Posted on 01/31/2012 3:10:55 AM PST by Mr170IQ
Everybody here, myself included, is desperate that Romney not be the Republican candidate for president.
I suggest that the most cost-effective way of accomplishing that would be to bring Natural Born Citizen ballot eligibility suits against him in a few states, and try to get a few rulings in our favor before the RNC convention. I have read that there is no evidence that Romney's father was naturalized before Romney's birth.
If he is found to be ineligible anywhere before the convention, his delegates won't matter. Worst case there would be a brokered convention.
Why isn't anyone trying this? Lack of standing worries?
If not, then for lack of evidence, let this silly issue die. It is unbecoming of Conservatives to insinuate such a thing in the absence of proof to the contrary.
I do not like Mitt Romney. As far as i'm concerned, he is the worst candidate on the Field. I originally supported Herman Cain, and thereafter Rick Perry. Currently i'm leaning toward Santorum, but I don't think he has a chance.
This leaves only a contest between Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney. I don't like Newt Gingrich either, (He has stabbed us in the back too many times for me to forgive him.) but if the choice is between Romney and Gingrich, I will take Gingrich. ( I HATE the Rockefeller/Rhino/Republican establishment.)
That being said, if Romney ends up being the nominee, I will reluctantly vote for him. Better a George HW Bush clone than an utterly evil man like Obama. More Obama court appointments (and spending) will absolutely kill us.
If you want to complain about Romney, talk about how he flip-flops and possesses no principals which he won't renounce if he thinks it helps him politically. Talk about his stupid "Romney Care". Talk about how he is one of those Untrustworthy North Eastern Republican establishment types. Talk about all the things that are wrong with him, but get off of this "he's not a natural born citizen" crap, unless you actually have proof that he isn't.
It just hurts attempts to attack Obama with it.
You simply do not have a clue what you are talking about. You are wrong in every generality and every specific. I gave you my best shot, but as I suspected, you prefer to remain wrong. There is nothing more I can do for you.
You will keep arguing for George Romney’s failure to meet the NBC requirement for the Presidency, and I will keep telling you that the issue is moot. George Romney is dead. That’s yet another disqualification, so we don’t even have to get the the NBC issue.
Until then this is just WILD speculation. WILD.
We couldn't stop, and so far can't prevent, a Kenyan born, Marxist, Muslim from running and becoming president. What makes you think that your strategy against Romney would go anywhere? Especially since you have absolutely no evidence.
No. Absolutely NOT! He may have been considered a citizen under the laws of MEXICO, but the United States does not RECOGNIZE the laws of other nations as applied to THEIR Citizens. Mexican law is completely irrelevant. He was born to two American Citizens, and is therefore an American Citizen. (According to American Law!) We don't give a flip what Mexican law has to say about it.
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.
Yes, his Father WAS a U.S. Citizen. Your theory is wrong because you overlook the fact that US Citizenship is not defined by Mexican law. It is defined by OUR law, and OUR law says he was a citizen. With Rubio, you might have an argument, but with Mitt? Not at all.
What really annoys me is the fact that you've got *ME* defending Mitt Romney. I HATE Mitt Romney. I don't want to defend him, but by saying he isn't a "natural born citizen" you are just churning the waters that the rest of us are trying to clarify. It distracts from the fact that Obama is not a Natural born citizen, and makes those of us trying to explain the issue, look stupid because we are getting lumped into the group questioning Romney's citizenship.
Find other reasons to hate Mitt Romney (Lord knows there are plenty) but quit trying to steal the thunder from the Obama eligibility issue.
No, the United States did not require a clear renunciation of citizenship at the time in which these events took place. Due to their illegal practice of polygamy, the Romeny family forfeited their U.S. citizenship by the Edmunds-Tucker Act, the SCOTUS confirmation of that act, and by their sojourn in Mexico as citizens of Mexico for more than five years. It remains to be seen what evidence there is that the Romney anceestors ever applied for and were granted naturalized citizenship after they forfeited their prior U.S. citizenship.
Perhaps they did, but the U.S. voters have a right and perhaps an arguable obligation as diligent citizens to secure such evidence before allowing Mitt Romney on the ballots.
