Skip to comments.Mark Rubios Parents
Posted on 11/05/2010 10:19:53 PM PDT by chatter4
With all the talk of many conservatives hoping that Mark Rubio could one day run for President, I have a few questions. From the information available on the Web, It is said that Mark Rubio's parents were here in exile from Cuba. That would imply that they had hopes of returning there one day. Did his parents ever become US citizens? Did they become US citizens prior to Mark's birth?
Yes, I too would like to know.
I think he has more concern over his wife, a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But I can already hear the criticisms and crass comments sure to come concerning his wife and the mother of his children. Liberals are sick people.
“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.” 14th Amendment.
Rubio was born in the US, he’s a US citizen. End of story.
He was born in Miami in 1971.
Rubio was born on 28 May 1971 in Miami, FL. US territory, I do believe. That makes him eligible.
What nationality were his parents at the time?
“He was born in Miami in 1971.”
I asked about his parents citizenship.
“Rubio was born in the US, hes a US citizen. End of story.”
I did not ask where he was born, or question his citizenship-I asked about his parents citizenship.
He is not Mark Rubio, he is Marco Rubio, and is a Citizen.
Not relevant, unless they were Cuban diplomats with diplomatic immunity to US jurisdiction.
I don’t think that is what chatter4 is getting at. If Marco’s parents were not citizens at the time of his birth, then he is a citizen by virtue of being born in the US, but he is not a “natural born” citizen and is not eligible to be President.
|Rubio was born in the US, hes a US citizen. End of story.|
|Help me out here. What is the intent and effect of the qualifier "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" on "All persons born or naturalized in the United States".|
..........................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. 14th Amendment.
Rubio was born in the US, hes a US citizen. End of story..................
Wonderful response! I think that the state of Florida should question his credentials, and thus open the flood gates of a certin President who may not be able to present his credentials!
I think he has a bc to prove where he was born.
Maybe they were Cuban citizens at the time of Marco Rubio’s birth, maybe they were not. The only thing that matters is that Marco was born here, on US soil and thus, is subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
“He is not Mark Rubio, he is Marco Rubio, and is a Citizen.”
Perhaps you may want to review the questions I asked?
No it is not end of story. Sounds like the anti birthers like Boortz, Coulter, Ingraham, Beck, O’Reiill, Hugh Hewitt, Medved and other idiots.
Following the Øbozo Liberal line, eh?
Citizen, yes. Natural Born Citizen, no.
Only Citizen parentage determines a Citizen's Natural Born status.
For any other elected office, that is true, but chatter4 posted the topic in relation to Marco becoming President someday. Natural born citizens are persons born in the US of parents who are citizens.
Cuban, unless someone else knows otherwise?
“...and thus open the flood gates of a certin President...”
You misspelled Cretin ...
You are correct.
Both parents? Per whose definition?
We know that. But were his parents naturalized citizens before his birth?
“Hate to pile on, but the path to Atomic Energy was discovered in Europe as well.”
I have read that natural born is interchangable with native born.
Found it read into the Congrssional Record pertaining to George Romney, who was not native born, and hence not eligible.
It is legal opinion, not law.
His parents were like this, in my book they are Americans.
“Born American, But in the Wrong Place”
By Peter W. Schramm
note— One of the best reads I have ever found. Excellent.
Thank you Mario Rubio and may God Bless.
What difference does that make?
Here is the article, published in the Congressional Record of the House une 14, 1967.
“The Constitution itself does not define the term natural-born citizen. At the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, under the common law, the terms native born citizen and natural born citizen were synonymous, but. the customary usage was to refer to such type of citizenship as natural born Instead of native born.”
Someone born on U.S. soil to foreign parents is subject to the jurisdiction of their parent's home country. That is what that means.
......................You misspelled Cretin ...........
Oops! that was a whoreiffic mistake as applied to our president and chief wookie!
I sure hope that they will have a wonderful Indian video conference call with all the Indian officials.
OH! wait a moment!
Coupl’a $$$$ hundred million per day to talk to them???
Geez, maybe they should cash in their Denny’s waffle coupons and get some free Orange Juice at those prices!!
Here's a link to his acceptance speech:
That analysis used a number of false and erroneous statements and claims. English common law was not the source of law for all jurisdictions of the United States at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Each of the states was responsible for establishing its own citizenship and naturalization laws following their declaration of independence from Great Britain. A uniform system of naturalization law for all of the United States did not occur until decades into the 19th Century following the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Until then, the requirements for citizenship differed from one state to the next in the United States of America, and these states used a variety of Continental European (Ancien Regime), english Common Law, and natural law principles from England, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Rome, and more.
