MARCO RUBIO IS AN ANCHOR BABY AND NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT!

rubio 37393_1

Yes you heard that right.  At the time Marco Rubio was born in the United States neither of his parents were United States Citizens.

Rubio was born in Miami, Florida on May 28, 1971, the second son and third child of Mario Rubio and Oria Garcia. His parents were Cubans who had immigrated to the United States in 1956 and were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975!. That makes little Marco an anchor baby. Don’t expect him to think like the average American.  He has now both said and shown us he doesn’t respect the office of the senate, and is not to be trusted to the office of President!

The question that remains is:  DOES MARCO RUBIO MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT?

The descriptive clause in the Constitution says this:

“Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time) may serve president of the United States.” (see link below)

When Marco Rubio announced he was running, for president, Orly Taitz, and Mario Apuzzo (who both filed multiple lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility) asserted that Mario Rubio was not eligible to run because he was born to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of his respective birth.  They both publically asserted that Marco Rubio is not eligible.

To me it appears that the answer is NO, Rubio is not qualified.  Why is the news silent on this one?

Oh and by the way, Rubio’s sob story for the campaign that his parents were Cuban refugees and fled to the US to escape the abusive power of Castro?  He forgot to tell you that his family arrived in the US in 1956 and Castro did not rise to power until 1959.  Another lie.

Written by Dianne Marshall

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/10/orly_taitz_birther_marco_rubio.php

Advertisements

64 thoughts on “MARCO RUBIO IS AN ANCHOR BABY AND NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT!

  1. PK says:

    Thats not what the constitution reads,

    here these will help you, every US president was US born to 2 US BORN parents, only one time in our past was there a constitutional crisis about this, when Chester Arthur assumed the presidency after Garfield was killed (Arthurs dad was Brazilian born) and not until obama being elected did we run across this crisis again (though people dont recognize it as such)

    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/natural-born-citizen-and-coverture/

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Please read what Bingham wrote. Then look at the link. Thank you.
      To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.” This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.

      “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

      There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.
      At the time Rubio was born 1971, his parents were still under the jurisdiction of Cuba. They did not become citizens until 1975.

      http://birthers.org/USC/14.html

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Bingham misspoke. He was not correct to ascribe the wording of the civil rights act of 1866 to the Constitution. That was an unbelievable error or ignorance or stupidity assuming the stenographer got his comments down correctly.
        The last paragraph contains a serious error. The word “not” in “not subject” should not be there. Only those who ARE subject are born as naturalized citizens by the authority of the amendment. Isn’t anyone reading the comments paying attention??

        Like

    2. Nathan Stein says:

      “Arthurs dad was Brazilian born” – – Uhhhh, no, Chester Arthur’s father, William Arthur was born in Ireland. [See “Gentleman Boss: The Life of Chester Alan Arthur” (Knopf, 1975) by Thomas C. Reeves]

      Liked by 1 person

  2. “Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time) may serve president of the United States.” (see link below)

    Not sure where you got that quote but the Supreme Court in Rogers V Bellei (1971) (majoritiy opinion) Said this
    “6. A contrary holding would convert what is congressional generosity into something unanticipated and obviously undesired by the Congress. Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process. The plaintiff here would force the Congress to choose between unconditional conferment of United States citizenship at birth and deferment of citizenship until a condition precedent is fulfilled. We are not convinced that the Constitution requires so rigid a choice. If it does, the congressional response seems obvious.
    7. Neither are we persuaded that a condition subsequent in this area impresses one with “second-class citizenship.” That cliche is too handy and too easy, and, like most cliches, can be misleading. That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light
    Page 401 U. S. 836
    of the conceded fact that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not “second-class.””

    And in the dissenting opinion they said this.

    “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship
    Page 401 U. S. 840
    under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress. It provided in part:
    “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.”
    1 Stat. 103, 104. This provision is the earliest form of the statute under which Bellei acquired his citizenship. Its enactment as part of a “Rule of Naturalization” shows, I think, that the First Congress conceived of this and most likely all other purely statutory grants of citizenship as forms or varieties of naturalization.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Please read what Bingham wrote. Then look at the link. Thank you.
      To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.” This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.

