Skip to comments.How Mitt Romney’s Mexican-Born Father Was Eligible to be President
Posted on 02/15/2012 9:21:05 PM PST by James Thomas
Mitt Romneys father, George Romney, has been invoked on the campaign trail often.
Newt Gingrich used his release of 12 years of tax records as an example to push his rival to release his own tax returns. On Thursday night, Romney mentioned the fact that his father was born in Mexico in response to Gingrichs allegations that he is anti-immigrant, which raises the question: If George Romney was born in Mexico, how could he run for president?
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
So, what? George Romney was never the GOP’s candidate.
This was discussed a bit in ‘68, when George Romney was a candidate in the Republican primaries. The talk at the time was that, since he was born in Mexico of American citizen parents, that this made him a natural born citizen.
I have heard so much conflicting talk on this whole issue that I don’t know what to think. I have also heard that the courts have never ruled on the official definition of a natural born citizen.
And, if both major political parties simply ignore an issue, it doesn’t ever get addressed.
He’s black. It would be racist to apply the law to him.
In 2008 election Congress spent time looking into McLame and ignored Obama the Obvious. Go figure.
I really wish the issue could be settled.
We all know that anyone born on US soil is a “citizen”, but natural born citizen seems to be a very grey area.
The Obots feel that just being born in the USA is natural born, but many on our side dispute it, claiming that both parents MUST BE US citizens.
I have seen many arguments for our side, but it is obviously
a somewhat grey area.
I am convinced that there is something wrong with Obozo’s birth story, but it will take an act of God to bring it out.
I’m glad the MSM is beginning to address this, however tentatively. Who put that bug in their ear? This needs to get out.
People 50+ who remembered “natural born citizen” was taught to them in school have probably written some letters to these broadcast stations and threatened a boycott of their advertisers.
Something is going on. This is a good trend.
THe world’s first atomic cake?
The very first Congress and President Washington addressed, and changed, the definition of "natural born citizen" (yes, that phrase) via the "Naturalization Act of 1790." Moving beyond the Birther movement's obsession with Vital, they specifically included children of American citizens born abroad or on the high sea.
Tell me again by what authority Congress cannot define who does and who does not meet the criteria of native or natural born citizen.
Further, since this piece brought up George Romney it must be made crystal clear he was never eligible for Mexican citizenship. Mexican law in place then forbade children of foreign nationals from birthright citizenship. He was only ever an American born of two American citizen parents.
Why are those same people challenging Romney based on George's birth not asking about Santorum's eligibility? His father was Italy born.
Why yes, yes it is.
You missed it I guess..he is mentioned briefly...but they leave out that his father was not a US citizen.
“The very first Congress and President Washington addressed, and changed, the definition of “natural born citizen” (yes, that phrase) via the “Naturalization Act of 1790.” Moving beyond the Birther movement’s obsession with Vital, they specifically included children of American citizens born abroad or on the high sea.”
“Naturalization Act of 1790.” was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795. You must keep current!
Congress can not change the Constitution by itself.
Constitution of the United States
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
ABC ONLY cares when it might hurt a conservative. Tells you something about their ethics...
Dilbert there has been much conflicting talk because both parties failed to vet legitimate candidates. They did try to vet McCain, at least five times, and twice more with a bill and resolution in 2008, and could not do more than claim that they thought he should be eligible, for having served and been a prisoner of war. Their argument was that because he was born to citizen parents, even if he was born on “unincorporated territory” he should be deemed natural born. Yes, as Democrat Law Professor Gabriel Chin explained in great detail in "Why Senator John McCain can Never Be President". The law is clear. A number of the children of military personel born in The Canal Zone before the Zone was incoporated in 1937, a year after McCain's birth, were deported by our INS for lack of citizenship. One the ninety nine senators who signed SR511 in April of 2008 was Barack Obama, who was not born to citizen parents, and never claimed to be a natural born citizen - not once. Barack understands the law, but has honestly stated that he believes the old Constitution to be mostly of historical significance, because it is a document “negative liberties” that prevents him from making the changes he feels the country needs.
