Adios Dad, there's the door!
Mitt Romney’s father, George Wilcken Romney, was born in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua, on 8 July 1907, but his family fled the violence of the Mexican Revolution and moved to Texas sometime around 1912-1913, where they lived off of government assistance until eventually moving to Idaho.
This brings up two questions; first, did Mitt’s father apply for a visa before entering the United States as an illegal alien fleeing violence in his native Mexico? And second, how is Mittens so vehemently opposed to government assistance for the poor and needy when his own father’s family wouldn’t have survived without it?
Fortunately for Mitt’s father President Woodrow Wilson’s immigration policies weren’t the same as Mittens’ who’s said, “My plan is this, which is for those that have come here illegally and are here illegally today, no amnesty. Now, how do people return home? Under the ideal setting, at least in my view, you say to those who have just come in recently, we’re going to send you back home immediately; we’re not going to let you stay here. You just go back home. For those that have been here, let’s say, five years, and have kids in school, you allow kids to complete the school year, you allow people to make their arrangements, and allow them to return back home. Those that have been here a long time, with kids that have responsibilities here and so forth, you let stay enough time to organize their affairs and go home.”
Equally fortunate for his father is that Americans felt differently about government programs for the poor in 1912 than the conservatives of today do, including his dear son.
“The threat to our culture comes from within,” Mittens says about the poor and needy. “The 1960’s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven’t given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug. We have got to fight it like the poison it is.”
Under Mitt’s proposed presidential policies, his own father, who wasn’t an American, would’ve been sent packing back to Colonia Dublán, Galeana, told to go, vamoose, and get out, no amnesty for you! And if by some chance his son’s jack booted immigration thugs hadn’t found him he’d probably starved to death while being told to pull himself up by his boots straps.
An additional question would be how did a Mexican national run for the presidency in 1968? The Constitution is quite clear on who can and who cannot run for the presidency with respects to nationality; Article II, Section I states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The only way George Romney could’ve been considered a “natural born citizen” is if he’d been born on a United States Military base or in a U.S. Embassy – both being considered United States’ soil. John McCain although born in Panama was born on a U.S. Naval Base, hence he was eligible to run in 2008, George Romney was not born on a base nor in an embassy and was not eligible.
Good thing birthers weren’t as rabid back then, or is that Romney was running as a Republican?
The Liberty Tree 
ellen
November 14, 2011 at 13:14
Notice the OR in the definition:
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Phil Bundy
November 14, 2011 at 13:35
George Romney’s parents had lived in Mexico for more than a decade before he was born, having been married there in 1895; George was born 12 years later in 1907 – hardly “temporarily residing abroad”.
ellen
November 14, 2011 at 14:02
There is actually a Constitutional meaning on “temporarily.” As you know, Article II of the Constitution requires that a a person be both Natural Born, at least 35 years old, and have resided in the USA for at least 14 years. What is the difference between 35 years and 14 years? Twenty-one years. In other words, under the US Constitution a person could have lived 21 years outside of the USA and still be considered eligible. And yet you say that 12 years outside the USA is not temporary residence abroad. If a candidate were 60 years old, the 14 year requirement would still apply. That means that he or she could have lived outside of the USA for 44 years and still be eligible.
So, who tells you that 12 years is not “temporary?”
Phil Bundy
November 14, 2011 at 14:28
The Founders insisted upon a natural-born citizen clause to ensure that individuals born outside the United States couldn’t serve as either President or Vice-President. The 14 year minimum residency was established to keep those who had flocked to the Revolution from foreign countries, especially any of “noble” birth, from becoming the executive. George Romney was not born within the United States, nor on a U.S. military base or within an embassy compound; John McCain while foreign born – Panama – was born on a U.S. Naval Base making him a natural born citizen and eligible to run.
Temporary implies an arrangement established with no thought of continuance but with the idea of being changed soon: a temporary structure. Twelve months might be considered temporary, 12 years is not.
ellen
November 14, 2011 at 15:58
Re: “Temporary implies an arrangement established with no thought of continuance but with the idea of being changed soon: a temporary structure. Twelve months might be considered temporary, 12 years is not.”
