Birthers: Florida Senator Marco Rubio is not a Natural Born Citizen and Not …

Dos Lives – ‎3 hours ago‎

Yesterday I was interviewed at length in regards to Marco Rubio and other issues by Alex Leary, reporter from St. Petersbug times. I have to say, that he was very well informed and respectful during the interview, far outcry from many other reporters and I will continue my dialog with this reporter on a number of other issues. Here is an important Constitutional conundrum, relating to Rubio’s eligibility: Does a child of political refuges, who can’t go back to his parents country of origin, have split allegiance and ineligible to be the US president? I believe, that this issue needs to be taken by the Supreme Court and adjudicated, as it is an important Constitutional question.

The whole premise of Emer De Vatel, is the child follows the citizenship of his father. Based on this premise a child of a tourist or a foreigner, whose father was here on a student visa, retains citizenship of his father and therefor has split allegiance at birth. This is true not only for Obama, but also true in relation to Bobby Jindel, governor of LA, rumored to be a presidential or vice presidential material on Republican side. The question is, what happens, when a child is born in the US to refuges, who can’t go back to their country of origin.

For example, a child born to political refuges from Nazi Germany during World War 2? I remember, when we left the Soviet Union, Soviet authorities took away our passports and tore them up in out presence. I remember, that my little brother didn’t even have a passport, he was simply a one line notation in my mom’s or my dad’s torn passport. Even if a political dissident from the Soviet Union or his child born in the US ever wanted to go back, he couldn’t do that, as he no longer had a Soviet  citizenship. (for the record, I never heard of any political dissident, who ever wanted to go back to the Communist Soviet Union).

Rubio’sparents were political refuges from Cuba. Rubio was born after the Bay of Pigs.  So, this issue needs to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. To an extend, it can help adjudicate this issue once and for all.      I will forward this article to Mr. Collins,  Rubio’s chief legal counsel and Mr. A.J. Sanchez, Rubio’s legislative counsel and will ascertain, if Marco Rubio is willing to bring this issue to court and seek adjudication. Indirectly it will help solve the eligibility conundrum not only in regards to Rubio, but also in regards to Barack Obama. In such legal action we would be able to air all issues: not only the issue of constitutional eligibility based on the split allegiance, but also the issues of necessary disclosures and releases of the original birth records, that are being kept sealed under lock and key by  officials of the state of Hawaii. 

To an extend this issue is similar to Roe v Wade, in that it is a recurring  issue that is eluding adjudication. As such, Rubio is a perfect plaintiff to bring this issue to court and seek expedient review on the merits.

14 Responses to “Important constitutional issues regarding Rubio: does a child of political refuges have split allegiance?”

1. Maynard
   October 20th, 2011 @ 5:45 am

   I dunno, Orly.
   Does someone born in Moldova?

2. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   October 20th, 2011 @ 7:27 am

   no

3. James
   October 20th, 2011 @ 7:56 am

   I’m not sure I understand your answer of “no”. Are you saying you don’t have split allegience? You weren’t even born here. Marco Rubio was born here. Why do you think or would anyone think that his allegience is split between the country he was born in and Cuba, a country he has never been in?

4. Patty
   October 20th, 2011 @ 8:30 am

   Perhaps it would be more constructive to address the legal term of art “allegiance” than go at it this way. The courts would be looking for an analysis based on the legal definition rather than the lay definition.

5. Yephora
   October 20th, 2011 @ 9:48 am

   With all she has done to fight for our nation’s survival, anyone who suggests that Orly Taitz has allegiance to anywhere except America is either stupid, an 0bot — forgive the tautology — or is just being provocative.

6. Concerned
   October 20th, 2011 @ 9:56 am

   “Subject to the jurisdiction” is the key phrase, not the word “allegiance.” That word appears as dictum in an old Supreme Court case and has no place in determining statutory construction.

7. Toto
   October 20th, 2011 @ 10:40 am

   “Why do you think or would anyone think that his allegience is split between the country he was born in and Cuba, a country he has never been in?”

