Let the GOP internal feeding begin!!! Rubio not a natural citizen?

Although the name of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is mentioned more than any other as a potential GOP vice presidential candidate, a document found in the National Archives raises questions about whether the popular U.S. senator is actually qualified constitutionally to serve as president or vice president.

The Petition for Naturalization on behalf of Mario Rubio, the senator’s Cuban father, has been retrieved from the National Archives and posted online by the PixelPatriot website, confirming that Marco Rubio was about four years old when his parents became U.S. citizens. Specifically, Mario Rubio was naturalized as an American citizen in 1975, based on the Sept. 9, 1975, date on the petition; Marco Rubio was born in 1971.


Continued at link:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/top-gop-choice-for-vp-faces-eligibility-questions/


Seems a little early to be self-feeding but I guess if he were to get the nod all of a sudden every dem in the land would find that they don't dislike eligibility questions as much as they thought. Oh well.
 

WalknTrot

Veteran Member
It's not that big a deal. If he doesn't qualify he doesn't qualify. Plenty of fish in the sea.
 
Last edited:

Gercarson

Veteran Member
Rubio knows he is not a natural citizen - he can still be extremely effective as a Gung-Ho American.
 

mzkitty

I give up.
Didn't you know it's all about the NWO? We're all supposed to be one big world-wide family, and borders and rules don't matter. Bams proved that. The muzzies and commies have the same agenda, and it's all coming true. Next you'll be "unpatriotic" to even question the citizenship status of any candidate, because in One World it just doesn't matter. You are a Citizen of The World. Shine up your NWO insignias, folks.

:spns:
 

FarmerJohn

Has No Life - Lives on TB
When was George Romney, (father of Mitt Romney) naturalized? He was born in Mexico (George, that is) in July 8, 1907.

Is it automatic in that kind of situation or something else. George Romney was considered eligible when he was running for the Republican nomination in 1968 but his place of birth does not seem to have been an issue. The constitutional use of the term "natural-born citizen" has been described as having some ambiguity.

Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, May 28, 1971. It's a symptom of the ambiguity of the term "natural-born citizen" that some hold that he's not eligible for the presidency.

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
 

mzkitty

I give up.
Question:

Were all the parents of the earliest Presidents born here?

If the answer is YES, and nobody had a foreign-born parent then I would say that means you are a "natural born" citizen.

I've never looked that up so I don't know.

IF some of the early Presidents had a foreign-born parent then I would guess that would be allowed. But I don't know. I'd have to bother looking them all up and I can be lazy.
 

Guns-N-Moses

Senior Member
Question:

Were all the parents of the earliest Presidents born here?

If the answer is YES, and nobody had a foreign-born parent then I would say that means you are a "natural born" citizen.

I've never looked that up so I don't know.

IF some of the early Presidents had a foreign-born parent then I would guess that would be allowed. But I don't know. I'd have to bother looking them all up and I can be lazy.

Actually mzkitty, several of the parents of our early Presidents & leaders were not born in the USA, which is why our Founding Fathers Grandfathered themselves (or made an exemption) in the wording of the amendment - which states:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States"

So anyone alive at the time the document was adopted was automatically excluded from the 'natural born Citizen' clause.
 

mzkitty

I give up.
Actually mzkitty, several of the parents of our early Presidents & leaders were not born in the USA, which is why our Founding Fathers Grandfathered themselves (or made an exemption) in the wording of the amendment - which states:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States"

So anyone alive at the time the document was adopted was automatically excluded from the 'natural born Citizen' clause.

OK, so what about the guys who were elected AFTER that? By this wording I would think it would mean all their parents had to be born here. Am I right?

???
 

Guns-N-Moses

Senior Member
One other note to consider.

There is obviously some confusion and disagreement as to the actual meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" and unfortunately, the Constitution does not define the term.

But consider this:

If you compare prerequisite for becoming a Senator (verses becoming the President), only the term 'Citizen' is used. (ref: 'US Constitution - Section 3 - The Senate'

"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."


I believe that our Founding Fathers added the extra condition of being 'Natural Born' (in addition to 'Citizen') to qualify for the highest and most powerful position in government.

Some suggest that the newer amendments supersede the definition of NBC (i.e. 14th amendment etc.), however this is a misinterpretation of the intent of the amendment. Notice the 14th amendment says that they are 'citizens' not Natural Born Citizens.

(Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights) - 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Some also misuse and interchange the term Naturalized and Natural. They are not the same.

Native born citizenship: A native born citizen is one whose citizenship derives from the facts of his birth, and who becomes a citizen at the moment of birth. In both US and British law, those born within the sovereign territory of the country or born to parents who are citizens (subjects) of the country when the person is born are native citizens (subjects.)
Native born persons are said to have "birthright citizenship." Note that one can be "native born" either by the "jus soli" principle or by the "jus sanguinis" principle.