      “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

      There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.

      http://birthers.org/USC/14.html

      Liked by 1 person

      1. rtm9999 says:

        The intention of the 14th amendment was to give Constitutional enforcement teeth to the 1866 Civil Rights Amendment….
        The 1866 CRA was what actually naturalized the freed slaves as US citizens…..

        http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=c…html&Itemid=27
        Civil Rights Act
        April 9, 1866
        An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”

        The 1866 CRA is what Bingham is alluding to as he quoted in your post and what he uses to define “subject to the jurisdiction” and defines it in that one must “NOT (be) subject to any foreign power”….

        The USSC in Elk vs Wilkins (Which cited the Slaughterhouse cases… ) did not rule that John Elk was even a US citizen despite being born in the US because he was a member of an Indian tribe that was considered a dependent but sovereign alien nation and he needed to be naturalized as anyone subject to a foreign power needed to be.

        http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede…2/94/case.html
        U.S. Supreme Court
        Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
        Argued April 28, 1884
        Decided November 3, 1884
        “The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
        “No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.
        This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared Page 112 U. S. 102
        to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
        ………….
        “to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases,
        ……………
        This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared Page 112 U. S. 102
        to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.””

        Regarding anyone that will run to US vs WKA and English Common Law as if that makes everyone born in the US a “born citizen” …..

        English Common Law merely naturalized the children of foreigners. :

        http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
        § 214. Naturalization.(58)
        A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies.

        Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.” – Vattel / Law of Nations

        And English law allowed for a “middle” subject status that existed between “natural born subject” and a “naturalized subject” ….
        That class of subject was termed a “denizen” ….
        And a denizen’s children born after the denizen became a denizen was also considered to be a denizen!
        The king issued “letters of patent” so as to confer that denizen status via royal decree….

        “A denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: A high and incummicable branch of the royal prerogative. A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise , which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to his son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue[Children] of a denizen , born before denization cannot inherit to him; but his issue[children] born after, may. A denizen is not excused from paying an alien’s duty, and some other mercantile burdens. And no denizen can be of the privy councill, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown.” – Blackstone

        Becoming a denizen was considered to be a form of naturalization! :

        § 77. ” In Great Britain, naturalization has existed from
        an early period under two forms. It might be conferred : (1)
        by the sovereign by virtue of the prerogative ; (2) by act of
        Parliament. The first, as distinguished from the second, is
        known under the name of denization, and persons acquir-
        ing the character of subjects under it are termed denizens.
        When the status of a British subject is conferred by act of
        Parliament the proceeding is termed naturalization. Deniza-
        tion can be effected only by letters patent from the sov-
        ereign ; naturalization only by, or under, an act of the
        legislature. The difference between the two in point of
        effect is of a substantial character. Denization has no retro-
        spective operation, while by naturalization, conferred by act
        of Parliament, the alien is placed in exactly the same posi-
        tion as if he had been born a subject. A denizen is thus in
        an intermediate position between an alien and a natural-born
        subject, and partakes of both these characters.” ^

        And the son is considered to have the same citizenship status as his father. :

        An expression once made use of by an attorney-general
        of the United States^ is sometimes cited in support of the
        proposition that an individual may be clothed with a double
        nationality or citizenship at one and the same time.^ The
        conclusion of the attorney-general, in the language cited,
        finds no support either in modern public law or in municipal
        law. It may not be said in any correct sense that, in the
        case under consideration, the son had ” two nationalities.”
        As long as he remained a minor, the son followed the nation-
        ality or citizenship (original or acquired) of the father.* The
        maxim ” Partus sequitur patrem ” applies. During minor-
        ity the son was sub potestate parentis. The nationality or
        citizenship of the father was the nationality or citizenship
        of the son ; or, rather, during all the period of minority,
        the son did not possess any nationality or citizenship inde-
        pendent of his father. The moment the son attained major-
        ity, according to the law of domicile, the right of election
        (le droit d’optioji) applied to him ; and he was competent
        to decide whether he would be American or German. This
        election would, of course, be manifested by appropriate dec-
        larations and acts.^ The expression relied upon must have
        been used inadvertently ; for it does not display the accuracy
        or caution which characterizes other parts of the same
        opinion.
        ^ Lecture on Scientific History of Education.
        * Steinkauler’s Case, Opinions of Attorneys-General, Vol. XV. p. 17.
        * Advocate of Spain (J. D. McPherson), arg. in Buzzi’s Case before
        Umpire (Count Lewenhaupt), United States and Spanish Commission, Washington, D. C.
        * Pliillimore, Cora. Int. Law, Vol. I. p. 38, citing Foelix, Droit Int. Prive.

        -Treatise on Citizenship

        Liked by 1 person

      2. No where in Bingham’s statements or in the constituiton including the 14th Amendment are these words written down “Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time) may serve president of the United States.”

        The Constitution states “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” September 4, 1787.

        There are no caveats for a child born abroad and as I have shown you in my first response that the Supreme Court has held that those born abroad the following applies.

        “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship
        Page 401 U. S. 840
        under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. ”

        Justice Story in his “Commentaries on the Constitution” explains that those naturalized Citizens of the United States eligible for the office are long since gone. paragraph 1473 pg 332.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. It is a treasonous abomination against the sovereignty of American citizens to promulgate an incorrect reading of “Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship,”

      Believe that and you will be totally deceived. Why? Because it is only true about a child born of an American mother and a foreign father or vice versa. It is NOT TRUE of an American child, a natural citizen born of citizen parents. Such children are AUTOMATICALLY NATURAL CITIZENS. They need no permission of Congress.
      They are the master of Congress, not the subject. They inherit full natural citizenship by RIGHT OF DESCENT. They are NOT political hybrids, political transgenders, political hermaphrodites. They are normal natural citizens born of two parents of the same nature, i.e., nationality. learn more at obama–nation dot com.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Debi says:

    That part of the Cinstitution should be clarified to say parents must be legal citizens. We also should have to prove we are US Citizens to vote. Just a driver’s license proves nothing but we can drive.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. wullfe says:

        States have the legal authority to check credentials of presidential candidates. If not, they shouldn’t be permitted on the ballots.

        Like

      2. Having authority and having a legislated mandate that requires the use of such authority are two different things because one is authority belonging to the state while the other is authority delegated by the state to an official and required, or not, to be used. Some states require an official to vet candidates but if there is no penalty for not doing so, and those in higher levels of power in their party look the other way then the law is not followed, as was seen in one of the last lawsuits, in Missouri I believe.

        Like

  4. James says:

    WELL THEY ALLOWED Barry Soetoro to sit illegally for almost 2 terms in the White House, the American people need to wake up and react to protect their country, that’s another reason we need Donald Trump for President 2016 & 2020!!

    Like

  5. Mario says:

    What kind of ignorant racist would write this? His parents came to the country legally and were residents with documentation like all people that have come to this country legally. His parents petitioned and legally became naturalized citizens. He was born in the US and is a US citizen. You can’t not expect one coming to this county to do any more. Are you ignorant to think that who ever wrote his or comments in the affirmative can say they even know without a doubt that their parents came here legally? The only person who is a more verified and legal US citizen is an Native American. If you’re not one Rubio is more of an American citizen than you are. He KNOWS you only pretend to know and be one.

    Like

    1. His parents came here on a visa in 1956. Rubio was born in 1971. Rubio’s parents became citizens in 1975. They were not citizens of the US when Marco was born, they were still citizens of Cuba and under Cuban Jurisdiction. For example, had Marco’s parents broken the law, they would have been arrested by ICE and returned to Cuba because they were not under our jurisdiction of the law. That is another reason why there is ICE. They take care of international matters outside the jurisdiction of the US. I wrote the piece and am not an ignorant racist.

      Like

      1. Rubio’s parents, like Ted Cruz’s father, were NOT SUBJECT to the Communist government of Fidel Castro and his Socialist Constitution. That government had no rights over him because he was not born under it.
        To claim that they were citizens of Cuba is to claim that they were subject to its revolutionary government which never existed during their life in Cuba. The government to which they had been subject had ceased to exist as it was overthrown. Kaput! Gone. Both government and citizenship ceased to exist. That made the exiles stateless persons with no nationality. They had a country of origin but had no nation that had a claim on them and to which they owed allegiance.

