Rubio’s Mom Changed His Mind on Immigration

Newsmax ^ | Friday, 08 Feb 2013 11:31 AM | Sandy Fitzgerald

[Olog-hai]

Marco Rubio’s softening stance toward immigration reform boils down to his mom, a new profile of the fast-rising Florida senator reveals.

“Don’t mess with the immigrants, my son,” Oriales Garcia Rubio told her youngest son during a Dec. 21 phone call, Time magazine reports. Illegal immigrants, she said, are “human beings just like us, and they came for the same reasons we came. To work. To improve their lives.”

Rubio took his mother’s words to heart, and says they are shaping his work on immigration.

“I have to balance that humanity with reality,” he said. “We have immigration laws. They have to be followed. But yeah, she reminded me that there’s a human element to this as well. As a policymaker, you have to strike a balance.” …

[Tennessee Nana]

A natural-born citizen of the United States is one who has been a U.S. citizen since birth
__________________________________________________

But what s makes him an American citizen at birth ???

he meaning his adult parents must be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” US law AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH...

illegal aliens are not so subjected...they dont wish to be..

Subjected to the law in the US is a voluntry state of being...

if you dont want to be dont come here..

are you saying that Mayor Castro of San Antonio with his illegal alien extremely activist Mom who is a leader in La Raza is qualified to be POTUS ???

his parents were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” on his behalf when he was born..nor ever since..

His mother to this day is still not “subject to the Jurisdiction thereof” but sonny boy is proud of his mothers ongoing and current lawlessness and criminal activity which edges onto subversion and treason against the United States of America..

Do you count Castro as free from any restraints as a future POTUS ???

[Liz]

REFERENCE---Early US tax perks to Cubans now under scrutiny in today's US immigration reform efforts

(REUTERS) Under US law---called the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act---Cuban immigrants (like the families of Rubio and Menendez) received unique and highly favorable treatment, including (1) permanent residency just a year after arrival, (2) eligibility for a catalogue of tax-paid government benefits-- including Medicaid, SSI, child care, and disability, PLUS, (3) whatver tax-subsidizations they could got their hands on.

Being Cuban is so advantageous it has spawned its own form of identity fraud. Last year federal agents busted a ring that sold almost 50 fake Cuban birth certificates for up to $15,000 apiece to illegal aliens from Latin America so they could obtain green cards.

All Cubans have to do to gain entry into the United States, is show-up at the Texas-Mexico border, show a Cuban identity card and birth certificate. They then bring in families, reunite w/ parents and build a tax-fueled dream life thanks to one of the most generous US immigration laws: the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act.

Last month Cuba ended its practice of requiring an exit permit to leave the island, and said all Cubans could obtain a passport, potentially increasing the exodus.

Immigration experts note that if living under a communist regime was the criteria to obtain "political asylum" (and the trainload of tax-paid benefits "asylum" brings).....rather than specific "persecution" for political or religious beliefs.......a multitude of residents from poverty-stricken, corrupt misgoverned country would be eligible to board the US gravy-train.

[GOPJ]

Message to Rubio’s Mom : Who is going to pay for all the benefits they will automatically get and will demand more when they get the vote?

I've got the 'multicultural solution'.... We allow each racial group in the United States to 'take care of their own'. Hispanic coming to this country will BE the responsibility of the Hispanics who live here.

I'm sure Rubio's Mom would be more than willing to cough up her share. Hispanics will vote their own 'help taxes' and that's what the newcomers will share. It allows Hispanics to be gracious with their own money.

Rubio's Mom was invited to a beautiful party - she was welcomed. Now Rubio's Mom has decided to put out 'the invite' on her cell phone that party crashers are welcome - open the prisons, destroy the home of the people who invited her. Steal the food and distribute the furniture of her hosts...

Not that I'm doubting Rubio's mother 'good will' - it's just if she wants to give everyone a place to live - a home of their own - it needs to be her home...

[Ohioan]

I am not sure what the War has to do with how to have a frank conversation with an otherwise Conservative American Senator, who has let a foreign sympathy cloud his response to a current problem. (Whither American Conservatism deals with how to counter Rubio's mom's emotional, but not really proper appeal, without insulting anyone. The important thing--on this one point-- is to try to get those using such arguments, as she did, to stop doing so.)

Whether in a debate or as justification for a War, the best argument is always the one that deals with all aspects of a crisis in the most effective manner. But that sometimes needs to be done point by point.

Now, frankly, as a great admirer of George Washington, I deplore anyone who allows any sympathy for a foreign people to cloud their judgment as to American policy. But before you insult anyone, a candid discussion of where duty lies is in order.

William Flax

[Ohioan]

We have finite space; finite resources. We already have frequent, terrible grid-lock in most major urban areas. We do not really need more immigrants.