The courts have certainly ruled, in Minor v. Happersett, and most unequivocally, as great Chief Justices tend to do when they create precedent out of common-law. The Constitution itself contains only one definition, by design, because, as Madison explained, the meanings of words change. Here is the precedential law. You didn't see it because George Soros’ acolytes Tim Stanley, CEO of justia.com and Carl Malamud CIO for Soros’ Center for American Progress, scrubbed dozens of Supreme Court decisions from Google, from justia.com, and from Cornell Law. (Google’s usual first response when searching for Supreme Court decisions and Minor v. Happersett or natural born citizen), At Cornell Law, Malamud is working to provide access, to politically edited Court decsions. He is working as well with many other law schools “Making Government Information More Accessible.” What they did was to "mangle" (Tim Stanley's word) citations to Minor v. Happersett so that searches would not reveal the connection. That is how much legal research is done today. Law schools must know, but are too dependent upon federal largess to do more than warn their students not to trust the "open" legal search resources. But that is what we, the public, had to try to learn the truth, confirming that Soros' people were managing access to our legal foundations.
Chief Justice Waite's clear definition:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Waite's decision in Minor was based, as is every other interpretation of a term in the Constitution except for "Treason", upon the "never doubted" common-law definition. Our greatest Chief Justice, who was also both a founder and framer, John Marshall left no doubt in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253:
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Before Leo Donofrio's analysis revealed that Minor was indeed precedent - stare decisis - there were no end of arguments about the translation from the French of "native." Minor resolved those arguments by equating them.
And in case the Obama cadre are around to attempt to confuse you by claiming that the 14th Amendment, which defined “native born citizen of the U.S.”, is equivalent to natural born citizen, "native-born" being the term Barack correctly used for his own status, here is the author of the 14th Amendment, abolitionist, judge, and Ohio Congressman John Bingham explaining natural born citizens to the House in 1866:
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen .
Republicans ignored our greatest justices, and the Constitution because McCain was next in line, eligible or not. Now, they want Rubio for the Hispanic vote, and he is not eligible either, since his parents were not citizens when he was born here. Both parties have leadership that willfully and with full knowledge, violated Article II Section 1. Every Senator signed SR511 (except McCain, since it was about his status) acknowledging the need for citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. If you read Obama Con Law Professor Larry Tribe's analysis, contributed in Tribe's capacity as a member of Obama’s campaign committee, you will find that Tribe sneakily includes the jus soli requirement with the jus sanguinis requirement, "both", but claims, dishonestly that The Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory. They all know and their lips are sealed, particularly after having seen Congressman Nathan Deal charged with ethics violations when he dared to ask (he is now Governor of Georgia).
Don't trust the pundits or the politicians. Read our framers and at least, Minor v. Happersett. Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo are the most clear in explaining the history and law, which was applied at least as late as 1939 in Perkins v. Elg. Don't believe claims that Minor didn't require natural born citizenship for its conclusion. The only Constitutional citizen before the 14th Amendment was a natural born citizen. Waite uses Elizabeth Minors having been born to citizen parents on our soil to affirm that she is a citizen. Each state had its own definition for who were citizens until Congress got to work to make “an uniform rule for naturalization” - Article 1 Sect 8, after 1868. Without establishing the "never doubted" common law, the Chief Justice couldn't make his case. Least someone claim the Wong Kim Ark made anchor babies into natural born citizen, Wong Kim was born to two Aliens, and was made a "citizen" - not a natural born citizen. Justice Gray cited Minor first in his decision.
