I haven’t read the latest immigration reform bill, but just from the way Mr. Rubio’s PR guy is selling it is enough to tell me it stinks to high heaven. Comparing illegal aliens to slaves? Come off it, man.
I first became interested in the Natural Born clause because of considering the issue of “anchor babies”. I was skeptical when the “birther” movement started digging in to Obama, but after a lot more reading on the subject, I, too came to conclude that the son of a foreign national probably does not meet the Natural Born clause of The United States Constitution. Undivided allegiance can never be assured in such a case. The cause is explicitly exclusive. There is no way to ensure undivided allegiance in the case of the offspring of a foreign national, especially one who’d never intended to become a citizen, and even doubly so one who’s father was actually forced to leave the country, if not deported, when an American university refused to renew his visa, (or however that works). It may well be that in addition to being the first black president, Obama is the first American-born president who had a parent deported from the country. Anyway, that’s for a little background on the subject.
I had considered Rubio an interesting case, and I haven’t studied it yet, but I guess maybe it’s time I start thinking about it. Here’s a guy born of two foreign born parents, who may or may not have been citizens at the time of his birth. He may well be a case of the anchor babies that originally drew me to trying to figure out the Natural Born clause’s limitation. Remember, that’s what it is, it’s an explicit limitation. This isn’t “all men are created equal”, this is “only people who meet this criteria can hold this office”. It’s explicit, and there is no question that a person born on American soil to citizen parents meet that criteria. All others are suspect, and frankly, subject to interpretation. We know there is a group that meets the criteria. The burden is on others to show that others might meet the criteria, but even then, it ‘s no sure thing.
The reason Rubio has drawn my attention now, is, well, frankly, our immigration policies towards Cuban refugees is different than other countries, from what I gather. And here is someone who has benefited from a very favourable immigration policy toward his parent’s country of origin, and now he’s spearheading an immigration reform package. Does having been born to immigrants from the most favoured country give him special insight into immigration policy? His parents were fast-tracked compared to immigrants from other countries, if I’m not mistaken.
As for the GOP, I think they figure, well, he’s hispanic, so he’ll appeal to all hispanics, and they might be right, politically speaking. But that is a party interest, not a national one.