Posted on 10/20/2011 5:54:25 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
During his rise to political prominence, Sen. Marco Rubio frequently repeated a compelling version of his family’s history that had special resonance in South Florida. He was the “son of exiles,” he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after “a thug,” Fidel Castro, took power.
But a review of documents — including naturalization papers and other official records — reveals that the Florida Republican’s account embellishes the facts. The documents show that Rubio’s parents came to the United States and were admitted for permanent residence more than 21 / 2 years before Castro’s forces overthrew the Cuban government and took power on New Year’s Day 1959.
The supposed flight of Rubio’s parents has been at the core of the young senator’s political identity, both before and after his stunning tea-party-propelled victory in last year’s Senate election. Rubio — now considered a prospective 2012 Republican vice presidential candidate and a possible future presidential contender — mentions his parents in the second sentence of the official biography on his Senate Web site. It says that Mario and Oriales Rubio “came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yeah, but that’s not “embellishment.” It’s just inaccuracy. Embellishment is when you try to make it appear that you’re something that you’re not.
He was a little kid ~ his direct memories may well be unclear when it comes to time but the Post provided information regarding where his parents were, and they were there before Castro and after Castro. They were also in the US before Castro and after Castro.
Remember, Batista ~ plenty of people fled the Batista regime. That didn't mean they were Castro's favorites.
The Washington Post writers failed to support their initial arguments.
I keep hearing that... “ineligible to be President”. Clearly this is a tiger without any teeth, as if elected, Rubio would be the THIRD president with this distinction. So given the precedence, and that the courts clearly define this distinction differently, and “the system” is unwilling or unable to address it, continued discussion is wasted effort IMHO.
It is not an embellishment, it is not an innacuracy, it is an outright lie.
Nice try.
Seems like a smart native born citizen like Rubio would have a more accurate understanding of his family history.
I disagree.
If true, WaPo has proved that Rubio’s family were not political refugees of the Communist Revolution, but were economic immigrants. In 1959 Castro was still claiming publicly to be in favor of multi-party democracy and had many non-Communists fighting with him (folks that he and Che quickly liquidated after taking power).
BTW, the comments to this article have immediately jumped to WaPo's failure to vet Obama's bio!
George on the other hand was not a natural born citizen, and shouldn't have run for President in 68.
but obama’s mother died of cancer without health insurance- or something like that...
That dog won;t hunt.
Chester Arthur deceived his contemporaries—it was not found out until well after his term that he was ineligible.
The second person is Obama, and he is a disaster for America. If we had the Generation of 1776 here, he would be in prison by now, but there is a distinct lack of testicular fortitude in DC for the last twenty years.
A third person—should never be allowed to happen.
Notice this slippery wording used by the Washington Post employee Alice Crites:
"A similar claim has been made in blogs and other forums because Rubio’s parents were not citizens when he was born in Florida in 1971. But legal scholars on both sides of the McCain debate told The Post that Rubio’s citizenship does not appear to be an issue."
The issue is NOT Rubio's citizenship, but wether he is a natural born Citizen as required by article II of the Constitution. Of course Washington Post employee Alice Crites is NOT allowed to tell us that for obvious reasons.
Yup. I am making my way through the 500+ comments to see if this is pointed out. There are some articulate constitutionalists posting comments.
I'm sure an employee of the Washington Post will be ready with the delete key if it is pointed out.
What has he DONE to make him a plausible national leader? Being able to talk to the pool boy without a translator doesn't count.
True, but it also greatly embellishes the story, which is made to sound like his parents fled with mass chaos and destruction all around them.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 says, "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."
That is precisely George Romney's case. By that early congress's view he was eligible for POTUS.
I think it's mostly about getting the latino vote & nothing more than that.
he certainly could bring the “female vote” to the republican party.
so I see the press is still interested in the personal history of “some” people.
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.