More Jus Than OJ
I have the same problem with Rubio that I do with Obama - his parents weren’t citizens at the time he was born.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The bold is the catch - subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Chester A. Arther’s Mother was a citizen (born in Vermont, age 27) and William Arthur who was naturalized in 1843 (38 years before Arthur became President). And it was in the first 67 years of the new nation (105 for Arthur becoming President).
That is a lot different than Rubio whose parents immigrated in 1956 but did not become citizens until 1975 (4 years after Marco was born)! Neither of his parents was a citizen when he was born.
Much like our current (p)Resident - whose father was a British citizen who never attempted nor ever became an American citizen (who according to the British law in 1961 gave birth to a British citizen) who was ‘married’ (no marriage certificate, just a divorce certificate) to an 18 year old citizen (who according to the US law in 1961 was unable to confer citizenship upon the child). And oh, btw anchor baby did not come into assistance until a footnote slipped into a 1982 Supreme Court decision by Justice Blackmun. Much like the Selma March inspiring his parents to create him (Selma happened 4 years after he was born) Barack don’t know nuthin’ about history and gets it wrong again.
Sadly this is just another way to shred the Constitution, destroy US sovereignty and pursue the OneGlowBall World Order.
And it must be stopped. Nothing against Rubio and the States can do whatever they want -but our Federal Gov and Constitution must be upheld.
And btw, again the military provides a process for Citizens born abroad and military bases/ports/posts are considered American soil - and those children born to US citizen parents serving abroad are considered American citizens at birth. The discrepancy for McCain was that his birth certificate read his birth date and his fs-545 (Consular Report of Birth) had a date the next year. My daughter has the same thing, it is sadly very common among military children born overseas for several reasons - getting a passport photo is very hard as the military usually only does it when you are PCSing (moving) and or a single certified document is not present (in our case it was my divorce certificate from my first husband (yeah like I love to carry that one around with me)) - in 1988 it was a phone call and a check in the mail for 10 dollars - in 1935, it probably wasn’t that easy to do. So the dates end up different, doesn’t mean anything illegal went on.
That also has absolutely nothing to do with politicians who desire to be President with NON-CITIZEN parents. Under the NBC clause of the Constitution - they are ineligible.
It is simple and so vastly different than in the late 1770s and early 1800s when the majority of Americans had parents born outside of the US. The times have changed - and we should hold to a stricter definition - not the anchor baby - we are the world bs definition.
Addition - I wonder if the Rubio promotion is simply a ploy by the GOP to not only discredit the ‘birthers’ (I don’t believe Obama was born in Kenya - I just don’t believe he is a NBC) but also to insure that there will never, ever be any more questions about that pesky NBC clause again - sort of seal the deal that anyone from anywhere can become the US President despite what the Constitution states. Just another form of aiding and abetting the destruction of America from within.
Freudian slip - anchor baby did not come into existance until 1982.
Natural-born citizen is both parents are U.S. citizens. That’s what disqualifies Obama. His mom also supposedly gave birth to him a few months before she was in the U.S. long enough to qualify as a citizen. You’d have to look that part up because the specifics escape me at the moment. Regardless, whether he was born in Hawaii or not is immaterial since his father was a British citizen.
If Rubio’s parents weren’t citizens, then same rules apply.
The problem is the term “natural-born” isn’t concrete solid.
The following site is one of the best I’ve seen on the issue. The guy is a lawyer and has been writing about it for a few years. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/Do a search on Natural Born or similar, and the articles should come up. I just perused them again last week, and there’s 5+ really interesting ones.
Including:
“The Father of the 14th Amendment” saying in front of Congress you need both parents.
A Supreme Court case from like 1970? making a clear distinction between natural-born and nationalized, etc, during some famous racial discrimination court case I forget at the moment.There’s also a couple articles about some national court case search engine site that apparently during the last four or so years was changing the text in a bunch of “what’s a citizen” court cases. They can’t change the originals, I guess, but they were changing them at the site that “everyone” uses for quick court case searches. Strange stuff, but the blog guy isn’t the only one who wrote about it. The Examiner and some other site did too.
Remember the apparent reason the Pres must be natural-born back in the day. It was so a British guy couldn’t have a son and then that son become Pres while having family ties to Britain. Under “Obama rules” and what some people say the 14th Amendment is about, any dictator in the world could impregnate a woman, slip her past the U.S. border, have the kid, and that kid could become the U.S. President. Unlikely? Perhaps. But the Founders did think ahead a lot of the time.
Posted by Wes B
04/30/2012 at 07:09 PM
Next entry: Fun With Anagrams
Previous entry: Let's Just Call Them Rubios And Be Done With It