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.
There is no anchor baby law per se. There have been interpretations of law which many say are flawed. At issue is not whether Rubio is a citizen. As the law is interpreted he most certainly is.
There is a grey area about whether he is eligible to serve as President. If indeed there is a third class of citizens: natural born, citizens and naturalized citizens he is not. To the best of my understanding there would have been no reason for the framers to have created a third class identical with citizenship. The reasoning and historical letters/writings from the time suggest that they were intent on protecting the country from a leader with foreign loyalty and that was the reason a distinct class of citizens was defined for President & Vice President.
Sadly they failed to make their intent clear enough that it could not be muddied subsequently. At this time we have several candidates who have some entanglements with foreign allegiance but no clear standard to establish whether they are natural born citizens within the criterion set forward by the constution. Precedence from Obama’s assumption of the office is that the distinction is not being enforced which I believe leaves the country at risk for precisely the issue the founders sought to address.
I hope that later administrations and Supreme courts will clarify this murky situation since it is vitally important. There are substantial benefits conferred with citizenship with the cost borne by the current American people. Birthright citizenship is not in the interest of the people or of America. Citizenship should be awarded to people who have chose to come here, are here legally and who pledge to be loyal American, who will obey our laws and cherish our freedoms. Our President should be free of foreign entanglements and loyalties.