Naturalized citizenship: A naturalized citizen is one whose citizenship is granted as a political act—by law or by the decision or act of a sovereign.

Natural born citizenship: A natural born citizen is one whose citizenship is not granted by law or by any act of a sovereign, but inheres naturally in the person from birth according to principles that don't depend on laws or decisions of a sovereign. The rest of this essay will fully justify this definition.



References: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1
 

Guns-N-Moses

Senior Member
OK, so what about the guys who were elected AFTER that? By this wording I would think it would mean all their parents had to be born here. Am I right?

???

Theorhetically, yes.

Other than Obama, the only other President that I know of where elegibility was an issue was Chester A. Arthur.

Per Wiki

Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada.[57][58] This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Arthur's family history, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his presidency. Arthur was born in Vermont to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland, who was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 and 1824,[59] Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880[60] that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications.[61] Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot.

Many believe that Chester A. Arthur lied to get elected and then later burned many official records to hide the truth.
 

Garryowen

Deceased
OK, so what about the guys who were elected AFTER that? By this wording I would think it would mean all their parents had to be born here. Am I right?

My understanding is that only the candidate for president had to be natural born. How his parents became citizens is not the issue. He himself could not have a citizen of another nation at one time. Rubio and Obama are worlds apart when their situations compared. But I think that Rubio is not Constitutionally qualified, from the information I have about his birth.
 

Guns-N-Moses

Senior Member
Two more notes to consider


(1) If being Natural Born was not an issue, why have there been so many attempts to change it.

(per Wikipedia)

More than two dozen proposed constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress to relax the restriction (for the Natural Born Requirement)

Two of the more well known were introduced by Representative Jonathan Bingham in 1974, to allow for Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to become eligible,[109] and the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment by Senator Orrin Hatch in 2003, to allow eligibility for Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger.[108] The Bingham amendment would have also made clear the eligibility of those born abroad to U.S. parents,[109] while the Hatch one would have allowed those who have been naturalized citizens for twenty years to be eligible.[108]

All proposals to relax the restriction have failed.



(2) As you can see from the article below, John McCain's eligibility was questioned in the 2008 election.

This Wikipedia article has been edited as it used to mention that Barack Obama was one of the Senators who voted and agreed to the non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural-born citizen, as such declaring that a natural-born citizen was defined as a citizen born to two citizen parents.

That wording appears to be removed.

John McCain (born 1936), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station[55][73][74][75][76][77][78] in the Panama Canal Zone. McCain never released his birth certificate to the press or independent fact-checking organizations, but did show it to Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, who wrote "a senior official of the McCain campaign showed me a copy of [McCain's] birth certificate issued by the 'family hospital' in the Coco Solo submarine base".[75] A lawsuit filed by Fred Hollander in 2008 alleged that McCain was actually born in a civilian hospital in Colon City, Panama.[79][80] Dobbs wrote that in his autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, McCain wrote that he was born "in the Canal Zone" at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Coco Solo, which was under the command of his grandfather, John S. McCain Sr. "The senator's father, John S. McCain Jr., was an executive officer on a submarine, also based in Coco Solo. His mother, Roberta McCain, has said that she has vivid memories of lying in bed listening to raucous celebrations of her son's birth from the nearby officers' club. The birth was announced days later in the English-language Panamanian American newspaper."[81][82][83][84]

The former unincorporated territory of the Panama Canal Zone and its related military facilities were not regarded as United States territory at the time,[85] but 8 U.S.C. § 1403, which became law in 1937, retroactively conferred citizenship on individuals born within the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and on individuals born in the Republic of Panama on or after that date who had at least one U.S. citizen parent employed by the U.S. government or the Panama Railway Company; 8 U.S.C. § 1403 was cited in Judge Alsup's 2008 ruling, described below. A March 2008 paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency.[86] In April 2008, the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural-born citizen.[87] In September 2008, U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural-born citizen from birth by virtue of 8 U.S.C. § 1401, although he acknowledged the alternative possibility that McCain became a natural-born citizen retroactively, by way of 8 U.S.C. § 1403.[88]

These views have been criticized by Professor Chin, who argues that McCain was at birth a citizen of Panama and was only retroactively declared a born citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1403, because at the time of his birth and with regard to the Canal Zone the Supreme Court's Insular Cases overruled the Naturalization Act of 1795, which would otherwise have declared McCain a U.S. citizen immediately at birth.[89] The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual states that children born in the Panama Canal Zone at certain times became U.S. nationals without citizenship.[90] It also states in general that "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen […]".[91] In Rogers v. Bellei the Supreme Court only ruled that "children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment", and didn't elaborate on the natural-born status.[92][93] Similarly, legal scholar Lawrence Solum concluded in an article on the natural born citizen clause that the question of McCain's eligibility could not be answered with certainty, and that it would depend on the particular approach of "constitutional construction".[94] The urban legend fact checking website Snopes.com has examined the matter and cites numerous experts. It considers the matter "undetermined".[95]


-

I have been interested in and researching this NBC (natural-born citizen) issue since before the '08 elections and believe that Barack Obama was never eligible to be President (Unless his father is not B.O. Senior). I can also tell you that many websites have been scrubbed and or changed to hide or redefine the meaning of NBC.
 
