Posted on 01/14/2016 11:29:42 AM PST by GIdget2004
Marco Rubio's lawyers are defending his eligibility to run for president in a quixotic legal challenge that alleges he isn't a natural-born citizen.
A Florida voter filed the suit, which claims that the senator isn't a true "natural-born citizen" under the Constitution because his parents were not both U.S. citizens at his birth in Miami.
The challenge occurs as 2016 rival Ted Cruz has been thrust into the spotlight by repeated "birther" challenges by party front-runner Donald Trump and other critics because the Texas senator was born in Canada.
So far, only Cruz has faced significant questions from those challenging his natural-born status. But the legal brief shows Rubio's lawyers trying to cut down the accusations at an early level.
The 34-page document, first disclosed by the Tampa Bay Times, casts aside the claim, noting that under the voter's logic "at least six other Presidents of the United States were not natural born citizens and were therefore ineligible for that office."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The constitution and case law are rock-solid against what you think "should" be. The only way a person born subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country becomes a US citizen is by statute, and Congress can just not pass a statute conferring citizenship to a person born abroad of citizen parents.
I cite Rogers v. Bellei for that proposition. It's not the only case, but it's a good one because Bellei was born abroad of a citizen mother and alien father, just like Cruz. 9 out of 9 justices agree that Bellei's citizenship was a form of naturalization.
... citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place.This is settled law.
If Vice President Arthur was born in Canada he’s not eligible https://vermonthistory.org/journal/misc/MysteryOfChester.pdf
Yes, the same rules apply. Vice presidential candidates are not vetted very closely most of the time and many are on the ticket as a form of political pay off or simply to carry a state or a region.
“Children born abroad have always been considered US citizens.”
That is entirely false.
We will end up will a president like that if those who are pushing this mess have their way. It is exactly what they have been trying to accomplish for years. Water down US presidential standards so much that anyone born anywhere in the world can become the US president. And along with that, the entire world will have the ability to elect this person.
After all, it’s not fair that US citizens alone get to choose the most powerful leader in the world./s
“This is settled law.”
You quote a 1971 ruling. Just like the court overturned what appeared to be an anti-gay marriage stance from around the same time, so they can easily write this away. I agree that Cruz should get some clarity on this, but there is great controversy over this.
Additionally, Mr. Bellei never fulfilled the residency clause, while Mr. Cruz did. There is an interesting post here from someone from the ACLU no less that came to quite a different conclusion than you:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/13/susan-carleson-should-settle-cruz-eligibility-trum/
I don’t want to fight but it’s clear that this is not settled law, but something that needs more clarity now.
LOL, grow some skin n00b.
I’ve seen your type come and go more times then I can count.
Yawn....
It should also be noted that Chester Arthur was evidently not a U.S. citizen, and he is reported to have made a remark on one occasion saying there could be some doubt about his having U.S. citizenship. Due to his father being a British subject from Northern Ireland and Canada and his U.S. citizen mother automatically expatriating to become a British subject due to her marriage to a British subject in Quebec, Canada, Chester Arthur’s parents wer both British subjects at his birth. Because both of his parents were British subjects at his birth, Chester Arthur did not qualify to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth, because the laws that conferred such citizenship for the children born in the United States with alien parents were not enacted until after the Chester Arthur Administration. This circumstance strongly suggests the reasons why Chester Arthur and Justice Gray played such influential roles in trying to force the Wong Kim Ark decision to favor immigrants. It also explains why Chester Arthur was so diligent in destroying his personal papers that could have revealed the deception surrounding his true foreign citizenship.
-- Additionally, Mr. Bellei never fulfilled the residency clause, while Mr. Cruz did. --
The residency clause doesn't play any more. But when it did, citizenship could be stripped by the same statute that gave it. This happened to Bellei, his citizenship was stripped from him. He sued to get it back. He lost, all the way to SCOTUS. Do you think natural born citizenship can (constitutionally) be stripped by an act of Congress?
With Cruz, the issue isn't whether the citizenship he has can be stripped. The issue is "what is the source of his claim to citizenship." If the source is a statute, he is not a natural born citizen, he is a naturalized citizen.
-- I don't want to fight but it's clear that this is not settled law --
100% of the cases on derived citizenship (citizenship by blood, not born in the US) say citizenship to a person not born a citizen of one of the several states is a naturalized citizen. The only way "this is not settled law" is that there has never been a case naming a president-elect.
I don't care if you are satisfied with the authorities cited. I don't care if you are wrong. I have no interest in arguing with you. I have nothing further to say to you.
Because "citizens" includes both "naturalized" and "natural born" citizens.
Why is the word "natural" inserted? It is a matter of allegiance.
And allegiance to the Framers was understood as a matter of the circumstances of birth. They never expressed any doubt as to the allegiance of someone born within the U.S. That's why jus soli was the rule of citizenship -- one was deemed to owe allegiance to the sovereign of the realm within which one was born. That was the essence of "natural law."
Note that native born is not the same as natural born.
As to those who are domestic-born, they are the same.
"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency." Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)
Thus, per the U.S. Supreme Court, the only persons excluded from the Presidency are "naturalized" persons. Native-born persons are citizens by birth under the common law and the 14th Amendment and need no naturalization. Ergo, they are "natural born citizens."
“And the Constitutional laws Congress has enacted make Cruz eligible to be president.”
That is a false statement. Ted Cruz acquired his U.S. citizenship by relying upon the purported U.S. citizenship of his mother. This form of naturalization at birth of a child born abroad with an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother was under the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Persons acquiring U.S. citizenship by statutory act are by definition naturalized U.S. citizens, and they are not and cannot possibly be natural born citizens that do not acquire citizenship by statutory acts.
No, Marco is an ANCHOR BABY.
“Arthur appointed Justice Gray...to Supreme Court?”
One hand washed the other. Chester Arthur was not even a U.S. citizen, because the prevailing law at the time did not allow a child born in the United States with alien parents to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth under the jus soli doctrine.
I too wish this would just be settled. In my mind there are two types of citizens... Natural born (those who are naturally born a citizen at birth) and Naturalized (those who were born citizens of another country but have immigrated to the US legally and gone through the citizenship process.)
I know others feel NBC is a more than just born a citizen. That’s why I’d love to see the argument settled by a court ASAP.
Not for Cruz because he is answering a completely different suit. His case and Rubio's differ on the merits and circumstances.
Not good for Rubio because while he answered the suit and petitioned the court for summary judgment, the court has not yet ruled.
IOW, the 14th amendment says more than "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Have you ever read Article II of the Constitution?
Grandfather Clause.
No court has ruled, ever, on the eligibility of any POTUS or Candidate.
It's high time.
WKA: parents must be Domiciled....permanent residents.
SCOTUS said foreign students are not Domiciled ...permanent residents.
Immigration act...father must be a resident in US
I can’t recall SCOTUS case.
I'd add, "legal" permanent residents, just to be on the safe side ;-)
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.