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.
“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.
Founder and Historian David Ramsay defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789