        Just make the comparison to the American revolution. If a child of colonists had gone to England for schooling in 1775, and remained there until after the colonies won the war, would you say that he was still a colonist? An American subject of the Crown? Or a British natural-born subject? There is no way in hell that you could claim that he still owed allegiance to the government of the colony of his birth and upbringing. He would NOT have been (nor been viewed as being) a citizen of that newly independent State of America. He was no longer under its jurisdiction because the war ended that relationship which was based on British supremacy.

        The philosophical question regarding Rubio is in regards to birth in America to stateless persons. Such a child would automatically be an American citizen, but it would not be a natural born citizen because it lacked even one American parent at birth. That excludes Rubio, but not Cruz. He inherited his mother’s United States citizenship by descent and inherited nothing from his father because he was a stateless person. So he is a rare or quasi-natural born citizen.

        Like

      2. Dianne, you, like everyone else, particularly civilians, do not comprehend the full extent of what jurisdiction is. Rubio’s parents, like Jindal’s, were LEGAL permanent residents, not visiting foreigners, tourists, guests of the government. As such, they were considered by the US government to be full-fledged members of American society, and thus their fathers were fully subject to the ultimate political authority of the State and Federal governments, -the authority to conscript into the militia or the military any able-bodied male member of society, force him to undergo grueling military combat training, and obey orders to be sent into the enemy’s machine gun fire if need be. THAT is the jurisdiction underwhich their father’s lived if they were under 25 years of age when their sons were born. Even immigrants MUST register with Selective Service, but not non-immigrants because they remain subject to the government of their homeland, their domicile where they have roots and a home. But America is home to immigrants and therefore they are subject, just like citizens, to the duty to defend the nation, its women and children and elderly.
        But don’t go looking for confirmation of this fact anywhere because it has been totally lost from American consciousness. It took me years to piece together the pieces that I had come across in life, and finally see a coherent picture. In today’s world, no one, including judges, understands the dynamics of national authority and how they originally related to the blessed and sober matter of United States citizenship. It did not come without accompanying responsibility, and that responsibility could get a man killed for his country.

        Like

    2. rtm9999 says:

      It’s not racist to want to uphold Article II eligibility….
      Pulling the race card is just pulling the race card and nothing else!
      In Cruz,Rubio’s and Obama,etc. cases….
      There is no such critter as a “stateless person”….
      The child follows the citizen/subject status of their father.

      An expression once made use of by an attorney-general
      of the United States^ is sometimes cited in support of the
      proposition that an individual may be clothed with a double
      nationality or citizenship at one and the same time.^ The
      conclusion of the attorney-general, in the language cited,
      finds no support either in modern public law or in municipal
      law. It may not be said in any correct sense that, in the
      case under consideration, the son had ” two nationalities.”
      As long as he remained a minor, the son followed the nation-
      ality or citizenship (original or acquired) of the father.* The
      maxim ” Partus sequitur patrem ” applies. During minor-
      ity the son was sub potestate parentis. The nationality or
      citizenship of the father was the nationality or citizenship
      of the son ; or, rather, during all the period of minority,
      the son did not possess any nationality or citizenship inde-
      pendent of his father. The moment the son attained major-
      ity, according to the law of domicile, the right of election
      (le droit d’optioji) applied to him ; and he was competent
      to decide whether he would be American or German. This
      election would, of course, be manifested by appropriate dec-
      larations and acts.^ The expression relied upon must have
      been used inadvertently ; for it does not display the accuracy
      or caution which characterizes other parts of the same
      opinion.
      ^ Lecture on Scientific History of Education.
      * Steinkauler’s Case, Opinions of Attorneys-General, Vol. XV. p. 17.
      * Advocate of Spain (J. D. McPherson), arg. in Buzzi’s Case before
      Umpire (Count Lewenhaupt), United States and Spanisli Commission, Wash-
      ington, D. C.
      * Pliillimore, Cora. Int. Law, Vol. I. p. 38, citing Foelix, Droit Int. Prive. -Treatise on Citizenship

      Like

      1. “There is no such critter as a “stateless person”…. The child follows the citizen/subject status of their father.”
        That is only true if the father has a status to follow. If the father is a stateless person because his state has ceased to exist, then the child inherits no nationality from him, but may inherit from the mother. The Batista Cuban State or nation had ceased to exist, and therefore those exiles in America ceased to be citizens of their nation since their nation no longer existed, being replaced by a new nation of which they were not party since it was Communistic and headed by a dictator.

