Marco Rubio is NOT eligible to be President or VP. Eligibility & Reasoning explained.

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


That "definition" is an opinion and as such, in no way disqualifies Obama or Rubio.

The Supreme has ruled on this. Anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents status, is a natural born American citizen.




posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 





There are other types of citizenship because of territories the states "own".


No there isn't. There are American Nationals who are not Citizens. But there are only two kinds of Citizens: natural born and naturalized. End of story.



You can look it up, it is very complicated and gets into the IRS etc.


The IRS does not make Citizenship law. It acknowledges different circumstances under which individuals, citizens and non-citizens alike, have tax relationships to the US. If the tax law is designed to give (for example) a tax benefit to Americans who go to Brazil to establish businesses importing American goods, then the IRS has to define exactly who it is that can benefit from that provision. It isn't establishing a new state of citizenship.

Likewise, there are about a couple of dozen visa's for foreigner's in the U.S. Some of them allow the foreigner to work and some don't. Detailing which visa holders are required to pay taxes is not establishing a new state of citizenship.

Repeat for emphasis: There are two types of citizenship: natural born and naturalized.

There is exactly ONE difference between the two types of citizenship. Natural born citizens can be President, naturalized citizens cannot.

The Constitution (in the 14th Amendment) guarantees that there can be no other legal difference. You can look it up, but it is so simple that I can explain it quite easily:



(14th amendment)
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.


ALL PERSONS. Not just white persons. Not just persons with two citizen parents. ALL PERSONS with the singular restriction to those who are subject to the laws of the United States i.e. the jurisdiction.

There are two kinds of Citizens: born and naturalized. There are no other citizenship types. Just Two. Such persons are Citizens of the United States and of the individual state in which they reside. End of story.

Jurisdiction means "subject to the laws of". Official Diplomats and invading armies are not subject to the laws of the US. Children of Diplomats who may happen to be born in America are not U.S. citizens at birth. Foreign tourists and illegal immigrants ARE subject to the laws of the U.S. Children of tourists and illegal immigrants, who may happen to be born in the U.S., ARE Natural Born Citizens.



(14th amendment, again)
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States


All citizens, whether born or naturalized (or more to the point at the time of ratification, black or white or Chinese, or whatever) are exactly the same at law. A Citizen is a citizen is a citizen and no law can discriminate against naturalized citizens compared to natural born citizens. The Constitution is not a 'law' in this regard, it is the Constitution itself, so the Natural Born Citizenship Presidential qualification rule still stands.
edit on 11/11/2012 by rnaa because: grammar and complete sentences
edit on 11/11/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 




This definition disqualifies Obama and Rubio.
.

Actually it disqualifies neither. Rubio's parents were not "temporary sojourners", and neither was Obama's mother. Nor were any of them diplomats.

Furthermore, that definition did not make it into any law. It was one man's opinion in a debate about the Civil Rights Law of 1866. ONE man's opinion. It was NOT accepted into the law, and the law itself was made moot by the 14th amendment.

Regardless of what that one man's opinion was in 1866, it is the 14th Amendment that is the law of the land since 1868.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
So, then if the definition of natural born is only to mean born on American soil, (which is not what the founders meant)......

Then what happens if a family is on vacation, (not military service to our country), and mom goes into labor and has child in another country?



In general.

The person would hold dual citizenship, depending on which country they delivered in, and would be able to pick the ciizenship of either country on their 18th birthday, again depending on which nation we are talking about.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by timetothink
 


That "definition" is an opinion and as such, in no way disqualifies Obama or Rubio.

The Supreme has ruled on this. Anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents status, is a natural born American citizen.



Well - - except children of diplomats here in the US on official business for their own country.

I've always wondered though - - - if those children can choose US citizenship when they become of age.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Originally posted by timetothink
So, then if the definition of natural born is only to mean born on American soil, (which is not what the founders meant)......

Then what happens if a family is on vacation, (not military service to our country), and mom goes into labor and has child in another country?



In general.

The person would hold dual citizenship, depending on which country they delivered in, and would be able to pick the ciizenship of either country on their 18th birthday, again depending on which nation we are talking about.


Almost but not quite.

The child would hold American citizenship without question - children born overseas to two citizen parents are themselves citizens. It is more complicated for children born overseas to one citizen parent; there are parental residence and age factors that play into it - I'll ignore these folks - some are citizens, some aren't.

Whether a foreign born American child also holds citizenship of the birth country is entirely up to the law of that birth country. Every country has the right to define who and who is not a citizen. If the country says children of foreign tourists are citizens, then Americans born there have dual citizenship, if the country says children of foreign tourists are not citizens, then Americans born there have American citizenship only. American law can only define who is an American, it cannot define who is or who is not a citizen of another country.

American citizenship law dealing with the children of foreign tourists (or even illegal immigrants) that are born in America is embedded in the Constitution - in the 14th Amendment - "all persons born... in the United States... are citizens of the United States." Depending on the laws of their parents country, they may be dual citizens.

Finally, a child who gains citizenship due to the circumstances of birth are "Natural Born Citizens", as opposed to someone who gains citizenship later in life, that is "Naturalized".
edit on 15/11/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)
edit on 15/11/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I'll have to check the birther threads to see if you objected to Obama for the same reason. Or you can just tell me.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
This is such an ignorant thread. Rubio was born in florida. thats all it takes. Being born in the US is instant natural born citizenship. His parents could be from the moon and hed still be eligible.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


US nationals:


6. "U.S. nationals" are persons who owe permanent allegiance to the U.S. and may enter and work in the U.S. without restriction. The following are the only persons classified as U.S. nationals: a. Persons born in American Samoa or Swain's Island after December 24, 1952; and b. Residents of the Northern Mariana Islands who did not elect to become U.S. citizens.


www.dshs.wa.gov...

It's not as cut and dry as you would like to think, no black and white when it comes to citizenship. And the Supreme Court has never ruled on a definition of natural born.

The fourteenth amendment was for the protection of former slaves and no one else......people talk and talk and form opinions but no ruling was ever made on the definition of natural born.

The 14th amendment was perverted into something it was never written for......it is now being used to allow anyone who might be a citizen, eligible for the presidency. The constitution was written to restrict certain citizens from gaining the highest office.

In these days of political correctness and progressive fairness, people just refuse to accept that.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





(14th amendment) All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.



Where does it say "natural" born and eligible to be president? It does not, it only says "citizen".


Ps: the constitution is the law if the land here and it does make distinctions between citizens when electing a president.
edit on 27-11-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth



The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph.
This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.


www.law.cornell.edu...


The argument for natural born is that an anchor baby would not goal iffy because of the portion that states "subject to the jurisdiction of". If the parents are citizens of another country, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, therefore how could their newborn be?

Also, the code as written above dies qualify NcCain as a citizen, but again....it mentions nothing of natural born.


There are indeed more than two types of US citizens.......3 being, nationals, native citizens and naturalized.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join