Now a lawsuit is claiming that Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president, under Article 2 of the Constitution, since neither of his parents were citizens at his birth. I would say that he is, since he was born in this country. Under the common-law meaning being cited for “natural born citizenship,” a child born to illegal immigrants in the United States would qualify, while a child born to two American citizens in Canada would not.
If “natural born” requires that both parents be citizens, that would rule out George Washington and other early presidents who were born before the United States existed.
At any rate, we need a clear definition of citizenship in its various permutations. This is true especially since we are in the midst of a controversy over immigration. A lawsuit has been filed in Texas to get a ruling in the case of Ted Cruz.
But read the discussion on our Ted Cruz post, especially the remarks of Joe Olsen and DonS. Joe quotes this statute from 1790 (though Don says that the “natural-born” language was dropped in the 1795 version):
“Children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.” 1 Stat. 103 (1790).
From Marco Rubio hit with birther controversy over parents’ citizenship – AOL:
Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio is facing a new controversy as opponents allege he is legally unable to serve as president.
The issue at hand — as Ted Cruz has learned well — is over whether Rubio can be consider a “natural born citizen.”
Rubio’s lawyers are in court this week fighting claims he’s not eligible because his parents weren’t U.S. citizens until four years after his birth. The lawsuit claims that means he is ineligible to run under Article 2 of the Constitution.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In