Skip to comments.Marco Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen, just like John Fremont and Chester Arthur
Posted on 04/27/2012 8:24:47 AM PDT by vadum
According to the Constitution, to be eligible for the presidency (or vice presidency), a person must be a natural born citizen of the United States. The purpose of this restriction is to prevent a foreigner from becoming the nations chief executive.
How can people become U.S. citizens? There are just two ways; either they are born citizens or they become citizens later in life. In the first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a natural born citizen. In the second case, anyone who is a citizen of another country at birth, but is granted U.S. citizenship sometime afterward, is a naturalized citizen.
For example, John McCain, though born in Panama, is eligible for the presidency, because he became a citizen at birth. Similarly, had Gen. George Meade sought the presidency, he would have been eligible because, though born in Spain, he was a U.S. citizen by nature of his birth. Any non-naturalized U.S. citizen over the age of thirty-five with fourteen years of residence can be President of the United States.
Sadly, this common-sense, logical approach does not dissuade some conservative pundits from inventing a new constitutional requirement for the presidency. Despite the plain meaning of the text, they claim that, to be eligible, a persons parents must also be U.S. citizens. A few even assert that ones parents must also be natural born citizens. Ill spare you a recitation of their nonsense about native born or Emerich de Vattel or whatnot. Finding things in the Constitution that are not there is for Democrats!
Now that Mitt Romney has become the presumptive Republican nominee, there is speculation that the junior senator from Florida will be his running mate. Marco Rubios parents were from Cuba and did not become U.S. citizens until he was four years old. Voices from the fringe are claiming that this means Rubio is not eligible and theyre wrong.
Marco Rubio was born is Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Per the Constitution, the citizenship status of his parents (or grandparents or anyone but himself) is irrelevant.
Lets look at U.S. political history for more proof. Were there other instances of a presidential or vice presidential nominee with a foreign-born parent? You betcha!
The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. He was born in South Carolina to an American mother and a French father. Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France. He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his sons birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont. One would be hard-pressed to find any suggestion at the time that Fremonts birth made him ineligible for the presidency.
The seventh vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Chester Arthur, was born in Vermont to an American mother and a foreign-born father. William Arthur was born a British citizen in County Antrim, Ireland who did not become a U.S. citizen until his son was fourteen years old.
John Fremont, George Meade, Chester Arthur, John McCain, Marco Rubio all eligible for the presidency. Republicans should not allow themselves to be distracted away from contesting the 2012 presidential campaign on the real issues.
Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country. Back to Basics for the Republican Party is his acclaimed history of the GOP, cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision. His Grand Old Partisan website celebrates more than fifteen decades of Republican heroes and heroics. See www.grandoldpartisan.com for more information.
In many if not most cases, you would be a “citizen by statute” in other words a “naturalized” citizen.
Unless you were born in the continental United States, your “Natural Born” status is in question. Alaska & Hawaii could be a problem depending on WHEN you were born. In Obama’s case, WHERE was he born.
The citizenship and naturalization laws are complex regarding territories etc. Many people THINK they know all about it, they are wrong!
If you study this for awhile as I have, you will realize, “you don't know, what you don't know”.
Not really. Rubio's parents were born in 1927 and 1931 in Cuba, however Cuba during that era, was a US Protectorate from 1901-1934 under the Platt Amendment.
It may not be a 'bingo there is the answer' but it does give a different legal foothold.
First, JC Fremont wasn’t elected.
Second, if memory serves me correctly, Chester Arthur burned his records shortly before his death, “cleverly” concealing a lot of things from posterity.
Out here on what Mr Zak calls “the fringe,” there those of us who believe there are three kinds of citizen:
1) naturalized, (foreign born)
2) natural, (born in USA, parents maybe or maybe not citizens)
3) natural born, (both parents citizens at time of birth, whether naturalized or natural)
If that is not so, there was no reason to differentiate the categories within the Constitution.
