If The PP has his way, Marco will be ineligible.

If a legal interpretation is reversed, all previously decided cases are reversed. If the Supreme Court finds that the Constitution does not mean birthright citizenship, then previous falsely given citizenship is removed.


Somewhat circular logic there. The Rubios were having trouble getting citizenship, so they had anchor babies(a loophole which still existed back then). If their children lose citizenship, they are no longer anchor babies.


They had fled Batista, and had supported Castro. That made it impossible to get a Green Card until they had several children.
The Rubios got Green Cards in May 27, 1956.
 
The Rubios got Green Cards in May 27, 1956.
Your going to have to prove that one. They arrived on May 27th, 1956, and applied for asylum. It would have been impossible to process that completely and give them permanent status in one day. They would have either gotten a Green Card before, or in this case much later.

They received temporary asylum status while their cases were being decided, like many of the people you call illegal aliens.
 
Your going to have to prove that one. They arrived on May 27th, 1956, and applied for asylum. It would have been impossible to process that completely and give them permanent status in one day. They would have either gotten a Green Card before, or in this case much later.

They received temporary asylum status while their cases were being decided, like many of the people you call illegal aliens.
AI Overview



Marco Rubio's parents, Mario and Oriales, were granted permanent residence (green cards) upon arriving in the United States on
May 27, 1956. They emigrated from Cuba for economic reasons during the Batista regime, arriving over two years before Fidel Castro took power. They later became U.S. citizens in 1975

 
If a legal interpretation is reversed, all previously decided cases are reversed. If the Supreme Court finds that the Constitution does not mean birthright citizenship, then previous falsely given citizenship is removed.
you are an online poser - I need my head examined wasting time on a mouth breather, but....No. That is not how this works.

A new interpretation does not magically erase every prior citizenship determination in America.


First, the executive order itself was written to apply prospectively—only to people born in the United States after the order’s effective date, not backward to everyone already recognized as a citizen.


Second, even when law changes, previously decided cases are not all automatically ‘reversed.’ A new rule can affect cases still on direct review, but final judgments are a different matter; the Supreme Court has expressly distinguished pending cases from judgments that have already become final.


Third, citizenship is not some light switch the government flips off en masse. The Court has said government has no general power to strip an American of citizenship without the citizen’s assent, and loss of citizenship requires proof of intent to relinquish it.


And finally, when citizenship is revoked for people who naturalized, that happens through individualized denaturalization based on things like illegal procurement or fraud—not by announcing that millions of prior citizens are suddenly uncitizened because doctrine shifted.


Somewhat circular logic there. The Rubios were having trouble getting citizenship, so they had anchor babies(a loophole which still existed back then). If their children lose citizenship, they are no longer anchor babies.
Rubio’s parents were not illegal border-crossers gaming a loophole. They came to the U.S. on immigrant visas in 1956 and were admitted for permanent residence years before Marco Rubio was born in 1971. They later naturalized in 1975. Calling that ‘anchor baby’ behavior is just historically illiterate. Are you a sociopath? how can a grown ass man spend sop much time lying out of his fucking ass? JFC - you are a sick human. Be thankful I can only say what I think of twisted pieces of shits like you, and not act on it

 
Marco Rubio's parents were not citizens of the United States when he was born.. . .

So based on what the PP administration asked the Court to do regarding birthright citizenship, Marco would not be an American, thus not elegable to run for President!!!

Do you agree Marco is not an American Citizen?
More dumb and laughably stupid leftist lies. Marco's parents were LEGAL immigrants who became Citizens after the required time as LEGAL residents. They didn't sneak in over a desert border. They weren't flown in by Biden's open border policies.

Legal residency meets the 14th amendment requirement of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But hey, I wouldn't expect a brainless, lying leftist hack like you to deal in facts, reality or the truth.
 
"Natural born" citizen...which is something which Trump is threatening to...revise?

Ex post facto may save his eligibility, but it may not.
"subject to the jurisdiction of" brainless dumbass. It has nothing to do with "natural born." Why are Kamala voters so fucking stupid and dishonest?
 
correct, this would fix it for future Marco's

the loophole to cheat and win citizenship needs closed

factually though, his parents fixed the public record while he was still a kid. When they naturalized in 1975, it would of included him as well. The only reason it didn't is he was already a "birthright citizen"
They were LEGAL immigrants with a green card and a SS number. It meets the 14th amendment requirement of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" regardless of all the semantical failing morons like Jarod engage in.

You cannot become a citizen until the time requirement is met which they did,
 
Your going to have to prove that one. They arrived on May 27th, 1956, and applied for asylum. It would have been impossible to process that completely and give them permanent status in one day. They would have either gotten a Green Card before, or in this case much later.

They received temporary asylum status while their cases were being decided, like many of the people you call illegal aliens.
You are forcing 2026 assumptions onto 1956 facts. Back then, America had not yet built the modern welfare state, so immigration was not being filtered through today’s benefit-state politics and bureaucracy.


And Rubio’s parents did not just land and magically become legal in one day. They started the process in Havana on May 18, 1956 by applying for immigrant visas, then arrived on May 27, 1956. In other words, this was legal immigration paperwork already underway, not some made-up “anchor baby loophole” fairy tale about begging for asylum - which is a total lie. No asylum was sought

FUCK YOU, YOU LYING TWERP. THE EFFORT YOU ASSHOLES GO TO KEEP CHEATING IS INSANE
 
You are forcing 2026 assumptions onto 1956 facts. Back then, America had not yet built the modern welfare state, so immigration was not being filtered through today’s benefit-state politics and bureaucracy.


And Rubio’s parents did not just land and magically become legal in one day. They started the process in Havana on May 18, 1956 by applying for immigrant visas, then arrived on May 27, 1956. In other words, this was legal immigration paperwork already underway, not some made-up “anchor baby loophole” fairy tale about begging for asylum - which is a total lie. No asylum was sought

FUCK YOU, YOU LYING TWERP. THE EFFORT YOU ASSHOLES GO TO KEEP CHEATING IS INSANE
Unhinged Trump haters hate facts, reality and the truth. ;)
 
Your going to have to prove that one. They arrived on May 27th, 1956, and applied for asylum. It would have been impossible to process that completely and give them permanent status in one day. They would have either gotten a Green Card before, or in this case much later.

They received temporary asylum status while their cases were being decided, like many of the people you call illegal aliens.
.....and were given permanent resident status which meets the 14th amendment requirement "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Jarod is incapable of honest commentary or having any original thoughts. The internet hands him a false narrative and his marching orders and he rushes here to parrot them in a vacuum of facts, reality or common sense.
 
The difference is that it wouldn’t be unconstitutional to void his citizenship if the court finds the way The PP has asked them to find.
There is no need to because he was legally born here to.....wait for it....LEGAL residents. I can't say I am surprised by your ignorance and deliberate attempts to falsify the facts here.
 
Back
Top