This is such a silly argument because the "Law of Nations" is not our law, and we've already had that argument, but what the hell. Please explain how Marco Rubio's father was a citizen at the time of Marco's birth. barfo
I don't think he was, but he was a resident, still is I take it. I don't know if he (Father) is a citizen or not.
The father became a naturalized citizen when Marco was 4. So, do you agree then that Marco Rubio (and Ted Cruz for that matter) is not a natural born citizen, and thus not eligible for the presidency? Or is the "Law of Nations" not the final word on the subject? barfo
Here is a paste from the 1790 Naturaliztion Act, the only other place "natural born citizen" is used. I don't think there is any other US law to address Natural Born citizen. Other laws have address who becomes a citizen but not Natural born. "In order to address one's good character, the law required two years of residence in the United States and one year in the state of residence, prior to applying for citizenship. When those requirements were met, an immigrant could file a Petition for Naturalization with "any common law court of record" having jurisdiction over his residence. Once convinced of the applicant’s good moral character, the court would administer an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution of the United States. The clerk of the court was to make a record of these proceedings, and "thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States." The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of certain children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization: "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".
The trouble with that (besides the 14th amendment and a bunch of other legal history) is that you are taking the residency requirement for naturalization, and suggesting that the same length of residency is required in order not to be tripped up by the 'never been resident' clause in the latter excerpt. It seems to me a more straightforward interpretation of 'never been resident' is literally that: never been resident. Not 'never been resident for at least 2 years'. The other problem is that Obama Sr. lived in the US from 1959 to 1964, so it's pretty hard to claim he wasn't ever a resident even by your twisted legal theory. barfo
And of course the fact that he was born here trumps all that garbage. Oh yes...Being born here doesn't really matter right?
Now you are being obtuse. Going to school is not being a resident and he had no intention of being a resident. The King of Jordan went to school here, he wasn't a resident. I worked in England on a temporary Visa, but I was never a resident of the UK. I had about eight foreign nationals of several countries working here on temporary work visas, none were ever considered US residents.
You are wanting to play lawyer, but it looks to me like you are just making up your own definition of 'resident' here instead of applying the relevant legal definition. Please quote me a source for the definition of resident (one written before 1800, because we know that nothing since then matters....) barfo
I don't know the process to become a resident prior to 1800. Today you file form I-485 with USCIS, the proceedure since the 1950s.
I don't see I-485 forms mentioned in the constitution, so I think I'm going to have to say that's not relevant. I think it was a simpler time back then - you were either living here (resident) or you weren't. barfo
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; You might want to pay attention. And the underlined bit, too.
That's naturalization, not residency. That's why they have two different words for them. Dunno what your point about commerce is. barfo
I don't think you playing the semantics game changes congress' power to establish uniform rules of naturalization (and anything lesser).
Dunno what your point is. I didn't suggest that congress couldn't establish uniform rules of naturalization. I wasn't talking about naturalization at all. barfo
It really doesn't matter about 1800, does it? The point is, the law is, you apply for residency now. Barack Sr. never did. Cruz and Rubio Sr did, apparently it was their intention to live here. They did it the the legal way, hey! Their sons are Natural born citizens.