We don't have to. You have to show us his Parent's renunciation of citizenship statements. Till the United States Government stopped regarding them as citizens, they are citizens. If they have a child, that child is a citizen. We don't care what Mexican law says about it.
If they did not overtly renounce their citizenship, they still possessed it, and passed it on to their child.
You call it wild speculation. If it is such wild speculation, then you show us how the Roneys had their U.S. citizenship stripped from them by law because of their illegal acts of polygamy, fled to Mexico to pracctice polygamy,and then returned to the United States as refugees from war in Mexico with their U.S. citizenship magically resored. Did someone just wave their magic wand and dub them U.S. citizens once more and say all is forgiven, or did the Romney family regain U.S. citizenship by naturalization papaers, or did they just remain in the United States as non-citizen immigrants?
“End of story.”
No it’s not. You didn’t read the entire article...if any part of it.
The United States stripped the Romney family of their citizenship for their illegal practice of polygamy in Utah, which is why they emigrated to establish a polygamous colony in Mexico. It was the Edmunds-Tucker Act that punished them for their illegal acts of polygamy, and the act was upheld by the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1890.
Please show us the naturalization records or other act which restored their previously forfeited U.S. citizenship.
Regardless -
Romney has not presented any evidence that his father was a US citizen at the time of Mittens’ birth. Since it is unquestioned that Mitt’s dad was born in Mexico, the issue is at least ambiguous. If one candidate is being asked to provide proof of meeting the constitutional requirements, it seems appropriate to require it from all candidates.
Assuming he has such proof, it would HELP the Obama eligibility cases to bring this case against Mittens, if only to show that people with nothing to hide just provide the required documents when asked by the court, instead of spending millions of dollars stonewalling for years.
If he doesn’t have such proof, or refuses to present it to the court, then he doesn’t belong on the ballot either.
> 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.
Agreed. Mittens should therefore have no qualms with presenting documentation to the court to prove that he meets the constitutional requirements for the job he doesn’t deserve.
I read the article, it is disorganized and drivelous. Got anything better than that?
I am pretty certain that the United States government at that time would regard two of it's citizens as citizens until it had been informed that they are not. In absence of information that positively affirms their renunciation of their American citizenship, by the Standards of the United States Government, they remain citizens.
I looked up the "Edmunds-Tucker Act". While I haven't found the actual text of the act, I read a synopsis of it. Nothing in it revokes citizenship, and it is therefore irrelevant to the point at hand. Had the act, Or another one like it, revoked citizenship, then you would have had a legitimate argument. As it is, I see no reason for the United States Government to have changed the citizenship status of George Romney's parents.
If you are going to assert that our Government did change their citizenship status, you need to provide proof that demonstrates such. The default position is that they are Citizens, not that they have renounced.
It remains to be seen what evidence there is that the Romney ancestors ever applied for and were granted naturalized citizenship after they forfeited their prior U.S. citizenship.
They cannot have forfeited their citizenship if the American Government was unaware of it. Such claims fit into the area of unsubstantiated allegations, and as such are not sufficient to reject someone's citizenship. As they did not forfeit their citizenship as far as our government is concerned, they did not need naturalization. If you have evidence of naturalization for the Romney parents, please present it. A quick look at George Romney's history indicates that our Government always considered him a citizen. They placed him on several governmental boards. Not something they would do with a Non-citizen. (Especially during World War II)
Perhaps they did, but the U.S. voters have a right and perhaps an arguable obligation as diligent citizens to secure such evidence before allowing Mitt Romney on the ballots.
The US voters have a right to not be bothered with unsubstantiated accusations. It is beneath the dignity of conservatives to traffic in such claims with no proof. It also damages attempts to attack Obama with the issue by making us all look like we are spewing groundless accusations.
You didn’t read the following. You should. It would make you sound a little intelligent.
Mitt Romney’s Father Was A Mexican Citizen When Mitt Was Born.
You made this statement. Now you will have to back it up. Please show me the text in the Edmunds-Tucker Act that stripped them of their citizenship.
If you cannot do this, then you need to walk back that statement. It is not true.
It was the Edmunds-Tucker Act that punished them for their illegal acts of polygamy, and the act was upheld by the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1890.
The punishment outlined in that act was loss of property, fines, and imprisonment. I see nothing in there about stripping them of their citizenship. Do you have any proof that they were punished by our government for violating the Edmunds-Tucker act? Or are you just assuming they were?
Please show us the naturalization records or other act which restored their previously forfeited U.S. citizenship.
Natural born citizens do not have naturalization records. It is only an apparently false allegations that they lost their citizenship. Apparently the U.S. Government did not agree with you.
I have presented no evidence that MY father was a US Citizen at the time of My birth. Having grown up as an American citizen, it never occurred to me that I should need to check. How about you? If not, then why bother Romney about it? Presumably he can find proof that his parents were American Citizens, so what is the issue?
Oh, look here. Gaskell Romney (George's Father) was born in Salt Lake City. At the very least, he gets 14th Amendment citizenship, and is therefore a citizen. While Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, i'm sure the particulars can be backed up if they need to be.
I will now therefore present to you that the above Wikipedia entry constitutes sufficient proof that George Romney's father was an American Citizen, which therefore Makes George Romney an American Citizen. Your worries are over.
Since it is unquestioned that Mitt’s dad was born in Mexico, the issue is at least ambiguous. If one candidate is being asked to provide proof of meeting the constitutional requirements, it seems appropriate to require it from all candidates.
We are not arguing whether George Romney is a "natural born citizen." We are arguing whether Mitt Romney is a "natural born citizen." Since I proved above that George Romney was an American Citizen, and since Mitt Romney was both Born to American Parents and born IN the United States, I can safely conclude that he is most certainly a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, and is therefore eligible to be President. (Not that we would want him, but he is Eligible.)
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/01/28/mitt-romneys-father-was-a-mexican-citizen-when-mitt-was-born/
I will read it. I will be surprised if it tells me anything useful.
Mitt Romney’s Father Was A Mexican Citizen When Mitt Was Born.
Not as far as i've been able to determine. By United States law, he was an American citizen. Mexican law is irrelevant.
It isn’t just the Edmunds-Tucker Act. Theree was the prior anti-bigamy act in IRRC about 1869 and some varous otheer legal acts and proceedings which stripppeed them of the right to vote, hold elective officee, property forfeitures, and an assortment of other legal disqualifications which led them to claim they had lost their citizenship. What they were talking about were their rights as citizens, which they said made it all the same for them to go to Mexico to obtain Mexican ccitizenship and all that entailed. In other words, it was the Mormon emigrants who claimed they had been stripped of their citizenship, which perhaps acctually meant they had in effecct if not legal fact lost their citizenship. What this means is that the whole issue of the citizenship of these affected people is miredd in a quagmire of intrnatonal legalities which left the citizeenship of these people in reasonable doubt and obscurity. Did they retain theeir actual U.S. citizenship and still have it when they became refugees to the United States. Perhaps they did. If so, however, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for the documentation. It would also benefit the Republic to settle the legal question of whether or not a person who eveer owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign is a natural born citizen for the purposes of the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution when there is a claim of dual citizenship or multiple citizenship. The U.S. citizens have rights too, and one of them is the right to know that a candidate is eligible for the office in the election.
I’m departing on the highway for a few days now. It’s not too practical to type this stuff on the smartphone, so I’ll leave this to you folks to fight it out. have fun, and defeat Romney.
I like your efforts, WhiskeyX, but I have been unable to locate within the text of the Edmunds Tucker Act anything that strips the Mormon polygamists of their citizenship, though they took away may rights and confiscated property, and invalidated organizations and laws and rules the Mormons had established.
The text of the act is found at 24 United States Statutes at Large at page 635 and following. The following is a pdf file of the statute of 1887 and the pdf page to see is 659, though you need to look on the pages to see which is 635. Constitution.org/uslaw/sal/024_statutes_at_large.pdf
If George Romney was a citizen at the time of Mitt Romney’s birth, ditto his mother, then Mitt Romney is an NBC regardless of the type of citizenship his father held (NBC, Statutory Citizen by birth or or naturalized).
Totally agree, but due to daddy being foreign born, shouldn’t Mitt provide documentation as proof. If he’s NBC, wouldn’t that help in court of public opinion that he did things right vs Obama hiding his entire birth, father, place, citizenship etc.? Isn’t this what transparency is all about?
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.