It's Official: Ballot Challenge To Mitt Romney's Eligibility To Be President Filed In Illinois

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/12/indiana-democratic-party-head-resigns-as-fraud-probe-heats-up/

Yes, Democrats are lying crooks. And this is news? :)

As I've said before, we could save a lot of time by simply throwing them all in jail.

See, I think that is where it goes over the cliff. You’re saying that Mexico law is relevant, but only to the extent that we say it is relevant. Why not just say that it’s our law that is relevant? If it’s entirely dependent on Mexican law, then you’ve got the problem I described that some foreign nation is deciding who our President should be. If it’s our law that’s important, then forget about what Mexican law says.

You say that if they have a claim to make him a soldier in their army... Do you mean under their law? Because their law can say anything they want it to say. Or do you mean our law? Because I doubt that there is any American law that says that Mexico can draft Romney, or anyone else for that matter. Or maybe you mean, what if Romney rec’d a draft notice from Mexico, and the Mexican government wants our government to extradite him so they could enforce it? Very likely, our government would not extradite him unless it first concluded that Romney was a Mexican citizen, so you find yourself in a circular pattern. He’s a citizen of Mexico if he can be extradited to Mexico, but he can’t be extradited to Mexico unless he’s a citizen of Mexico. You haven’t solved the problem.

As far back as history stretches, only two methods of claiming citizenship was accepted. That of Blood and that of Soil. You keep talking about "Mexican law" and I keep pointing out that these two criteria are recognized by OUR law. WE recognize that an appeal to these two criteria impart citizenship.

Yes, but no one is arguing that, and the point further confuses the matter because it deals only with the question of citizenship, and not whether he is “naturally born.” The problem is that you’ve got to separate the issues, “Is he a citizen?” “Is he natural born?”

If there is no claim of blood or soil by another nation, then YES, he is a "natural born citizen."

The original Constitution deferred to the States to define citizenship, and that was the law when they wrote “natural born citizen.”

This point is more important than you may realize. It demonstrates that States did not have to follow English Common law on this question, and could chose to define the criteria any way they wished. In fact, the state of New York did exactly this. Note they specifically prohibited the children of transient aliens.

A better rebuttal of the English Common law definition for citizenship I cannot conceive.

The 14th Amendment federalized it, but has a very obscure definition of who’s a citizen. You’ve got to be born in or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction, which leaves a lot for Congress to determine. It certainly does not answer the question of what the Founders meant when they used the term “natural born citizen” 80 years earlier.

It depends on how much research you have done. All parties involved with the 14th amendment were well aware of the term "natural born citizen" because they used it in debate. The fact that they DID NOT USE IT in the 14th amendment tells you this was no accident. They did not intend that 14th amendment citizenship be seen as the equivalent of "natural born citizenship." This is reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1875 when they explicitly say that the 14th amendment citizenship is not the same thing as "natural born citizenship."

The definition of citizen has changed over the years. Therefore, whether you were a natural born citizen in 1792 may not be dispositive of whether you would be one today.

The requirements and privileges of naturalization,statutory, and derivative citizenship have changed over the years, but the definition of "natural born citizen" has never changed. It means the same thing today as it meant in 1787. Even if it had, the founders intended that the Constitution be interpreted in the light of the meaning of the words used during THEIR TIME.

Originally, the “natural born citizen” concept was seen as being determined entirely on where you were born.

No it was not. Indians were born in the same jurisdiction as Americans, and they were NOT Americans. It was an act of congress in 1924 (The Indian citizenship act) which allowed them to be American Citizens. (Note the 14th amendment didn't apply to Indians.) Also, Slaves were not citizens even though they were born here. While we are on the subject, there is also the case of James McClure, a man born in Virginia to an English Father, but not considered to be an American Citizen and arrested by the French during the run-up to the war of 1812.

But that was because in common parlance there was only one way to be BORN a citizen, and that was to be born in the US.

As I pointed out above, Slaves and Indians were two prime examples of why this theory is false, and the case of James McClure makes a third example.

Now we have laws that say you might be born a citizen even if you were born in Panama (ie. McCain), or anywhere really, assuming your parentage meets the citizenship test.

Since at least 1790, and if you read the debates on the Naturalization act of 1790 you will discover that the first congress regarded it as an oversight that the children of Americans born abroad were not already considered citizens.

