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?
It means kids of illegals are not citizens.
That armed, middle-of-the-night raid to seize Elian Gonzales from his older Cuban exile relatives says otherwise.
You left out the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part.
That is the interesting portion that many wish would go away.
However, by your definition that makes Anwar al Alwaki, Imam America-Hater, a US citizen qualified to be president.
The truth is, however, that he was born while his parents were here on a student visa.
IF Rubio’s parents were here as ex-patriots of Cuba, hoping to return to their country, and they did not seek citizenship, then Rubio is not what one would consider a “natural born” citizen according to the definition of that expression that is used by some, and perhaps may be correct.
The Marco Rubio bandwagen hasn’t yet left the station. There’s no point in taking hard and fast positions on a guy who is years away from a run for the presidency.
Looks like a few need to be educated.
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[....]
The part saying “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” IS the grandfathering phrase. How did you miss it?
I think there’s a difference between a LEGAL but non-citizen parentage, versus ILLEGAL non-citizen parentage as far as natural-born status.
While probably not US Citizens, I don’t think Rubio’s parents were here illegally.
I would support a Constitutional amendment that clarifies natural-born status as such:
If one parent is a US citizen, and the other parent is at least on a valid visa, the child is a natural-born citizen.
If the mother is a non-citizen legal resident at the time of birth on at least a visa, then the child is a natural-born citizen but could possibly have dual citizenship until age 18. Upon reaching age 18, if the child wishes to retain natural-born status they must renounce citizenship to their parents’ native country.
If the mother of the child is in the US either on a passport only (no visa), or illegally, the child is considered an illegal alien and not a citizen.
Yes but they are ALSO subject to US jurisdiction presuming the parents were here legally (even if non-citizens at the time of the child’s birth).
Yes Rubio is a “Born” Citizen not a “Natural Born Citizen”. There are about 4 classifications of citizen in the US. A “Natural Born Citizen” is born in the US of 2 US citizens. Hence Obama who for some still unknown reason is not eligible to be the President has been allowed to reign over us for 2 years now. Bobby Jindal is also not eligible to run for President because his mother had only been in this country for 5 mos when he was born.
So actually Lou its not the end of the conversation. you need to bone up on the definition of “citizen”.
Special refuge/sanctuary allowances do not count.
Øbozo (and, if as dscribed, Rubio) does not qualify per the Constitution.
End of Civics lesson...
great essay, thank you for posting the link.
Glad you liked it.
It is the essence of what the United States is/was/will be. Contrary to the Lefties.
If Rubios parents were refugees, even before they bacame citizens, he is a natural born citizen. Refugee is a legal status imparted the the United States government.
“Actually, the birther movement simply states that since Obama has not provided a birth certificate[....]
No, that and the “birther” perjorative are disinformation being used to smear the reputations of anyone having the temerity to state the obvious and not so obvious.
Obama claims to be a dual citizen at birth with British and U.S. citizenship at birth. The Constitution’s natural born citizen requirement excludes from eligibility any person born with loyalty to a foreign sovereign, especially British.
Furthermore, no nation on the Earth recognized dual citizenship and divided loyalty at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. A little known fact is that the United States still does not recognize dual citizenship to this very day. The only reason a person gets away with claims of dual citizenship as a U.S. citizen is because of some late Supreme Court decisions denying the U.S. Government the ability to deny U.S. citizenship in some cases where a person exercises dual citizenship despite the U.S. statutes otherwise not recognizing dual citizenship. This has created a yet to be resolved conflict in the laws and a potential limbo status for some people attempting to claim dual citizenship in direct conflict with existing statutory law. See the Secretary of Stqate’s commentary on the risks of claiming dual citizenship and U.S. citizenship.
In addition to Obama’s natural born citizen requirement, there is also his potential problem with having any U.S. citizenship whatsoever. His mother was not old enoguh to confer her U.S. citizenship to her child, because she was a purported 18 year old child bride under international law and U.S. law requiring the father’s citizenship to prevail in such circumstances. So, the only way Obama could have been born with any U.S. citizenship is by being born within U.S. jurisdiction in accordance with the jus soli (birth on the soil) doctrine. If Obama was born on the soil of Hawaii, he would qualify by jus soli as a U.S. citizen, but he would still not qualify for the Constitutional requirement of a natural born citizen having two U.S. citizen parents at the time of his birth. This is because of the principle of being born with divided allegiance and divided loyalties. His father’s British citizenship made the child subject to the sovereign and allegiance requirements of Great Britain at birth no matter where the birth took place.