It is a travesty that our representatives are hiding from the law, but we can fix it. That must begin, while we still honor the 1st Amendment, by helping those too busy, or too confused by the media and Obama operatives, to know what to believe. Read Minor yourselves. Only the Supreme Court can reinterpret precedent. With Kagan and Sotomayor wanting to keep their jobs, they may do just that, but until they do, Obama is not eligible to the presidency, and everyone in Congress knew. That is why the Congressional Research Service has written three self contradictory and lengthy papers explaining how to deflect eligibility questions (authored by Jack Maskill, who must be ashamed of himself, but probably wanted to keep his job). That is why Obama and his campaign chairwoman Clare McCaskill tried to pass S.2678 in Feb 2008 "To Insure that Foreign Born Children of Military Citzens Can Become President." They knew. They didn't have time for another attempt at amending Article II, and twenty six such attempts had failed. They lied, and the man in the White House is a fraud.
Obama? Well nothing to investigate or take seriously. It's common to be born in a hospital where there is no record that the mother was ever a patient in the hospital. If I understood Mr. Trump he said that his investigators could not find any record of Obama's mother being in any hospital at the time of Obama's birth.. and of course several presidents grew up as citizens of foreign countries however they were in fact born in one of the 57 States. . . .
See article; #16.
Certainly: Natural Law. Natural born citizens need no statutory act of man to make them citizens. They simply are, by virtue of their being born on native soil to parents who are themselves citizens. How could they not be natural born citizens? Other citizens, even persons who are declared citizens via statute such as the 14th Amendment, are made so via legalities. Natural born citizens need no such contrivances. Again, they simply are.
Congress has no "authority" to usurp Natural Law. Simple logic, here.
The 10th amendment makes it clear that Congress has only those powers granted by the Constitution. Where does the Constitution grant Congress the power to define the terms of the "contract"?
That "definition" was only law for a few years, when Congress repassed that law, they left it out. But even when it was in force it said such persons "shall be considered as natural born Citizens" Current law defines them only as citizens. Why did they leave it out in the subsequent acts? Could it be because someone pointed out that they had no power to redefine the term? But in the end it doesn't matter. It's no longer the law.
Who's challenging Mitt' eligibility? No one here, he was born in the US of parents who were citizens.
You realize that by citing the 1790 act, it shows that prior to the act, when the Constitution was written, such persons born of citizens outside US jurisdiction were not considered natural born? Else why bother with the law? Since the Constitution came first, the definitions when it was written are what count, unless it has been amended to change them.
As long as Santorum's parents were citizens when he was born, and he was born in the US (and possible outside it if one of them was in the service of the country serving outside of it) then he's good to go. \
Nothing at all gray about natural born. Very clear to me. Read the Constitution and the writings of the Founders. Pretty clear.
That wording appears to be misleading doublespeak, to my eye. Surely you didn't intend such? After all, even the 2008 "Obama" campaign website "Fight the Smears" claimed "Obama" to be a "native born citizen" rather than natural born citizen. . .
“Nothing at all gray about natural born. Very clear to me. Read the Constitution and the writings of the Founders. Pretty clear.”
Well, it is obviously very foggy to many, especially the Marxist.
If it were so clear, why are we even talking about it?
Because we have traitors in our government and those who prop them up.
“Former Sen. Don Nickles introduced the Natural Born Citizen Act in 2004 to define the term, natural-born citizen, to include people who derived citizenship at birth from a U.S. citizen parent and to children under 18 who were adopted by U.S. citizens.”
Obama was adopted by an Indonesian National, Lolo Soetoro, so he’s Indonesian.
"That wording appears to be misleading doublespeak, to my eye. Surely you didn't intend such? After all, even the 2008 "Obama" campaign website "Fight the Smears" claimed "Obama" to be a "native born citizen" rather than natural born citizen. . . "
Should've been copied to you, newzjunkey, for clarity.
lol - that is one awesome picture.
Vic "Rattlehead" Obama 2012!
“Because we have traitors in our government and those who prop them up.”
Well, the US government is now nothing more then a gigantic scam, but lets keep to the subject.
We know or assume that Obozo’s mother was born in America.
