Posted on 01/27/2012 2:34:32 PM PST by cll
Cape Canaveral, Florida (CNN) - Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuno has endorsed Mitt Romney, in a boon to the GOP candidate's efforts to woo Florida's Latino voters ahead of Tuesday's primary.
Puerto Rico's top official will campaign with Romney at an event Friday evening in Orlando.
Earlier in the day, Romney said he would support a move by Puerto Rico towards statehood, and referenced Fortuno's "passionate" support for that process.
"I expect the people of Puerto Rico will decide, like he feels, to become a state," Romney told a cheering audience at the Hispanic Leadership Network conference. "I can tell you that I will work with him that if that vote comes out in favor of statehood we will go through the process in Washington to provide statehood to Puerto Rico."
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
Although it may not be fair to place all blame for the problem on Fortuño (the seeds for the problem were planted during the previous PPD (Democrat) administrations), the perception is there that the current government is powerless to deal with the crime wave.
Puerto Rico has repeatedly refused to become a State in the Union. Getting that governor’s endorsement doesn’t mean much, IMO.
I’m very sorry to hear this.
“This can actually work against Romney. Many Florida Puerto Ricans have left the island because of the spike in crime during Governor Fortuño’s current term.”
I have a Puerto Rican email friend who is leaving because of an increasingly welfare minded society and poor job climate.
She is no admirer either.
And why would we want Puerto Rico to become a state and give the Dems 2 more Senators and 1 more member of the House?
Romney keeps showing himself to be a Dem in “progressive Republicans” clothing.
If anybody knows Newt please tell him or his staff to FreepMail me. I can give him some real pointers on Florida Puerto Ricans (and Georgia Puerto Ricans for that matter). He’s going to need that vote.
And before you start on me, as opposed to New York and Chicago Puerto Ricans, Southern Puerto Ricans are conservative and solid Christians.
.
It was just last night in the debate that Ricardo was bragging about what good friends he was with the Puerto Rican gov. when they were asked about statehood for Puerto Rico.
It appears they are not as good friends as he thought they were.
.
Latin Americans are not necessarilly one big happy family particularly those from Central; America.
Yeah, and Newt had also given Fortuño some national exposure with an interview he did and this is how he gets paid. Fortuño is a RINO. He supported Obama Care.
Agreed. And Puerto Ricans hate being called Latin American, Latinos, browns, or any of that crap. We are either boricuas or Americans.
Freep U M.R.
NO statehood for Puerto Rico!
Puerto Rico? They have a governor?
Good for them and who the hell cares.
Actually, it is, in the words of Joe Biden, a big fing deal. Governor Fortuño has been mentioned more than once as a long-shot potential candidate for nomination for President or Vice President in 2012 and his frequent campaign trips to the mainland during the 2010 congressional races have been linked to potential national aspirations. This guy is well connected and played a significant role in helping Rep candidates during the 2010 midterms.
Luis Guillermo Fortuño Burset (born October 31, 1960) is the governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a territory of the United States of America. Fortuño is also the president of the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico (NPP), a member of the Republican National Committee, and will be president of the Council of State Governments during 2012. On June 26, 2011 he announced his plans to run for reelection.
The New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico (NPP) (Spanish: Partido Nuevo Progresista de Puerto Rico, PNP) is a political party that advocates for Puerto Rico's admission to the United States of America as the 51st state.
On August 21, 2011, Governor Fortuño assumed the chairmanship of the Southern Governors’ Association and unveiled his new initiative, which will serve as the organization’s policy focus for the year, to create jobs and spur economies in the Southern region by increasing trade, investment and exports with Latin America.
The initiative, titled "Growth Beyond Our Borders," will focus on creating jobs and increasing exports from Southern states and territories by the end of 2012 by enabling private sector businesses and entrepreneurs to tap into dynamic and emerging Latin American markets, which represent 550 million prospective clients.
The association’s membership is composed of the Governors of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Virginia and West Virginia.
Good old promise them anything Mitt.
I am surprised he hasn’t promised statehood to DC.
Gee I hope he doesn’t get that idea.
Fortuno may be a U.S. citizen, but that doesn’t mean he is eligible to be President or Vice President.
Look, Puerto Rico is not a state. They have repeatedly refused to join the Union.
The idea that someone from PR or American Samoa would be elected to a national office is nonsense. This has nothing to do with ethnicity or race, just the status of the territory itself not being a state.
At one time there was a move to block Barry Goldwater from running for President because he was born in a territory. That territory later became the State of Arizona.
Fortuno could later run for national office once Puerto Rico becomes a state. Do you know for a fact he was born in Puerto Rico, as were both his parents?
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
We have already had a Vice President born outside a state and in a US territory, Charles Curtis.
Having been born in San Juan, he's a natural born citizen. That means he's eligible. But he'd have to move to the mainland if he wanted to vote for himself.
Tribe and Olson believe that anchor babies can be President! Both reject the natural born citizen requirement to be President - born in the United States of citizen parents.
Puerto Rico has rejected statehood over, and over again.
Since Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory and not a U.S. state, the United States Constitution does not fully enfranchise US citizens residing in Puerto Rico.
See: U.S. Department of State. Foreign Affairs Manual: Volume 7 – Consular Affairs (7 FAM 1120) ‘,Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions.’, Pages 1–3.
Note: An unincorporated territory or outlying possession is a area over which the Constitution has not been expressly and fully extended by the Congress within the meaning of Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S.Constitution.
In other words Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens but not natural born citizens.
Nope.
Since Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory and not a U.S. state, the United States Constitution does not fully enfranchise US citizens residing in Puerto Rico.
See: U.S. Department of State. Foreign Affairs Manual: Volume 7 – Consular Affairs (7 FAM 1120) ‘,Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions.’, Pages 1–3.
Note: An unincorporated territory or outlying possession is a area over which the Constitution has not been expressly and fully extended by the Congress within the meaning of Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S.Constitution.
In other words Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens but not natural born citizens.
In other words, a douchebag, just like the rest of the RNC and their creepy pulled back wives.
You should see these people up close, bunch of hideous country club scum.
Puerto Ricans get Socialist Security but don't have to pay Federal income tax, the chance of them voting themselves into having to answer to the IRS are slim to none.
The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United Suites v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.
As I have stated repeatedly this issue has never been fully resolved by the courts. It has to be done sooner rather than later. Until then, we can opine all we want but that doesn't change reality, past and present.
What I said was NOT my opinion - it is law. The Senate cannot change the U.S.Constition with a mere resolution; it can only be changed through the amendment process.
The definition of natural born citizen was part of the holding made in Minor v. Happersett (1874). It has been used in the final determinations of 25 Supreme Court cases over the past 134 years. SCOTUS isn’t going to overturn that decision, but uphold it.
Leo Donofrio has filed an amicus breif with the Administrative Court in Georgia, concerning the eligibility of BHO2. If the Obama Administration challenges the final decision made by the State of Georgia’s Secretary of State, this will end up in Federal Court and eventually in the SCOTUS.
The U.S.Constitution states that to be a Congressman, whether in the House of Representatives or the Senate, requires one to be a citizen. According to USCIS - Citzenship, there exists three types of citizenship: native born, derived, and naturalized. All have equal rights under the Constitution.
Article II, Section 5 of the Constitution requires the President (and Vice President) to meet a different eligibility standard, that of natural born citizen. Per Minor v. Happersett that means born in the U.S.A. of citizen parents.
The Panama Canal Zone, just like Puerto Rico is today, was an unincorportate territory. In 1901 the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Downes v. Bidwell that unincorporated territories are not the United States. On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated: “While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court held in 1905 in Rasmussen v. United States that the full Constitution only applies for incorporated territories of the United States. Until the rulings in these so-called “Insular Cases”, children born of two U.S. citizens in the Canal Zone had been subject to the Naturalization Act of 1795, which granted statutory U.S. citizenship at birth. With the ruling of 1905 persons born in the Canal Zone only became U.S. nationals, not citizens. This no man’s land with regard to U.S. citizenship was perpetuated until Congress passed legislation in 1937, which corrected this deficiency. The law is now codified under title 8 section 1403. It not only grants statutory and declaratory born citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone after February 26, 1904, with at least one U.S. citizen parent, but also did so retroactively for all children born of at least one U.S. citizen in the Canal Zone before the law’s enactment.
Note that last sentence above “...grants statutory and declaratory born citizenship...” meaning citizenship, period.
Natural born citizenship is natural law - it does not require a statute.
The definition of natural born citizen was part of the holding made in Minor v. Happersett (1874). It has been used in the final determinations of 25 Supreme Court cases over the past 134 years. SCOTUS isn’t going to overturn that decision, but uphold it.
If it is the law, why is Obama in the White House for the past three years? If it is the law why would Lawerence Tribe and Ted Olson, two very respected constitutional lawyers often mentioned as candidates for SCOTUS, have written this memo giving their interpretation of NBC? You sound so certain about a matter that has never been addressed directly by SCOTUS.
You don't seem to accept the idea put forth by Tribe and Olson that you can be a NBC one of two ways, i.e., jus sanguinis or jus solis. It really doesn't matter where McCain was born because his parents were US citizens. And the Panama Canal Zone is not Puerto Rico. You are also confusing citizenship with NBC. If you are born in Puerto Rico, you are automatically a citizen and eligible for a US passport.
I understand the frustration of those who claim that Obama is not eligible to be the President because his father was not a US citizen. But that is not an issue if one believes that you can acquire NBC thru jus solis. None of this is settled law. SCOTUS has yet to rule on the issue, which it must do urgently. We have 300,000 to 400,000 anchor babies born annually to illegal aliens. One in 8 in this country is foreign born, the highest it has been in 90 years and by 2050, one in five will be foreign born. And we have millions of Americans who have lived or are living abroad, many of them working for the USG, who have had children born overseas with both parents US citizens, including myself. SCOTUS needs to address NBC asap.
Right now, we have the precedents of people who have held the office of President and Vice President, one being born on US soil with one parent being a non-US citizen (Obama) and another being born outside the United States in a territory of the US (Curtis.) I am not a constitutional scholar or lawyer. Maybe you are, but to suggest that this is such a clear cut matter in terms of present law and practice that it is beyond question or debate is just nonsense.
Who knows what SCOTUS will decide? I suspect that they will be very reluctant to take up the matter recognizing the massive political implications and what a decision declaring the current occupant of the WH ineligible to run again for the office might mean in terms of political stability and possible questions relating to the legitimacy of laws and executive orders signed by Obama. It would throw this country into real turmoil and cause a constitutional crisis. If they do eventually define what NBC means, IMO it will along the lines of the Tribe/Olson memo that was provided to the Senate.
“If it is the law, why is Obama in the White House for the past three years?”
Obama was elected via fraud AND he has never claimed to be a natural born citizen, but a native born citizen. Death threats have been leveled against people investigating his background and those in the media.
We are already in a constitutional crisis because Obama acts as king and ignores the Constitution.
There have been more than a dozen attempts by Congress to circumvent the U.S. Constitution’s Article V in the past twenty years. The purpose is to change Article II, Clause 5, and alter the natural born citizen requirement for Presidential elgibility. The reason is political expediency. Particularly, there is fear that the definition of natural born citizen, via the holding in Minor v. Happersett, will become very widely known if a legal attempt is made to change it, and cause widespread anger against those in power.
Sarah P. Herlihy wrote a paper for the Chicago-Kent Law Review in 2006, entitled: AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE. She lives in Chicago, IL, and works as an attorney for Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
The following came from: http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-was-sarah-herlihy-worrying-about.html
“Noting that this law firm is based in Chicago, the light bulb was shining a little brighter . Upon looking at the firm, and the partners, I found that Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.”
“In addition, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the ” Illinois Venture Capital As sociation’s lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community” presented by Sen. Barack Obama”
“So it sure looks like Obama’s people have looked into the matter of “Natural born” as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of “If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”
You can read Herlihy’s paper here: http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=4078
Note: it has been scrubbed from all other sites, including the Kent Law Review.
People like Tribe, Olson, and Herlihy are aware of the definition in Minor v. Happersett. They want to fundamentally change the United States by weakening our Constitution. Be careful you don’t become one of their inadvertant tools for effecting that change.
“Globalization”, used in the title of Herlihy’s paper, is a solid clue as to what Progressives want for this nation.
f Gov. Fortuno has endorsed Mitt Romney then Newt Gingrich should endorse English speaking schools initiative spread throughout the island Public System. Which is also Republican Major of San Juan, Jorge Santini’s initiative and Newt should grab this idea and exploit it though the Orlando-Central Fl. Puertorican community. It would blow on Fortuno’s opportunistic endorsement and would unmask any other opportunistic endorsement by other island politician.
Let’s face it. Newt should not waste an opportunity to discover this conservative niche just in the same way he has broken many (media manipulated) preconceptions of the American preferences in this presidential primary.
A last remark, SatinDoll. As for the “unincorportate territory” and “American born” definitions, you are very much relying on SCOTUS manipulation of the Constitution, since nowhere in the our Magna Carta exist such non sense your thread eagerly supports. (P.R. compare to Panama Canal, please! Are you one of those at the moon colony?)This brings me to the hypocrisy of what you really support, since the essence of the conservative movement promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions, which includes discouraging such changes to our Constitution.
The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 90 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest level in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born. Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million.
Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 310 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 130 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any major developed country in the world, i.e., 0.963% (2011 estimate), principally due to immigration.
On a personal note, I would hate to see a circumstance where my daughter born abroad while I was stationed overseas in the service of my country can be excluded from being eligible to be President of this country. It makes no sense nor did it in the case of McCain, the son and grandson of an admiral. It shouldn't matter where McCain or my daughter was born in terms of eligibility to be President. I don't think our Founders ever intended to exclude them from being eligible for the Presidency.
I do have a problem with birthright citizenship, which should be abolished.
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.