Expected birthright citizenship decision from SCOTUS may impact Rubio's ability to run for U.S. President (though birthright citizenship (mis)interpretations under the 14th Am and the "natural born" requirement under Article I of the U.S. Constitution are (some say) different standards.

Flashback: Citizens in 2016 primary challenged Rubio's (and Cruz's) qualifications to run for President under the Constitution.

Rubio was born in Florida to non-citizen parents who were here legally (and became naturalized citizens after his birth).

Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban-born father.

"Cruz … won a favorable ruling in Illinois saying he’s eligible to run for president.

"The ruling comes from the Illinois State Board of Elections, in response to objections claiming he and another candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, aren’t “natural born citizens.” The board overruled the challenge to Rubio the same day …

"Cruz and Rubio faced objections in Illinois similar to the challenges that plagued President Barack Obama during his two presidential campaigns. At the root of these challenges is the idea that there is a difference between someone born in the U.S. to citizen parents and someone born to citizen parents outside the U.S. or someone born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents.

https://www.illinoistimes.com/news/cruz-rubio-eligible-for-president-state-election-board-says-11450865/

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/cruz-winning-eligibility-challenges-but-critics-remain (many cases dismissed for lack of standing, another ruled upon in TX court, but judge admitted decision is subject to further challenges)

//'//'//

For those of us who would welcome Rubio as our next President, assuming he is free of the funding obligations that appeared to bind him in 2016, here's hoping SCOTUS weaves a line in their long-awaited adecision that includes Rubio as "natural born" (and therefore eligible for President) on U.S. soil to legal residents with no viable homeland - like the slaves - to return to, or bear allegiance to - and excludes those babies who are "dropped" on U.S. soil by mothers who broke the law and are here ILLegally.

Of course, "natural born," as an Article I (U.S. President qualification issue) is probably not properly before SCOTUS at the moment. What is, if Anon understands it correctly, is the bastardization of the 14th Amendment language - which was meant to cover the babies of the slaves who had no homeland because their parents were brought here unwillingly, and therefore no allegiance to a foreign land - very much unlike the millions of illegals here unlawfully - of their own volition - dropping children here and claiming/demanding benefits off the backs of hard-working, legal U.S. citizenship, be given them for free and all of their extended (illegal) family members as well (by virtue of chain-migration, courtesy of O'Bummer).

So the impending decision from SCOTUS may not directly (or indirectly) favorably or unfavorably impact Rubio's qualification to run (under Article I) for U.S. President in 2028 or thereafter.

But unintended consequences are a risk here, as in most scenarios.

Pic courtesy of humerous video by Dan S:

https://x.com/DanScavino/status/2051825503531667469

>>24591892

>Rubio is an anchor baby

Not exactly because his parents were here legally when he was born in Florida.

Challenges to both his (and Cruz's) respective - different facts - ability to run for President in 2016 as "natural born" under Article I were dismissed (lack of standing) or overruled, so they were allowed to run then, but "natural born" in their respective cases was never considered by SCOTUS (and Article I is not technically before them now; citizenship legislation and anchor baby citizenship under 14th Amendment are before SCOTUS - with decision expected soon).

>>24591865

>>24591892

>>24591928

Correction re Constitutional requirements to be U.S. President:

Not Article I, but:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the U.S. President be:

‐ a "natural born Citizen,"

• at least 35 years old, and

• a 14-year U.S. resident.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/

>>24591892

>>24591928

>>24591976

>>24591865

>So, Rubio is an anchor baby? If the ruling goes against him, will ice deport him?

No, would not likely be applied retroactively, even if decided in favor of the Trump.administration (per Grok).

Grok:

Is Rubio qualified as "natural born" under Article I [sic Article II, Section 1] of the Constitution to run for President (born in U.S. to noncitizens here in U.S. legally). If so, will pending U.S. SCOTUS decision threaten his qualification if Trump administration wins?

Yes, Marco Rubio is widely considered a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that the President be a "natural born Citizen" (at least 35 years old and a 14-year U.S. resident).⁠

Key Facts on Rubio's Background

Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, in 1971.

His parents were Cuban immigrants who arrived legally in the U.S. in 1956 and were lawful permanent residents (not diplomats or enemies) at the time of his birth. They naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975.⁠

Legal Consensus on "Natural Born Citizen"

The Constitution does not explicitly define "natural born Citizen." However, the prevailing legal and historical understanding—supported by:

- English common law (jus soli, or right of the soil).

- The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…").

- Supreme Court precedent, especially United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

This includes anyone born on U.S. soil who is subject to U.S. jurisdiction (i.e., not children of foreign diplomats or invading forces), regardless of the parents' citizenship or immigration status (as long as they are legal residents or otherwise under U.S. jurisdiction). ⁠

Rubio's 2016 campaign team successfully defended this exact point in court against eligibility challenges, arguing he was a natural-born citizen by birth on U.S. soil. Lower courts dismissed challenges against him (and similar cases involving Ted Cruz). Congressional Research Service reports and most constitutional scholars align with this view: "natural born" means a citizen at birth, which covers U.S.-born children of aliens.

There is no Supreme Court ruling directly on a presidential candidate's eligibility under this clause, and courts have often treated such disputes as political questions. Fringe "parental citizenship" theories (requiring two citizen parents) have been repeatedly rejected in practice.

Pending SCOTUS Case on Birthright Citizenship

There is an ongoing SCOTUS case (Trump v. Barbara or similar) reviewing President Trump's 2025 executive order attempting to limit birthright citizenship via executive action—generally to exclude children of non-citizens or those without permanent legal status. Oral arguments occurred around April 2026, with a decision expected by late June or early July 2026. Lower courts have blocked the order, and SCOTUS appeared skeptical during arguments. Scotusblog>>24591909

This wouldnot retroactively threaten Rubio's qualification for several reasons:

Non-retroactivity: Even if SCOTUS upheld limits on future birthright citizenship, constitutional changes or reinterpretations of citizenship status do not typically strip citizenship from those who already acquired it at birth under the law in effect at the time. Rubio's citizenship vested in 1971.

- Rubio's parents were lawful permanent residents: Many proposals (including aspects of Trump's order) distinguish between undocumented/ temporary status and legal permanent residents. Rubio would likely qualify even under narrower interpretations.⁠ NYTimes

Precedent and politics: Overturning Wong Kim Ark-style birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil would be a massive shift. The Court has shown reluctance in arguments, and any ruling would almost certainly apply prospectively. Rubio himself defended broad birthright citizenship in 2016 filings.⁠NYTimes

In short, Rubio meets the standard under long-established law and precedent, and a SCOTUS decision on the executive order is extremely unlikely to disqualify him retroactively. Eligibility challenges would face steep legal and practical hurdles.