What's not to understand? I despise Mitt as much as many here on freepers, but to distort law to invent a fictitious controversy is to spit on the constitution and the faith of our founding fathers. PERIOD.
In general, I agree with you, although as I stated before, it doesn’t really matter what Mexican law says. What Mexican law says does not impact what the Constitution means.
At the same time, though, the “Natural Born Citizen” issue will invariably be a source of contention until the S.Ct. interprets it.
The problem is that there are really two concepts here, i.e. the question of whether you are a citizen, and the question of whether you are natural born. The argument over this typically is based upon a failure to separate those concepts.
The Constitutional history states that the purpose of the provision was to prevent a “foreign prince” from being President. They were concerned about a foreign nobleman moving to the US so that he could become the President. In fact, there was a movement by some at one time to recruit a Prussian prince to do just that. He turned them down, apparently thinking that it was not a very good opportunity.
The common understanding then was that you had to be born here. In reality, though, it’s a little more subtle than that. You just need to be an American from birth, in my opinion.