Posted on 01/31/2012 3:10:55 AM PST by Mr170IQ
Laws are for the led, not the leaders, in “The Land of the Free”.
Get off on calling people names? Want to see an “idiot”? Look in the mirror.
At the time of the Constitutional Convention and the years shortly before 1787, the United Kingdom of Great Britain claimed that any person born as a subject of the British sovereign owed a permanent allegiance to the British sovereign for the person's entire life. Britain denied recognition that any person born a British subject could ever naturalize as a citizen of another state or swear allegiance to any other sovereign without committing treason against the British sovereign. This British claim was at odds against most of the laws and customs of Continental Europe, which did recognize some limited ablates to naturalize as a citizen with a foreign sovereign.
Revolutionary France was also in the midst of a tumult and redefinition of the rights of citizenship and the allegiance a citizens owed to the state.
The future first Chief Justice of the Supreme court of the United States considered it necessary to write a letter to George Washington suggesting that having any United States citizenship was not an adequate safeguard as a qualification to be the President and commander-in-chief of the American Army. He and others were concerned that a European sovereign or group of European nobility could very well attempt to promote a person still owing allegiance in part or whole to a foreign sovereign, and this person could then attempt to subordinate the United States and its citizens to the authority of the foreign sovereign who laid claim to an allegiance owed by the President and commander-in-chief. There were numerous precedents they had in mind including the Scottish succession. After wards, Mexico revolted against Spain and found its leader claiming to be an Emperor of Mexico, and the French attempted later to install Archduke Maximilian as yet another Emperor of Mexico. To avoid such risks, the Founding Fathers used the natural born citizen clause as a means of ensuring the only person who would qualify for eligibility to the Office of the President and Office of the Vice President was a person who at no time from the moment of birth to their inauguration in office ever owed allegiance to anyone other than the citizens of the United States who elected him.
Later years and events created a new problem. In 1787, a person could not possess dual citizenship, because it meant a person owed allegiance to more than one sovereign at a time. At that time, it was an act of treason to swear allegiance to a foreign sovereign without obtaining leave of your original sovereign to naturalize out of the preceding allegiance. The more recent court cases and statutory laws of foreign nations has created a conflict with dual and multiple citizenships and the divided allegiances and divided loyalties they create. With respect to the natural born citizen clause any attempt to claim a dual citizenship or a multiple citizenship immediately runs afoul of the Founding Fathers intent to deny eligibility to any person who ever owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth or after birth.
Some people may attempt to claim that being a a child of two U.S. citizens confers U.S. citizenship upon the child and natural born citizenship as well. The problem with such a claim is the allegiance owed by the child at birth to the foreign sovereign of the state in which the child is born, if any.
In the case of George Romney, we do not know whether or not his father repudiated his U.S. citizenship and/or naturalized as a citizen of Mexico; or did the grandfather become a citizen of Mexico and then resume a claim of being a U.S. citizen without going through the legal process of naturalizing as a U.S. citizen? We don't know at this point whether or not the return to the United States was as a legitimate U.S. citizen or as an illegal immigrant.
If George Romney's father became a naturalized citizen of Mexico, then George Romney could have been born with Mexican citizenship and no U.S. citizenship at all despite claims to the contrary. If George Romney was an illegal Mexican immigrant, then Mitt Romney is the native born U.S. citizen son of an illegal Mexican born immigrant whose parents were former U.S. citizens.
Many people have been asking why the Republican Party has shown no desire to pursue Obama’s lack of eligibility to the Office of the President? Given the way in which the Republican Party elected another ineligible candidate, President Chester Arthur, and seeks to promote many more potentially ineligible candidates such as George Romney, Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and perhaps John McCain; the question should be why is anyone surprised?
A better question may be why do both political parties seem to be singularly incapable of promoting qualified candidates whose natural born ancestors are beyond question? As many people who perform family historical research or genealogical research know, about 10 percent of U.S. citizens are descendants of the original Mayflower colonists of 1620. Then there are more who are descendants of the Jamestown colonists of 1607-1620. These include many people who the descendants of the 17th Century slaves brought to these colonies and who earned their right to be free citizens in those colonies. Why then do these political parties find it necessary to snub the 100 percent born and raised U.S. citizens from the highest offices of our Federal Government? Why do these political parties go to such extremes to force these people born in foreign cultures into our government and usurp the powers our forefathers reserved to us and our posterity?
I thought the same thing this morning. It should be a relatively simple factual question to answer: was his father a citizen when Romney was born.
You left out the part where your U.S. citizen ancestors emigrated to Mexico, swore allegiance to Mexico and became Mexican citizens, gave birth to you in Mexico on sovereign Mexican soil, and then brought you back to the United States, and pretended to be U.S. citizens who never swore allegiance to Mexico. just how did that happen? :>)
That is the wrong question. We needd to know whether or not Mexico had a claim upon George Romney’s allegiance to Mexico as a citizen of Mexico at the time of Mitt Romney’s birth
Mitt Romney’s Father Was A Mexican Citizen When Mitt Was Born.
You are perfectly correct in your fears. George Romney was born in Mexico and therefore he was a Mexican citizen. Mitt was born within the jurisdiction of U.S. as required, but his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Mitts birth, which means Mitt Romney is NOT eligible for president. For this reason, Rubio is not eligible either.
I don’t know why this is so difficult to understand.
Do your homework folks!!!!
Laws are for the led, not the leaders, in “The Land of the Free”.
They are not leaders and I will not follow them. My father and the men and women like him were, and are, leaders. Those who control our political system today are, for the most part, a lawless, self-agrandizing cabal; devoid of even the most rudimentary character traits required for leadership.
ok thanks
I surely don't believe that. Nor do I make any such claim.
What I DO understand to be true is that a child of two U.S. citizens, born in the United States, is a natural born citizen without question. This is the understanding of the founders, and it is the only definition established as Supreme Court precedent.
Prior citizenship status of George Romney or any predecessor Romneys notwithstanding, if George Romney and his wife were US citizens at the time of Mitt's birth in the United States, then whether you like it or not, MItt is an NBC.
Yes, and you have ZERO evidence that this was ever the case. Do the research, get the facts, report back and maybe you can have a bit of credibility. It's sure lacking now.
Mitt Romney’s Father Was A Mexican Citizen When Mitt Was Born.
You do YOUR homework!
Mitt Romney’s Father Was A Mexican Citizen When Mitt Was Born.
That may be so, but it falls into the category of utter irrelevancy. It isn’t George Romney’s citizenship status we are concerned about; it is Mitt’s. As long as George Romney was a US citizen at the time of Mitt’s birth in the United States, and he most definitely was, then Mitt is an NBC. End of story.
I have never claimed those were indeed the facts. It is Romney’s obligation to comply with the U.S. Constitution and staisfy the voters that he can do so by demonstrating his father was not a citizen of Mexico or otherwise owing allegiance to Mexico at the moment in which Mitt Romney was born. He has the burden of proof, or the voters have the right to exercise caution and their discretion to note vote for him and perhaps to mount a legal challenge to his appearance on the eleection ballots as was discussed earlier in this thread.
If George Romney owed allegiance to Mexico at the moment Mitt Romney was born, Mitt Romney qualifies as a native born U.S. citizen andnot as a natural born U.S. citizen. Let us all see a preeponderance of the evidence which demonstrates George Romney was not a citizen of Mexico at the time Mitt Romney was born. Evidencee of U.S. citizenship does not provide evidence of a lack of Mexican citizenship. Foreign citizenship with or without concurrent U.S. citizenship disqualifies a person from being a natural born U.S. citizen.
He didn't. "Native born" Mexicans only become citizens of Mexico upon reaching the age of 18. George Romney left Mexico at the age of five, before he could have possibly become a citizen of Mexico. So that is the end of that theory, or it ought to be. Somehow I don't think you are ready to give it up.
Beyond that it is simply untrue that Mitt Romney would be denied Natural Born citizenship on the basis of his father's possible divided allegiance. The law is quite different from that, despite your imaginings on the subject. If George Romney was a US citizen (and his wife as well) at the time of Mitt Romney's birth, then despite your discomfiture, Mitt Romney IS a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
Trying to cast a wider net around Romney (Not because he isn't eligible, but instead only because you don't like him. (I don't either.) ) does nothing but damage the credibility of people who are contending quite seriously that the Standard is that of having two citizen parents.
You are HURTING the cause when you damage everyone's credibility. Stop it. Just Stop it. Romney is a NBC.
Yep. George Romney most definitely was NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
But, I thought we were discussing Mitt Romney.
Among other things you can say about George Romney, he's dead, and he is no longer running for President. Your argument is about 34 years too late.
Such an interpretation of the Constitution invalidates its original purpose, which is contrary to marbury v. Madison. The purpose of the clause was to disqualify any person upon whom a foreign sovereign could claim the right to command allegiance and obediance. The advent of the questonable practice of recognizing or tolerating dual citizeenship created a conflict which did not exist at the time the clause in the Constitution was adopted. The only way the intent of the clause can be given the efect intendeed by the Constitution is to disquaklify any person who has ever owed allegiance to a foreign sovereeign or anyone other than the citizens of the United States, exceepting of course the persons at the time the Constituion was adopted in 1787. Show us George Romney’s U.S. naturalization records.
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.