70 votes

Stop Rubio Now!

The time is now to start an information campaign that hammers the point home- MARCO RUBIO IS INELIGIBLE for the office of President or Vice President! Minor v. Happersett is the controlling case, and if you are unaware, educate yourself. Start including this information in your tweets, emails, etc. Just like Cato would conclude his speeches with: "And Carthage must be destroyed!" I suggest adding a signature to posts and emails...."AND MARCO RUBIO IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!! SEE MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 US 162(1875).




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Who gives a fuck? Rubio will

Who gives a fuck? Rubio will never get elected. That I can promise you.

RUBIO - no time like the present:

Whether he is eligible or not... anyway, I hope this helps:

Voted for Obama’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which allows the military to arrest any citizen without a warrant, trial or lawyer. Voted for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, which allows U.S. government to spy on, search and seize the property, papers and communications of individuals without a constitutionally-guaranteed finding of probable cause for that action.

Supports an interventionist foreign policy. In a speech, Rubio outlined an aggressive vision of American foreign policy, criticizing his colleagues on the left and the right for supporting a restrained future for the nation.

During a time in which American politicians should restrict their attention to domestic issues in the aftermath of recession, Rubio stands out as a lawmaker openly willing to pour taxpayer resources into foreign projects and initiatives. "I disagree with voices in my own party who argue we should not engage at all, who warn we should heed the words of John Quincy Adams not to go 'abroad, in search of monsters to destroy,'" he said. "I left the last page of my speech," he said, flipping through the papers and looking to Lieberman for some help. "Does anyone have my last page?" A man on the stage handed him the page, and Rubio went on to finish his address, quoting former British Prime Minister Tony Blair about how interventionism is part of America's "destiny."

Josie The Outlaw http://www.josietheoutlaw.com/

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

And As Rand Points Out

You can't defend the 2nd amendment without defending the 4th amendment.

Just look at what happened recently with the New York newspaper publishing a list of all the local gun owners.

Anyone who voted for the Patriot Act is no friend of the 2nd Amendment.

Rothbard: "Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."

Clarification.

Was, is or should natural born citizenship be determined by individual States or by the federal government?
Can someone be a citizen of a state and not a U.S. citizen or visa versa?
grant

this is the way it works

- If you are born in a foreign country but your parents are citizens of the united states then you're parents have to apply for naturalization for you. You will be naturalized citizen but not natural born. I would imagine this would be through the state of the residence of the parents.

- If you're parents are ambassadors or you are born on a US base (which is considered US soil) you will be natural born.

- If one or both of your parents are foreign and you are born on US soil, you are a US citizen but not a natural born citizen. You are a citizen of that state that you are born into. You have dual loyalties and therefore cannot be considered natural born. You have dual loyalties because Parents transfer citizenship to their children.

- If you are foreign born and you emigrate here. By applying for citizenship you become naturalized citizen. You apply in the state that you reside.

- If you are born to foreign parents who attained their citizenship before you were born then you would be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

- Lastly if you are born of two natural born citizens on the soil you are also a Natural born citizen

All citizenship is through the state. Powers supposed to be from the state. US government is only supposed to be a collective of states.

Credible Source

Children born in the US are considered natural born regardless of the parents' status.

From the Congregational Research Service:

"The term 'natural born' citizen is not defined in the constitution...the term 'natural born' citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship 'by birth' or 'at birth, either by being born 'in' the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

____
On a side note, as a people trying to persuade the nation on all kinds of things, we all at DP really need to get into the habit of citing our sources. Even if we're wrong, it at least gives us some kind of starting point to engage in meaningful discussion. Sources help us go beyond the realm of opinion and at least approach the world of facts.

the Congressional Research

the Congressional Research Service is NOT the US Constitution. Let me let you in on a little secret: your source sucks, OK. The guy doesn't understand the difference between 'natural born citizen' and 'natural born subject'. He has no clue what he is talking about. Why do we have to continue to explain this and why are so many of you arguing in favor of an incorrect position? You don't even take the time to understand it - you do a quick google search and post the first piece of crap article you find and thats that - you have the answer.

You found this on Wikipedia.

The Constitution did not need to define 'natural born citizen' because it was already defined in "Law of Nations". this chode "lawyer" does not even understand what the Constitution is.

You need to get in the habit of reading what we post before you come on here acting like an expert, then you would know that what we are saying is not an opinion but a fact and that what you are saying is complete nonsense. Look at your conceit... look at the post you made in complete ignorance. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Reminder:

Law of Nations is also not the US Constitution.

But it is where the concept

But it is where the concept for natural born citizen came from, just as the federalist papers provide the meaning for the Constitution.

My son

In January my son will be born to my immigrant wife...maybe someday he'll become our president! At least he'll be eligible by congressional standards.

Is she your wife now? Then

Is she your wife now? Then she is a citizen and you child WILL be a natural born citizen under the real meaning of it.

Citizenship for a spouse in not automatic

After the wedding, we had to first apply for a green card, which remains conditional for the first two years. Then, after three years, she's eligible to apply for citizenship.

The whole process is dependent on filing lots of forms, attending interviews, paying fees, and enduring prescribed waiting periods.

She was here as a diplomat which made things a little easier for us, but it's still not quick, and certainly not automatic.

No. If you are born in a

No. If you are born in a foreign country to UU citizen parents you are a 'natural born citizen'.

- If your father is a foreign citizen and your mother is a US citizen, you are not a US citizen.

- the rest of your points are correct.