The duty of our Government is to the American people--not to some sort of abstract view of humanity. The idea of one humanity is a bit of confused collectivist/egalitarian fluff.

The Constitution starts out with a Preamble, which makes it very clear that America is about the Americans & their posterity. As the descendant of immigrants who arrived after the War for Independence, I am very grateful to be here; but I know that my duty is to preserve the land, culture & population that permitted my forebears to settle here. Biting the hand that extended hospitality, because one thinks it should extend even more hospitality to those who do not even want to embrace American culture, is contemptible. But with so many "pundits" intoning to the contrary, Mrs. Rubio can be forgiven for her remarks. That does not mean that we should not in, a kindly manner, explain why her position is fundamentally wrong. I am sure that she is a very nice lady.

William Flax

[Olog-hai]

Don't know why you’re addressing me in this instance. I did not insult Rubio or his mother. I did describe his behavior as vile, because only those who have contempt for our Constitution would behave in a vile manner towards it.

And as far as George Washington goes, he was more a warrior than a diplomat. Indeed, on the subject of insults, he said the following:

If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it. If we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.

And I don’t need to pay heed to aught pimped (whether secular false arguments or not) to realize and adhere to such a stance. I fear that you do not understand the times, nor the spirit behind them.

[ynotjjr]

“Else just make the Constitution and Bill of Rights into @ss wipe.”
Speaking of @ss wipes...

[GOPJ]

Biting the hand that extended hospitality, because one thinks it should extend even more hospitality to those who do not even want to embrace American culture, is contemptible. But with so many "pundits" intoning to the contrary, Mrs. Rubio can be forgiven for her remarks.

Yes, Mrs Rubio can be forgiven. But she needs to understand 98% of North Koreans would move here if they could - and they would also be grateful...and hard working...

[AuH2ORepublican]

Under the prevailing interpretation of the Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and of the similar language in the U.S. Code, the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language merely excludes children of foreign consular officers, which means that U.S. born children of illegal aliens are deemed to be U.S. citizens at birth and thus natural-born citizens. I agree with you 100% that that is a ridiculous interpretation of the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language, and I’ve been saying for almost 20 years now that Congress should legislate pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (which empowers Congress to enforce the 14th Amendment by appropriate legislation) to clarify that children of ipersons not legally residing in the U.S. are not subject to U.S. and state jurisdiction and thus not citizens at birth. That would exclude, at the very least, not only children of consular officers (who are not residents, but diplomatic guests), but also children of illegal aliens, children of persons here on tourist visas, and children of persons on other temprary, non-resident visas (any temporary guest-worker program should be designed to ensure that if the guest workers have children in the U.S. that they aren’t U.S. citizens at birth). I would also exclude children of persons with student visas or temporary H1-B visas as well, but reasonable minds may disagree on those. But permanent residents clearly are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and thus their U.S.-born children would be U.S. citizens at birth even if the courts began to interpret the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language correctly or even if Congress adopted clarifying language under Section 5.

So, even if the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was correctly interpreted, children of permanent residents would be U.S. citizens at birth, and thus Marco Rubio (whose parents were legally authorized permanent residents) would be a natural-born citizen no matter what. Perhaps someone like Bobby Jindal would be left out under a correct interpretation, since Jindal’s parents were, I believe, temporary residents (on student visas?) when he was born. But since, at the time of Jindal’s birth, neither the courts nor Congress required such restriction, Jindal was a U.S. citizen at birth as well, and thus a natural-born citizen. (If someone like Jindal tried to become a naturalized citizen, he would not be allowed to do so, since he was a citizen at birth pursuant to U.S. law as interpreted at the time.)

So we should insist upon interpretations or legislation that prospectively would cease granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens and tourists—and thus end the “anchor babt” problem that allows parents to stay if jone of their children is born in the U.S.—but until such interpretations or legislation take effect, we should not apply a rule that is not applied generally to someone like Bobby Jindal. And as for Marco Rubio, he’d be in the clear anyhow.

[Impy]

Hear hear!

There is a case to be made against Rubs on the issues (or issue, singular, immigration, a big issue and dealbreaker for many but I’m not aware of any other problem issues), there is no need to apply that citizenship nonsense. It will only get in the way of meaningful criticism and debate and will only help Rubio if he runs since he could paint people fixating on that as nutters.

Stick to the issues and overall suitability (he still seems a little green to me).

[itsahoot]

Thanks itsahoot, but I wasn’t talking about definitions of NBC,

I expect we would be in agreement.

[highball]

I wasn’t talking about definitions of NBC, though I definitely have my opinion on that. It is simply what I believe. I simply believe that our president should be born American of two American parents. There should be no other allegiances involved. In my awkward way, that is the point I was making.

You are of course perfectly within your rights to set such a condition on your vote. Just so long as we don't pretend that it's a Constitutional requirement.