Posted on 11/05/2010 10:19:53 PM PDT by chatter4
With all the talk of many conservatives hoping that Mark Rubio could one day run for President, I have a few questions. From the information available on the Web, It is said that Mark Rubio's parents were here in exile from Cuba. That would imply that they had hopes of returning there one day. Did his parents ever become US citizens? Did they become US citizens prior to Mark's birth?
On the contrary, it appears with this vanity post, the campaign VERSUS Rubio has begun. Therefore, the movement FOR Rubio must get in motion also.
outlins = outlines
whech = which
STE=Q
Yes, that is why I’ve always been amused by the people trying to claim the founding Fathers didn’t have acccess to Vatel’s work or could not read it in French. The news article about the return of Vatel’s book appeared in the news the day after just such a discussion and argument. Of course, the facts made no dent in their beliefs and they continue the false arguments.
I guess...but it’ll probably hurt him more than help him.
His Florida needs assurance of a steady hand at the Florida senatorial helm
This topic is of greatest interest to Hillary Clinton, not conservatives, between now and the 2012 Democratic Party National Convention. An Obama candidacy in 2012 is most likely to result in the election of a conservative President and a new course for the nation.
This is a Democrat problem and we should not allow them make it ours. The citizenship of Marco Rubio's parents is a hypothetical straw man issue that would only ripen if Rubio should be selected as a Vice Presidential candidate in August 2012 following the Democratic Party convention.
The attempt to remove the safeguards of the natural born phrase from the Constitution is an ongoing threat. The Democrats are not the only people pushing to remove the safeguard. Orrin Hatch and other establishment Republicans have lobbied for such an an amendment as well on behalf of Governor Arnold Schwarzneggar and governor Jennifer Granholm. Some of the proposals are tailored to permit anchor babies to become eligible for the Office of the President.
Natural born hasn’t been defined.
In Rubio's case, his parents came to the US as exiles in 1959 and because of the special treatment of Cuban exiles and the ease with which they obtained citizenship (far different than any other people) they are very likely citizens and were citizens at his birth in 1971.
They were exiles due to the communist takeover of a country 90 miles from our shore and were in danger of losing their lives. It was during the cold war, we hated communism (not like now where half the US thinks it's "cool").
If you can not tell the difference between Obinkies situation and Rubio's situation then there is no hope for you.
You are so blinded by your quest you can't see there is a difference between an orange and an apple. Just because they are round doesn't mean they are the same.
Yes, it has been defined on numerous occasions and in numerous ways. It hasn’t been codified in law by statute or court decision. This is what discussions about it are all about. It is exactly what lawyers will do if the Supreme Court ever hears a case about it.
See:
4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen” IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
by John Charlton
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
If Rubio's parents were legal Immigrants, meaning holding Green Cards, meaning Permanent Residents after Rubio's birth he is like the pResident now in the W.H. NOT eligible to be president or same as me. And Jess; welcome to F.R. I encourage you to donate to the operating costs and keep it going of this great site!!!
Or even better this phrase???
“there is no controlling legal authority”!!!
By that "logic" the children, grand children, great grand children etc, in the male line, of an immigrant, can never become citizens. In fact, by that "logic," where every child has the same citizenship of their father, only those descended in an unbroken male line from citizens of the original 13 states are citizens, and the rest of the population are mere "inhabitants."
I think any article posted concerning Marco Rubio should be a TTIUWP thread...am I right, ladies? LOL
His wife is a lucky woman, just like my husband is a lucky man ;)
Per what definition ? U.S. Congress “CHILDREN OF CITIZENS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN”, U.S. Supreme Court “ CHILDREN WHOM PARENTS ARE CITIZENS ARE NATURAL BORN”
When was the definition that has been used for over 230 years changed?
“By that “logic” the children, grand children, great grand children etc, in the male line, of an immigrant, can never become citizens.”
News Flash-The United States has immigration laws which allow people to become naturalized citizens!
Native Americans became citizens in the 1920’s. Native Americans were not considered citizens because they did not owe their allegiance(subject) to the U.S.. They were of course subject to the laws of our nation(enforced by dept. of Indian affairs and U.S. military).
SUBJECT: One who owes allegiance to a nation
SUBJECT: TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO
While Native American were accountable to American laws( subject), they were not SUBJECTS of the nation.
The 14th amendment requires that citizens be born subject(owes allegiance to) to the U.S., and this can only be by birth to American citizens.
If Rubio’s parents had legal status to be in the U.S. Marco is a citizen, but if they were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth , he is NOT considered Natural Born.
Natural born citizen was not defined ... in the Constitution.
That is correct. It was defined in the Law of nations, the reference book that the founders used when writing the constitution. (Washington also checked it out of the NY library when he became president.) They did not need to define a term that was defined. They wouldn’t pick such a term out of thin air. NBC had meaning once upon a time, and it excluded dual citizens from the presidency.
“Look, a person born of one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent on foreign ground is not a natural born citizen and is not eligible to be president. However, someone born of those who are in the US LEGALLY and subject to the jurisdiction of the US IS a natural born citizen.”
Sorry to disappoint you, but you are making a false statement. Any person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a native born citizen as determined by the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), with the exception of certain U.S. nationals not also born as native born citizens.
A natural born citizen U,S. citizen, a natural born U.S. citizen, a U.S. national have different meanings. The Founding Fathers wrote the U.S. Constitution eligibility requiremts differently for the legislators in Congress and the Office of the President.
Article 1 – Legislative Department, Section 2 – House of Representatives, Clause 2. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen.
