Yakuda
Verified User
Talk about not refuting
If The PP has his way, Marco will be ineligible.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
If they failed to do paperwork he's not.
FastLane
Verified User
FALSE
The claim that Marco Rubio 'wouldn't be American' under the current push on birthright citizenship misses a key distinction.
Rubio's parents entered the U.S. legally in 1956 as lawful permanent residents (non-quota immigrants from the Western Hemisphere under the rules at the time). Rubio was born in Miami in 1971 to parents with permanent legal status in the country. Even under the stricter interpretation the administration is advancing — which focuses on excluding automatic citizenship for children of those here illegally or on purely temporary visas — Rubio's situation falls on the lawful permanent resident side, which the policy explicitly preserves for citizenship at birth.
The broader debate isn't about retroactively yanking citizenship from millions of Americans who were born here, grew up here, and built lives/families under the longstanding rule (jus soli + "subject to the jurisdiction"). That would be chaotic, unfair, and destabilizing. No serious proposal I've seen calls for mass denaturalization or deporting long-settled U.S.-born citizens.
What reformers want is a return to the original public meaning and intent of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. It was passed after the Civil War primarily to secure citizenship for freed slaves and overturn Dred Scott — ensuring they were not treated as non-persons. The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was understood at the time to exclude certain narrow categories (children of foreign diplomats, invading enemy armies, and arguably those owing primary allegiance to a foreign power without full U.S. legal obligations).
The Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) extended it to children of resident aliens with permanent domicile (like Chinese immigrants who had settled here). But the modern practice has stretched far beyond that — including automatic citizenship for children of illegal entrants or short-term visitors, creating strong incentives for "birth tourism" and chain migration that weren't contemplated in 1868.
The goal of the executive order and related efforts is prospective reform: clarify that automatic birthright citizenship requires at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, not someone here unlawfully or temporarily. This aligns more closely with the Amendment's text, history, and the Framers' focus on full jurisdiction/allegiance, while still allowing legal immigration pathways.
Fixing the rule going forward doesn't require punishing people who relied on the old broad interpretation. We can (and should) protect existing citizens while closing loopholes that strain the system today. Rubio himself once defended a broad reading in court filings, but the underlying point remains: original intent and sustainable policy matter more than gotcha hypotheticals. A nation can honor its history of legal immigration without turning birth on U.S. soil into an automatic override of immigration laws.
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.
True
Neither of Marco’s were citizens
Why? His parents were not citizens.
No, that's not accurate.
Even if the Supreme Court ultimately adopts the narrower interpretation of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' that the administration is arguing for (excluding children of illegal entrants or temporary visa holders), it would not make Marco Rubio's citizenship 'voidable.'
The current executive order (and the broader debate) is explicitly prospective. It targets births after its effective date and does not attempt to retroactively revoke citizenship from the millions of Americans born under the broad interpretation we've followed for decades.
We can debate the best reading of the 14th Amendment vigorously — and yes, Congress should ultimately clarify or tighten the rules through legislation rather than relying solely on executive guidance. But pretending this is about suddenly voiding Rubio's (or similar long-term citizens') status is a strawman. The goal is sustainable policy going forward, not rewriting the past for people who have lived their entire lives as Americans.
the executive order (EO 14160) isn’t rewriting the Constitution or pretending the President can amend it by fiat. It’s directing federal agencies on how they interpret and apply the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' when issuing passports, Social Security cards, and other federal documents. That’s classic executive authority over enforcement and agency guidance.
I am sorry you hate the guy so much you are unable to look at things logically or factually, but that is mostly a you problem
Citation?
Yes, because the current Order would not limit his citizenship, but depending how they are asking the Supreme Court to decide, they could easily say that birthright citizenship is not automatically granted. ITs one of the reasons against The PP that the justices expressed concern about.
He's at the beach....so it's wade, wade away...
Last edited:
I missed your citation where you posted nonsense as facts
cite your claim of " it wouldn’t be unconstitutional to void his citizenship"
That is not citable, but it is clear, they are asking the Supreme Court to say that people born here are not necessary citizens based on the Constitution. Thus if the S.Ct. ruled in their favor, a law could be passed that people such as Rubio are not citizens.
What I like about you is the fact that no matter how many times you are proven to be wrong, you just,
wow. you are a waste of time
Brilliant rebuttal.