Skip to comments.Rubio’s Mom Changed His Mind on Immigration
Posted on 02/08/2013 5:00:32 PM PST by Olog-hai
Marco Rubios softening stance toward immigration reform boils down to his mom, a new profile of the fast-rising Florida senator reveals.
Dont mess with the immigrants, my son, Oriales Garcia Rubio told her youngest son during a Dec. 21 phone call, Time magazine reports. Illegal immigrants, she said, are human beings just like us, and they came for the same reasons we came. To work. To improve their lives.
Rubio took his mothers words to heart, and says they are shaping his work on immigration.
I have to balance that humanity with reality, he said. We have immigration laws. They have to be followed. But yeah, she reminded me that theres a human element to this as well. As a policymaker, you have to strike a balance.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Please explain your rant. Otherwise I have to assume you have either confused my answer with another person’s answer or you are off your meds.
Yea, we know your kind. The democrats best friend. We don’t need your help to beat the socialist.
amazing. Linking arms with Democrats and bringing millions of new Dem voters is good and opposing that is Democrats best friend?
You aren’t trying to beat the socialists, you are joining them.
If the bill actually said they cant get benies for 10 years of probation then a Scotus decision to give them benefits (which is believable) would nullify those same ones on probation's legalization too. Then they are illegal getting benefits till deported.
The SCOTUS is not going to give anyone citizenship or Green cards.
All Rub has to do is remove ‘path to voting’ and Dems will reject it.
Succinctly put justiceseeker93. To put your true statement into current legal context, Chief Justice Marshall, citing Vattel, really is authoritative, but some will call his comment “Dictum” because the decision in The Venus didn't require the definition, which was cited at least twenty times until Chief Justice Waite needed the definition to complete his reasoning in Minor v. Happersett, 1875, turning the Vattel definition into positive law - precedence. The court can ignore precedence, but will have to give us reasons why, and they have not done so.
What still remains a mystery, though one can surmise, is why our “originalist” pundit, Mark Levin, or even Limbaugh, whose brother, father, and grandfather were/are attorneys, have never honestly and directly addressed the issue? Levin uses the purist Alinsky, rule 5 approach, ridicule, to discourage a discussion based upon the reasoning of Bastiat, Thomas Paine, James Wilson, John Marshall, John Jay, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton.
Levin's shtick rests upon his claimed lifelong fondness for the framers and founders, and his skill with invective and ridicule? But he won't risk talking honestly about what they clearly said and understood. He even quoted a Madison letter explaining why there are not definitions in the Constitution proper - on page 37 of Liberty and Tyranny. Feet of clay!
Beck with all his excitement as he discovers the words of our framers, and collects antique volumes, won't mention Franklin's solicitation and delivery of early translations of Vattel’s Law of Nations to pre-revolutionary leaders as they argured independence, wrote The Declaration. Franklin's letter thanking Vattel’s publisher describing how constantly the volumes serve as a reference tells us how Franklin was shaping the construction of our Constitution. Beck blissfully ignores, along with the rest of the media, the quantitative fact that Vattel was, by at least factor of four, the most cited legal authority in American jurisprudence between 1790 and 1821. Somehow, there is no room for facts or truth in today's dialog, probably because truth leads to the inconvenient truth that all our wise men were afraid to discuss the truth of Obama's ineligibility.
He doesn't mention the Hamilton letter to Washington where Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, describes Vattel as his most trusted source for advising Washington on issues of international law, implying understanding between the two. He doesn't mention historical accounts, a delightfull book written during WWII, referring to newspaper accounts of Washington's first day as President, where Law of Nations is the only book on his desk in New York. The existing records from what became the New York Public Library confirm that Washington borrowed the book in 1789, and never returned it.
We are being “played” by both sides, who are probably correct in assuming Limbaugh's “low-information voters.” Obama is illegitimate and the response by our media, representatives, and judicial systems is to evade any serious discussion. Rubio certainly knows. Perhaps the coup is already too far advanced to reverse, and those thought to influence public opinion are merely trying to protect what they have?
With all due respect, that only those who are born in America and both of whose parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth can be deemed to be natural-born citizens is not, and has never been, the prevailing interpretation of the natural-born citizen clause. A natural-born citizen of the United States is one who has been a U.S. citizen since birth (a citizen at birth pursuant to the laws at the time of his birth); the term is used in contradistinction to a naturalized citizen, who became a U.S. citizen sometime after birth.
The confusion stems from the fact that, under18th century British law, persons born in Great Britain whose parents were not citizens would not be British subjects at birth (Britain had jus sanguinis to the exclusion of jus soli). But in the United States, Congress adopted as early as 1791 two ways for persons to be U.S. citizens at birth—being born in the U.S. (jus soli), or being born abroad of U.S.-citizen parents (jus sanguinis). Jus soli was later enshrined in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which declared all persons born in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to be citizens at birth. Had the U.S. never adopted laws regarding U.S. citizenship, then the common law would have been applied and the U.S. only would have jus sanguinis. But the common law only is in effect in the absence of a statute, and Congress decided to supercede the common law in that instance. The U.S. Constitution and laws passed by Congress, not British legal traditions, are the Supreme Law of the Land.
Another misunderstanding has occurred due to a recent misreading of the 19th-century Minor case. The Minor case was about a woman claiming some right, and the Court first had to consider whether she was a cititen. The woman had been born in Iowa of citizen parents, and the opinion of the unanimous Supreme Court stated that, *at the very least*, a person born in the U.S. to citizen parents was a natural-born citizen. The Court also wrote that the term natural-born citizen meant citizen at birth and was used in contradistinction to naturalized citizen.
And insisting that natural-born status required that both parents be citizens at the time the child was born was a fringe position even in the 19th century. When Chester Arthur ran for Vice President (which has the same NBC requirement as the presidency) in 1880, Democrats claimed that he had been born in Canada instead of northern Vermont, and some even claimed that he had been born in Ireland (where his father was from), had he been born abroad, with a father who was a British subject, he would not have been a U.S. citizen at birth and thus not eligible for the vice presidency. But you know what claim was *not* made by prominent Democrats? That the fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Chester’s birth meant that Chester was not an NBC (his father became a naturalized citizen years after Chester was born).
The both-parents-must-be-citizens requirement was still a fringe position in 1916, when recently retired Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes was the Republican candidate for the presidency. Hughes’s father was Scottish, and it was undisputed that he was a British subject (and not a U.S. citizen) when Charles was born. Yet no Republican objected to his nomination, and, as far as I know, only one Democrat rose in opposition on constitutional grounds, penning a well written, but entirely unconvincing, argument about the both-parents-must-be-citizens requirement. His main evidence was how some letters from U.S. consular officers to Americans with French parents warning them that, if they moved to France, France might draft them into military service *because they were French citizens under French law*, somehow “proved” that such persons were ‘t U.S. citizens at birth (when all it meant was that U.S. law is valid in the U.S. and French law is valid in France). And if that argument proved anything, it proved too much; if Italy or Germany claimed that the grandchildren of Italians or Germany were Italian or German citizens, would that mean that someone born in the U.S. with two U.S.-citizen parents wouldn’t be a NBC due to a foreign government’s claims? Is Italian or German law the Supreme Law of the Land in America, having precedence over U.S. law and our Constitution? In any event, no state kept Hughes off the ballot, and Congress counted each of Hughes’s 250+ electoral votes (he came within less than 1% of carrying California, which would have given him the victory over President Wilson).
Which brings us to 2008. For years, it had been an undisputed that Barack Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen, which, had the both-parents position been the prevailing interpretation of the NBC Clause, would have meant that Obama was ineligible. But you did *not* see prominent constitutional scholars or jurists step forward to argue that position. Only when circumstantial evidence pointing to Obama having been born abroad—which, given federal law in 1961 would have meant that he was not a U.S. citizen at birth—did his possible disqualification become an issue. When some plaintiffs later claim that he was disqualified because his father was not a citizen, the claim was laughed out of court, and no state even considered keeping him off the ballot because of his father not being a citizen—the only serious controversy was that it wasn’t clear whether Obama had been born in Hawaii or abroad, and had he been born abroad them he would not be a NBC under U.S. law at the time of his birth. In the end, Congress counted every one of his EVs, with no objections from any members based on his father’s non-citizenship.
So, given this history, you believe that Republicans unilaterally should disarm and apply, for the first time ever, a fringe interpretation of the NBC Clause so as to disqualify Marco Rubio (and Bobby Jindal, and maybe Ted Cruz?) from the presidency? I will defend your right to say that Marco Rubio would make a bad president, or that he isn’t good on the issues, or that he is untested, or that he would lose the election—while I can’t say that I agree with any of those positions, reasonable minds may disagree—but I will not engage in unilateral disarmament based on a legal theory that is disrespectful to U.S. sovereignty (giving foreign law precedence over U.S. law) and which has been rejected again and again by our judicial and political institutions for well over a century.
you really nailed it. Finally
“Rubio took his mothers words to heart, and says they are shaping his work on immigration. “
Well that and he needs a big accomplishment to catapult his 2016 presidential run.
What Difference Does it Make?
LongBlow will be all over you for that, because Mark Levin says Rubio is NBC. Both of them are wrong.
That was a great series, too bad they loaded it with F-bombs, else it would be a good tool for teaching young skulls full of mush about politics.
If you insult people, their supporters circle the wagons. If you argue for preserving the fundaments of American culture, some will still circle the wagons, but others will listen.
Incidentally, for those who do not know this: Jefferson purchased Louisiana precisely for the purpose of protecting the Anglo/Celtic coastal cultures from the Hispanic. He did not disrespect anyone. He understood that we are not all interchangeable, however. (To put it very simply, whom do you think had a clearer understanding of nations, history & culture, Jefferson or Clinton, Bush or Obama?)
We need to have a fuller discussion of these questions, and not let the Leftist media intimidate us into walking on eggs, as it were.
Speaking of Idiots.......
Hispanics aren't going away, should we just cede this Country without a fight?
You Open Borders Pimps are out in force today.
You should ping LongBlow for help.
What do you call a government that is so bad their biggest source of income, comes from illegals that are here working, and send money home.
Illegals self deport as soon as laws are enforced, even just a little. Getting troll vibes....
That does not look like the manner of spirit in which the War of Independence materialized. That war is the foundation upon which Jefferson even attained the level of power he did. Sometimes it really is necessary to take arms against a sea of troubles rather than endure the slings and arrows of leftist fortune.
Thanks itsahoot, but I wasn’t talking about definitions of NBC, though I definitely have my opinion on that. It is simply what I believe. I simply believe that our president should be born American of two American parents. There should be no other allegiances involved. In my awkward way, that is the point I was making.
I don’t want to get into the whole NBC thing though, as I said, I definitely have my opinion on that one. ;-)
Pretty much. Else just make the Constitution and Bill of Rights into @ss wipe.
Lawyers have compiled thousands upon thousands of pages of documents to tell us simple minded folks what the Constitution means.
We haven't even figured out what Is means.
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.