Joseph Farah of World Net Daily claims that Marco Rubio is not a natural born US citizen, and thus is ineligible for the VP slot. Is this true?!
Answer by EJHill
Rubio was born in Miami. Farah's a crack pot.
Answer by Sisyphus
There is a 19th Century SCOTUS ruling that being "natural born" requires American citizens for parents. It was ignored in the case of Obama, and so can likely be treated safely as a dead letter.
From the ruling:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 )
Dianna C. Cotter has written a terrific article on how online law search site Justia disappeared the citation from their indexes for the 2008 election. The good news? We still have law libraries to counter such partisan redactions.
Answer by Rob Long
He was born in the US, but his parents didn't become citizens until four years later. It's actually an interesting question. It's hard for me to believe that a court would interpret the phrase "natural born" to mean "born of US citizens." That seems like a stretch for the Framers, among whom were the sons of British subjects.
Answer by Western Chauvinist
It shouldn't be an issue as long as we interpret "natural born" citizen as one having been born on American soil. Mike Rosen of Denver has argued against this interpretation because of the latest fad of Chinese expectant mothers practicing "birthing tourism" just for purposes of obtaining a US birth certificate for their child... speaking of Manchurian candidates. Here's the article. Even though I'd hate for it to affect Rubio's chances, I think Rosen has a point.
Edit: The relevant passages:
The amendment [14th] was written in 1866 following the Civil War and ratified in 1868. In addition to punishing the confederate rebellion, it was intended to abolish the legacy of slavery. Section 1 effectively granted citizenship and all constitutional protections to former slaves "born or naturalized in the United States, andsubject to the jurisdiction thereof." That key phrase doesn't mean subject to our laws; it refers to persons who owe no allegiance to another country. That is, who were not citizens of another country or children of citizens of another country.
Consistent with that precise intent, the same Congress that wrote the 14th Amendment passed a civil rights law, also in 1866, restricting American citizenship to those born here "and not subject to any foreign power." Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, the author of the 14th Amendment, confirmed "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."
It was this same concern about divided national loyalties that restricted presidential eligibility, in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, to "natural born citizens." In 1862, U.S. Attorney General Edward Bates declared, "The Constitution does not make a citizen; it is in fact made by them." That is, for a child to be born a U.S. citizen, he must be born to a U.S. citizen, not an immigrant — legal or illegal. That's why children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats are not regarded as U.S. citizens.
Read more:Rosen: Birth rights and wrongs - The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_18750162#ixzz1lB9GcwaM
Answer by Cutlass
Wow. Yet another reason to nominate Rubio! A sect of unhinged moonbat Birthers would be a boon to the Republican ticket.
Answer by Humza Ahmad
This is very likely Farah playing the same tune with new lyrics. First Obama wasn't natural born, now Rubio isn't.
Answer by Percival
The Republican Business Council has a bio in pdf that gives his birthplace as Miami.
Rob, I think that the reason that they made that ruling was to clear up what happens when the family of a diplomat has a child over here.
Answer by Bill Walsh
I think the deal is the Constitutional language is actually sort of a gray area (unless some originalist has dug up an exact definition of what they were on about), but as it's been historically interpreted, Rubio has no problem. I think the “Farah's a crackpot/it's about immigration/it's about Obama” theories all have elements of the truth.
Answer by C. U. Douglas
The argument here, I believe, stems from a debate about illegal immigration -- specifically "anchor babies." Law has been interpreted to suggest that any child born here is automatically an American citizen; whereas some such as Farah have been arguing that the law requires a stricter enforcement, that as illegals are technically not 'subject to US law', any children are not therefore, citizens.
The problem with him trying to apply such a definition here is that Rubio's parents are here legally, and even if they weren't naturalized citizens the intent is obviously there. To say Rubio is not a citizen because his legally immigrated parents were not citizens at the time of the birth is no more holding to the spirit of the law than the broadest interpretation of it is.
Answer by flownover
I would gladly bet on who quit reading this guy first.