As I have already stated, Rubio’s case is different. It is the case that always tests every law. It is so close to the intent of the law that one is not wrong by going either direction.
For me, the bottom line is this. Not only was Rubio born a decade after his parents set foot on this land, his parents had already established themselves as residents of the land.
The 1790 law, the original covering citizenship, would also be CLOSEST to what the Founders intended. It required simple appearance before a magistrate ANYPLACE in the colonies or territories as acceptable for citizenship.
As I stated PRIOR to Rubio’s birth, both parents had done that. His mother had ALREADY achieved full citizenship by the law of the 1960’s. His father was already working on his, so had appeared.
If the Founder’s opinions on “natural born” should carry weight over the current law defining “native citizen” being equivalent to “natural born”, the the Founder’s first law on the process of citizenship should also be the guide rather than today’s law.
By the law of 1790, there would have been no question of Rubio’s natural born status, in my humble, non-lawyerly opinion.
And...AS STATED...the Rubio’s received asylum a decade prior to Marco Rubio’s birth. In short, he was either natural born here, or he was a child without a country at all.
Jr. High, 1960’s I had a teacher who was just being Naturalized, he was from Greece. He taught us, and I remember it well. Since he was studying the Constitution, I go with his word. In order to President, (not Congress or Senate, a person has to be born on American Soil of TWO citizen Parents. I have known that most of my life, I will never believe anything other then that.
Why would the Founders make such a point only relating to the President?