The left will man the ramparts defending obama. If the right elects a president with the exact same qualifications, in regard to his birth, they will attack unmercifully until the “usurper” is deposed. They will never admit to the hypocrisy of their position, and they will never relent.
To use Zak’s logic, one of the Chinese anchor babies, born on a maternity tourism jaunt to the good ol’ US of A, then raised in Communist China would make a dandy president.
Much as what happened with the current occupant of 1600 Penn’a Ave, Wash DC, except he was raised in Indonesia of Communist parents.
Were your parents citizens when you were born? (I am assuming they were probably born here as well, being so-called “Native” Americans).
Then you are a natural born citizen. Indian, Native American, Hindu, Flat Earther, doesn't matter. Born in the U.S. to U.S. citizens, you are a “Natural Born” citizen”
That and/or the writer is an example of what happens when the progressives/socialists/liberals, unions, etc. take over the school system.
What the hack propagandist is saying is NOT what was taught in middle school as late as the early 70s. What else have they gotten wrong and then taught us and our kids?
Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.
It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.
Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.
~ Ronald Reagan, from his first inaugural speech as governor of California, January 5, 1967
He and obama are NOT NBC.
Well, that pretty much captures the simple-minded view.
Yup, In the words of Richard “Bull” Moll on ‘Night Court’, “I only have 2 functional brain cells”.
Sorry, I made a mistake, Swiss, not French. The Laws of Nations was a given set of laws in Europe at the time that those nations, specifically the English, used as almost a baseline for their own interactions.
US Law however, is based on Common Law, not the “Laws of Nations” which was an old offshoot of Roman Law (if my memory of the history of it is correct).
If such was the case, why the need for the 14th amendment???
Yes and Yes, however, I’ve seen the argument that any dual allegiance makes one not NBC as that is the ‘foundation’ of why they had it.
I don't think that's accurate. I think his mother became a citizen before his birth. It was his father there are questions about. His father, though, had been an immigrant. Had returned to Cuba apparently due to the instability and revolution, and apparently with the intent of getting his wife (wife-to-be?) to the US. He accomplished that.
He then did appear before the authorities for immigration well after he'd lived here for 2 years. He then accepted various jobs in various locations as an acceptable immigrant and as a Cuban refugee, based on that law as well.
He would have met the requirements for citizenship of the original immigration and citizenship law if he had lived under that first law in the 1790s.
So, if we're going to apply a 1700s definition of "natural born", then we must also apply the first law of the 1790s (1793, I think), to his case.
Had the same situation applied in Rubio's case in the 1790's, there would have been no denying Rubio's natural born citizen status. Both parents had gone before the authorities after two years residence and indicated their desire to be here. Rubio had been born prior to that in the US.
I have no problem with Rubio as a candidate. Jindal, on the other hand, was not born to citizen parents.
If your neighbor steals a case of beer from your local “Stop & Rob”, does that mean it is legal for you to do so?
IMO the Founders intended the normal, common law definition of legal terms unless they explicitly state otherwise.
Well, then, General, can you cite a common law definition of "natural born citizen" that dates from the time of the adoption of the Constitution?
Understood, and Vattels writing is not "French law"
The US Constitution and US laws in general are based rather in common law, an almost entirely separate code based on centuries of English judicial decisions.
Not sure that is true.
I wonder if this thread will get any posts
Well, I’m posting. And, while I’m here I’ll say that I’m so glad to hear some common sense reasoning on this subject for a change. You learn to recognize the NBC fanatics on here and ignore their posts w/o even reading them. (NBC = Natural Born Citizen.)
It’s certainly an interesting point. But I wonder if citizens of U. S. protectorates were ever free to migrate to any of the continental United States. They certainly weren’t permitted other citizenship privileges—like voting.
Turn loose of your bitterness man. It will kill you. Holding on to bitterness is like drinking poison and waiting for your enemy to die.
I think this is an appeal to Scottish Law.