Posted on 12/21/2015 6:04:59 AM PST by HomerBohn
I see it as speech intended to divide and conquer Americans, rather than bring us to stand together.
I’m part of the melting pot. My families came from different backgrounds. We are stronger for it.
I won’t be part of “pure” Americans.
Foolish comment. If the law only matters when it fits our purpose it is not law at all but tyranny.
Rubio was born in America to at least one US citizen.
Legally, the anchor baby law says he was a citizen at birth.
Second, I’m pretty sure his mother had already naturalized by the time of his birth, so he is also a citizen at birth by the fact that one parent was a US citizen.
In the case of Bobby Jindal, he was born here, but neither parent at the time intended other than being on a student visa from their home country.
I know English is hard to understand but not that hard.
This argument will continue on FR until after the election and depending on who wins may go on a lot longer. When all the B$ lawyerly arguments are done both Cruz and Rubio will still be unqualified. But it doesn't matter since we don't care.
You should keep posting this B$ until everyone gives up on common sense and agrees with you. Maybe you could use all CAPS or red text.
One of them is an open borders amnesty pimp and if you don't know which one then you are not paying attention. Goudy Doodie and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) are too close to believe he is conservative in any sense of the word.
A Sense of the Senate ruling has exactly zero legal authority and is often quoted here as precedent which is also a lo@d of crap.
...conservative in any sense of the word.
Which conservative do you support?
</s>
Your insults don’t change reality or add additional requirements that don’t exist.
God Bless
They stripped off the old citizenship and jumped in melting pot. When they come out, they are brand new, pure American citizens!
This is, or at least it was, a big deal! It was/is an honor to become an American, something strived for and was often acquired at great cost and/or a difficult and dangerous journey.
Our current emotions are to remove the legality of the melting pot altogether and mix and blend the illegal, legal and emotional realities it conveyed into whatever feels best now.
I'm for re-establishing standards, not diluting them even more.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."
~Aristotle
It is what it is.
It becomes a problem when you call it something it isn't and something much worse when people are made to call it something it isn't and then made to act as if it is.
I'd regret if I've bothered you with my posts, but thanks for letting me get the above off my chest!
Actually, it isn't JUST because they were both citizens, it was because McCain's father was serving in the military, and military members stationed overseas are 'in service' to the country just as ambassadors or diplomats are.
Vattel, Law of Nations, § 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
-----
It's not surprising Gowdy is pushing Rubio as a NBC, either. The Republicans are making bigger mockery of the Constitution's NBC provison as the Democrats have.
This is the analysis of the 14th Amendment to the constitution with relevant extracts. At the site there are summaries of case law and opinion. Unfortunately while this analysis is compelling in its logic & rationality there are other reasonable analyses which argue the converse such that I think it is an issue which might profitably be addressed with birthright citizenship in the next presidency.
The Constitution directly specified 3 types of citizens, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as those who are “citizens,” those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. The architects of the Fourteenth Amendment had two to choose from in granting citizenship under this amendment, they choose just a citizen, and rejected “a natural born citizen.”
The Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,
Section 1 - “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Obviously missing is the conveyance of “natural born” status to these citizens. In fact what is obviously included in the text is the term “naturalized.” This section has several clauses, the first deals with citizenship.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.
To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
The words “born or naturalized” are joined with the conjunction “or,” and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not “a natural born citizen.” This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” confers the coveted “natural born” status. If the term “citizen” did in fact convey a “natural born” status, then who were naturalized would be considered “natural born.”
Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring “natural born” status on anyone, it only confers simple citizenship and the universal rights given to all citizens, “native born” and naturalized. In fact, several Supreme Court Cases since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment restrict citizenship claims based on being born geographically within the United States, and bestows the coveted “natural born citizen” title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens.
http://birthers.org/USC/14.html
Look we all know this. It was hashed and re-hashed last cycle a thousand times. The Supreme Court refused to hear 20-30 elibibiity lawsuits. Its over. Any anchor baby can be President now.
Perhaps if we get some more conservative Supreme Court judges the subject can be revisited.
Woof, woof. Arf, arf.
Yes and it should be re-visited. The Supreme Court should define the term Natural Born Citizen as it was intended in the Constitution once and for all.
That is not correct.
Marco Rubio’s parents were naturalized in 1975 as per his website. He was born May 28, 1971. So he was born to parents who were foreign nationals at the time of his birth.
https://marcorubio.com/parents/
Marcoâs father, Mario Rubio, was approved for an immigration visa in Havana, Cuba at the U.S. Embassy on May 18, 1956. He arrived in Miami, Florida on May 27, 1956. He became a naturalized citizen of the United States on November 5, 1975.
Marcoâs mother, Oria Rubio, was approved for an immigration visa in Havana, Cuba at the U.S. Embassy on May 18, 1956. She arrived in Miami, Florida on May 27, 1956 with Marcoâs dad, Mario. She became a naturalized citizen of the United States on November 5, 1975.
Thanks, JayGalt. My bad...Memory mix up.
The current law says that born to approved immigrants is also a citizen at birth...as does the anchor baby law.
Your beginning time frame was 1620. You referred to immigrant groups who “built the country”. The country was already built by over two hundred years by the 1860s.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited citizenship to white people only.
The point of discussion was WHO built the country, not immigrants groups who came to an already established nation.
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.