If the Republican Convention Could be Opened, Who Would You Replace Romney With?

Freeper Editorial ^ | 17 Jul 12 | Xzins

[Deb]

Great job! Another successful day pitting conservatives against each other and accomplishing nothing but acrimony.

So, what have we learned:

Cain is a RINO because he was appointed to the NY Fed.

Bachmann and Perry are RINOs because they were once Democrats.

You saw it necessary to bring up the West's military investigation. (Very subtle, nice touch.)

Sarah Palin is nothing when compared to Duncan Hunter. (Hunter was my candidate, but I would disagree.)

Jindal was an "anchor baby".

Neither Jindal and Rubio are citizens.

Newt has too much baggage.

The rest are garden variety RINOs and commies...with the exception of Walker and Petraeus, whose support of "Life" you question. Who's left? I guess its gotta be President Ron Paul and VP Virgil Goode. Well done.

[Westbrook]

> I think that the Florida GOP has caused West some problems
> with redistricting. I hope they are not trying to get rid
> of him.

The GOP elites are embarrassed by West for the very same reasons that I am PROUD of him.

[wtc911]

My choice didn’t run and I never enjoyed parlor games.

[KGeorge]

Gingrich (of course, though I’m not sure if the damage can be repaired. It might have to be as vp- but he is *essential*!)

with Palin or West. Or Jim DeMint. I like Bobby Jindal & especially Scott Walker, but I’m not sure a little more experience would be good. (Both have been tested by fire; Jindal with Katrina & Walker just having gone through the union bs) And Paul Ryan (though he is sooo good at what he does)

I’m wild about Gowdy, but he has no name recognition (would there be time?) We need to get the information out about Fast & Furious. That would be a great way to promote him.

[Forty-Niner]

Small point. Rubio is NOT a “natural born citizen” of Cuban. He is, however, probably a “born” Cuban citizen (I am unsure of Cuban Laws in this area) with the additional status of being a “born” US citizen under the 14th Amendment.

The circumstances of Rubio’s birth disqualify him from seeking the Office of the President. That is the only advantage that a real NBC has over Rubio. Other than that Rubio shares in all the rights and responsibilities of any other US citizen....born or naturalized.

[WhiskeyX]

Marco Rubio was a natural born citizen of Cuba because: 1. His father was a citizen of Cuba with a Cuban passport upon emigration from Cuba and immigration into the United States; 2. his father was still a citizen of Cuba when his son, Marco Rubio was born; 2. his mother was likewise a Cuban citizen from the the time of emigration in 1956 to the birth of her son in 1975; 3. Cuban law in 1975 automatically granted Cuban citizenship to the child of Cuban citizen parents inside Cuba and outside Cuba; 4. Cuban law continued to grant the children born abroad to Cuban citizen parents Cuban citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, even when the parents naturalized as foreign citizens with their children. Consequently, Marco Rubio could have claimed his natural born Cuban citizenship as late as reaching the age of majority, or about age 18 in 1993. This natural born allegiance to a foreign sovereign is the very definition of why the authors of the U.S. Constitution decided it was necessary to include the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution to disqualify all persons who ever had allegiance to another sovereign other than the Citizens of the United States.

[xzins]

FWIW, I researched this about a year or 2 ago, and found articles saying his mother, Oriales, had become a citizen years before her husband. I looked for those same articles, but have no idea now where I found them at the time.

In looking, I found a number of articles indicating that the timelines had been updated since last I looked. They are indicating his mother became a citizen in 1975 at the same time as his father. That being the case, your position has merit.

Were I to view this differently it would be based on the nation’s earliest naturalization laws (1790?) that would have coincided with the 18th century understanding of what becoming a citizen at that time entailed. As I recall, it was 3 pronged:

1. 2 years residency
2. Appearance before any magistrate
3. Oath of allegiance.

I believe his parents arrived in the US in the neighborhood of 1959-61 to stay. During that time, it appears they did appear before the legal system for permanent residency, maybe more than once. The only question would be the type of oath required for permanent residency and how it compares with the 1790’s oath. They had clearly met 1&2 before Marco’s birth in 1971.

[xzins]

I would take it point by point, but too much time involved.

Suffice to say that Jindal IS an anchor baby, and that I said BOTH Jindal and Rubio ARE citizens, just not “natural born citizens” per the time of the writing of the US Constitution.

So, if you’re not accurate about what’s wrong or accurate about what’s right, I really don’t need to address the rest of the post other than to say that you need to reread everything you think you understood.

Other than that, why do you care? After all, you ABO’s think Romney’s coasting to victory. What’s a little questioning of his record by some nameless freeper gonna accomplish anyway? This should just slide off your back.

[Perdogg]

I did not say that, I was quoting some one.

