Last I checked, Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen. If you were born in the U.S., you meet the definition. Your parents DO NOT have to be US Citizens.
unless they are born by caesarian section - not natural
To be a natural born citizen means BOTH parents must be US Citizens.
Much the same that illegals born here in the US are still Mexican citizens because their parents are Mexican citizens.
The Supreme Court defined natural born as “all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.” No ruling has ever overturned this definition, which was followed as legal precedent.
Let’s be clear...
If you were born in the US, you meet “a” definition of natural born citizen.
I don’t subscribe to that definition, as I believe the Founders original intent was a requirement that both parents must be citizens. A point that has been aptly demonstrated on manyu of these threads.
If not “clearly” defined, then you must look to the original intent.
You are correct, however will be not both be slammed.
Being born in the USA is not the standard.
Being born a citizen is.
The Constitution mentions two types of US citizens. Those that must be naturalized and those that are natural born.
There are two ways, and only two ways, of becoming a US citizen.
One is either born a citizen or one must be naturalized.
On what do you base that?
You are completely wrong about this. Do some research and look at the historical record.
What is the difference between natural-born and native-born?
Please check again. If you are referring to the 14th Ammendment you will find that it addresses “Native born” not “Natural born”. Marco Rubio is a native born citizen. He is no eligible to be VP or POTUS. He will be a good senator and would make an excellent Gov of Fla. or a cabinet member.
FWIW, I disagree Old Retired Army Guy. Marco Rubio is a native born citizen, but not a natural born citizen, owing to the fact that both his parents were Cuban citizens at the time of his birth.
We need to recall that the Fourteenth Amendment was one of the post-Civil War amendments specifically targeted to ensure the "equal protection" of newly freed slaves who were deemed to be citizens of the United States. Many slave families had been in America for generations; thus their children were "natural born" here. The "native born" issue wasn't even material in most of these cases.
How we get from the Fourteenth Amendment's very narrow, targeted purpose — the equal protection under law of former slaves — to an expansive recognition of the citizenship of anybody whatsoever who manages to be born of foreign, non-citizen parents on American soil is a mystery to me.
FWIW.
I'm not thrilled about this, because I admire Marco Rubio enormously — I would love for him to be eligible for office. But he's in the same situation as Bobby Jindal (born on U.S.. soil of parents who were citizens of India at the time of his birth) — and I'm a great admirer of his, too.
As I read my copy of the USA Constitution it isn’t explicit one way or the other as to parents being part of the wording of natural born citizen. I think one can argue that omission of mentioning parents is tantamount to saying there is no qualification based on parentage. However, my belief is that there is much more history as to the inclusion of parents in that requirement,one or both, to establish that such was indeed the intent of the Founders. I also believe that my view is much safer for the viability of our Nation as the Founders intended with Obama as the example. Nothing at all against Rubio but just accepting what the Founders intended by a WWII vet caught in the same predicament.
You are a damned liar.
You couldn’t be more wrong!
The following information comes from our government, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, and describes the three statutory types of citizenship - native born (jus solis), derived citizenship (jus sanguinis), and naturalized citizenship.
CITIZENSHIP
If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.
To become a citizen at birth, you must:
Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements
To become a citizen after birth, you must:
Apply for “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents
Apply for naturalization
*****************************************
Note: all three types of the above are U.S. citizens. All may serve in the U.S.Congress, as either Representatives in the House, or as Senators in the Senate. Natural born citizen is not mentioned as it is not a type of citizenship.
Per Article I, Section 2 and 3 of the United State Constitution, Representatives and Senators shall be Citizens of the United States.
The ONLY place “natural born citizen” appears in our national laws is as an eligibility requirement to be President of the United States.
Per Article II, Section 1, clause 5: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The eligibility requirement to be President is not the same as that for Congress. Simply being a “citizen” is not enough.
Our founders understood the difference. Here is where the definition exists in national law:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/the-express-lane-to-natural-born-clarity/
ONLY NATIONAL LAW MAKES BINDING PRECEDENT.
The Supreme Court’s definition of the natural-born citizen clause in Minor [Minor vs. Happersett] is not common law, natural law, or international law. Vattel is not cited by the Supreme Court in Minor. And Vattel does not make US law. The Court’s holding in Minor is national law. It is United States law.
Those other sources may have been consulted, but when the Court held that [Virginia] Minor was a citizen under Article 2 Section 1 because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. Therefore, Minor supersedes all other sources on this point. It is a direct Constitutional interpretation and definition.
The other sources are not necessary. Relying upon them actually weakens the authority of Minor. There is no need for insecurity in the face of supporting Supreme Court precedent.
On November 22, 2008, Justice Scalia addressed the Federalist Society, stating:
“Natural law has nothing to do with originalism. I mean, I believe in natural law, but unfortunately I have no way to show or demonstrate that my understanding of it is the same as yours, or is the same as anybody else’s. I don’t enforce natural law. I suppose God enforces natural law. I enforce United States law. United States law should not contravene natural law, but that’s not my problem… I worry about, ‘What does this text mean?’ ” (Emphasis added.)
Earlier in that same speech, Justice Scalia stated:
“What has happened can only be compared to the naive belief that we used to have in the common law… Erie Railroad, you know, blows that all away… and we sort of chuckle at how naive the world could have been ever to have thought there was a common law…”
Do not get sidetracked by extraneous theoretical sources. We have United States Supreme Court precedent which defines a natural-born citizen – under Article 2 Section 1 – as a person born on US soil to parents who were citizens. Neither Obama nor McCain fit that definition. Neither are eligible to be President.
While some may argue McCain was eligible based upon a reference to Vattel, McCain simply does not fit the strict US Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen as defined in Minor. To fashion an exception for McCain not found in the actual text from Minor is purely partisan and unfair.
Unlike others commenting on eligibility, I have always maintained that both McCain and Obama were not eligible. I brought my law suit all the way to the Supreme Court – prior to the election – arguing against both candidates’ eligibility. I was the first person to raise this issue with the American people. And I hold them both accountable for the damage done to our Constitution as a result of neither having more concern for the nation than they did for themselves.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
(Note: Wordpress removed NatrualBornCitizen off its web hosting site. Political reasons are supected.)
*****************************************
I hope this clarifies the issue for you.
I’m old enough to remember when the Republican Party seriously considered amending the U.S. Constitution eligibility requirement so that Henry Kissinger (born in Germany) or Arnold Schwarznegger (born in Austria) could run for President. Thank God they didn’t do that and reason prevailed.
As recently as 2006 there was a paper written by Sarah Herlihy claiming that the ‘natural born citizen’ requirment was stupid and prevented the U.S. from being part of the Globalism movement. THAT gave away the real intent of so-called Progressives; that United States sovereignty was a constraint on the establishment of a socialist Global government.
Your parents DO NOT have to be US Citizens.
WRONG!!!
The Constitution has..... never... been ‘amended’ to change the requirement :
That to be President of the United States of America you must be born of Parents who are Citizens of America.
This was to prevent Dual Citizenship: Thus allegiance to another Country!!
Congress has attempted several times recently to change this rulling; but, it was never passed!!
Wrong; Rubio is a US citizen, but is NOT a natural born one because his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth.
JC
“If you were born in the U.S., you meet the definition. Your parents DO NOT have to be US Citizens.”
lololololol..........nope
Dual citizen Anchor babes are not NBC’s. We can ignore the constitution, but please, lets not deliberately misinterpret it and bastardize it.