Replies

YOU are closer to getting it. They are BOTH natural born citizens

Nonsense. How can it be "natural" if there's doubt???? "Natural-born" in all other respects means "by virtue of one's nature, qualities, or innate talent." If you have to solve doubts, then it is NOT by one's nature, it is NOT innate. Being born in a country other than where your parents was born is NOT natural. It takes extraordinary circumstances to occur. Rubio's parents were exiled. Obama's father was here on a student visa. Neither of their children could be natural-born citizens unless the parents naturalized.

It's what the court says. if they are born here, then they are born "in the allegiance"---both classes

Wrong. The court said "in the allegiance" was defined by "adhering" to the one side or the other, whether it was Great Britain or the United States. Justice Gray NEVER used this citation as the controlling criteria for Wong Kim Ark's citizenship. His citation from U.S. v Rhodes was within the first 1/3 of the decision. His NEXT citation of the term "natural-born citizen" was from the Naturalization Act of 1790 and then from the Minor v. Happersett decision which defined natural-born citizen as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." From this point forward, the term "natural-born citizen" is NEVER used again. Gray COULDN'T use it because Ark was NOT a natural-born citizen by the very precedent and definition by which he was bound.

You've now acknowledged that Ark's citizenship is a second class of citizenship (it is NOT a second class of natural-born citizenship. Such an idea is an oxymoron.) and that it still comes with doubt and with strings. The citation you want to use about allegiance is originally from Shanks v. Dupont in 1830. If that decision established that the children of foreigners could be natural-born citizens (which it does NOT do), then there would never have been a necessity for the 14th amendment, nor for the Minor case, nor for the Wong Kim Ark case.

It's time for you to be honest with yourself and to admit the TRUTH. The Supreme Court has a single, exclusive, no-doubt definition of natural-born citizen. It applies ONLY to children born to citizen parents. Period. Close is not good enough. Rubio is NOT a natural-born citizen. Had his parents naturalized first, then the answer would be different ... but it's not.