Last edited:

mzkitty

I give up.
OK, so Chester Arthur MAYBE got away with it. Bams DEFINITELY got away with it because the machine wanted him in, and nothing since that time has gained any headway as far as getting rid of him on the grounds of ineligibility goes. It just proves my prior post on the NWO. We are screwed. THEY will put in anybody they want to. It doesn't matter what the Constitution says or anything else. Too bad.

:shk:
 

Guns-N-Moses

Senior Member
OK, so what about the guys who were elected AFTER that? By this wording I would think it would mean all their parents had to be born here. Am I right?

???

I believe the distinction is whether the Parents are Citizens at the time of the childs birth.

If a couple sailed to America and became Citizens, they become "Naturalized".

Any children born AFTER their Naturalization are in effect Natural Born (because they are born to two Citizen parents).

However if the child was born before the parents became Naturalized (such as in the case of Marco Rubio), the child is not a Natural Born but Naturalized by birth.
 

Oilpatch Hand

3-Bomb General, TB2K Army
The question becomes: "Did the child inherit any other citizenship or allegiance by virtue of the circumstances of his birth to his particular parents?"

If one parent is a U. S. citizen and the other a citizen of some other nation at the time of the child's birth, the likelihood is that the child of these two parents is a dual citizen, hence, cannot be natural-born.

If both parents are U. S. citizens (whether natural born or naturalized) at the time of the child's birth, the child will inherit no citizenship other than American, and would therefore be natural born (i.e., not a dual citizen; owing allegiance only to the United States and no other sovereign as a circumstance of the child's birth.)

I will let the reader apply this principle to the cases of Marco Rubio and Baraq Hussein Obama for the purpose of determining the presidential eligibility of each.
 

Guns-N-Moses

Senior Member
Thanks, Guns-N-Moses. Well, Bams slid through all the cracks. Greasy.

:dvl1:

What angers me the most is that most every politician and most Constitutional attorneys should have known that Obama is/was ineligible but they did nothing.

I believe that DNC definitely knew, as they submitted two versions of the Certification of Nomination – one with the wording related to the ‘qualifications to serve under the provisions of the Constitution’.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15127


I can understand the Democrats not doing anything (it was their guy), but knowing that the Republican party remained quiet makes me believe they were complicit and just as guilty.
 

mzkitty

I give up.
What angers me the most is that most every politician and most Constitutional attorneys should have known that Obama is/was ineligible but they did nothing.

I believe that DNC definitely knew, as they submitted two versions of the Certification of Nomination – one with the wording related to the ‘qualifications to serve under the provisions of the Constitution’.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15127


I can understand the Democrats not doing anything (it was their guy), but knowing that the Republican party remained quiet makes me believe they were complicit and just as guilty.

I remember all that. But I think the Repubs didn't do anything because they had a feeling McCain wasn't going to win so why rock all the boats? Here we had TWO people whose citizenship status was questionable. The Republicans are patient if nothing else. They thought their chances would be better this next time, probably wrongly. But both parties are ho's anyway. They rub each other's backs, don't be fooled (as they all have fooled the people). Crooks, liars, cheats, unprincipled. IMO. Garbage.
 

Guns-N-Moses

Senior Member
I remember all that. But I think the Repubs didn't do anything because they had a feeling McCain wasn't going to win so why rock all the boats? Here we had TWO people whose citizenship status was questionable. The Republicans are patient if nothing else. They thought their chances would be better this next time, probably wrongly. But both parties are ho's anyway. They rub each other's backs, don't be fooled (as they all have fooled the people). Crooks, liars, cheats, unprincipled. IMO. Garbage.

Actually, there are many who believe that Mitt Romney may also be ineligible because his father's Citizenship is in question. George (Mitt's father) was born in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, Chihuahua, Mexico and even though his father (Gaskell Romney) was a US Citizen, there is a question as to whether George reclaimed (or acquired) his Citizenship before Mitt was born. So perhaps you are right about (them) not wanting to rock the boat in '08, since their guy in '12 (Mitt) would also have eligibility issues.

Regarding Rubio: I must admit, I don't like everything about him but there are a couple of attributes that I do like. However, (and I'm sure you'll agree) liking someone or agreeing with some of their political positions are no reason to circumvent the Constitution. If Rubio is not eligible (which I believe he is not), he should not be considered.

