Skip to comments.14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship & The Law of Statelessness
Posted on 04/10/2011 1:00:04 PM PDT by patlin
The definition of natural born comes from the common law of nations. Under the law of nations, all treaties and the laws of the foreign nations must be considered if a child is born on foreign soil. Therefore the fundamental rule for NBC is exclusive allegiance to the United States at birth. According the US Government, to answer the question, is one born without the soil (jus soli) a natural born citizen, we must ask ourselves this question If the US denied citizenship to a child born abroad, would that act of the US government leave the child stateless?
Take for example, George Romney who was born in Mexico because his refuge parents, who were mormons, were being persecuted in the US. Georges parents never changed their citizenship. They never renounced their US citizenship & took Mexican citizenship. Under the citizenship laws of Mexico at the time, George Romney was born an alien/foreigner as Mexican law did not recognize him as a citizen by the mere fact that he was born on their soil. It was jus sanguinis & the law of parens patriae (the jurisdiction to make decisions) under the law of nations that governed George Romneys status at birth. Therefore, if the US had denied citizenship to little George, he literally would have been left stateless because the foreign nation in which he was born never claimed him as a member/citizen of their society. His exclusive allegiance at birth was to the United States.
This is the same for children born to 2 citizen parents in the military, no matter where they are born. Vattel, Bk1, sec 217: For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
During the hearings and testimony on S.Res. 511, the revisionists brought in 2 highly respected revisionist constitutional lawyers to obfuscate the truth by using English feudal law. Feudal law is not common law. It is the law of the Sovereign King. It is statute law, not natural law. Had McCain or any of the other spineless GOP establishment known their history, they would have refuted that resolution and stood firm on the law of their birthright. This is especially disturbing to me because of the stress it is causing our men & women in uniform who are temporarily stationed overseas. By saying that they are subject to the citizenship laws of foreign nations is ludicrous and absurd.
Since 1920 & the right of women to vote, our countrys basic foundation, the family as One standing under one allegiance, has been usurped by statute law. Women already had citizenship. Voting is not a fundamental right, it is a privilege. I am a woman & I am sick of the feminist movement. There are certain things in nature that are vital to the preservation of a society/nation and that is unified allegiance of all households. When a man & woman get married they become One in the eyes of the law and this includes allegiance to the society in which they have their main domicile. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1791:
[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family [The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good
[T]he most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.
Children are a consequence of marriage, therefore they become in the eyes of the law part of that One union.
Jus sanguinis & the law of parens patriae and the effect of statelessness should children find themselves born without the soil (jus soli) of the parents is the common law of nations.
The 14th Amendment requires exclusive allegiance to the United States either at birth or at the time of naturalization. All others born on US soil are citizens by statute because the status of the foreign parents are governed by Treaty, not by nature.
Harvard Law agrees with my assessment. The Harvard & Michigan Law Reviews used by SCOTUS are copyrighted and thus I am not able to publish the pdfs. Those with Hein-online access will be able to access the entire documents:
See also the official government notices published nationwide by the Buchanan Administration. These documents were the founding documents for the 1866 Civil Rights Act which later was Constitutionalized as the 14th Amendment, the 1868 Expatriation Act(also still law, it is the authority for the oath of allegiance all naturalized citizens must take) as well as the 1870 Act passed to enforce the 14th Amendment and the basis of all citizenship treaties with all foreign nations since then. Click the link for each pdf file to save a copies of them. The state legislators need these documents to enforce their new election laws pertaining to constitutional eligibility:
Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1791, The Works of James Wilson, Vol II on sovereign citizens:
You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons. Between dignity and duty, no separation was made by them. In the early period of the Anglo-Saxon state, the allodial proprietors were numerous; their estates were generally small; and all were understood to be of the same rank and condition. Some, indeed, were distinguished above others by their character and their talents; but the superiority derived from this source was accompanied with no legal pre-eminence or power.
Unlikely. Milt Romney helps Obama on this matter,
suggesting Romney is ineligible.
As usual, people mixing up “citizenship” and “natural born citizenship” in order to muddy the waters.
After the last 2+ years, Americans would be wise to take the STRICTEST POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION of NBC to avoid anything approaching another Obama mess.
That might be hurtful to Romney, Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal but that’s just the way it is.
We need to start taking loyalty and national sovereignty VERY seriously.
If that hurts somebody’s political ambitions well, TOUGH TOENAILS.
You are reading it incorrectly. George Romney was born a US citizen with allegiance exclusively to the US because of the law of nations & treaty with Mexico, the Mexican government did NOT recognize him as one of their own. He was born a foreign national to Mexico even though the event took place on Mexican soil. If the US had denied him citizenship, the he would have been left stateless.