I think that ultimately, the courts will say that the focus on where you were born is a matter of citizenship—not a matter of whether you were natural born.

You are conflating the term "citizen" with the term of art "natural born citizen." The two terms mean absolutely different things as PROVEN by the fact that article II uses BOTH terms. If they meant the same thing, article II would not have two different terms.

The issue of whether you are natural born they will hold depends on whether you were a citizen from birth.

No it will not. Aldo Mario Bellei was "BORN" a citizen of the United States, but he lost his citizenship because he failed to meet residency requirements. A "natural born citizen" cannot lose his citizenship for failure to meet residency requirements. He cannot lose it for any reason other than giving it up voluntarily or being convicted of treason.

Maybe if you renounce your citizenship after birth, that will prevent you from being a natural born citizen, but I doubt they are going to invent a new body of law that did not exist in 1792 (when the Constitution was written) to say who is and who’s not a citizen who could be “natural born.”

No they did not, but Obama Legitimacy supporters have been trying to create a new body of law ever since he came on the scene. They tend to keep arguing that "citizen" and "natural born citizen" mean the same thing, even though this is clearly false. They also try to confuse the question by asserting that the 14th amendment defined "natural born citizen" when in fact it only made "citizens" of former slaves.

Every piece of evidence which disproves their theory is ignored, and the same tired old arguments are reworded and trotted out once again. No, a "citizen" is general category, and a "natural born citizen" is a specific sub category.

A "natural born citizen" is a person who has no recognizable claim of allegiance to another nation. Period. End of Sentence. Full Stop.

Well, it will be interesting how the media responds to this.

DOH! There goes the October Surprise!

“As far back as history stretches, only two methods of claiming citizenship was accepted. That of Blood and that of Soil. You keep talking about “Mexican law” and I keep pointing out that these two criteria are recognized by OUR law. WE recognize that an appeal to these two criteria impart citizenship.”

Well, you are ignoring naturalization. What you really mean to say is that there are only two methods of claiming citizenship BY BIRTH. If you make that change, then I will agree with it, but to skin the cat, you don’t need to discuss at length what the exact requirements of the soil and of the blood might be to become a “natural born” citizen. The issue is not whether you are a citizen, but rather whether you are “a natural born citizen.” You don’t need to know whether the requirements of citizenship by birth in 1792 were that both parents had to be citizens, or whether just one was sufficient. You don’t need to know whether you had to be born on US soil. You don’t need to know whether there were exceptions to any of those rules. All you need to do is say that IF YOU WERE A CITIZEN FROM BIRTH, then you were a “natural born citizen.”

And in fact, one of my points is that since each State had its own citizenship requirements (which admittedly might have been very similar), and those requirements were simply adopted by reference in the Constitution, there ACTUALLY WAS NO FEDERAL LAW concerning the requirements of citizenship, except those adopted by reference from the States. The words “natural born” do not define who can be a citizen, but rather who is qualified for the Presidency. Therefore, I come back to my original point, ie. there are really two issues here: 1) Is a person a citizen? 2) Are they “natural born”? The first question was decided by State law. The second question was purely an issue of federal Constitutional law. So they obviously had to be two separate questions.

The overall problem that I have with your argument is that you keep referring to a “recognizable claim to allegiance,” but that is merely begging the question. What determines whether it is a “recognizable” claim? Our law has got to determine that, and it’s got to be specific. You can’t just say it’s recognizable when you want it to be recognizable and not recognizable when you don’t want it to be. You could take what I suppose is your approach and say that it is determined by historical rules, but where do they come from and what exactly are they? You say not the English common law. Obviously, they can’t come from the States since then we would have a different rule for each State, yet the Constitution itself did refer to the States for the rules of citizenship. The Constitution itself is not clear on the point of what “natural born” means. The Constitutional history doesn’t help much. I get the impression that you want to defer to the Mexican law, or perhaps the Afghani law, or the Angolan law, but you disclaim that and say it’s our law that is relevant. Still, you can’t just make these rules up out of thin air 220 years after the Constitution was written.

To me, the only way (as well as the simplest way) to deal with it is simply to say that “natural born” means only that you are a citizen from birth. Then you refer to the law of citizenship to determine whether that is the case. And that seems to be perfectly consistent with the Constitution, which did refer to other law for the purpose of determining citizenship.

I think that the 14th Amendment complicates the point, but not that much. I don’t think they were trying to change the definition of “natural born” for the purpose of determining eligibility of the President when they adopted the 14th Amendment. They were just trying to change the law of citizenship. In particular, they were trying to prevent the States from disenfranchising the slaves. But you’re still stuck with the actual language they used, irrespective what their intent was.

The Mittwit was born in Detroit. Unfortunately, that means he's eligible, even if his momma had stepped off the plane from Leningrad, Mitt having been conceived along the shores of Lake Baikal. The actual citizenship status of George and Lenore is immaterial.

Absolutely not true. If Mitt had been an American Indian born in Detroit in 1920, he would NOT be even a citizen, let alone a "natural born citizen." Place of birth is but one requirement to be a "natural citizen." Anchor babies are NOT "natural citizens."

Not sure if they wish to educate themselves further on this issue, but I sure do. I thought myself pretty thorough reader of the NBC forum, but I was unaware of an ongoing thread dedicated to the research. Thanks for the link!

I was also surprised at the amount of information discovered and placed in the research thread. Several people have done some very good work. There is some other stuff that needs to be placed in the research thread, but I haven't got around to it yet. That article on James McClue found by Rxsid is a good example.

Easy turbo. The phrase ‘natural born citizen’ is subject to far greater analysis based on the historical/legal interpretation of the phrase (jus soli & jus sanguinis) and the Court has yet to weigh in on the eligibility of any president or veep, so while you may have a pet definition of what a natural born citizen is, it’s not settled law.

Well, you are ignoring naturalization. What you really mean to say is that there are only two methods of claiming citizenship BY BIRTH. If you make that change, then I will agree with it, but to skin the cat, you don’t need to discuss at length what the exact requirements of the soil and of the blood might be to become a “natural born” citizen. The issue is not whether you are a citizen, but rather whether you are “a natural born citizen.” You don’t need to know whether the requirements of citizenship by birth in 1792 were that both parents had to be citizens, or whether just one was sufficient. You don’t need to know whether you had to be born on US soil. You don’t need to know whether there were exceptions to any of those rules. All you need to do is say that IF YOU WERE A CITIZEN FROM BIRTH, then you were a “natural born citizen.”

No, that category is too broad. It is not being a citizen at birth, it is being a citizen at birth with no other claim on your allegiance. As for having one parent, the rule of law in those days was "Partus Sequitur Patrem", meaning the father's country is the child's country. The Citizenship of the woman was immaterial because women automatically acquired derivative citizenship upon marriage to an American male. This principle was common place at the time, but it was not codified into law until this act.

The requirement that the FATHER be a citizen is further demonstrated by the naturalization act of 1790 which specifically says:

Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

Here is a link to a good explanation of the process in 1790.

And in fact, one of my points is that since each State had its own citizenship requirements (which admittedly might have been very similar), and those requirements were simply adopted by reference in the Constitution, there ACTUALLY WAS NO FEDERAL LAW concerning the requirements of citizenship, except those adopted by reference from the States. The words “natural born” do not define who can be a citizen, but rather who is qualified for the Presidency. Therefore, I come back to my original point, ie. there are really two issues here: 1) Is a person a citizen? 2) Are they “natural born”? The first question was decided by State law. The second question was purely an issue of federal Constitutional law. So they obviously had to be two separate questions.

You are conflating State Citizenship with Federal Citizenship. When the Constitution was created, it made Federal citizens of all existing "State" citizens, but it did not necessarily grant Federal citizenship to all subsequent people who qualified for state citizenship. As I pointed out before, this was EXACTLY the situation that James McClure found himself in in 1810. He was a Citizen of Virginia, but he was not recognized as a Citizen of the United States. Read this again.

Here is a link to the full page.

Another piece of evidence against you is this effort by Alexander Hamilton during the Constitutional convention to draft Presidential requirements:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

This is an exact description of what you are suggesting. The problem was, it was voted down and the term "natural born citizen" was used in it's place. A "natural citizen" is one born of "We the People", and "We the People" do not include people who have yet to become American citizens. It is a foreign attribute that is undesirable in an American Citizen.

The overall problem that I have with your argument is that you keep referring to a “recognizable claim to allegiance,” but that is merely begging the question. What determines whether it is a “recognizable” claim? Our law has got to determine that, and it’s got to be specific.

Our law DOES say so, and you might THINK it has to be specific, but in fact it is often based on commonly held principles. This is why they call it the "common law." As I pointed out, Derivative citizenship for married women wasn't codified into law (i.e. Made "specific") until 1854, but it was the ACTUAL law of that era.

You can’t just say it’s recognizable when you want it to be recognizable and not recognizable when you don’t want it to be. You could take what I suppose is your approach and say that it is determined by historical rules, but where do they come from and what exactly are they? You say not the English common law. Obviously, they can’t come from the States since then we would have a different rule for each State, yet the Constitution itself did refer to the States for the rules of citizenship. The Constitution itself is not clear on the point of what “natural born” means. The Constitutional history doesn’t help much. I get the impression that you want to defer to the Mexican law, or perhaps the Afghani law, or the Angolan law, but you disclaim that and say it’s our law that is relevant. Still, you can’t just make these rules up out of thin air 220 years after the Constitution was written.

You must be new to this discussion. The principles are outlined in the works on natural law by Groteius, Puffendorf, Locke, Vattel, et al. Here is an example where Natural citizenship is clarified by the Supreme court:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Supreme Court Justice Washington:
"1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word "domicile," but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates "strangers" and the latter "subjects," and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them.

Chief Justice Marshall:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

"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."

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

"The domicile is the habitation fixed in any place with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his domicile in any place unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not remove his domicile elsewhere. In this sense, he who stops, even for a long time, in a place for the management of his affairs has only a simple habitation there, but has no domicile."

A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."

To me, the only way (as well as the simplest way) to deal with it is simply to say that “natural born” means only that you are a citizen from birth. Then you refer to the law of citizenship to determine whether that is the case. And that seems to be perfectly consistent with the Constitution, which did refer to other law for the purpose of determining citizenship.

Whether it be "simple" or not, the law that was in effect in 1787 is the same law that is in effect now. It has not been changed by constitutional amendment, therefore it is still valid. Congress can decide that someone is "born" a citizen if they were born in a tree, but this would not change the meaning of what being born as a "natural citizen" means.

I think that the 14th Amendment complicates the point, but not that much. I don’t think they were trying to change the definition of “natural born” for the purpose of determining eligibility of the President when they adopted the 14th Amendment. They were just trying to change the law of citizenship. In particular, they were trying to prevent the States from disenfranchising the slaves. But you’re still stuck with the actual language they used, irrespective what their intent was.

Not according to Justice Black in Duncan v Louisiana.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, concurring.

Professor Fairman's "history" relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.

Apart from that, they used the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which pretty much means that if you remain a foreign citizen, you cannot have an American Child. A lot of people are not aware that the 14th amendment was a continuation of the effort began with the Civil rights act of 1866, which served as a blueprint for it. The Civil rights act of 1866 is much clearer on the correct meaning.

Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866). Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

Well we’ve beaten it to death. You would think the Court would want to resolve this now when it makes no difference to the current candidates rather than waiting until it does make a difference and someone will inevitably be unhappy.

Given the way the courts operate nowadays, I won't be at all surprised if they get it wrong. Kelo v New London, Roe v Wade, etc. Our courts no longer administer the law, they simply reflect the political attitude of whatever judges happen to be in office currently.

I shall not be at all surprised to hear our Supreme Court pronounce "anchor babies" to be legitimate.

Quite a lot of coverage of George Romney’s citizenship problem: http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/mitt-romney-natural-born-citizenship-and-media-bias/

“Born Dual Citizen” is more applicable. Obama was born in the USA with UK/Kenyan citizenship.

Anchor baby is not applicable in Obama’s case because we deported his father back to Kenya. Unfortunately, he left his Kenyan son here because he had dual citizenship. We failed to deport the whole family.

Let’s say a guy was born in Sheboygan to an American mother , and she doesn’t know who the father was as she slept with 20 guys and didn’t even get most of their names. Could be the father wasn’t a citizen. So is this guy of undetermined paternity a “natural born citizen”? :)

If I understand it correctly, the underlying meaning of the notion of natural born citizen is that the citizen has no foreign allegiances at birth. If the father is unknown at birth, then there would be no foreign allegiances from the father’s side at birth. The child would seemingly be unduly precluded from the presidency if the father were indeed a citizen, and unnecessarily precluded if the father were unknown as a father who is not legally recognized as such would have no legal claim to being responsible for the upbringing of the child. I am not a lawyer, etc.