Alexander Hamilton proposed to make any citizen of the United States eligible for the Office of the President so long as the age and residency requirements were also satisfied. John Jay objected and asked for the qualifications to require a natural born citizen requirement. The erroneous analysis omits the obvious distinction that a natural born citizen requirement is superfluous and quite unnecessary if the intent was to authorize any U.S. citizen to be eligible to the Office of the President. Even the English Common law being cited required two citizen parents for the child to be deemed to have English/British citizenship by jus sanguinnis.
The whole issue was about a determination of which sovereign could claim the allegiance of a child at the time of the child’s birth. Dual citizenship was not recognized and was an impossibility at the time the laws and the U.S. Constitution were written and practiced. It is quite clear whether using Charles Vattel’s Law of Nations, blacksone’s Commentaries, or the ancient laws and traditions of Roman law common to Europe and America; citizenship followed the citizenship of the parents or the father, unless you were born in the Jurisdiction of the Sovereign of Great Britain. Under the naturalization laws of the some states after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, birth upon U.S. soil sometimes was not enough to qualify for citizenship in that state and thereby the United States.
The person presently calling himself Barack Hussein Obama II is on public record acknowledging that his father was a citizen of Great Britain at the time of his own birth. Vattel’s Law of Nations used by John Jay and the other authors of the U.S. Constitution defined a natural born citizen as the child of two parents having U.S. citizenship at the time of the child’s birth. Obviously, even he acknowledges that he did not have the requisite two U.S. citizen parents and undivided loyalty to the United States at the time of his birth.
The “subject to the jurisdiction” appears to refer to the children born to diplomats of foreign countries who are in the US. See also: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html
Can anyone name one single case that holds that mere birth citizenship does not allow a person to be President? or one section of the US code or its regulations? Just one thing that backs up this notion that people who are citizens by birth are somehow different than natural born citizens for the purposes of becoming President?
The fact that the Constitution specifically makes the distinction. Otherwise it would be ridiculous to state that a President and Vice President had to be “natural born” citizens.
Rubio was born in the US, hes a US citizen. End of story.
NOT! Just like Your President, unless both his parents became US citizens BEFORE his birth, he is not a Natural Born Citizen....therefore just like Obama, He would not be eligable ...
but he is not a natural born citizen and is not eligible to be President.
Just like Obama is not eligible...but seems like everyone is ignoring that fact!
Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, etc. were all born to parents who were obviously British subjects, not U.S. citizens.
Unless there is some sort of "grandfathering clause" in the Constitution, then being born in one of the 13 Colonies was good enough for them to be POTUS-eligible.
go back to DU...
It’s not so simple.
Guess what! There is a “grandfathering clause.”
I have to agree.
There should not be even a HINT of allegiance to any other country. Anybody who wishes to become president should be born on US soil to two parents who are citizens. I wish the whole natural born/native born issue would be clarified so further confusion could be avoided.
The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that that eliminated them from being natural born and, thus, from eligibility, they included the grandfather clause which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being natural born. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.
(As posted by freeper 2ndDivisionVet on the website "Natural Born Conservative") http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com/2009/03/true-definition-of-natural-born-citizen.html
The comments on the page are interesting as well.
Barry's problem is that he can't even get to the point about arguing if he was natural born as his birth certificate has more variations than Lady Gaga has wardrobe changes. And the only people that claim to have seen his birth certificate and CERTIFIED IT were Pelosi and Reid. Ya, no conflict there.
And now Rubio is on the chopping block. Kid hasn't even served a day in the Senate and some are already harping that he can't be president.
The interesting thing about Rubio is that he's Cuban (and why don't I recall this argument when Mel Martinez became senator? It's quite funny how much Rubio strikes fear into the hearts of liberals)and Cuban emigres are treated far differently than economic refugees that flood the US from the Southwest.
Technically, they can't be illegal aliens. They are pretty much granted resident status the moment their feet touch US soil.
And the worst thing of all for the anti-Rubio bunch is that it really can't be argued that he or his parents were ever subject to the laws or or owed allegiance to Cuba after arriving in the US.
American Indians were only made into US citizens circa 1980. I believe President Carter signed the law making them citizens.
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.