        Like

  6. Nathan Stein says:

    ” . . .the Constitution says this:

    “Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time) may serve president of the United States.” (see link below)”

    The Constitution absolutely does NOT say that. Article II Section 1 cl. 5 reads “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    Nothing there about native-born citizens or those born abroad or even that only one parent is required to make one eligible for the Presidency. In fact, the implication that one born abroad to a single US parent, not only contradicts what’s on the website of one of the authors own links [at Senate.gov, the “comment” for Article II, Sec. I cl. 5 says “This last requirement raises the question of whether someone born to American parents outside of the United States would be eligible to hold the office.”] but it also contradicts nearly two centuries of commentary by members of the United States Supreme Court who’ve consistently indicated that foreign born children of citizens are naturalized citizens. For example, “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized…by authority of Congress,…by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens . . .” – – Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark opinion (1898) [See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649%5D That statement clearly indicates that children of citizens who are born outside US Territory, who gain their citizenship by Congressional statute are naturalized. In other words, simply having citizen parents isn’t enough to make a natural born citizen!

    While I agree that Rubio’s not eligible, the author seems to have her citations out of whack with what’s actually being said.

    Like

    1. It is an issue that is presently being hashed out back and forth by the finest legal minds and constitutionalists- right now as we speak. So, it will continue to be dissected and discussed for a while with many citations to be viewed. Thanks for your input.

      Like

      1. Nothing complicated about it.
        Even a seven year-old can understand it.
        A natural born U.S. citizen is an individual born on U.S. soil to parents who are both U.S. citizens. This citizenship status is the only condition that satisfies the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized…by authority of Congress,…[that refers to foreign immigrants, but they were not naturalized by the authority of Congress but by the oath of Renunciation and Allegiance. IT ALONE had the power to naturalized. All the Congress was empowered to do was to determine who was allowed to take the oath and thereby transform themselves into an American, a natural–ized American before a magistrate of a State Court of Record]
      …by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens . . .” – – Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark opinion (1898)

      As I already pointed out previously, those words are totally true only regarding a child born having a foreign parent, but are totally false regarding an American child born of American parents. “children of citizens” is undefined as to whether or not it speaks of citizen parents in aggregate which does not include any indication of who they are married to (foreigner or American?)
      Or, does it refer solely to children of citizen couples? The difference between natural transmission of citizenship and legal, congressional grant of citizenship is in whether or not one was foreign-born as well as half foreigner-born or was one purely American citizen-born. For the later their citizenship is NATURAL, for the former their citizenship is LEGISLATIVE. DON’T CONFUSE OR CONFLATE THE TWO.

      Like

      1. Adrien,
        “As I already pointed out previously, those words are totally true only regarding a child born having a foreign parent, but are totally false regarding an American child born of American parents.” is actually not correct.

        Not just one or two but ALL of the justices agreed that those born outside the United States who acquire citizenship via Art 1 Sec 8 powers regardless of the citizenship of the parents are naturalized.
        Rogers v Bellei (1971) SCOTUS

        Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship
        Page 401 U. S. 840
        under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.