Being a refugee does not take away your citizenship. Under the laws of nations, whatever citizenship you take with you when you travel outside the nation is your citizenship until you attain another. That is why immigrants were/are discouraged from traveling to the countries of their birth citizenship until their US citizenship process is complete. Until it is complete, those immigrants still remain under the jurisdiction of the foreign government. This was never the case for George Romney. Mexico never laid claim to him. He was exclusively a US citizen from birth.
“Therefore the fundamental rule for NBC is exclusive allegiance to the United States at birth.”
“Take for example, George Romney who was born in Mexico because his refuge parents, who were mormons, were being persecuted in the US. Georges parents never changed their citizenship.”
George Romney was born in Mexico and was thus considered by Mexico to be a citizen of Mexico. Not only would George Romney be a considered a Mexican citizen, but his children would also be considered children of Mexico.
Therefore, Mexico would consider Mitt Romney to also be a citizen of Mexico.
Can another nation claim Mitt Romney to be a citizen.
Is Mitt Romney a natural born US citizen,
Just because the article claims Romney is not Mexican
does not mean it is true.
Bishop Romney is not eligible.
you didn’t actually read the article did you?
“George Romney who was born in Mexico because his refuge parents, who were mormons, were being persecuted in the US.”
His parents were hardly being persecuted by the US Government. Instead, the Remney family left the US due to the US laws against polygamy.
Fleeing the US due to polygamy laws is akin to fleeing the US due to our laws against child molestation.
Neither action would provide one with the status of being a refuge.
Yes and the article has several vital inaccuracies.
Hey, I’m not a Romney fan, but the law is the law and there was a good reason “natural born” was removed from the US Nationality Act in 1795.
FYI, if Mexico didn’t claim George Romney as a Mexican citizen at the moment of his birth, they could lay no claim to him later in his life. Period. Stick to the facts, not personal feelings. Feelings and emotions are not the law.
You are wrong.
Neither Obama NOR Romney is eligible.
Anyone who pushed(es) them for pRes_ _ent
out be indicted for fraud upon the American people.
inaccuracies? do tell specifically & use the law in place at the time of George Romney’s birth to explain your argument, not what you think it is today for that law of today has no affect on George’s US citizenship or that of his children.
Your priorities are admittedly skewed because of personal circumstance.
But, I’ve got to say, even after all your wrongheaded prattle on this issue, I’m shocked to hear anyone on FR say that a citizen of Mexico can be President of the United States.
It’s just not so. It’s the very epitome of a foreign entanglement. Such a President would be legally bound by the laws of Mexico whenever dealing with that nation, and would be subject to arrest and imprisonment if ever setting foot in that nation after going against them in treaty or war.
Clearly untenable for any head of state.
If the Mexican government never claimed the child of US citizens born on their soil as one of their own, then what nation does that child exclusively belong to? Please answer with facts, not emotions.
Obama was born in Kenya.
Romney was born in Mexico.
Obama is a Kenyan.
Romney is a Mexican.
Not eligible (even before RomneyCARE, RomneyMARRIAGE,
If both his parents were citizens at the time of his birth and he was born in the United States, there is no doubt as to his eligibility because he was and is a natural born citizen. If there is question as to citizenship of either parent or he was born outside the sole jurisdiction of the US, then there is doubt. See Minor v. Happersett.
They are no better than Obama, they want to act outside & above the law purely for emotional & political purposes. Like I said, I would never back Romney let alone vote for him, but that does not give me the right to ignore the law that makes him eligible.
I believe Romney is eligible.
Here is why.
George Romney, though being born a dual citizen was still an American because of his parents. George Romney’s son would have been born to an American father and mother. This makes Mitt a Natural Born Citizen.
Take a look of Obama, he was born British because of his father. Obama Jr. daughters were born in the US to two parents who were Americans (assuming OholyO was born in Hawaii) BUT... because of British law, his daughters could APPLY for British Citizenship and get it due to their grandfather’s full British heritage, and that of their own father. But here is the trigger, the crux.. they would have to apply for it, it isn’t automatic like their father’s citizenship - That of OholyO.
This describes Mitt Romney, Mexican Citizenship wasn’t passed on to him automatically, he would have to apply for it. Just like I would have to apply for Mexican Citizenship, but he would have a stronger case of getting it because his father was born in Mexico.
Citizenship issues get real mixed up real fast, and this is why the term “Natural Born Citizenship” was noted diplomatically. There had to be a baseline to start from.
