How was George Romney eligible to run for the presidency?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 10:11:26 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  How was George Romney eligible to run for the presidency?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: How was George Romney eligible to run for the presidency?  (Read 4659 times)
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,028
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 23, 2012, 07:59:45 PM »

Am I missing something?  Was it ever even raised in 1968 that he was born in Mexico?
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2012, 08:13:36 PM »
« Edited: April 24, 2012, 07:30:33 AM by sjoycefla »

"The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States."--First Congress of the United States, 1790. His parents were American citizens from Utah, they was born in Utah, and they fled Mexico in 1912 to come back to the US. George Romney was born a US citizen.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2012, 08:30:46 PM »
« Edited: April 24, 2012, 09:25:35 AM by Missouri Fox Trotter »

It was raised, but his parents had kept their US citizenship while they were living in Mexico, and they never gained Mexican citizenship, so George was a US citizen from birth and never was a Mexican citizen. (Mexican law at the time defined citizenship by jus sanguinis alone.)  Whether he qualified as a "natural born citizen" depends on how one defines that phase.

The definition included in the Naturalization Act of 1790, was not included in its successor, the Naturalization Act of 1795 or any law since.  Arguably, the 14th Amendment limits natural born citizenship to jus soli alone, in which case neither George Romney nor John McCain would have been eligible.  Whether jus sanguinis alone makes one a natural born citizen or not is unsettled, but probably would be, especially in a case like George's, wherein he never had any other citizenship despite being born in Mexico.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,028
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2012, 08:37:59 PM »

Why does it seem to me like presidential eligibility rules are such a gray area?  Until now I had been under the impression that a person had to be born on US soil (or at least US-controlled soil, e.g. John McCain) to be a natural born citizen.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2012, 09:29:31 PM »

Why does it seem to me like presidential eligibility rules are such a gray area?

Because the gray areas affect so few people, and never to someone who won, so that it has never really mattered.  However, John McCain's claim to being a natural born citizen derives from jus sanguinis alone, the same as George Romney.  Even if John was born in the Canal Zone (a matter of minor dispute), it was at a time when jus soli did not apply there, but was retroactively applied.
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,544
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2012, 05:26:17 PM »

In the immigration act of 1792, it was expressly stated that under the Constitution, America had citizenship jus sanguine.  But, when the Democratic-Republicans repealed this act after they took over Congress in the 1800's, (not for this reason), it was ambiguous on whether this was still the case.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2012, 06:48:10 PM »

Get your dates right. The relevant acts are mentioned above.  Jus sanguinis was part of the explicit law of the land from 1790 to 1795.  Both acts were passed by the Federalists, as was another law passed in 1798.  It was the 1798 act the Republicans repealed in 1802, thus returning to the 1795 law with a few minor changes.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,149
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2012, 07:07:55 PM »

"The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States."--First Congress of the United States, 1790. His parents were American citizens from Utah, they was born in Utah, and they fled Mexico in 1912 to come back to the US. George Romney was born a US citizen.

Still, what about with Mitt? Does the fact that only his mother was a natural born citizen effect him? Like, only Obama's father was born in the US, so does the same apply to Mitt? Or does he get a pass because his grandparents were born here?
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2012, 10:23:01 PM »

I believe the commonly-accepted legal definition of "natural-born citizen" is someone who was a citizen at birth, which Romney was, having two US-citizen parents.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,580
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2012, 12:54:14 AM »
« Edited: May 17, 2012, 10:01:14 PM by All of a Sudden I Miss Everyone »

There are two types of citizens, naturalized and natural born, which means a citizen at birth. Place of birth is almost irrelevant (mattering only in an instance where one is a citizen at birth per jus soli. George Romney and John McCain were both unquestionably citizens at birth, as is also for example Sen. Michael Bennet, who was born in India.)

Place of birth of parents is also entirely irrelevant, one who is a citizen at birth to naturalized parents, or even not citizens at all per jus soli is a natural born citizen. Otherwise Bobby Jindal would not be eligible. This doesn't mean that a handful of Birther loons make this argument, but I'd be surprised if any court would treat a case on these grounds any more seriously than the Obama Birther lawsuits. I doubt anyone took this nonsense seriously or thought this way at all before Obama, but after him the Birthers have tried twisting legal interpretation to make new definitions that exclude Obama that basically have no basis in anything besides Birther fantasies.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,149
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2012, 05:31:23 AM »

I believe the commonly-accepted legal definition of "natural-born citizen" is someone who was a citizen at birth, which Romney was, having two US-citizen parents.

Ah, I see. Thank you.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2012, 10:19:26 AM »
« Edited: May 16, 2012, 10:22:23 AM by The Mikado »

Yeah, "citizen at birth" does not necessarily imply "citizen via jus soli."  Jus soli is simply the easiest-to-prove way of having US citizenship that wouldn't lead to jus sanguinis' natural flaw of "find your great-great grandfather's immigration papers to the US to prove that he was here legally, or else your whole line might be retroactively shown to not be citizens."  

