Replies

There were and there still are quite a number of commentaries which attempted to cast doubt on whether or not one or both of the parents naturalized as U.S. Citizens before 1975. To make a long story short, they were simply wrong or even offered in an attempt to deceive. The simple fact is that they were Cuban citizens granted permanent resident privilege for aliens after their immigration to the United States in 1956. Note, this was 19 years before Marco Rubio was born. The parents and almost two decades in which to naturalize as U.S. Citizens and thereby qualify their son as a natural born citizen, but they failed to do so for whatever reason/s. Consequently, their son was acquired the natural born Cuban citizenship of his parents, and particularly his father's Cuban citizenship upon birth in Miami, Florida. This Cuban citizenship was in addition to any right of native born U.S. citizenship Marco Rubio would later choose to accept upon his age of majority.

The U.S. Government did not have a Federal immigration law until the mid-19th Century, because the sovereign States determined citizenship law instead of the Federal Government. New Jersey's citizenship laws treated the citizenship of women more favorably than most other states in 1787-1800. Upon the Federal Government adopting uniform immigration and naturalization statutes that superceded the State naturalization laws, who could naturalize as U.S. Citizens and how came under the authority of the U.S. Government. Before then, a person became a citizen of a State in accordance with State immigration and naturalization laws in order to become a U.S. Citizen.

In 1971, the immigration and neutralization law was the responsibility of the U.S. Government and not the State of Florida. Under the then existing Federal statutory law and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Marco Rubio had the right to claim U.S. citizenship upon native birth or Cuban citizenship at birth by the act of his parents until he confirmed or denied that act of his parents by accepting or rejecting his right to claim his natural born Cuban citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

Another insuperable problem with trying to use an 18th Century, 19th Century, or 20th Century statute or Constitutional Amendment to confer or retract citizenship is the fact that such law is manmade and not natural inborn citizenship. Any form of native born citizenship can be altered by manmade laws. Natural born citizenship cannot be altered by manmade laws, because the membership in the community is determined by being born the child of two parents who are members of the community. While such a natural born citizen can forfeit or abandon such citizenship after birth, nothing manmade law can change the fact of nature. All forms of statutory citizenship from naturalization to native born citizenship to alien parents are the artifacts of manmade law, which can be changed by man by changes in the laws. All laws employing jus soli to confer citizenship are examples of manmade laws making the child a citizen, rather than the child being the natural inheritor of the parents’ citizenship and membership in the community. Reliance upon the 14th Amendment and/or immigration and naturalization laws to determine citizenship precludes the possibility of a natural born citizenship.

The following is the text of the Naturalization Act of 1790 passed by the US Congress:

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof
on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:
Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

So, I repeat: If we're going to use the 18th century understanding of "natural born citizen", then we need to use no more restrictiveness to attain "natural born citizenship" than was used at that same time.

Since the Constitution was completed in 1787, then the first law dealing with naturalization that would have had the same understanding would have been the Naturalization Act of 1790.