You are giving your feeling, not the law. If you are a US citizen and you live outside the USA for 50 years and return, you are just as much a US citizen, and your time overseas was simply “temporary.” There is no law that says that 12 years abroad or any number of years is not a temporary stay abroad. Only by taking the citizenship of another country and giving up US citizenship can a stay abroad not be considered temporary.
There actually was legislation in one of the early US Congresses that added the children of US citizens born abroad to the existing criterion of Natural Born Status, birth in the USA. So there are now two criteria, birth in the USA and birth abroad to US parents (which is what happened to George Romney).
Phil Bundy
November 14, 2011 at 17:00
If you want “legal definitions, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” Clearly, according to the “definition”, George Romney was not born within the “jurisdiction of the United States.
In a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review Lawrence Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that “there is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a ‘natural born citizen'”. In April 2010, Solum republished the same article as an online draft, in which he changed his opinion on the meaning of natural born citizen to include persons born in the United States of one American citizen parent (clearly referencing the current President’s right to hold his office.
Regarding legislation allowing children born overseas to American citizens to be considered “natural born” please provide that reference … children born of United States parents overseas clearly can claim citizenship, but that’s different from “natural born” citizenship.
McCain was born on the Coco Solo Naval Air Station – United States soil – thus making him eligible, it wasn’t because he was born to American citizens which guaranteed his eligibility.
Regarding “temporary” as far as the Romney family was concerned, his father moved to Mexico in 1886 and lived there for 26 years, clearly they weren’t living there “temporarily, and if there hadn’t been a revolution it is reasonable to assume would have continued to live there.
In any case, according to the definition above, George Romney was not eligible to run for President.
Peter
November 14, 2011 at 19:02
According to the Congressional Research Service, probably the best source for this kind of information, “natural-born citizen” includes both “at birth” AND “by birth.” Thus, a person born with the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (including Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, etc.) are citizens regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. The one exception to this is if the parents are foreign diplomats, but then they’re not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, so it’s not really an exception. Also, as long as at least one parent is a legal U.S. citizen, the child is as well regardless of where the child is born.
If you would like sources:
Click to access RL30527.pdf
(for the Guam, Virgin Islands thing; read footnote #2)
(for the “at birth” and “by birth” thing)
Phil Bundy
November 14, 2011 at 19:21
Peter, the key phrase – as I pointed out earlier – is “within the jurisdiction of the United States, “Citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as
‘natural born’ citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President, provided they
meet qualifications of age and 14 years residence within the United States” … note your referenced material doesn’t list Mexico where George Romney was born.
Your source only specifies someone being born in the District of Columbia (Al Gore for example) or in a territory (Guam, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands) as being “natural born”, all others who are born on foreign soil, but whose parents are citizens, may be citizens, but not natural born citizens; and there is a huge difference constitutionally speaking between being a United States citizen and being a “natural born” citizen. Romney could very well have been a United States citizen by virtue of his parent’s citizenship, hence by right of blood (ius sanguinis), but not by right of soil (ius soli).
Under even today’s standards he was not eligible to run for the presidency; he could have served in Congress, or even Governor of Michigan (as he had) but not the presidency.
ellen
November 15, 2011 at 06:21
If you think that McCain was eligible due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone and not because of his US parents, then there is considerable doubt as to whether this is true. The Canal Zone, like Guantanamo, was a leased territory. And the Bush Administration argued before the US Supreme Court that Guantamano was NOT sovereign US territory so that the US right of Habeas Corpus did not apply to it.
In that case, the Bush Administration LOST, but only by a 5 to 4 vote and only about Habeus Corpus. If the justices had been asked whether Guantanamo or the Canal Zone was sovereign for the purposes of Natural Born Citizenship, that would have been another thing.
To be sure McCain was BOTH born on a US base and born to US citizens, but the fact that he had two things in his favor does not change the situation that Panama was not sovereign territory. His parents, however, were US citizens. Natural Born Citizenship due to birth abroad to US citizens is not the original meaning of Natural Born, to be sure. It is a second meaning, a statute meaning, and one that some people have doubted. For example, Edwin Meese doubts it, in this quotation:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
So, it is truthful to say that George Romney’s Natural Born Citizen status was IN DOUBT. But the majority of constitutional scholars hold that the additional statute meaning of Natural Born Citizen, the one based on parents giving birth abroad, is also valid.
