“Ann Coulter is a vehement Anti-Birther, yet her argument in this article dovetails precisely with the birther argument.
[...]
Though I have no knowledge regarding George Will’s specific opinion of the Birther issue, He too makes an argument that dovetails nicely with the birther argument.”
So you cannot find a single example besides my note of Keyes? Coulter and Will’s arguments do not apply to Rubio, who’s parents were here legally, and even if the change they advocate is adopted, it wouldn’t apply retro-actively.
Argument from authority is not a fallacy, as long as the authority really is expert on the point at issue, and really does say what argument claims.
I gave you two very prominent examples of Conservative Intellectuals supporting the "birther" argument. They are strangely oblivious to the fact that they ARE supporting the "birther" argument.
Coulter and Will’s arguments do not apply to Rubio, who’s parents were here legally, and even if the change they advocate is adopted, it wouldn’t apply retro-actively.
I believe their point is that it was never different. It has always been the law, people just misunderstood it. It wouldn't be "retro-active", it would have to be simply acknowledged that so many people are regarded as citizens despite what the law says and actually means, and that we will just have to accept the fact that this mistake was made by the legal system for a very long time. (Another example of why I don't put much faith in the "courts" getting things right.)
As for Rubio, in my opinion given the circumstances of his mother and father, and their stated intentions of becoming citizens prior to his birth, they meet the spirit of the Founder's intentions even if they don't quite measure up to the letter of them. I would give him a pass. He obviously possesses the most important characteristics of those which were desired in a Natural born citizen. Raised in the American experience, knowing no other nation as his home, he is as American as apple pie.