[Perdogg]

“Suffice to say that Jindal IS an anchor baby, and that I said BOTH Jindal and Rubio ARE citizens, just not “natural born citizens” per the time of the writing of the US Constitution.”

This is nonsense. I could care less about “per the time of the writing of the US Constitution.” I care about the Constitution; the two parent requirement is not in the Constitution. This is make believe.

[WhiskeyX]

There were and there still are quite a number of commentaries which attempted to cast doubt on whether or not one or both of the parents naturalized as U.S. Citizens before 1975. To make a long story short, they were simply wrong or even offered in an attempt to deceive. The simple fact is that they were Cuban citizens granted permanent resident privilege for aliens after their immigration to the United States in 1956. Note, this was 19 years before Marco Rubio was born. The parents and almost two decades in which to naturalize as U.S. Citizens and thereby qualify their son as a natural born citizen, but they failed to do so for whatever reason/s. Consequently, their son was acquired the natural born Cuban citizenship of his parents, and particularly his father's Cuban citizenship upon birth in Miami, Florida. This Cuban citizenship was in addition to any right of native born U.S. citizenship Marco Rubio would later choose to accept upon his age of majority.

The U.S. Government did not have a Federal immigration law until the mid-19th Century, because the sovereign States determined citizenship law instead of the Federal Government. New Jersey's citizenship laws treated the citizenship of women more favorably than most other states in 1787-1800. Upon the Federal Government adopting uniform immigration and naturalization statutes that superceded the State naturalization laws, who could naturalize as U.S. Citizens and how came under the authority of the U.S. Government. Before then, a person became a citizen of a State in accordance with State immigration and naturalization laws in order to become a U.S. Citizen.

In 1971, the immigration and neutralization law was the responsibility of the U.S. Government and not the State of Florida. Under the then existing Federal statutory law and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Marco Rubio had the right to claim U.S. citizenship upon native birth or Cuban citizenship at birth by the act of his parents until he confirmed or denied that act of his parents by accepting or rejecting his right to claim his natural born Cuban citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

Another insuperable problem with trying to use an 18th Century, 19th Century, or 20th Century statute or Constitutional Amendment to confer or retract citizenship is the fact that such law is manmade and not natural inborn citizenship. Any form of native born citizenship can be altered by manmade laws. Natural born citizenship cannot be altered by manmade laws, because the membership in the community is determined by being born the child of two parents who are members of the community. While such a natural born citizen can forfeit or abandon such citizenship after birth, nothing manmade law can change the fact of nature. All forms of statutory citizenship from naturalization to native born citizenship to alien parents are the artifacts of manmade law, which can be changed by man by changes in the laws. All laws employing jus soli to confer citizenship are examples of manmade laws making the child a citizen, rather than the child being the natural inheritor of the parents’ citizenship and membership in the community. Reliance upon the 14th Amendment and/or immigration and naturalization laws to determine citizenship precludes the possibility of a natural born citizenship.

[WhiskeyX]

On the contrary, the two parent definition is inherent with the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution, whereas th uniform immigration and naturalization laws did not appear in the Constitution, because they were powers reserved to the States until the mid-19th Century. So, it is your misrepresentations of the Consitution and its Amendments which constitute nonsense.

[MinorityRepublican]

Still in denial?

[xzins]

The following is the text of the Naturalization Act of 1790 passed by the US Congress:

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof

on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,

and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;

and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.

And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:

Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

So, I repeat: If we're going to use the 18th century understanding of "natural born citizen", then we need to use no more restrictiveness to attain "natural born citizenship" than was used at that same time.

Since the Constitution was completed in 1787, then the first law dealing with naturalization that would have had the same understanding would have been the Naturalization Act of 1790.

[xzins]

Nope, deuphrates :>)

[Servant of the Cross]

If the sky could be a different color than "blue", what color would you make it?

[xzins]

sunset

[Servant of the Cross]

Good choice. I have officially declared it 'sunset happy hour' in EST.

[Perdogg]

The law 1790 is immaterial. Both Jindal and Rubio were born in the US. If the founding fathers were interested in applying the two parentage clause to nbC, then they would have included it. It would have required only four to six words. However, having sid that, the 14th Amendment made this moot.

[Perdogg]

I want to make one point. I enjoy reading and responding to your post eventhough we do not always agree. However, we probably agree about 90% of the time.

Having said that, I wanted to be clear that my belief on Rubio’s or Jindal’s status does not absolve 0bama of any duplicity in his own birth record. If 0bama is discovered to have been born in Hawaii to parents who are not ambassadors or enemy combandants, then I would say he is nbC. I will be applying the standard to all, which it should.

However, if facts bear our different information, then I will be on a the ‘birther’ bandwagon.