and both have pissed on the Constitution with their
ObamaCARE=RomneyCARE.
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. George’s 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 Romney’s 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 country’s 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 pdf’s. 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:
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
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.