Article 1 – Legislative Department, Section 3 – Senate, Clause 3. No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Congressmen and Senators only needed to be “a Citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born citizen of the United States” as required to be eligible for the Office of the President. If the Founding Fathers intended for a natural born citizen to be a native born U.S. Citizen, all they needed to say was for the President to be born “a Citizen of the United States” as they phrased the qualifications for the legislators. The fact that the Founding Fathers were carefully made a distinction in the constitution and wrote how and why they intended to do so for the purpose of denying the Office of the President to persons not having the parentage described by Vatel’s Law of Nations was persuasive to the Supreme Court of the United States and its inferior courts in a number of cases.
“In Rubio’s case, his parents came to the US as exiles in 1959 and because of the special treatment of Cuban exiles and the ease with which they obtained citizenship (far different than any other people) they are very likely citizens and were citizens at his birth in 1971.”
“They were exiles due to the communist takeover of a country 90 miles from our shore and were in danger of losing their lives. It was during the cold war, we hated communism (not like now where half the US thinks it’s “cool”).”
“If you can not tell the difference between Obinkies situation and Rubio’s situation then there is no hope for you.”
“You are so blinded by your quest you can’t see there is a difference between an orange and an apple. Just because they are round doesn’t mean they are the same.”
First, as far as I know, Mr. Rubio could very well have been born after his parents were naturalized as U.S. citizens, which would make Mr. Rubio a natural born citizen at birth.
Second, Mr. Rubio’s situation is not unlike numerous other brave and capable immigrants to the United States. Many of these immigrant U.S. citizens have provided the Citizens of the United States with distinguished service in positions ranging from military service with the award of the Congressional Medal of Honor to such high positions in the Federal Government as the Secretary of State. The issue is not one of an individual immigrant’s personal worthiness. It is an issue of safeguarding the life and liberty of all Citizens, natural born, native born, and naturalized.
The following is what another immigrant to the United States, Balint Vazsonyi, had to say about the issue of a natural born citizen in testimony before Congress in 1959. See the link for a larger discussion of the issue.
“The Constitution, which created a country unlike any other, also brought forth a Nation populated by people who are unlike any other. It is as if an umbrella had been erected over this country inviting all the people of the world to come here and become something else than they were in the moment of arrival…Indeed, Americans are different. I noticed this soon after I had arrived in this country 41 years ago. I daresay, I have spent a great deal of my life trying to understand, first of all, in what way Americans are different and why, but the fact remains that they are…So when the framers of the Constitution made this provision, perhaps they were already aware of the fact, as indeed perhaps instinctively or through inspiration they were aware of so many other things, that already then Americans were different because they did something nobody else had done before them…One of the best examples of that is precisely Congressman Frank’s resolution. It is unthinkable, ladies and gentlemen, that a legislator in another land would actually spend time proposing that some foreigner could become the first citizen of that land. So, Congressman Frank, you are as good an example as I have met to show that Americans pour their hearts out and want to share everything, even the Presidency…I would say respectfully that describing this provision of the Constitution, as I said, and I will say once again, one of the solitary miracles of human history, as victimizing immigrants or being unjust—to be able to run for President is not a right. It is very important not to confuse the system of government with rights. Where would such a right come from? It is a well-thought-out provision of our Constitution.”
“I am here to tell you, after 41 years of making the most strenuous efforts of becoming American, not just legally but in every sense of the word, and having spent 40 of those 41 years living with a native-born American, that I still have not been able to even approach the temperament, the natural tolerance, the unfailing good will toward the world that Americans are famous for…Foreigners come here and have to learn it. It is a miracle that within one generation they can do so. I think it would be expecting something even more than the impossible that they can do it within the same lifetime, and that they can forget everything they had grown up with…The question of foreign influence has already been discussed. I would just like to add that having grown up in Hungary, I would find it very difficult to make decisions—not so much affecting Hungarians, but those toward whom Hungarians hold an animus. What if somebody of a certain birth would have to just express an opinion about immigration quotas from a country with which the native land had been at odds? This is just a tiny example. Of course, the matter of being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is much more important…To say that the world is a more peaceful place today is a very temporary condition. It can turn into something else tomorrow or the day after. The constitutional provisions are not there to serve this week or next week. They have served this country for over 200 years, and I hope and we all hope that they will continue to do so…So I would like to conclude with a general comment on constitutional amendments. I believe they are rarely necessary, hardly ever justified, and perhaps entirely untimely right now, when Americans seem to be considering even the very nature of this country, whether it is a Republic or a democracy. Therefore, with due respect to the proposal, I would like to cast a vote for rejecting it.”
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/
The issue of the naural born citizen qualification was and still is today a very important means of protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States, the life and liberties of all of its Citizens, and protecting the great American experiment in the republican form of democracy against foreing influence and intrigues.
The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
By that “logic” the children, grand children, great grand children etc, in the male line, of an immigrant, can never become citizens. In fact, by that “logic,” where every child has the same citizenship of their father, only those descended in an unbroken male line from citizens of the original 13 states are citizens, and the rest of the population are mere “inhabitants.”
It would be true if there were no provisions for expatriation and naturalization, but there are such provisions in the United States of america.
Did you know that each state of the United States of America was responsible for legislating its own naturalization laws from the time of the Declaration of Independence until the Federal Government superceded them with uniform naturalization laws in the mid-19th Century? A foreign immigrant became a naturalized U.S. citizen by naturalizing as a citizen of one of the States of the United States of America.
In ore-revolutionary France and other nations the law in some circumstances did deny French citizenship to children born in France with fathers who were not French citzens and unable to become French citizens. upon death their estates were escheat to the French Crown, with their children unable to inherit their father’s estate. The same stiuation exists today in some nations around the world. Some inhabitants and their descendants are nationals but not citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.