Romney Birtherism

Post Reply
User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12236
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Romney Birtherism

#1

Post by Whatever4 » Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:01 pm

As Romney's father was born in Mexico, wasn't he a Mexican national by jus soli? And isn't Romney a Mexican national by jus sanguinis? From [link]Wikipedia:,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_nationality_law[/link]





As in most other Central and South American countries, Mexican law differentiates between nationality and citizenship. Nationality is the attribute of the person in international law that describes his/her relationship to the State, whereas citizenship is given to those nationals (i.e. those that hold the Mexican nationality) that have certain rights and responsibilities before the State. The 34th article of the Mexican constitution establishes that Mexican citizens are those Mexican [nationals] that are 18 years of age or older, and that have an "honest way of living".According to the 30th article of the Constitution of Mexico, there are two ways in which a person can acquire the Mexican nationality, by birth and by naturalization.





Nationality by birth


The constitution declares that Mexicans by birth—that is, natural born Mexicans—are:


[*:q13rbxhs]those individuals born in Mexican territory regardless of the nationality of their parents;


[*:q13rbxhs]those individuals born abroad if one or both of their parents was a Mexican national born in Mexican territory;The 37th article of the constitution establishes that Mexicans by birth—natural born Mexicans—cannot be deprived of their nationality under any circumstance
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Romney Birtherism

#2

Post by Welsh Dragon » Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:31 pm

It's not that simple - it's not clear to me, at least, that George Romney was a Mexican National by birth. At the time of his birth the 1857 Constitution was in force (in theory - the reality was another story) and it's provisions were different:Art. 30. Mexicans are:I. All persons born, within or without the Republic, of Mexican parents.II. Aliens naturalized in conformity with the laws of the Federation.III. Aliens who acquire real estate in the Republic, or have Mexican children, if they do not declare their intention to retain their nationality.The 1917 constitution changed this but I don't know if it had any retrospective effect particularly on someone who'd already left the country. If it didn't then it would depend on what George Romney's parents' status was.

User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Romney Birtherism

#3

Post by Welsh Dragon » Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:50 pm

Further to my previous post which I had to cut short to see to something else. Even if the 1917 constitution had a retrospective effect this might seems to be subject to conditions that would exclude George Romney:Persons born within the Republic of foreign parentage shall likewise be considered Mexicans by birth, who within one year after they come of age shall declare to the Department of Foreign Affairs that they elect Mexican citizenship, and who shall furthermore prove to the said Department that they have resided within the country during the six years immediately prior to the said declaration.Although this has been changed since, the question arises - did the change have any retrospective effect?BTW Article 37 doesn't say what Wiki says it does but it probably implies it.

User avatar
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4110
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

Romney Birtherism

#4

Post by DaveMuckey » Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:22 pm

I know that this is all in good fun and humor, using the birthers own yardstick to slap around "their" candidates. It concerns me, though, that we are lending support to them by bolstering their arguments by posing dual citizenship arguments when we've so adamantly attacked their validity.





Perhaps we could focus our attention on why Jindall, Rubio and Romney actually are eligible, just as HBO, lest we rear-end ourselves coming from opposite directions. (That is certainly not the most artful sentence I ever wrote.)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45088
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Romney Birtherism

#5

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:25 pm

I think it's more of a "if you are right, then . . . " argument. In the law we start off such arguments with the following phrase: "assuming arguendo . . ."

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12236
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Romney Birtherism

#6

Post by Whatever4 » Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:40 pm

I know that this is all in good fun and humor, using the birthers own yardstick to slap around "their" candidates. It concerns me, though, that we are lending support to them by bolstering their arguments by posing dual citizenship arguments when we've so adamantly attacked their validity.





Perhaps we could focus our attention on why Jindall, Rubio and Romney actually are eligible, just as HBO, lest we rear-end ourselves coming from opposite directions. (That is certainly not the most artful sentence I ever wrote.)My question didn't actually come from a slap-around-birthers standpoint. It came from the direction that many people may be dual citizens/eligible for dual citizenship and not even know it. (I compose stuff for the Home Page sections: that stuff has to be 100% right.) I asked because the question came up on Yahoo!Answers, and sounded like an interesting direction to pursue.





I'm a "more knowledge is better" person, not a make-fun-of-birthers. At least I like to think I am.
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12236
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Romney Birtherism

#7

Post by Whatever4 » Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:44 pm

Further to my previous post which I had to cut short to see to something else. Even if the 1917 constitution had a retrospective effect this might seems to be subject to conditions that would exclude George Romney:Persons born within the Republic of foreign parentage shall likewise be considered Mexicans by birth, who within one year after they come of age shall declare to the Department of Foreign Affairs that they elect Mexican citizenship, and who shall furthermore prove to the said Department that they have resided within the country during the six years immediately prior to the said declaration.Although this has been changed since, the question arises - did the change have any retrospective effect?BTW Article 37 doesn't say what Wiki says it does but it probably implies it.Thanks WD, that's sort of what I was looking for. (I actually failed to check the elder Romney's year of birth.)
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12236
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Romney Birtherism

#8

Post by Whatever4 » Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:50 pm

I think it's more of a "if you are right, then . . . " argument. In the law we start off such arguments with the following phrase: "assuming arguendo . . ."That would assume I'm smarter than I actually am.
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Romney Birtherism

#9

Post by esseff44 » Sun Jun 26, 2011 8:07 pm

Of course, this came up as an issue when George Romney was considering becoming a candidate for President. It was inconclusive as to whether he was eligible or not as a NBC. But I don't think there was a question as to whether or not George was a citizen. According to wikipedia, his paternal grandparents never gave up their citizenship and the government of Mexico did not want the Mormon colonists to become citizens. [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Romney_presidential_campaign,_1968#Eligibility]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Rom ... ligibilityI do not see how it is an issue for Mitt except for the most hard core of the birthers who insist the laws are something they are not and are using ancient scrolls to prove it.

Post Reply

Return to “Legal Claims by Birthers”