Lets assume that Bambie was really born in Hawaii...something that I question, but lets say that he was.
One birther point is that Obama’s father was not American, so Obama is not a NBC.
Lets stay on that point for now and seen where that goes.
We can then get back to the massive obfuscations regarding the birth certificate, and lack of confirmation from Kapiolani, the purported point of immaculation.
I noticed how they stste Obama had a Question about where he was BORN,but NOT A MENTION that his Father WAS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. That is what this article is about NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.NOT where you were born.
OBAMA IS NOT a Natural Born Citizen This article is a Piece of Crap
Hold on - what is “natural” about the requirement for two citizen parents?
English common law was also built on Natural Law - to them, just being born on the soil made one “natural” born.
How many Natural laws are there? Did American founding fathers change Natural Law - in which case why would it be considered natural? Or did they simply recognize a different Natural Law?
After the Revolution, there were serious citizenship and property issues to be resolved as the population sorted themselves into American and Englishmen.
Article 9 of the Jay Treaty says that British subjects and their heirs who owned property in America were afforded the same legal rights as American citizens - but only in regards to property rights. And vice versa for Americans with property in Britain.
Leo has stretched that clause beyond recognition to support his Vattel centric view of citizenship.
Have you considered that relying on a rock star wannabe, professional poker player with no actual legal experience might be a root cause for the fact that no eligibility case has ever succeeded?
In what fantasy world does a freak like Leo Donofrio, Esq. qualify as a constitutional scholar? Can you actually show me that prior to jumping on the eligibility gravy train, that he actually practiced law? Any court records? Any publications?
Let’s not assume anything. Obama voted for a law in 2005 that makes Americans prove their citizenship when applying for drivers licenses and ID cards. It requires a formal verification of vital records by the issuing agency. Let’s hold him to this same standard first.
“How Mitt Romneys Mexican-Born Father Was Eligible to be President”
The way you find out if an article has been posted is to paste the title into the FR search field. If it comes back with no hits, it hasn't been previously posted (barring a glitch). When I pasted the correct title of the ABC story into the FR search field, I got no hits, so it appears not to have been posted before.
If (when) the Admin Moderator corrects your title, then in the future other FReepers will get a hit when they search for it and won't double-post the article.
If you have enough space after using the correct title you can add you own personal editorial comment in parenthesis such as “(MSM acknowledges NBC ambiguity)”
Santorum’s father immigrated to the US when he was seven. It is pretty likely he was a US citizen when Rick was born. The pathway to citizenship was much simpler then and welcomed. As I understand it, his mother was as US citizen at birth.
Tell me again by what authority Congress cannot define who does and who does not meet the criteria of native or natural born citizen.
Congress can do that. However, it takes an Amendment to the Constitution, as noted in the article. Such attempts have failed to date.
The spider loves the fly who wonders into its web and time has delivered the fly unto the spider.
AKA the "Arnold Schwarzenegger for President Amendment" (back when Republicans thought Schwarzenegger was the future of the party and not the limp-wristed RINO he turned out to be).
Show show me his legal accomplishments.
Employment history, case history, publication history.
Why not hold Leo to the same standard that you want to hold Obama to. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Certainly don’t want to leave the eligibility movement open to charges of hypocrisy, do you?
Since you are not hanging on my every word, my legal experience is irrelevant.
What is your criteria for “expert”? He tells me what I want to hear?
Be honest - you actually Googled Leo and read all the weird, off the wall stuff he wrote before be got respectable and became a Constitutional scholar.
So we must all assume that you never even graduated from high school?
Anything you say then, is probably irrelevant.
You can assume all you want - no skin off my back.
You really don’t want to discuss Leo’s absolute lack of legal experience, do you?
But his legal “analysis” is key to your arguments. Either he his a Constitutional scholar or a charlatan blowing smoke up the birthers collective asses.
And it is clear he has no legal experience.
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.