I agree that Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen, but your post seems to leave open a big dilemma.
Based on your interpretation are the children of illegal immigrants or the children of foreign students on student visas Natural Born Citizens?
They are clearly citizens of the country of their parents' origin but are they ALSO Natural Born Citizens of the United States?
Can a Natural Born Citizen of the United States ALSO be a Natural Born citizen of the country of their parent's origin?
Did not the founders intend that there be no dual loyalty for the Commander in Chief?
“Based on your interpretation are the children of illegal immigrants or the children of foreign students on student visas Natural Born Citizens?
They are clearly citizens of the country of their parents’ origin but are they ALSO Natural Born Citizens of the United States?”
The courts haven’t ruled on that question. WKA’s parents were here legally, with the intent to stay here.
The strongest argument against Obama would be his father was here legally, but didn’t intend to live here for the rest of his life.
WKA says:
“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom.”
“aliens in amity”
Aliens here in friendly relations with the government. That would include students here on a visa, but exclude those here illegally.
It also takes pains to point out the WKA’s parents were domiciled here. That would suggest someone whose parents were not planning on living here permanently (even though WKA’s parents returned to China) might not qualify. In that case, Obama would be in trouble.
However, let’s be real. The Supreme Court is not going to rule Obama ineligible. If there was even a chance of doing so, they would have taken the case prior to Obama taking office. They have made it abundantly clear by now they will not touch this issue. Therefor, I conclude that domicile is not ever going to be considered in a case like this again.
That leaves the ‘in amity’ part. I strongly believe that A) the children of illegals are NOT citizens of the USA, and B) that no court will ever rule in my favor.
That pisses me off, but what pisses me off doesn’t matter. I would be willing to donate to support a case going to trial, but I don’t see any hope of winning.
I believe the following quote would rule:
““All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)
Part of that quote can also be found in WKA.
WKA also quoted Kent:
“Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . .
I don’t like it, but I don’t have a vote.