Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s announcement yesterday that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination has brought back a strain of far-right birtherism that contends that Rubio is not eligible to be president because his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.
In its write-up of Rubio’s announcement, birther outlet WorldNetDaily (which has been a big promoter of Ted Cruz’s candidacy) cites unnamed people who “contend Rubio’s not even a natural-born citizen and therefore, ineligible to seek the presidency”:
Meanwhile, others contend Rubio’s not even a natural-born citizen and therefore, ineligible to seek the presidency. Rubio’s parents, as WND previously reported on at least two occasions, were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.
Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, on May 28, 1971, to Mario and Oriales Rubio, who were born in Cuba, though the senator has not released his birth certificate for the world to scrutinize.
As WND reported in 2011, Rubio press secretary Alex Burgos said the senator’s parents “were permanent legal residents of the U.S.” at the time Marco was born in 1971.
Then four years after Marco was born, “Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975,” Burgos told WND.
WND links to a 2012 article by its chief birther reporter Jerome Corsi, who cited far-right attorney Larry Klayman’s argument that the Constitution “requires a person eligible to be president to be born to parents who are each U.S. citizens at the time of the birth.”
Mainstream legal scholarship — as exhaustively detailed in a 2009 Congressional Research Service memo and a 2011 report — rejects this, finding that the Constitution merely requires that a president have been eligible for U.S. citizenship at birth. Under Klayman’s rule, not only would President Obama be ineligible for the presidency, but so would Rubio, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Cruz.
The website of Bradlee Dean, a longtime Michele Bachmann ally, also published an essay yesterday claiming that Rubio is ineligible for the presidency and calling the senator an “anchor baby.”
Suzanne Hamner writes on Dean’s “Sons of Liberty” website: “If Obama is hailed as the ‘first’ black president, one could say Rubio is the ‘first’ anchor baby contender.”
“Haven’t we, as citizens of this nation, been harmed by the current ineligible occupant of the Oval Office?” she asks.
Wikipedia, while not considered a truly reliable source, states Marco Rubio was born on May 23, 1971, to “Mario Rubio and Oria Garcia” who were Cubans that “immigrated to the United States in 1956 and were naturalized as US citizens in 1975.”
So, Sen. Marco Rubio needs to clearly establish his eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States in order to receive the party nomination. Neither of Rubio’s parents were citizens of the United States until 1975, four years after Rubio’s birth. Under this scenario, one could acquaint it to the “anchor baby born today being elected president upon reaching the age of thirty-five and living within the US for fourteen years.” Is Marco Rubio comfortable in claiming “natural born” citizen status in order to run for president? Clearly, he is. But, Rubio is ineligible to run and hold the office of the President of the United States. If Obama is hailed as the “first” black president, one could say Rubio is the “first” anchor baby contender. If Rubio is a supporter, protector and defender of the Constitution, he needs to put his money where his mouth is.
Rubio’s supporters, along with those of Ted Cruz, will vehemently defend their candidate’s natural born citizen status regardless of the evidence to the contrary based on history indicating 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 neither of these two candidates truly meets that all important requirement will declare that “it’s our turn,” “the Dems did it with Obama, so can we,” or “they would be better than Obama.” The problem in all of this remains consistency with the law.
The Democrats cannot protest as it would confirm that Obama would be ineligible 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 on the ticket, 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 US citizen harmed by an individual holding the office of the President when eligibility is in question? Shouldn’t every US citizen have “standing” in a case such as this? It would mean the President has divided loyalty and would possibly not conduct business within the confines of the Constitution nor have the best interest of the country at heart. Are we not actually witness to that with Obama? Haven’t we, as citizens of this nation, been harmed by the current ineligible occupant of the Oval Office?