There is no reason to debate applicability of foreign law to a potential Presidential candidate’s deceased father.
It all boils down to a simple yes or no question. Was George Romney a citizen of the United States at the time of Mitt Romney’s Birth?
If yes, it’s a complete nonissue. There are other factors that play into the matter, but if his father was a citizen at the time of his birth, that isn’t one of them.
Romney was born Willard Mitt Romney on March 12, 1947 in Detroit, Michigan.
He was the youngest child of George Wilcken Romney who was thus born in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico on July 8, 1907, to American parents
Lenore LaFount Romney who was born in Logan, Utah to Harold Arundel LaFount (1880-1952) and Alma Luella Robison (1882-1938)
Danae, for the umteenth time, George Romney was never a Mexican citizen. Mexico never claimed him as one of their own.
If it has been established that George Romney was a citizen of the United States at the time of Mitt Romney’s birth and the remainder of the information you’ve supplied is accurate, then Mitt Romney is without doubt a natural born citizen and eligible to the Presidency.
If it hasn’t been established, it will need to be established and Romney’s eligibility should be regarded as doubtful until that time.
If it is not true that he was a citizen at the time of Mitt Romney’s birth, then Mitt Romney’s eligibility to the Presidency is, at best, in doubt. Resolution of that doubt likely would hinge upon the realities of citizenship at birth in both Mexico and the United States, as you’ve noted.
At worst, he is ineligible.
I don’t care for Romney at all as a potential candidate. But, I’m not going to try and depict an ineligibility where there is none. I won’t depict eligibility where there is none as well. Piyush Amrit “Bobby” Jindal is quite clearly not eligible. John McCain’s eligibility was and still is in doubt.
Funny how we’re suddenly surrounded with so many Presidential candidates with eligiblity issues, isn’t it? It’s almost as if somebody wants the Presidency hamstrung with foreign entanglements.
Yoou have a lot of supposition going on there, now back it up with the law. Show me the treaty between the US & Mexico in place in 1907 that I must have missed, that said children born to Americans on Mexican soil are Mexican citizens. Put some of that kenetic energy to use for something other than posting emotional outbursts.
if you spent as much time studying history as you do posting comments, you could answer that question yourself.
And we know for a fact that there was no sort of Mexican generational citizenship, a la England, Italy or Israel, that could potentially have gummed up the works, as some have attempted to claim?
If so, there can be no doubt, Mitt Romney was a natural born citizen for Constitutional purposes, at the time of his birth.
Whether I agree with their religious beliefs regarding plural marriage or not, it does sound to me as if they were fleeing due to that aspect of their beliefs being made illegal. So, they fit the definition of refugee. But persecution? They came back, and laws forbidding polygamy were not repealed.
Thank you for the great work you’re doing! You will no doubt bring out the usual (and unusual) suspects.
He never could have been a Mexican Citizen. He could have CLAIMED it. There is a difference and I know what it is.
At MOST, he was a dual citizen, and that means he was also American, and his children would be NBC’s.
The man was an American.
Wrong. There is doubt. Let’s see Romney’s
and his father’s birth certificates
(like Gov. Palin and Donal Trump have done).
The answer is quite simple.
Those fleeing the US in order to escape criminal charges are fugitives, not refugees.
There is no supposition. Bishop Romney, the carpetbagging
creator of ObamaCARE and RomneyMARRIAGE-by-force-of-Romney,
is obviously Mexican.
Proof: Every RomneyBOT attacks the proofers.
BTW, Romney threw the elections in 2008 and 2010
to the DNC, which suggests his relationship with Soros
also has a role in covering up Romney’s Mexican heritage.
You suddenly sound all hard line and stuff regarding religion. Why am I not surprised?
Yes, we do. Mexico law was influenced Spanish rule & French rule. They were very homegeneous people and they didn't take to mixing blood, let alone adopting those not born of their blood as one of their own. They never adopted the feudal law of "jus soli" and to this day, they have one of the strictist immigration laws on the books.
Who says Mitt could have claimed Mexican citizenship? How could he claim something his father never possessed?
Alright, then. On the basis of what you’ve written here and assuming that it is all accurate and confirmed to be so, I’m prepared to say that Mitt Romney is a natural born citizen and therefore meets that requirement for eligibility to the office of President.
A competent legal authority with no inherent conflict of interest would need to verify all this, in order for any such “vetting” to ever be consistently applied or to hold up over time, though. Popular opinion got us here and got us Obama.
So by that theory, since I own a car built in Mexico that I like very much, that I searched for a year to find, I can claim Mexican citizenship and therefore I am not eligible to be president even though my heritage goes back to the 1st English settlement in the US. You truly have lost your mind. Like I said, detest the policies & politics, but you can not deny the law of citizenship eligibility
It’s that generational citizenship to which I referred in a previous reply. Some nations permit subsequent generations to claim citizenship, and some have bestowed it. Italy, England, Israel and others, even Ireland I believe, with citizenship offered down to the second generation abroad. It has to be claimed, though. It’s not as if such individuals are born with that citizenship, as Obama was with British citizenship. That’s what she means.
Ther is no legal doubt that under the laws of citizenship, McRomney is eligible. He is a natural born citizen of the United States as was his dad. Will I or would I ever vote for him? Never in a million years! He is a left leaning socialist leaning marxist RINO cut from the same mold as McCain’t.
generational citizenship is of feudal origins put in place by a sovereign king. it is statute law, not natural law.
There is no legal doubt that under the laws of citizenship, McCain is eligible.
Until all BC of Romney and his father are shown,
the evidence is that he is NOT eligible.
(just like Obama whom he helps and protects)
It’s a potential extenuating circumstance for those born of naturalized immigrant parents or even grandparents, who would otherwise have no doubt regarding their natural born citizenship status. The vast majority of such nations require a descendant of their citizens to claim citizenship themselves upon reaching the age of majority. It’s not a condition existing at birth. England was an exception at the time of Obama’s birth. They claimed the children of their citizens as citizens also, regardless of where they were born.
You can't say that with legal certainty. Most who claim this ardently want to believe he is natural born because they themselves were born abroad to parents in the military, or their children were. Several attempts at altering the very Constitutional eligibility requirement at question have been made in the form of Bills over the past decades, for the very reason of making children born abroad of military parents eligible for the Presidency. Such an undertaking would have been totally unnecessary if what you claim to be true, actually were true.
I've seen very persuasive arguments that McCain was not in fact eligible, from Gabriel Chin and Lawrence Solum, two very credible authorities upon Constitutional law. I won't go so far as to say point blank that McCain was not and is not eligible, but there clearly are questions. The Panama Canal Zone was leased and was not US sovereign territory. There is some question as to whether McCain was born in the Zone or not, even so. McCain's very citizenship was at question up until the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, according again to some credible authorities.
It's far from cut and dried, no matter how badly you want it to be.
... and it was part of their religious belief. Therefore, their fleeing the jurisdiction of the United States was motivated by a religious conviction that had been made illegal, which makes them refugees in my understanding of the word.
“Persecution” sounds rather harsh, since they did return when Mexico went into revolution, though. I don’t agree with polygamy or plural marriage, but they believed themselves to be required to do so.
Trying to step out of my own existence, beliefs and biases for a moment, in order to try and understand, I suppose I’d want to flee the jurisdiction that tried to force me to divorce my wife, too. Well, wives, plural, and I don’t agree with that, but it’s likely the sentiment that Romney and others like him shared that motivated them to flee to Mexico.
It is the law of nations and the right of expatriation, it is the law of nations regarding sovereign citizenship that is our law and by treaties with other nations, those foreign nations must first look to their treaty with the US when determining the status of children born there to American parents. The nations that claim a child born on their soil is always a member of their nation no matter what is because their law does not recognize the right of expatriation, that the individual is sovereign and that his inalienable rights rest within him. To those nations, only the king is sovereign and all rights rest within that one person and allegiance to him is perpetual. It can not be cast off. That feudal doctrine of the king was cast off from this nation on July 4, 1776. If it wasn’t, then we were never free from Great Britain and we all still owe fealty to her.
As far as the doctrine of “jus soli” citizenship. It does not exist in the British codes today. They finally banished it forever as it pertains to children born in England to 2 alien parents. Today, children with British heritage can claim the status of “British protected person” but not that of citizenship.
Now what that In means, I don’t know but I am guessing it has to do with the 20th century progressive doctrine of statelessness as defined by the United Nations that started appearing sometime during Woodrow Wilson’s tenure as president. Before then, stateless meant an innate piece of land that belonged to no country. A piece of land that had not yet been conquered. In their sick twisted minds, they think that a human being is property to be claimed by a state/nation and therefore the human has no God given inalienable rights. Their rights are what the government says they are and those rights are as fleeting as the ever changing governments.
You are correct in what you’ve written, but the citizenship laws of other nations as applied to potential Presidential candidates do matter, if those nations have a legitimate claim of citizenship upon them. That’s why if there is any such potential claim, I’ve come to the conclusion that the potential candidates’ eligibility should be regarded as being in doubt until the matter is investigated and resolved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.