Llike many here, I have long believed that the two parties are two sides of the same coin. It may not matter whether we vote for a Republican or a Democrat - if the powers that be are the true holders of power.
 

Gercarson

Veteran Member
I believe the distinction is whether the Parents are Citizens at the time of the childs birth.

If a couple sailed to America and became Citizens, they become "Naturalized".

Any children born AFTER their Naturalization are in effect Natural Born (because they are born to two Citizen parents).

However if the child was born before the parents became Naturalized (such as in the case of Marco Rubio), the child is not a Natural Born but Naturalized by birth.

You have explained the process correctly.
 

FarmerJohn

Has No Life - Lives on TB
My understanding is that only the candidate for president had to be natural born.

The Vice President must qualify in the same way that the President.

But I think that Rubio is not Constitutionally qualified, from the information I have about his birth.

Being born on US soil, Rubio qualifies under the "jus soli" standard.
 

Yarnball

Veteran Member
I don't understand the "born on US soil" thing. If I am a US citizen and go to Paris and have my baby early in Paris ... is that child a French citizen? I mean, as an American, I sure wouldn't expect him to be French! Would that child then be ineligible to be President ... because he was born early while I was merely on vacation in France? I sooooooo do not understand the anchor baby rationale. Because someone is here illegally & they have a baby, that baby is a US citizen? How does that make sense?
 

Guns-N-Moses

Senior Member
The Vice President must qualify in the same way that the President.

Being born on US soil, Rubio qualifies under the "jus soli" standard.



The first part is correct - as the VP must also meet the criteria, however I don't think the second statement is correct because there are two variables required to satisfy the criteria: Jus soli and Jus sanguinis **

Jus soli citizenship: "Jus soli" is a Latin phrase meaning "law of the soil." Jus soli citizenship is any citizenship that inheres in a person based on the location of his or her birth.

Jus sanguinis citizenship: "Jus sanguinis" is a Latin phrase meaning "law of the blood." Jus sanguinis citizenship is any citizenship that inheres in a person based on his or her ancestry.


As far as I know, Rubio qualifies for the Jus soli citizenship but not the Jus sanguinis citizenship.

So he meets only one of the criteria.

Rubio is not an Natural Born Citizen, thus technically not eligible.

-

** This is based on the writings of Emerich de Vattel, who was a major influence of our Founding Fathers

When the US Constitution was written, the "natural law" that dealt with issues such as nationality and allegiance to a sovereign was called "the law of nations."

Modernly, we call this "international law." In 1788, the preeminent codification, description and explanation of "the law of nations" was a work written by Emerich de Vattel, entitled THE LAW OF NATIONS, or principles of the law of nature applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns. The Founders were not only familiar with de Vattel's treatise, they relied on it extensively when they wrote laws and Constitutions (of their respective States, not just the Federal one.)
In Section 212 of de Vattel's treatise, he states the following:


§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”


Note that de Vattel defines "natural born citizen" as the purest form of citizenship, requiring both jus soli ("law of the soil") citizenship and jus sanguinis ("law of the blood") citizenship—with BOTH parents being citizens.
 
Last edited:

Guns-N-Moses

Senior Member
I don't understand the "born on US soil" thing. If I am a US citizen and go to Paris and have my baby early in Paris ... is that child a French citizen? I mean, as an American, I sure wouldn't expect him to be French! Would that child then be ineligible to be President ... because he was born early while I was merely on vacation in France? I sooooooo do not understand the anchor baby rationale. Because someone is here illegally & they have a baby, that baby is a US citizen? How does that make sense?

This is a bit tricky.

My understanding is as follows.

I believe that if this occurred (hypothetically), your child would have dual citizenship and thus would probably not be eligible to run for President. ‘Technically’ (Unless changes are made to the Constitution).

However (I believe) that if you were to have this child on an American territory (such as a Military base or Embassy) in said country, the child would then technically qualify per the provisions of the same statute that qualified John McCain in 2008.

So if you and your spouse are ‘Citizens of the USA’ and your child is born on US soil (or on US controlled land in a foreign country), the child should be eligible to run for the office of President.

So the moral of the story is: it would be best not to travel out of the country if you’re pregnant and ever want your child to become President.



RE: Anchor babies

Under current rule, Anchor babies are Citizens upon birth but not Natural Born - thus are not eligible to hold the office of President, because their parents are not US Citizens.
 

Guns-N-Moses

Senior Member
Ann Barnhardt Unloads on the Complicit Politicians in DC Ignoring Obama's Ineligibility

Which, to me proves that if no one in DC is worried about Obama's eligibility, then they won't worry about Rubio's eligibility



"Ann Barnhardt: All the "Rat Bastards" in DC Know Obama is Not Eligible "





The above clip is from her recent 'Liberty First' event, in Colorado Springs.

Here is the full one hour presentation.

 
Top