        Furthermore a child born in a foreign country and if they are over 14 when they finally return to the United States are required to be administered the “Oath of Alegiance” when the CRBA is approved to be issued. If under 14 that requirement can be waived.
        See http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH.html for children acquiring citizenship under INA Sec 301
        Chapter 3 – United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

        A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
        B. Child Born in Wedlock
        C. Child Born Out of Wedlock
        D. Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600)
        E. Citizenship Interview and Waiver
        F. Decision and Oath of Allegiance

        Item F.
        F. Decision and Oath of Allegiance​

        1. Approval of Application, Oath of Allegiance, and Waiver for Children under 14 Years of Age ​

        If an officer approves the Application for Certificate of Citizenship, USCIS administers the Oath of Allegiance before issuing a Certificate of Citizenship.​ [19]

        However, the INA permits USCIS to waive the taking of the Oath of Allegiance if USCIS determines the person is unable to understand its meaning.​ [20] USCIS has determined that children under the age of 14 are generally unable to understand the meaning of the oath. ​

        Accordingly, USCIS waives the oath requirement for a child younger than 14 years of age. If USCIS waives the oath requirement, USCIS issues a Certificate of Citizenship after the officer approves the application.​

        The Oath
        “I h​ereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

        Like

  7. Since all freed slaves are now deceased, the 14th Amendment should be repealed. This would eliminate Anchor Babies, and a number of destructive Supreme Court decision from the past 150 years.

    Your thoughts would be more interesting if you didn’t LIE about what the Constitution says. The following (from your article) is NOT in the Constitution:

    The descriptive clause in the Constitution says this:

    “Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time) may serve president of the United States.”

    Like

    1. I did not lie. That was a clarified interpretation from a constitutional so called expert. This constitution amendment is being debated by many experts with many diverse interpretations. Each believe they have it right. Which ever way one interprets the language, the legalities of being eligible to run for president have been skewed by the multiple interpretations themselves. It is what it is. I do appreciate your input on the subject for it is one that hits a hot button among the most ardent of minds.

      Like

  8. Albert says:

    Marco was not born abroad, he was born in Miami; meaning he was born a U.S. citizen. The only case in which the nationality of your parents matters is if you yourself were born “abroad” or outside of the US. Since Marco is US born, the conversation is over. This is elementary level civics people.

    Like

    1. What is over, and never began, is the conversation regarding his common law, 14th Amendment citizenship. He was born as a naturalized alien-born foreigner having no natural nationality since his parents were both stateless persons at the time of his birth. Citizenship was legally bestowed upon him thanks to the status quo interpretation of the 14 amendment language.
      But understand this: no person who is a legal citizen is eligible to be President because they are an artificial/ adopted-citizen and not a natural citizen by birth. Only American couples can produce a natural citizen.
      Birth location is totally irrelevant to natural membership just as it is for all animals, families, tribes, clans, peoples, and countries on the planet. No child of a citizen or a king is devoid of his natural right of membership because of the irrelevant location of his entry to the world. Otherwise every child born in a hospital and not under their parents’ roof would need to be adopted since their birth would be outside of the parents’ jurisdiction and authority.
      Would their birth location really make their child an alien to their family? The same question applies just as directly at the national level since it is a reflexion of the natural family situation. Natural citizens are born of citizens. Legal citizens are born of aliens, or alien-citizen combos. If one’s citizenship is dependent on permission of government then one is not a natural citizen by right of descent but merely by the gift of a nation. Natural Citizen vs Legal Citizen. Only the former can be President constitutionally.

      Like

      1. I recall a famous line from a novel: “He knew not what so say and so he cursed.” Congratulations on your insightful response. It reveals how bankrupt your thinking is.
        And just so everyone knows, “bleep” is NOT the word he used. It has been substituted.

        Like

    2. It does not matter that he was born on US soil. It matters that neither of his parents were US Citizens at the time of his birth. One must be a “Natural Born Citizen” to be potus. It is the Constitutional requirement for the position!

      Like

    1. His parents were Cuban but they were NOT Cuban citizens. Cuba was their homeland, but the Communist government of Cuba was not their government, along with its socialist Constitution. As I already said, they were stateless persons because their government had vanished. So they conveyed no nationality to their son. He obtain US citizenship thanks solely to common law citizenship enshrined in the 14th Amendment.

      Like

  9. From the article:
    The descriptive clause in the Constitution says this:

    “Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time) may serve president of the United States.” (see link below)

    Pure B.S.
    This verbatim does not exist in the U.S. Constitution, but only in the minds of the complicit frauds that want to justify the usurpation of the fraudulent putative president B. HUSSEIN Obama.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Peter Lettkeman says:

    Adrien’s statement:
    ” those words are totally true only regarding a child born abroad having a foreign parent, but are totally false regarding an American child born of American parents.” is actually not correct.

    Not just one or two but ALL of the justices agreed that those born outside the United States who acquire citizenship via Art 1 Sec 8 powers regardless of the citizenship of the parents are naturalized.
    Rogers v Bellei (1971) SCOTUS

    Peter, you need to mature to the point of not looking up to authority for authoritative truth. Truth is what is true, not what justices assume to be true. They can be, and all too often are, wrong! So please don’t throw their opinions in anyone’s face. That being said, your statement as written can be seen as factual because what it really says is that those who acquire citizenship via naturalization are naturalized.

    Well, of course that is a fact. What is NOT a fact is that the children of American couples are among those hybrid couples who produce children abroad, one of which happens to be an America. Such couples are totally incapable of ever producing a natural citizen of either nation as long as both of them are citizens of two different nations. Their children will need to be made into natural citizens via the legal fiction of natural-ization. That fiction is necessary to those who are not born of couples who are members of the nation. They have no natural right to national membership and so it must be provided to them by law, by statute.
    The statutes are written solely for those who have no natural right to citizenship, and that right is not related in any way to the geographical-political location of the mother’s womb when her child exits it. That right is in relation to only one thing, and that is the unalienable right of descent which follows the law of natural membership.

    Everyone needs to understand that Congress has no authority to grant citizenship to those who have a natural right to it. That right is not based on native-birth within national borders but on parental blood. If it is uniformly American, then the child produced by it is naturally, innately, inescapably American also. Americans produce Americans. Citizens produce citizens. Foreigners produce foreigners. Immigrants produce naturalized alien-born children who the government classifies with their parents as “Foreign stock”, not “American stock” even though they legally are citizens.
    But their citizenship is artificial because it is by permission and not by blood. They can never be natural citizens because you cannot change that which you are by birth. You were either born as a natural citizen or as a legal citizen, -or as an alien. The children of Americans are not born as aliens, nor as legal citizens. They need no law to make them that which they are naturally. The 14th Amendment is irrelevant to them, and not written for them.
    All of the confusion would have been totally avoided if only the framers had switched the position of the two adjectives and written instead: “No person, except a born natural citizen, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
    Does it make a big difference in meaning if one writes: He was a wise old man.” ; or “He was an old wise man.”? The focus is different but not the meaning that is conveyed. There is no such term as “wise-old”, just as there is no such term in America as “natural-born”. There is only “born citizen”, “natural citizen”, “born natural citizen”, and “natural born citizen”.
    “Natural” defines which type of born citizen is allow to be President. Some citizens at birth are citizens by statute, some by amendment, while all others are citizens by nature, by natural inclusion. Only they are constitutionally eligible to serve.

    But that is now a detriment to the nation, not a protection. Treasonous natural born citizens seek to be our next socialist king following Obama. We can’t allow that to happen, even if it means playing by their rules, which is “no rules”. Bring a gun to their knife fight. Our alien-born citizens are such guns. We might lose the future without them and their passion and commitment to individual rights.

    Like

  11. CH says:

    Don’t know where you got ‘native born’ in your quote regarding serving as President. The actual wording is as follows and please note that the term used is ‘natural born’ not native:

    “Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States, under clause 5:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    Additionally, Bingham spoke on natural born status in 1862, 1866 and in 1876 as follows:

    https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/the-house-of-representatives-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/

    “During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

    “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

    Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen “parents” in the US.

    John Bingham, who is known as the “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

    Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

    “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

    No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the US) was never challenged on the floor of the House.

    When John McCain was running for office it was determined that he was a ‘natural-born citizen’ as both of his parents were U.S. citizens AND he was born on a U.S. military base in Panama of which said U.S. Military base constitutes U.S. soil.

    There are also newspaper articles from the 1800s that covered this topic as well and they all define natural-born as being born to parents (plural not singular) who are natural-born or naturalized U.S. citizens AND born WITHIN the jurisdiction of the U.S..  If born outside the country, say Canada or England, they are merely a citizen of the U.S. and not eligible to run for the office of President.

    Also see: http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html Vattel’s influence on the Framers

    And there are news articles from back in the 1800s that also addressed the issue and they all stated the definition of ‘natural born’ is one born to parents (2 not 1) who are U.S. Citizens (either natural born themselves or naturalized) who owe no allegiance to any other foreign country, AND whose child is born within the jurisdiction of the United States (and/or its territories) are natural born.

    Anyone born to 1 parent is considered ‘native born’.

    If your U.S. citizen parents are abroad and you’re born say in Great Britain, you are considered an American Citizen but you are not considered natural born because you were not born WITHIN the jurisdiction of the U.S. (unless it is a U.S. controlled military base or territory) and as such you are not qualified to run for President. Additionally, if the U.S. and Great Britain grant dual citizenship then you most certainly would not be natural born as you can only owe allegiance to the U.S.

    If your parents were not naturalized and you were born in the U.S. you do not become a U.S. citizen until one of your parents becomes a U.S. Citizen and you are then given just basic U.S. citizenship not natural born.

    Therefore, Cruz, Rubio, Santorum and Jindal DO NOT MEET the qualifications to run and hold the office of President of the United States.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. John says:

    So the debate over language, native, natural, blah blah…
    What if the mother had a c-section? Does the child, not having a natural birth, still qualify?

    Like

  13. Joseph Joshaua says:

    Actually, Marco Rubio is not classified as an “anchor baby”. Both his parents were “LEGAL” residents (key word here being “LEGAL”). Thus, he is a natural born citizen, not subject to a foreign power and since he was born here legally, he is not an anchor baby. Anchor babies are those who are born to “ILLEGAL’ immigrants.

    Like

    1. Joseph pontificated on matters that he does not yet understand. Anchor babies are those born of both illegal aliens (and falsely presumed to be citizens) as well as those born of immigrants and correctly deemed to be legal citizens at birth. Their citizenship is what is the anchor connected to foreign relatives which ties them all together and can result in them obtaining permission to enter and live in the land of the ‘US citizen child”.

      No children born of aliens can ever be natural citizens by birth because they were born as unnatural citizens who were granted citizenship (by statute) by the grace of the natural citizens of the nation via their representatives in Congress or via the 14th Amendment.

      Natural citizens by birth, aka; born natural citizens, aka; natural born citizens, are those born of citizens and not foreigners. Those born of or as foreigners are categorized by the Census Bureau as “foreign stock” regardless of place of birth (meaning native birth).

      No one who is by nature of foreign stock is a natural member of a group to which the parents do not naturally belong, nor legally belong. A natural born citizen has no foreign nationality imparted or inherited from the parents. Natural citizenship is that which is conveyed by right of descent. Foreigners and their children have no right to citizenship in the United States, or any nation, and thus US citizenship cannot pass by descent from foreign parents to child.
      Marco Rubio is a common law, 14th Amendment, jus soli citizen, and not a natural born citizen since he was not born of American citizens. As such he can never be qualified to serve as President and could only serve as an unconstitutional President like Barack Obama.

      Learn more at http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com

      Like

  14. iampatrickhenry says:

    Here you go Dianne.. naturalization papers for the Rubio’s

    Like

  15. Marie Wood says:

    Visit South Florida. There is no doubt inhabitants there are Cuban. They are not assimilating. There is certainly an unjustified foreign influence if their Cuban Rubio gets his wish and it will not necessarily a friendly one to natural-born Americans. Our country would again be on the hook for many millions of foreigners while our natural-born citizens are over-burdened beyond the tipping point.

    Close our borders. We are at war. We cannot vet all these people who already over-run our country. Remember The Framers of our Constitution, their reasons to prevent us harm, and stand fast to protect our soverign nation.

    Like

  16. Wow, superb blog format! How lengthy have you been running a blog for? you make blogging look easy. The entire look of your web site is wonderful, as neatly as the content material!

    Like

  17. Marc Kaye says:

    It looks like he is not elegible to be Pres. I live in FL and will ask everyone to vote for Trump. By the way I went to New Yek Military Academy while Donald was there. He was tough, competitive and fair.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s