Posted on 09/07/2011 4:33:52 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Edited on 09/07/2011 4:35:41 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Your opinion, which the courts do not appear to agree with. In multiple cases on citizenship, the courts hold that birth on US soil, with the exceptions of children born to foreign diplomats and occupying forces, are citizens at birth. US Courts have recognized two types of citizens: born, and naturalized. (Some gray areas for those born abroad when only one parent is a citizen, resulting in legislated residency requirements as in Rogers vs. Bellei.)
What about Rick Santorum? He said last night his father immigrated here in the twenties.
How is Rubio different?
You can see the utter contempt our anti-birther FRiends have for those of us who were taught that being a natural born citizen requires birth on US soil to citizen parents. I'm starting to wonder if a lot of this overreaction is fear that examining the eligibility issue leads to questioning the legal hair-splitting that created citizens of the offspring of illegal temporary residents.
Your opinion, but not one the courts have seemed to adopt - rather the opposite. Over and over the courts give two categories only, natural born and naturalized.
In fact, this is the definition of an anchor baby.
You are failing to make the distinction between child of an illegal immigrant (anchor baby) or brief tourist, and the child of a legal resident. As far as I know, Senator Rubio's parents, as Cuban exiles, were legal residents of the US. Like Wong Kim Ark.
I’m not familiar with Santorum’s situation, but if his father (and mother) weren’t U.S. citizens at the time of his birth on U.S. soil, then Santorum doesn’t meet the “natural born” clause.
I don't believe anyone now saying that natural born citizen means two citizen parents was taught this in school. I'm not calling anyone a liar, I just think that their memory is heavily influenced by the strong beliefs they've formed relatively recently.
Actually, I'd wager that should Rubio run, WND will drop the two-parent birtherism and go back to the born in Kenya birtherism.
And if Rubio wins, the left side of the blogosphere will run wild with the claim that to be a Natural Born Citizen, a person needs at least one citizen parent. Then they'll quote out of context lines from USSC decisions to prove it. And some will claim they were explicitly taught that in school. Then someone will find a political philosopher form the 1700’s who said something like that. Before you know it, they'll be FILING suits all across the country and discussing among themselves, in ALL CAPS, how President Rubio is really feeling the heat that the ‘Citizeners’ are putting on him. Of course the reason they won't get anywhere is because the rest of the Democratic party are traitors and are colluding to cover-up the facts. Besides, all the videos of Rubio saying “So what? I'm not running for President...” have been scrubbed from the web...
You heard it here first.
“So Obama is eligible to be president? Darn.”
Them’s the breaks.
You’re funny.
“Several Supreme Court Justices quoted Vattel, citing chapter 19, page 101... ‘natural born citizens are born to citizen parents’.”
Sure. There were doubts as to who was a citizen from birth until the 1898 WKA decision. Vattel’s rule lost.
“And if Rubio wins, the left side of the blogosphere will run wild with the claim that to be a Natural Born Citizen, a person needs at least one citizen parent.”
Nonsense. Possible a few cranks on the left will say that, just as a few cranks on the right say it now. Probably even fewer, if only because any lib considering being a Rubio-birther will have the cautionary tail of the Obama birthers and their record of failure and defeat.
You just go ahead and keep wiping yourself with the Constitution.
We "morons" don't think very highly of you fools either.
You would let any anchor baby be eligible.
Because Santorum's father was a naturalized US citizen by the time of Rick's birth (1958.)
My family is a perfect example. My mother arrived in the US in 1957 and married my natural born father in 1962. I was born in 1963. I am NOT a natural born citizen.
My mother was naturalized in 1965. My sister was born in 1966 and IS a natural born citizen.
See post # 157.
Justice Daniel directly quoted and referenced Vattel, citing chapter 19 and page 101....
” Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says: “.......”
“By this same writer it is also said: “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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”
Again: “I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.” (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)”
add Chief Justice Fuller and Chief Justice Waite.
You definition of natural born is not correct.
WKA was never affirmed a natural born citizen. He was affirmed a citizen because his parents were permanent residents at his birth.
Rubio may be a citizen if his parents were permanent residents at his birth.
According to Vattel..Rubio is not a citizen. Rubio is really a citizen of Cuba. The country of his father.
Remember the Framers who established the Federal Courts expected them to enforce the Law of Nations.
Rubio is not a natural born Citizen.
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.