There is reality and there is opinion. Reality is that current law DOES equate "native born" and "natural born." That means that there is no legal impediment to Rubio running for the presidency. He was born in this country to parents who had been in this country for years and had no intention of leaving. He can't even be claimed to be an "anchor baby" of convenience. Another point of those who question Obama's qualifications is that "native born" must be interpreted in the way that the Founders would have interpreted it. As a philosophical exercise, I am willing to do that. At the same time, I would insist that we must also use the citizenship law that was first in effect in the USA. If we use the founder-era definition of "natural born", then we must use the "founder era" citizenship law, and that is the "Naturalization Act of 1790." The details of that law are simple: 2 years residence with one in the state of residence, good character, and a pledge to any legal court to support the Constitution. Once residency requirement is met, the process, as I see it, could take no more than one minute.
Using that standard, Rubio's mother had already been naturalized prior to Rubio's birth. His father had been before the court a couple of times in his application for residency, and the Cuban refugee act automatically put him on a track for citizenship.
Had it simply been a matter of residency and pledge, then Rubio's dad had MORE THAN fulfilled that obligation.
Agreed.
People are using this non-issue as a way to paint Rubio in a “bad light”. It’s failing. Miserably.
The birthers pursuing this tact will only further marginalize themselves and are besmirching a good man and a good conservative.