Sovereign, the equation is inverted in terms of who is in charge. But the meaning is the same: a "Subject" is one who is subject to nation and its rules: this travels with you. You're a member of a club - and that little blue passport is your proof.

So that is where the redundancy came in. The first line established territorial jurisdiction, the second defined national jurisdiction - or just simply nationality.

You can read the brief here: Hamdi Merits Brief and a discussion of the whole thing here: Excerpt from View From The Right.

The Wong Kim Ark case was used to legitimize illegal alien birthright citizenship by the State Department, but it has never actually been brought to court in this context. Ark dealt with the children of lawful resident aliens, not unlawful. The extension of this right to unlawful residents is a breathtaking leap wholly unwarranted, although some of the reasoning in Ark could lead to such a conclusion.

But it makes no sense. In any logical construction, no nation would extend the right to make citizens to aliens in the country illegally - that right is reserved to the nation itself.

But this is what we have been doing: letting the illegals decide who the future Americans will be by blessing their children with citizenship.

When did we vote to let people who aren't in the club decide who the people in the club would be?

[ozzymandus]

Are you the same guy who wanted to know if Michelle Malkin was an anchor baby?

[thetallguy24]

Nope. Never even crossed my mind. Nice straw man though

[S.O.S121.500]

Are you a libturd, troll, noob?

[thetallguy24]

Cruz/Carson 2016

[JimRed]

Were they here legally at the time? Did they illegally overstay? Or did they play by the rules?

[Talisker]

Thanks for the reply and references, I will read them carefully when I have more time.

I like how you point out that we have shifted the decision of citizenship away from the State to the illegal aliens themselves. Incredible, but true.

The whole idea of “anchor babies” is bizarre, and a clear political ploy by the Democrats to literally create dependent, reliable voters and exhaust the economy of the country at the same time. It’s flat-out evil.

Maybe we could restrict voting rights for ALL immigrants to people who have actually been citizens for at least 18 years, since that’s how long a natural born citizen has to wait to vote. That would put a huge crimp in the Democrat expectation of voting results from their imported “citizens.”

[Regulator]

Maybe we could restrict voting rights for ALL immigrants to people who have actually been citizens for at least 18 years

That's a great one.

The rationale? They need to become acculturated (if not assimilated) so that their voting decisions are based on experience.

Like you said, that would make the Rats heads spin off.

Their whole game here is to outvote the Americans with the votes of aliens by promising them goodies.

Not our fault the stupid Rats aborted and contracepted themselves out of existence.

[MSF BU]

Personally I am more concerned about the dearth of military experience in the family.

[indcons]

Lol, great reply Hot Tabasco

[Plummz]

Cuban refugees might not have needed an “anchor” per se with refugee policy being what it was.

[cynwoody]

More importantly, Marco Rubio is a stalking horse for the Jebster.

More importantly, Marco is a RINO with a worthless tax plan.

Like a typical RINO, he thinks he can out-compete the Democraps by offering targeted breaks. He doesn't understand that the name of the game is low marginal rates and higher take-home pay and economic growth!! Not catering to finely calibrated groups!

As for whether he's an anchor baby, that's irrelevant. He was born here, so he's Natural Born.

[cynwoody]

Vitter tried to get an amendment into the Trafficking bill, but didn’t get any traction.

What does that have to do with Rubiyoyo?

[Godebert]

"As for whether he's an anchor baby, that's irrelevant. He was born here, so he's Natural Born. "

That is simply not true. It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laaws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention