Replies

Sister Betty, get well. May the Lord bless you.

So far as Rubio is concerned his case is different than that of Jindal. Jindal's parents came to the US on a student visa with his mother already pregnant. They had no intention at that time of remaining in the US. He was born to parents with a foreign allegiance. He is not a natural born citizen.

In the case of Rubio, his parents were refugees from Cuba escaping from Castro's overthrow of the government. According to one lawyer I have read, a Cuban refugee has automatic asylum in the US. Rubio's parents arrived in roughly 1960.

Marco Rubio was born 10 years later to parents who had fully integrated into the United States. His mother had full citizenship status, his father was working on his, and the only delay was the requirement to support a family. His was taking longer, but it was real. And, as already stated, his parents had automatic asylum. They were legally accepted as resident in the US.

Therfore, in my humble opinion, Marco Rubio does fit the definition of a natural born citizen.

All of this is moot, of course, because our courts equate "native born" and "natural born." One can argue with that, but it is the way things currently stand. The US Code spells out requirements for being native born and Rubio definitely meets that standard.

Marco Rubio is a great guy, there is no denying that.

But, emotional opinions not withstanding, Natural Born has a real meaning, relative to the time that the constitution was written, and it requires that both parents be citizens.

There are some that have offered, incorrectly, that the citizenship of the father was sufficient, but I have never heard anyone before suggest that the citizenship of the mother was.

You are correct that asylum is automatic for post Castro refugees, but asylum is not citizenship.

I do sympathize with those wishing that Rubio could be elligible, but we cannot make exceptions to our constitution and at the same time be governed by it. I am also convinced that you do understand this principle, because I have seen you espouse it so many times in the past. I have never seen you as a constitutional revisionist.

So, how can Rubio fit the definition?

The key element in this issue is whether at the time of birth the child is a "subject" of the United States. In Jindal's case, he was born a "subject" of the country of his parents because at the time of his birth, his parents were "subjects" of India. They had not submitted themselves fully to the jurisdiction of the United States and could have been deported for any reason at all.

Rubio's parents, however were Cuban refugees and under the laws of the United States, Cuban Refugees become subjects of the United States the moment their feet hit dry land.

So at the time of his birth, both of Rubio's parents were "subjects" of the United States (not Citizens, but subjects) and therefore Marco Rubio was born a Natural Born Citizen in accordance with the provisions of the 14th amendment (subject to the jurisdiction thereof).