Now you've been in enough of these arguments to know better than to try that nonsense. You can't be that stupid, so I must assume you are attempting to inject willful confusion.
But just in case you are that stupid, I will once more state the same thing that has been stated probably a thousand times.
George Romney was an American citizen prior to Mitt Romney's birth. That he was born in Mexico is irrelevant to the point. George Romney may have had a constitutional issue with his own attempt at the Presidency (and according to Wong Kim Ark, he wouldn't have been eligible) but his Son had no such issues because his father was a US Citizen when Mitt Romney was born, and it makes no difference how the father acquired this citizenship.
Barack Obama sr was never a US Citizen, and he was also in the country illegally. (He lied on his visa application about associating with communists and polygamists. )
But you know all this, which once again demonstrates that your intent is to sow confusion, and not really deal forthrightly with any of these points.
And Don't think I didn't notice how you've studiously avoided rebutting that Wong Kim Ark quote i've provided. We will discuss it more directly. :)
I think you might be forgetting that the reason George Romney was born in Mexico was because his grandfather had ex-patriated out of the United States to avoid possible felony prosecution for practicing polygamy.
Under the 30th article of the Constitution of Mexico, a person can acquire Mexican citizenship, by birth if any of the following apply:
(1) persons born in Mexican territory regardless of parents’ nationality or immigration status in Mexico
(2) persons born abroad of a Mexican Citizen born in Mexico
persons born to an individual after that person has become a naturalized citizen of Mexico
(3) individuals born on Mexican merchant- or Navy ships or Mexican-registered aircraft, regardless of parents’ nationality or
(4) children born to Mexican Diplomats or Ministry of Foreign Affairs Personnel working overseas
“And Don’t think I didn’t notice how you’ve studiously avoided rebutting that Wong Kim Ark quote i’ve provided. We will discuss it more directly. :)”
One more time, for the slow reading group, US v Wong Kim Ark is the number one precedential decision used to rule on Barack Obama’s eligibility. No judge in America, including the nine on the Supreme Court of the United States who have read cites to Wong in Certiorari petitions has found that particular quotation to be proscriptive in any way, shape or form.
What could be more definitive than the following: Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b).”— February 3, 2012
Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by WONG KIM ARK, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009