DaddySatyr
Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
|
I have seen many posts on here, referring to our President as "The Kenyan" and other derrogatory terms. I've seen a fair amount of posts that use similar (or worse) invective aimed at "Birthers".
The words in our Constitution upon which the "Birthers" base their objections are simple; "Native born". Unfortunately, the founders didn't really define this for us so all any of us have left to do is interpret; each to our political bent.
One of the objections to President Obama's eligibility to hold office is the assertion that he was not born on American soil (which I tend to believe because of the delay in producing a birth certificate) and the fact that one of his parents was not an American citizen. The story goes: had his father been an American citizen and he had been born in Kenya, he would have met eligibility requirements.
That's not how I interpret "native born" but, that is my mind-set and I would have to agree that it is only my interpretation of the Constitution. Let's suppose that I concede that argument - that President Obama would meet eligibility requirements had his father been a citizen.
but there's a new wrinkle headed this way ...
How many have heard news rumors about a possibly strong name for the Vice Presidential slot; Marco Rubio?
I have done some research into into Senator Rubio and the news ain't good (for "Birthers" that wish to be consistent).
Sen. Rubio's parents came over from Cuba, in either 1956 or 1959, depending upon whose tale one wishes to believe. In the former version, they came because they saw mounting pressures and felt the winds of change in the air and got out, while the gettin' was good.
In the latter version, his parents, oppressed by a dictatorial regime, "escaped" from Cuba to find a life of Freedom in America. This is the version that Sen. Rubio prefers to relate while people that have known his parents since their time together in Cuba, prefer the former time-table.
There is an important distinction. Before The Beard took over, we had a very "cool and groovy" relationship with Cuba and to our way of thinking, life was pretty good for the people down there. It wasn't the same standard that we enjoyed but there was no despotic dictatorship and the people had relative freedom.
After Castro's successful revolution, we viewed the Cubans differently and saw any that made it to our shores as "refugees" to whom we extended every form of welcome and empathy we could muster (and rightly so).
Once Cubans were officially declared a "refugee class" there was a difference in how immigration was handled. If we assume that Sen. Rubio's parents were in this country legally, then we are forced to question why, 12-15 years after their exodus, at the time of the birth of their son, were they not yet American citizens? That's right, The Rubios would not become American citizens until 4 years after Marco's birth.
"But, he was born on American soil!" Yes, he was, to parents who were not American citizens and who may or may not have even been living in this country, legally. I should point out that even if they came over as "refugees", they would still need to complete the proper paperwork in order to stay. That being said; "the proper paperwork" consists of either filing for naturalization or for permenant residence (Green card) which can be obtained through an employer or family member sponsor.
So, now we have a couple of other choices, if they were, indeed, refugees:
1) Were they permenant residents (which means they didn't forfeit their citizenship in or allegience to their mother country)?
2) Were they trying to become US Citizens?
Well, either of those situations is problematic in this case but, let's take the easier one, first:
They were trying to become US citizens; a process which still, in these days after the horrid attacks of 2,001 doesn't take more than 7 years and is generally accelerated in the case of refugees. So, in this scenario: They "escaped" from Cuba in 1959 and did not become citizens until almost 16 years later (1975), which was four years after their son's birth. Were they not willing to become Americans? We can't know what was in their hearts but we can reasonably assume that becoming a citizen was not a priority for them.
The tougher option, to which I already alluded, is that they were permenant residents with no desire to forfeit their Cuban citizenship. If that is the case, surely a person with two parents that have no desire to become American citizens is even less eligible to be a "heart-beat away" from the presidency than a person who had one parent that was a natural-born citizen has to already hold that position?
Am I being silly or mean-spirited, here? Not really. If we are willing to acknowledge that the spirit of the "native-born" requirement was to make sure that a president (or vice president) had no allegience to another country, then we must acknowledge that Mr. Rubio - by the "Birthers'" own definition is not native-born to our land but to Cuba. By "Birther" logic, he's a natural-born Cuban citizen.
I have a love affair with consistency and if "Birthers" wish to be consistent, we need to acknowledge that there is, at the very least, an issue here that bears investigation.
Don't get too happy Obamians! If you wish to hold "Birthers" to consistency, you must not object to Sen. Rubios eligibility, based upon the fact that he was born on American soil.
Peace and comfort,
Michael
_____________________________
A Stone in My Shoe
Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?
"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"
|
New "Birther" Controversy - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread