Posted on 04/27/2012 8:24:47 AM PDT by vadum
According to the Constitution, to be eligible for the presidency (or vice presidency), a person must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. The purpose of this restriction is to prevent a foreigner from becoming the nation’s chief executive.
How can people become U.S. citizens? There are just two ways; either they are born citizens or they become citizens later in life. In the first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a “natural born citizen.” In the second case, anyone who is a citizen of another country at birth, but is granted U.S. citizenship sometime afterward, is a naturalized citizen.
For example, John McCain, though born in Panama, is eligible for the presidency, because he became a citizen at birth. Similarly, had Gen. George Meade sought the presidency, he would have been eligible because, though born in Spain, he was a U.S. citizen by nature of his birth. Any non-naturalized U.S. citizen over the age of thirty-five with fourteen years of residence can be President of the United States.
Sadly, this common-sense, logical approach does not dissuade some conservative pundits from inventing a new constitutional requirement for the presidency. Despite the plain meaning of the text, they claim that, to be eligible, a person’s parents must also be U.S. citizens. A few even assert that one’s parents must also be natural born citizens. I’ll spare you a recitation of their nonsense about “native born” or Emerich de Vattel or whatnot. Finding things in the Constitution that are not there is for Democrats!
Now that Mitt Romney has become the presumptive Republican nominee, there is speculation that the junior senator from Florida will be his running mate. Marco Rubio’s parents were from Cuba and did not become U.S. citizens until he was four years old. Voices from the fringe are claiming that this means Rubio is not eligible – and they’re wrong.
Marco Rubio was born is Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Per the Constitution, the citizenship status of his parents (or grandparents or anyone but himself) is irrelevant.
Let’s look at U.S. political history for more proof. Were there other instances of a presidential or vice presidential nominee with a foreign-born parent? You betcha!
The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. He was born in South Carolina to an American mother and a French father. Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France. He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son’s birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont. One would be hard-pressed to find any suggestion at the time that Fremont’s birth made him ineligible for the presidency.
The seventh vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Chester Arthur, was born in Vermont to an American mother and a foreign-born father. William Arthur was born a British citizen – in County Antrim, Ireland – who did not become a U.S. citizen until his son was fourteen years old.
John Fremont, George Meade, Chester Arthur, John McCain, Marco Rubio – all eligible for the presidency. Republicans should not allow themselves to be distracted away from contesting the 2012 presidential campaign on the real issues.
Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country. Back to Basics for the Republican Party is his acclaimed history of the GOP, cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision. His Grand Old Partisan website celebrates more than fifteen decades of Republican heroes and heroics. See www.grandoldpartisan.com for more information.
An answer to alternative question will provide answer to your question as well: If England and China passed such laws, could they force a person born in the USA to US citizen parents to serve in their military? The answer is No. Therefore, their laws do not apply to US natural born citizens.
I believe his father came before, returned during the revolution, got his wife out and brought her, so from past memory of reading this, I think they do fall under the asylum law.
Nonetheless, it doesn’t matter about the mother because she became a citizen before Marco was born 10 years after her arrival in the country.
The father had applied for immigration, returned to Cuba, and then reapplied after returning to the US.
Any of those would have been sufficient in 1793.
Thank you for putting that up. I copied and emailed it to myself. Outstanding analysis.
I think you perhaps misunderstood the post. It was not one of praise for redistribution of wealth. It was I believe instead a posit that our federal government is a criminal corporation and that the main difference between the USA's government and that of the USSR is that the US form of corruption and seizure of the wealth of the citizenry is that the US form is more polished and viable, because it is actually smart enough to spread around enough of that ill-gotten gain to the mensch to keep a large percentage of them placid and dependent upon government largesse.
I had to read through the relevant comments in their entirety, and watch a ten minute video linked to by another poster in order to understand the context. itsahoot can of course correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation.
One difference that I have noted as I grew older, I had no clue how much of our history was being re-written as I laughed at Post War Russia for their blatant distortion of history.
Nice post here Are we still serious about our Constitution.
Appropriate post for the bicentenial of the War of 1812.
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.