   Doesn’t matter. Ask the founders that. Law is the law.

8. Barb
   October 20th, 2011 @ 11:17 am

   You got it @ concerned. I love Rubio, but if the courts decide this, they must decide it according to the Constitution and not case law. They must also review the writings of congress during this debate to find out what the founders were referring to. The Constitution is not written in Chinese; it does not have to be interpreted, just merely apply the principles of the Constitution to the case at hand.

9. Patty
   October 20th, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

   @ Concerned

   That is my point exactly. The legal definition is predicated on being physically within the jurisdiction. So that is what Orly needs to address, do you agree?

10. Veritas
    October 20th, 2011 @ 5:29 pm

    Although a thought provoking question, it is Constitutionally moot. His father was never naturalized until well after Rubio’s birth.

    Hence, he may feel unyielding devotion to America, but the jus sanguinis facetof “NATURAL BORN” is not fulfilled.

    This is the same as with Obama, who seems to have a problem with the Jus Solis element as well.

    Rubio is a wonderful man, and there will be many places and ways for him to serve our fair nation.

11. CH
    October 20th, 2011 @ 8:51 pm

    Rubio would best serve the nation by obeying its laws. Obama would be a great leader, if he would lead by example and obey the laws and step down and apologize. All those helping Obama hisp and abusing Orly for upholding the laws are shooting themselves in the foot, for their actions lead to lawlessness and there will be nothing to protect them from power-hungry people who cannot obey laws.

    This is very much like Roe v Wade, and one of the reasons, is that it is the same people designing the subversion of the laws and playing games. Not too many people know that Jane Roe (in real life Norma McCorvey) admitted to lying under oath in that court case. Her lawyers should be disbarred for tricking the court. The scientist also admitted to lying about the data related to number of women suffering from back-street abortions, etc. What is most interesting, showing that God and Truth win in the end, Norma McCorvey herself never had an abortion. It was too late term, and she had a daughter. She then experienced a conversion, and today is a Catholic in the Pro-Life movement, fighting against abortion. The scientist also had a conversion and became a Catholic and worked against abortion…which is child murder.

    The same people and mindset helping Obama manipulate the courts helped push through Roe v Wade, disguised as “health care for women” which really has led to physical illnesses from abortion, many cannot carry a child to term after an abortion, etc, etc. Even the chemical company that makes the day after pill was part of the company that made the gas for the gas chambers.

    Obama is the strongest pro-abortion “president”….and billions of dollars are made related to the population control/abortion/child murder policies.

    Blood Money is a highly recommended movie, if you want to see the abortion agenda. You can google “180”….a great You Tube video on abortion and the truth, and its parallel to the holocaust in Germany. We are having a secret holocaust in America with 50 million children murdered, and called “health care.”

    Since when is mothers killing their children health care.

    The Obama Fraudgate is Roe v Wade….lying in court, manipulating facts, and the group behind Obama is using him for their population control agenda, which is sadly reducing the population of black people, targeting their neighborhoods. Maafa-21 is a movie showing this hidden agenda, with Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, speaking out for the civil rights of the unborn.

    Yes, this is indeed like Roe v Wade.

    Truth v Obama.

    Perhaps he also will have a conversion. It clearly can happen!

12. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    October 21st, 2011 @ 5:35 am

    that is why there is a different between being a subject of the royalty as it was in great Britain and being a citizen of the U.S., as it is here and now. Please read Minor v Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 21 Wall, and 22L., Ed.627

13. Paul Jackson
    October 21st, 2011 @ 1:05 pm

    “that is why there is a different between being a subject of the royalty as it was in great Britain and being a citizen of the U.S., as it is here and now. Please read Minor v Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 21 Wall, and 22L., Ed.627”

    Orly, “ED.627” is incorrect.

    That aside, could you please point us to where in Minor v Happersett the Court discusses “being a subject of royalty”?

14. William
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 11:06 am

    Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section,

    John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of [parents]- not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Leave a Reply