Linda Cross's picture

I had a baby in a foriegn country and I was not in the military.

I went to the US consulate the next week and got his "birth certificate of an American Citizen born abroad". His father didn't even have a US visa of any type. That was 25 years ago.

If you see something, say something, the government is listening.
Silence isn't golden, it's yellow.

Right, look.. I am not saying

Right, look.. I am not saying that the law doesn't operate that way currently. I am saying that it is illegally operating this way.

Your child, technically, should not be a US citizen at all under the constitution, but a citizen of his father's country.

Your child is not a 'natural born citizen' and note eligible for the presidency.

I'm not trying to be an ass about this, just saying.

Well I know an example to the contrary

I know a guy who was born in England to two US parents. He had to be naturalized coming back to the US. He was not born on the soil. His documentation says that he is a naturalized citizen, that means he can not be natural born.

Natural born has two conditions. Born of soil (or soil controlled by the US) and Born of 2 US citizens

Plain citizen doesn't have as many requirements

Also logically it makes sense

If you are born under the jurisdiction of another country and that country considers you a citizen born on their soil you would be a dual citizen or have to renounce your citizenship to one country to be naturalized in the other. If England has jurisdiction over you...you can't be natural born.

The line has to be drawn somewhere and we are just looking at where it's drawn.

the line is drawn with the US

the line is drawn with the US constitution. their laws are void unless they want to get into a quarrel with the state department. the natural birth right from the parents passes to the child.

Not under the constitution it

Not under the constitution it doesn't. There is no such thing as a "plain citizen". There is 'natural born' and 'naturalized' - that is it under the constitution.

“SECTION1. 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 persons 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 … APPROVED, March 26, 1790.” 7

you are quoting that 1790 act that was repealed and replaced ?

It was replaced in 1795 and the words Natural Born were taken out of it

'Natural born citizen' was

'Natural born citizen' was defined prior to the Constitution. The meaning of it cannot be chnaged except through an amendment. I am quoting the act so that you can see that they applied that meaning.

Anyone, any law, any politician, justice, etc. who calims that someone born in a foreign country to citizen parents is not a 'natural born citizen' does not understand what the definition of a 'natural born citizen' is. It has nothing to do with place of birth.

It was defined in Vattel's book in 1758

de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:

"The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."

Within the last 100 years we have new laws that allow babies born on the soil from foreign parents to be considered citizens. This was not automatically so at the time of the signing of the constitution. These new laws have created a new type of citizen. This is that native born citizen status that some call it. Native born term is confusing as it has been used in other ways. This is why I called it Plain citizen......or refer to them as just "citizen".

Vattel also stated that those

Vattel also stated that those born in foreign countries to citizen parents are also natural born.

I guess they could technically make people born here citizens is they wanted to but that is the same thing as naturalized - they can't be natural born.

no you're wrong

A Mexican woman who comes across the boarder and has a baby in Texas will have a child that is a citizen. It will have a Texas birth certificate like everyone else born in Texas. Naturalization is a process of being naturalized. That baby will be a citizen that is neither naturalized nor would that baby be Natural Born because of the parents lack of citizenship.

There is an in between status of citizenship which many call "native born" but I simply called it plain citizen. Regardless there is a distinction.

the 14th amendment is misunderstood

although is currently accepted that if you are born on US soil then you are a US citizen. But that is not how the 14th amendment is constructed. It clearly states that people born here "and not subject to another jurisdiction..." are US citizens. Well, you your parents are foreigners then they are subject to another jursidiction (there home country) and they pass that jurisdiction on to the new born baby. Therefore, they true way to be a US citizen at birth is to have at least one parent a US citizen. And to be natural born you have to have both parents US citizens and born here.

I can tell you are sincere

I can tell you are sincere about understanding this issue and you just about have it understood. Please take the time to read these two essays on the subject:

Natural born citizen.
https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/natural-born-ci...

Was Wong-Kim wrongly decided.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_n...

Seriously, we will be on the same page...

I honestly don't understand what you have a problem with

ive been reading this stuff for 5 years off and on. I've read Wong Kim Ark a few years ago. What exactly do you say I have wrong?

I am looking at how the law treats people and what status they have.

Marco Rubio is a citizen but is not naturalized and nor is natural born. He IS that citizen type you say doesn't exist.

We agree that Rubio is not a

We agree that Rubio is not a 'natural born citizen'.

Rubio is a naturalized citizen.

Where we are disagreeing is that children of citizen parents whether born here or abroad, based on the definition of 'natural born citizen' as used in the Constitution, are 'natural born citizens'. Regardless of what the current law says - they do not need to be naturalized. They may need to be registered but they are natural born and can be president.

The other thing is anchor-babies. Yourself and many others think that a child born to aliens while in the US are US citizens of some lesser type - this is not true under the constitution. Their status follows that of their parents. They are citizens of the country of their parents not of the US. IOW, the ancho-baby issue is moot. There is no such thing. This is the result of Wong Kim.

ok here's the deal

Naturalization is an act by the state department of INS (Immigration Naturalization Services). It is a legal act done to make you a citizen.

Marco Rubio was born in a Florida hospital where he was issued a birth certificate. He did not go through immigration to get a status of citizen. Therefore he was never naturalized. Nothing had to be done to make him a citizen.

Naturalization is a legal term and is a process of making a non citizen a citizen.

Rubio was a citizen at birth.

You would have to show me a birth certificate with the words naturalized on it or show me a person born in the US that had to undergo naturalization.