Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TXnMA
No, you are misinterpreting it. You are a natural born citizen if both your parents are citizens and you are born on FOREIGN soil. You are a citizen if your parents are subject to the jurisdiction (i.e. legal immigrants) thereof.

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.

73 posted on 11/06/2010 7:11:42 AM PDT by McGavin999 ("I was there when we had the numbers, but didn't have the principles"-Jim DeMint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]


To: McGavin999; TXnMA
No, you are misinterpreting it. You are a natural born citizen if both your parents are citizens and you are born on FOREIGN soil. You are a citizen if your parents are subject to the jurisdiction (i.e. legal immigrants) thereof. 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.

No, there are at least three classes of U.S. citizens. 1. You are a U.S. citizen if you've been naturalized or 2. were born on U.S. soil or had U.S. parent(s) and were born on foreign soil (14th Amendment in part). 3. You are a natural-born U.S. citizen and eligible to be elected president (Article II, Section 1) of the United States if you were born on or off U.S. soil to parents who were U.S. citizens prior to your birth. See Chester A Arthur as an example of someone who didn't fit the criteria (his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Chester's birth) and tried to cover it up.

For those who would say, "Well, the Constitution doesn't define the term "natural born" as such" the Constitution fails to define most of the words it uses, relying on the common understanding at the time of those words, phrases, and terms. One of the signers of the Constitution said as much only a relatively short time after the signing and said that already people were imputing to the language of the Constitution their own special meanings in order to get it to say what they wanted it to say in order to justify something they wanted to do that was contrary to the Constitution. His rule was to go back to what the language of the Constitution meant to those who wrote, debated, and signed it. That's the law of the land that should be stare decisis.
74 posted on 11/06/2010 7:28:34 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson