Donald Trump Is Right to Retweet that Marco Rubio Is NOT a Natural Born Citizen | by Atty Mario Apuzzo

Click on image to read his new essay
Click on image to read his new essay by this constitutional Article II “natural born Citizen” term scholar and expert

Donald Trump Is Right to Retweet that Marco Rubio Is NOT a Natural Born Citizen | by Atty Mario Apuzzo

“Donald Trump retweeted that both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are not natural born citizens.  See .  George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, February 21, 2016, asked Trump on ABC’s “This Week” about his Saturday retweet and whether he really believed that Marco Rubio was not a natural born citizen.  See at about 1:30 at  (“Donald Trump on His South Carolina Primary Win, the GOP, and the Cruz Campaign Tactics”) and and .  Trump responded:  “I think the lawyers have to determine it.”  It was a retweet. Not so much with Marco, I’m not really that familiar with Marco’s circumstances.  I know that Ted has a problem.”  Again, Stephanopoulos pressed Trump why he would retweet the message if he was not be sure whether Rubio was a natural born citizen.  Trump said he did it because “I’m not sure.”  Stephanopoulos responded in amazement:  “You’re really not sure?”  Trump responded:  “I don’t know.  I’ve never really looked at it, honestly George.”  Again, Stephanopoulos forged forward “You’re not sure?”  Trump then said that he has contact with 14 million people on social media and “I retweet things and we start a dialogue.  It’s very interesting.”  Donald Trump is correct for retweeting that Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President. 

A natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth and birth alone.  But birth does not exist in a vacuum.  There are circumstances that exist at the time of birth.  Those circumstances are, among many, the parents to whom one is born and the place where one is born.  In order to have a valid definition of the natural born citizen, it is necessary that we take these birth circumstances and make them part of a definition.

There does, indeed, exist a definition that contains the necessary and sufficient birth circumstances that must exist in order for one to be a natural born citizen.  The historical and legal record demonstrates that in order to be a citizen by virtue of birth alone, one must be born in the country to parents who were its citizen at the time of the child’s birth.  Indeed, a natural born citizen is a child born or reputed born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sections 212 to 217 (1758) (1797) (“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first”); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898) (“The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle”).  All other birth circumstances, i.e., either not being born in the country or not being born to two citizen parents, do not produce citizenship by virtue of birth alone. 

Since 1790, Congress has for policy reasons seen the need, exactly for the reason that they are not natural born citizens, to naturalize children of U.S. citizens born out of the United States and before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and its interpretation by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to naturalize children born in the U.S. to alien parents.  The First and Third Congress, which included James Madison and many Founders and Framers, with the approval of President George Washington, passed the Naturalization Acts of 1790 (An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, Sess. II, Chap. 3; 1 stat 103, 1st Congress; March 26, 1790, available at ) and the Naturalization Act 1795 (An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject, Sess. II, Chap. 19, 20; 1 stat 414, 3rd Congress; January 29, 1795, available at same).

 The 1790 Act provided:  That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.  And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

The 1795 Act [which repealed and replaced the 1790 Act] made it harder for aliens to become citizens of the United States, but repeated:  “that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization. . . shall be considered as citizens of the United States:   Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”  So, under both Acts parents had to naturalize in the United States to make their minor children citizens of the United States and those children had to be dwelling in the United States for the new status to attach to them.  If parents did not naturalize during their children’s years of minority, their children remained aliens unless they naturalized on their own during their years of majority.    … ”     Continue reading Atty Apuzzo’s analysis and new legal article about “natural born Citizenship” at:

# # # #

CDR Charles Kerchner (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA

Marco Rubio Fails Three Legged Stool Test for "natural born Citizen". Click on Image for Details.
Marco Rubio Fails Three Legged Stool Test for “natural born Citizen”. Click on Image for Details.

P.S. Here is a chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.
P.P.S. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.
P.P.P.S. Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to U.S. Constitutional standards. Read this essay regarding the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: Also read the “Three Legged Stool Test” for Natural Born Citizen … AND … Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: