I do think the “native born citizen” question was problematic in the case of George Romney. In the case of Mitt, under our laws, he’s a natural born U.S. citizen for two clear reasons: his mother was a U.S. citizen and he was born on U.S. soil.
In the case of George Romney, his grandparents didn’t automatically lose their citizen by moving to Mexico. Even if his grandparents took Mexican citizenship, they wouldn’t lose U.S. citizenship under our laws because we’re happy with dual citizenship.
But, what about their children and their grandchildren? For how many generations does our law countenance citizenship being passed down from parent to child, in families that are living overseas?
I wonder, did or does the Romney clan in Mexico pay U.S. income taxes? Are they registered to vote in U.S. elections? Do they serve on juries in the U.S.? Do their males register with the U.S. draft?
WHAT does U.S. citizenship mean anyway (other than qualifying for food stamps)?
I think the passing along of citizenship from one generation to another, of people who live overseas and do not participate in the civic life of the country needs to be addressed by the U.S. Congress.
I don’t think we need to get retrospective about this, George Romney always thought of himself as a U.S. citizen. Accordingly, he never filed to naturalize and he thought he was qualified to run for President. It wasn’t an issue in 1968 and, so, wasn’t considered by the courts. That would have been interesting.
As for Mitt, he’s has the same two claims to being natural born as does Obama (an American mother and born on U.S. soil). Mitt’s father may or may not have been a U.S. citizen, who knows? Obama’s father was definitely not a U.S. citizen.
But, what about their children and their grandchildren? For how many generations does our law countenance citizenship being passed down from parent to child, in families that are living overseas?
Bingo. That, now, is a real other issue. Does mitt have any ties to Mexico today.