If Obama was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States, such as Kenya or Canada, then Obama was born without any U.S. citizenship whatsoever. Although the Hawaiian newspapers printed a birth announcement in August 1961, Obama could still have been born in Kenya at the Mombasa hospital if Madelyn Dunham or someone else supplied false information on the Hawaiian birth registration form while falsely claiming her daughter and daughter’s husband were lawful Hawaiian residents and/or citizens when the birth occurred outside of Hawaii. The newspapers published whatever appeared in the vital statistics report from the Department of Health. If a falsified out of state birth registration was filed, the newspapers would not know the difference.
I was raised in Europe but have been here for 30 years.
Although I come from a Country that in my youth was free from war or occupation, I truly understand the sentiments of that writer.
I love America with a deep passion, I recognize her greatness and her imperfections, it pains me to hear from people I know the same words of Rev. Wright. Maybe they should travel more the world and see first hand where freedom and opportunities are denied the citizens.
“His parents were here legally, whether they are citizens or not,...”
A person’s eligibility to the office of the President requires two U.S. citizen parents at the time of birth and no allegiance or loaylty at birth to any soverign other than the co-sovereign Citizens of the United States of America.
Having parents who were foreign citizens owing allegiance to any other sovereign besides the co-sovereign Citizens of the United States of America at the time of birth disqualifies a person from eligibility to the Office of the President no matter what other distinguished qualifications may exist.
The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to require the President and Commander-in-Chief to be none other than a person born with allegiance and beholden only to the Citizens of the United States among who the person haas resided.
Texans have a double dip of nationalism. Texas was a Republic before it was a state, and was born of a Revolution very much like the American Revolution.
The Texas Revolution was from 1835-1836, much more recent than the one from 1775–1783.
There are those in the state who today suggest secession. I want no part of that nonsense, but want the whole thing back from the Marxists.
Those who wish to destroy us, have no idea what they are unleashing.
However this plays out, Texas will not be subjected. Most of the U.S. will not. Some pockets would gladly accept a despot, they are traitors to the rest of us.
Ping................
Now, it’s Marco Rubio’s turn!!
Will the media start hitting Rubio hard on eligibility to prevent him from ever becoming President? If they do, what about 0b0z0?
Very interesting.
“To: Texas Fossil
I would support a Constitutional amendment that clarifies natural-born status as such:
If one parent is a US citizen, and the other parent is at least on a valid visa, the child is a natural-born citizen.
If the mother is a non-citizen legal resident at the time of birth on at least a visa, then the child is a natural-born citizen but could possibly have dual citizenship until age 18. Upon reaching age 18, if the child wishes to retain natural-born status they must renounce citizenship to their parents’ native country.
If the mother of the child is in the US either on a passport only (no visa), or illegally, the child is considered an illegal alien and not a citizen.”
Doing so would violate and completely overturn the very purpose of the eligibility requirement the Founding Fathers were using to safeguard the freedoms and liberties of the U.S. Citziens born in the United States.
The natural born citizen requirement was limited only to the President and vice President of the United States of America to safeguard the freedoms and liberties of all other U.S. Citizens, including naturalized immigrants. Because the President is also the Commader-in-Chief of the armed forces, it was deemed to be of supreme importance to limit eligibility to the office and its authority to only a person who would have no natural born allegiance or loyalty to a foreign sovereign or nation of potential conflict with the interests of U.S. Citizens. They believed that office at the very least must be occupied by a person taken from among the Citizens born in the United States and dedicated only to the Citizens of the United States.
Why do so many people have a problem understanding and accepting the fundamental idea of natural born U.S. citizens wishing themselves to be governed and led by one of their own natural born Citizens versus a person who may be born and raised with divided loyalties and/or divided sympathies for non U.S. citizens and cultures?
Isn’t it enough that immigrants and the children of immigrants are eligible to serve as the governor of a state while remaining ineligible for the office of President of the United States of America? Is it really too much to ask when trying to safeguard the freedoms and liberties of all U.S. 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.