George Romney was a US citizen because he was the son of US citizens, despite not being born in the US.

EDIT:  As far as I can tell, the only president besides Obama who has ever stirred up big eligibility concerns was Chester Arthur, who the Democrats of the time accused of being secretly born in Canada and whose father wasn't a US citizen at the time of his birth.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2012, 03:58:25 PM »

To be fair, Fairfield, Vermont is very close to the border.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,580
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2012, 10:02:40 PM »

Well if his father wasn't a US citizen, that does make a precedent to the question as to whether someone who doesn't have a citizen parent at birth is a natural born citizen, not that was ever seriously questioned by anyone besides the standard loons...
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2012, 12:09:02 AM »

Well if his father wasn't a US citizen, that does make a precedent to the question as to whether someone who doesn't have a citizen parent at birth is a natural born citizen, not that was ever seriously questioned by anyone besides the standard loons...

Heck, there were some 19th century birthers who asserted that Arthur had been born in Ireland, but they dialed back their claims when no one believed them.  It's unclear if Arthur's dad was a US citizen at Arthur's birth.  It only required 5 years residence to take citizenship back then, so he could have been a citizen by the time of Chester's birth.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2012, 07:09:35 AM »

Am I missing something?  Was it ever even raised in 1968 that he was born in Mexico?

Yes, it was raised as an issue.  In 1964, Goldwater's birth, in what then a territory was also raised.
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,166
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 18, 2012, 08:36:59 AM »
« Edited: May 18, 2012, 08:39:03 AM by Old Europe »

I think the silliest of all the "birther" arguments is that not only you have to be "natural-born citizen", but also your parents had to be U.S. citizens. Some loons on the Web actually tried to make this case with Romney a while back: Because George Romney was born in Mexico he was not a natural-born citizen and therefore Mitt Romney is ineligible as well.

So, why stop with the parents? You're not eligible for the U.S. presidency unless you can prove that all your ancestors were U.S. citizens all the way back to 1776/1789. Tongue
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2012, 08:41:24 AM »

To be fair, the natural-born citizen clause itself makes no sense. In every country, but particularly in a country like USA.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2012, 11:31:24 AM »

BTW, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany by Rogers Brubaker is a fantastic short read on jus soli vs jus sanguinis that manages to actually be pretty interesting.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,111
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 19, 2012, 06:40:19 PM »

To be fair, the natural-born citizen clause itself makes no sense. In every country, but particularly in a country like USA.

     Indeed, it is quite ironic that a country of immigrants precludes immigrants from its highest office. I've heard that it was due to a fear of royalists taking power, but I don't know how much truth there is to that.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 19, 2012, 10:33:12 PM »

To be fair, the natural-born citizen clause itself makes no sense. In every country, but particularly in a country like USA.

     Indeed, it is quite ironic that a country of immigrants precludes immigrants from its highest office. I've heard that it was due to a fear of royalists taking power, but I don't know how much truth there is to that.

That was indeed one reason.  That's also why the clauses prohibiting the granting of titles of nobility by either the States or the Federal government were included.  There is also an amendment that was sent to the states in 1810, but not yet ratified that would have stripped U.S. citizenship from anyone accepting a foreign title of nobility. (Jerome Bonaparte had married a Baltimore gal, and with the situation with Napoleon, there was some worry that Napoleon would give their kid a title and someday use him to interfere in American politics.) It got the approval of 12 states at a time at which only 13 would have been sufficient to adopt, and there were some who thought it did get adopted as our Thirteenth Amendment because of confusion over whether South Carolina or Virginia had adopted it. (In both states only one house approved.)  However, once the War of 1812 began, anti-French sentiment was muted and after it ended France was no longer a threat, so the number of States that have ratified has remained at 12 since 1812.  It would take 26 more States to ratify it today.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,568


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 19, 2012, 10:39:42 PM »

Just think, we missed out on a Schwarzenegger versus Granholm race. OK, that would have never happened.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2012, 06:37:10 AM »

Just think, we missed out on a Schwarzenegger versus Granholm race. OK, that would have never happened.

Schwarzenegger would be considered a RINO by republican nutjobs. There's no way he could win primaries.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,580
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2012, 03:28:30 PM »

I think the silliest of all the "birther" arguments is that not only you have to be "natural-born citizen", but also your parents had to be U.S. citizens. Some loons on the Web actually tried to make this case with Romney a while back: Because George Romney was born in Mexico he was not a natural-born citizen and therefore Mitt Romney is ineligible as well.

So, why stop with the parents? You're not eligible for the U.S. presidency unless you can prove that all your ancestors were U.S. citizens all the way back to 1776/1789. Tongue

Actually Philip raised a point that by a literal reading of that clause it would exclude everyone not alive at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, meaning everyone alive today is ineligible.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2012, 06:27:06 PM »

I think his parents were American citizens.  That's partially why John McCain could run for President despite being born in Panama.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 11 queries.