Uncovering Rubio's 2016 Defense of Birthright Citizenship
In a striking revelation, a 2016 court filing by Marco Rubio, then a senator running for president, has resurfaced, showing his strong support for birthright citizenship. Now serving as the U.S. Secretary of State, Rubio argued in the brief that the Constitution grants citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This filing was in response to a lawsuit filed in federal court in Arkansas by David Librace, a fringe presidential candidate, who challenged Rubio's eligibility to run for president on the grounds that he was not a 'natural born citizen' due to his parents' status as Cuban immigrants at the time of his birth in 1971.
The brief Rubio submitted was described as a 'powerful, succinct statement' of why the 14th Amendment covers almost all children born in the United States. Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University and an expert on citizenship, noted in an email that the arguments Rubio made in 2016 could be used today against current executive actions seeking to limit birthright citizenship. Spiro emphasized that there is 'no reason why the argument he put to work in 2016 couldn't be put to work today' against such policies.
Conflict with Current Administration Policies
Rubio's past stance stands in sharp contrast to recent executive actions by the Trump administration aimed at restricting birthright citizenship. An executive order issued by President Donald J. Trump has sparked significant legal and political debate, with critics arguing it undermines the 14th Amendment. Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesperson, declined to address the specifics of the 2016 brief or reconcile it with the current policy, stating only that Rubio is '100 percent aligned with President Trump's agenda.'
The resurfacing of Rubio's earlier position has drawn attention due to his own background as the son of Cuban immigrants who were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth in Miami. This personal history adds a layer of complexity to the debate, as Rubio's eligibility for citizenship under the 14th Amendment is precisely what he defended in his 2016 filing. Legal experts have pointed out that if such restrictive policies had been in place decades ago, Rubio himself might not have been recognized as a citizen at birth.
Legal and Political Implications Moving Forward
The clash between Rubio's past arguments and current administration policies raises questions about the future of birthright citizenship in the United States. The issue remains contentious, with ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of recent executive actions. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year deemed Trump's birthright citizenship order unconstitutional, though administration officials have expressed intent to appeal, with White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson asserting they 'look forward to being vindicated on appeal.'
As Secretary of State, Rubio has not publicly revisited his 2016 arguments, and the State Department has stated it does not comment on pending litigation. However, the resurfaced brief continues to fuel discussions among legal scholars and policymakers about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the potential impact on millions of individuals born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. The debate is far from settled, and its resolution could have profound implications for American citizenship laws.