Phil Bundy
November 15, 2011 at 07:10
The legal “definition” of “natural born” citizen has been given above; McCain’s eligibility was based on the fact he was born on a United State’s Naval Base, to parents who were citizens – United States Soil (ius soli). This isn’t that hard to understand.
George Romney was not born on soil considered to be an American, but his parents were citizens. thus he could be considered a citizen by birth, (ius sanguinis).
As an afterthought, Edwin Meese is probably not the best person to quote concerning the constitutional legality of things as he sanctioned Iran-Contra.
ellen
November 15, 2011 at 08:03
As I said, the Panama Canal Zone was LEASED territory, not sovereign territory. There was some doubt as to whether even the Habeas Corpus provisions of the US Constitution applied. So jus soli may not apply. the jus sangunis of McCain’s parents still applies, but some have doubt about whether it affects Natural Born status. Most, however, hold that US citizen parents have been added to the definition by statute, and yes the original legislation (Naturalization Act of 1790) said that a child born overseas to US parents was to be considered a Natural Born US citizen, not just a US Citizen.
Phil Bundy
November 15, 2011 at 17:14
OK, let’s try this one last time; whether a military base is leased, is not the question, military bases and embassies are considered United States soil hence McCain via ius soli was eligible … he was a citizen because his parents were citizens, he was a natural born citizen because he was born on American soil – a United States Naval Base, this is not rocket science.
ellen
November 16, 2011 at 00:37
Re: “military bases and embassies are considered United States soil…”
Yes they are, for some things, but not necessarily for all of them.
If a US president can honestly argue that the US Constitution does not apply to a leased territory (which is what the Bush Administration said about Guantanamo), that means that he does not consider it a sovereign part of the USA, and the Bush Administration actually did argue that, and it got some votes on the US Supreme Court.
A US state, and all the territories and the District of Columbia are in my opinion US soil (though some argue that territories are NOT, but that is laughable). But whether a leased territory is “US soil” when some argue that the US Constitution does not apply to it is obviously debatable.
However, McCain was both born on a US military base and to two US citizens. You say that if he had been born in, say, Paris, to two US citizens he would not be eligible. I say that if he were born in Paris to two US citizens he would be eligible (maybe even only one US citizen). That is what the Black’s Law Dictionary says. However, I grant that there have been doubts. But doubts do not mean that the idea is wrong. It only means that some people disagree.
Phil Bundy
November 16, 2011 at 06:00
George W. Bush is probably not the best example to use when presenting a case about the constitutionality of something; his argument on GITMO was based on the whole “leased” theory so his administration could justify keeping suspected terrorists (particularly U.S. citizens) as prisoners there indefinitely without a hearing, he and his attorney general were trying to skirt America’s laws.
ellen
November 16, 2011 at 10:53
Re: “he and his attorney general were trying to skirt America’s law.”
I agree with you completely (and I also hold that it was a rotten thing to do), but still he made that argument, and it got some votes on the US Supreme Court.
Edward C. Noonan
February 8, 2012 at 12:52
McCain is NOT a natural born citizen. He was born in Colon, Panama. If you will GOOGLE EARTH the area, you will see that the Naval base is ACROSS the bay from Colon. And it is well known that COLON is not part of the Panama Canal Zone…it was especially stated that it was not included.
Hence, McCain was born in a Foriegn Nation (Panama) and even his birth certificate shows that he was born in Panama. It is in SPANISH. Being born on a Military base does not make you a natural born citizen…military bases are LEASED from the hosting country and are under the jurisdiction of the host country. In the McCain case, he is either a dual citizen or a Panama citizen… in either case he is not a Natural Born Citizen regardless of what SR 511 states.
Edward C. Noonan
February 8, 2012 at 12:55
And Jindal, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney have serious questions regarding their NBC eligibility. The first two ARE NOT NBC, and the second two have tons of questions and genealogy research to do before they can claim to be NBC.