Posted on 06/21/2013 5:28:44 PM PDT by Theoria
Sen. Marco Rubio has a problem. He has transformed from conservative hero to suspect in the eyes of many on the political right because he now supports "a path to citizenship" for people unlawfully in the U.S. after forcefully opposing it in 2010 when he was running for U.S. Senate.
The senator from Florida, who's considered to be a potential Republican presidential candidate, has tried to gloss over the shift. Unfortunately, he's getting called on it. By Factcheck.org. And by many conservatives, like those who booed his name when it was mentioned at a Tea Party rally this week on Capitol Hill. Or Ann Coulter, who said Friday the Senate shouldn't take up immigration until it becomes a Rubio-free body. Former Republican Rep. Allen West is even saying he might give Rubio a primary challenge over his immigration shift.
If Rubio does decide to make the run for president, he will certainly be attacked not only as a flip-flopper but for supporting a policy that's anathema to many conservatives. So, what's a senator to do?
Rubio has a few options, though they all have risks. Here are some possible approaches:
The people made me do it: Rubio could always say he decided to change his position to more accurately reflect the desires of his Florida constituency.
A Quinnipiac University poll released this week indicated that 58 percent of those surveyed agreed with the "path to citizenship" approach while 12 percent said people in the U.S. unlawfully should be allowed to stay, but not given citizenship. Only 24 percent were of the deport or self-deport persuasion.
Even among Florida Republicans, nearly half, 47 percent, supported a citizenship path with 15 percent being willing to let those here unlawfully stay but without allowing them to become citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
Make that "was" considered.
Mister Rubio is now choosing to perform his impersonation of (metaphorical, of course)...TOAST.
.
West for Senate!
BLACKMAIL!
President Zero’s father was never a US citizen, but his mother was. So now we have a precedent that only one parent is enough to make you a natural born citizen, even with a fake Hawaii BC.
I will bet you any amount if either Rubio, Cruz, or Bobby runs, they will not be ruled ineligible by congress or SCOTUS.
Again, actually I agree with your definition of NBC, but the accepted situation in reality is now different. No law suit has been taken up the SCOTUS or congress, for Zero.
Bingo. He's very slick and charismatic at articulating a conservative message, whether he believes it or not.
And he was helped by the fact the tea party groups in Florida who whined about how Mel Martinez "betrayed" them decided to "get behind" Rubio has his replacement the MOMENT he announced his candidacy. Blindly back ANOTHER "rising star" Hispanic simply because he tells you he's against amnesty -- it didn't work in 2004, but in 2010, what could go wrong?
Bingo. He's very slick and charismatic at articulating a conservative message, whether he believes it or not.
And he was helped by the fact the tea party groups in Florida who whined about how Mel Martinez "betrayed" them decided to "get behind" Rubio as his replacement the MOMENT he announced his candidacy. Blindly back ANOTHER "rising star" Hispanic simply because he TELLS you he's against amnesty -- it didn't work in 2004, but in 2010, what could go wrong?
Twitter: ‘Senator Rubio Press’...let the little Rubidiot scumbag have it!
Correctamundo! Natural Born status is not determined by where you were born......but to whom you were born.
I will bet you any amount if either Rubio, Cruz, or Bobby runs, they will not be ruled ineligible by congress or SCOTUS.
I would not take that bet as I'm sure you're correct here also......except, maybe for Cruz. His mother was a U.S. citizen but he was born in Canada. His father was a Cuban but became a naturalized U.S. citizen.
It all depends on when his father became naturalized. If it happened before Ted's birth......Ted is a Natural Born Citizen. If his father later on became a citizen.....Ted is then Constitutionally ineligible.
What people cannot seem to get through their heads on this question is that the place of birth is immaterial....... as long as your parents are U.S. Citizens. That's why this "dog and pony show" about a Hawaiian birth certificate is a complete farce. The current occupant of the oval office was born to a British Subject.....part of the commonwealth (Kenya). The place of Obama's birth has no bearing on his citizenship. His parentage.....does!
Is’nt there a slight contradiction in your post?
You say “the place of birth is immaterial....... as long as your parents are U.S. Citizens”. If Cruz’s mother was US citizen at time of his birth, why does it then matter he was born in Canada? One US citizen parent is apparently enough to be a NBC with president Zero as solid precedence!
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled.
In his 1789 article, The History of the American Revolution, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents.
This was verified later by Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section.
In the United States House on March 9, 1866 commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.
It doesn't matter.............but the question has publicly arisen, and some folks are under the mistaken impression that it does. That's why I mentioned it.....to do away with it.
One US citizen parent is apparently enough to be a NBC with president Zero as solid precedence!
Constitutionally.....this is incorrect. But....as you say....now, according to precedence we have a situation. It will likely be resolved in favor of precedence because most politicians will want to take the path of least resistance and avoid any name calling which would certainly accompany their decision to call Obama's election into question.
It's really a shame that most folks are not aware of this and the obvious intentions of the framers of our Constitution. We could have avoided an extreme tragedy (Obama's Election) in our national history if some folks would have had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and be counted.
“It all depends on when his father became naturalized. If it happened before Ted’s birth...”
His father is Rafael B. Cruz, a Cuban who naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2005
Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, December 22, 1970, to a US citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father. He is a natural born citizen of Canada (Canadian Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-19, s. 5(1,3))
Cruz is a naturalized US citizen (8 U.S.C. § 1401(g))
Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, May 28, 1971, to a Cuban citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father.
His father is Cuban citizen Mario Rubio, who naturalized as a US citizen 1975.
His mother is Cuban citizen Oria Garcia, who naturalized as a US citizen 1975.
His parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.
Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born citizen.
Then....under the guidelines of the Naturalization Act of 1790 Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen. This Act stipulated that children of citizens born beyond the borders were classified as "Natural Born". If his father did not naturalize until 2005 then Ted is considered a "Born Citizen" (only) because his mother was a U.S. Citizen.
Ted may hold office in any Constitutional area....except that of "Commander in Chief". He is basically in the same category as Obama.....except Barack's father was never a citizen.
Absolutely correct!
It's really a pity that more folks don't understand this simple Constitutional explanation of the term. So many hopes get dashed......except for the democrats. Constitutional Law has never been a priority for the donkeys.
WATCH IN DEEP ADMIRATION AS OUR HEROINE ANN COULTER DOES MORE THAN HER PART TO DEFEAT THE IMMIGRATION..BILL...SHE’S OUT THERE EVERYWHERE SHE’S MAGNIFICENT...THANKS ANN!
http://www.teaparty.org/ann-coulter-u-s-finished-if-amnesty-passes-25564/
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/21/ann-coulter-hannity-blasts-gop-rubio-immigration-amnesty-bill
Thank you for a good response to my query. I think we are on parallel rails.
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.