marco_rubio

Is Marco Rubio the First Anchor Baby to Illegally Run for President?

The First Congress established criteria for citizenship in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

Constitutional scholar Publius Huldah points out that this Act clarified that “minor children born here of aliens do not become citizens until their parents are naturalized” — meaning that they are not natural-born citizens.

Marco Rubio was born on May 23, 1971, to Cuban parents, Mario Rubio and Oria Garcia, who immigrated to America in 1956 and became naturalized U.S. citizens in 1975.

According to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and Article II, Section I, of the U.S. Constitution, Rubio is not a natural-born citizen and is ineligible to run for president.

The Framers of the Constitution knew exactly what the term “natural born citizen” meant.

The Constitutional requirement for the President of the United States is defined in Article II, Section 1:

“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.”

The Framers were also well aware of the formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles, which already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.

Being born as “subjects” of the British crown, no one in the new America could claim “natural-born” citizen status; they became “citizens” instead of subjects upon gaining independence.

Therefore, a qualifying clause was included in order that a “citizen” of the new nation could serve as president since the devotion to the new nation was forged when risking their very lives in revolution against the British crown.

If the Framers understood the definition of citizenship, they understood Vattel’s “Law of Nations” and inserted a “qualifying clause” in Article II indicating this knowledge–  and the First Congress established/clarified the term in the Naturalization Act of 1790, why would anyone today cite immigration law that contradicts the Constitution?

“Birthers,” the term used to describe those who question a candidate’s eligibility based on the Constitution’s “natural born” citizen requirement, look to America’s history, to its Founders, and the Framers of the Constitution who distinguished the differences among citizenship: a: “citizen,” a “natural born” citizen, or a “naturalized” citizen.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio has not established his eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States according to the U.S. Constitution.

Neither of Rubio’s parents were citizens of the United States until 1975, four years after Rubio’s birth.

Marco Rubio is a perfect example of an “anchor baby” who after reaching the age of thirty-five and living within the U.S. for fourteen years, could claim “natural born citizen” status.

Clearly, according to Article II, Section I of the Constitution, Rubio is ineligible to run and hold the office of the President of the United States. If Obama was hailed as the “first” Black president, one could argue Rubio is the “first” anchor baby contender.

Ironically, if Rubio is truly a supporter, protector, and defender of the U.S. Constitution, he would not run for president. 

Rubio’s supporters will vehemently defend his natural born citizen status regardless of the evidence to the contrary. The Framers did not subscribe to the natural-born citizen status as being anything but a child born of two citizen parents. Those who admit Rubio does not meet the constitutional requirements will declare “it’s our turn, the Democrats did it with Obama, so can we,” or “he would be better than Obama.”

The problem with this reasoning is that neither are legally eligible. The law is the law. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

The U.S. Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the land. It was written with the understanding of the term “natural born citizen” based on a nation with a republican form of government, not the feudal government system of Europe where individuals were subjects. No amendment to the Constitution has been passed altering the requirements of the eligibility of an individual to hold the office of the President. Therefore, the understanding of the term by the Framers remains intact. The definition of natural born citizen is being usurped by both political parties to satisfy their particular agendas.

One should then ask themselves this question:

If the requirement of natural born citizen did not mean an individual born to two citizen parents, why has Congress attempted to change that requirement eight times since 2003?

Could it be because those challenging presidential eligibility are correct in their assertions and Congress is aware that presidential eligibility excludes individuals like Obama, Rubio, Jindal and Cruz? 

The Democrats cannot protest, as doing so would confirm Obama’s ineligibility, thereby exposing the criminal, lawless, treasonous activities of the Democratic National Committee, key Democrats in Congress, such as Pelosi, the Republican National Committee, key Republicans in Congress, RINOs and complicity of the state governments in allowing Obama to even run for office, not to mention the numerous judges at every level who have upheld Obama’s eligibility.

And, why would judges refuse to hear valid legal arguments opposing Obama’s eligibility if the definition of “natural born citizen” did not mean an individual born to two citizen parents?

Judges have denied hearing the case based on “standing” and “establishment of harm.”

Isn’t every U.S. citizen harmed by an individual holding the office of the President when eligibility is in question? Shouldn’t every U.S. citizen have “standing” in a case such as this? Haven’t we, as citizens of this nation, been harmed by the current ineligible occupant of the Oval Office?

Substantial evidence exists that Barack Obama does not meet the constitutional criteria for the office of president. He was allegedly born to one U.S. citizen in the State of Hawaii, which, by the way, is questionable.

Bill and Hillary Clinton first challenged the eligibility of Obama, but for an unknown reason ceased their assertions and then openly endorsed Obama after Hillary dropped out of the presidential race in 2008.

It was also reported that Judge Andrew Hanen, the judge who issued an injunction against Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty by unilateral action, received information regarding the ineligibility of Obama to hold the office of the president.

Obama’s inability to hold the office based on the natural born citizen eligibility criteria is continuing to be challenged. Yet, why have current presidential candidates not been challenged on eligibility, regardless of party affiliation, by citizens and the media alike?

While the issue of “natural born citizen” remains contentious, it should be noted that when choosing a candidate for the highest office in our nation’s government it is best to err on the side of caution in defining the term. The natural born citizen requirement does not guarantee that the individual elected as president wouldn’t engage in deleterious activities, crimes, lawlessness or treason. It does, however, follow the law in the most strictest sense thereby removing all doubt as to eligibility and avoiding a constitutional crisis as has been apparent with Obama, who also uses a stolen Social Security number.

While Rubio may not receive the nomination, the eligibility to contend based on all requirements established in the Constitution should be firmly established on all candidates.

It is time for all candidates for the office of the President to establish their eligibility to run under all three criteria and for it to be presented to the people. With all the shady criminal, lawless, treasonous and deleterious activities being pursued by Congress, federal agencies, Obama, and some state governments, the nation can no longer trust the national committees or state governments to truly vet candidates.

Tim Brown is an author and editor who writes for FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.comTim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.

Tags

Guest Columnist

Want to continue the conversation? Share your thoughts in the comments section below. Want to start a new conversation? Contact us and demonstrate that you've got something to say, and know how to say it. Maybe we'll publish your work on Constitution.com

Please leave your comments below

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments