Absolutely. Unless one of Romney's parents renounced his US Citizenship prior to his birth, Mitt Romney is a Natural born citizen as far as I can tell. I don't particularly care for him, (though I fear we are going to end up with him) but I am not questioning his eligibility to hold office. Jindal perhaps, and to a lesser degree Rubio, but I don't see Mitt being disqualified at all.
Basically what you are saying is that if the Mexican government had a law that actually made him a Mexican citizen, then he would be disqualified. I can understand your argument, but I still think it’s pretty lame to suggest that our Constitution would disqualify someone just because of what the law of some other land says. Suppose Iran passed a law making Obama, Romney, and the entire GOP field citizens?
If the law was based on a principle which the US recognizes, then yes. Jus soli is already recognized. If he was born in Mexico, then the Mexicans would have a claim that could be recognized. Were he born to Mexican Parents, we could recognize that claim as well. If he were both born in Mexico AND to Mexican parents, by what stretch could we even recognize him as one of our citizens?
If the Mexican law is based on the claim of having brown hair, that would not be recognized. It is a silly claim, as is also the claim of ancestry. MOST Americans have ancestors from some other country. To recognize such a claim as legitimate would allow for all our citizens to be seized by some country or another should they travel there.
No, our very existence relies on a refusal to recognize such claims as legitimate.
“If the law was based on a principle which the US recognizes, then yes.”
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.
“If he were both born in Mexico AND to Mexican parents, by what stretch could we even recognize him as one of our citizens?”
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?”
The original Constitution deferred to the States to define citizenship, and that was the law when they wrote “natural born citizen.” 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.
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.
Originally, the “natural born citizen” concept was seen as being determined entirely on where you were born. 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. 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.
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. The issue of whether you are natural born they will hold depends on whether you were a citizen from birth. 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.”
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.