Booing the Anchor Baby?

I’m a little confused about something that happened during the debate last night. It occurred while panelist Juan Williams was asking the following question:

WILLIAMS: Governor Romney, your father was born in Mexico. You still have family there, yet you have taken the hardest line of anyone on this stage on immigration reform, including opposition to key parts of the DREAM Act, which is supported by 80 percent of Latinos in this country. Are you alienating Latino voters that Republicans will need to win the general election?

After Williams uttered the word “Mexico” the audience booed. Some people thought that the audience was booing the country, the mere mention of Mexico. But when I was watching it live I thought that the audience was booing Juan Williams for bringing up the Romney family’s Mexican roots. In other words, I interpreted it as the audience thinking it was a cheap shot.

Now, it’s an interesting thing that Mitt’s father was born in Mexico because he ran for president in 1968. I assume he was ineligible to be president because he was not a natural-born citizen, and his parents weren’t serving the country. They had fled the country so they could continue to have polygamous relationships. The only reason they came back was because there was a backlash against yanquis during the Mexican Revolution. So, Mitt Romney’s father was born in Mexico and therefore was a Mexican. I don’t know if he had proper immigration papers, but I doubt it since his parents weren’t exactly kosher with the federal government, if you know what I mean. Since George Romney was almost certainly an illegal Mexican immigrant, that means that Mitt Romney was an anchor baby.

No wonder he’s overcompensating by being the biggest jerk in the field about immigration issues.

14 Comments

mainsailset on January 17, 2012 at 1:36 pm

Speechless

Anonymous on January 17, 2012 at 1:45 pm

If your parents are US citizens, you are a “natural born” US citizen, regardless of where you were born or why your parents were out of the country.

anarchronarchist on January 17, 2012 at 1:57 pm

http://www.legalzoom.com/marriage-divorce-family-law/family-law-basics/is-your-child-us

..But this process only applies to children permanently residing in the U.S. If the child is under 18, was born outside the United States, but lives abroad in the physical and legal custody of a U.S. citizen parent or U.S. citizen grandparent, the parent or grandparent must apply for naturalization of the child. In addition, more criteria must be met.

The U.S. citizen parent or grandparent must have been physically present in the U.S. for five years before the child’s birth, at least two of which were after age fourteen. Further, the child must be temporarily present in the U.S. for the naturalization process and to recite the oath of allegiance. Of course, if the child is too young to understand the oath, this requirement may be waived.

At this naturalization ceremony, the foreign-born, foreign-resident babies gain not only a certificate of citizenship but also membership into an exclusive club. The Constitution rules that only “natural born” citizens can hold our highest office, so it seems these new Americans won’t grow up to be President either. The regulations suggest parents who contemplate baby’s future run for the White House may want to consider permanent residence in the United States after the birth of little George or Hilary.
BooMan on January 17, 2012 at 2:04 pm

yeah, that’s not true.
- jqheywood on January 17, 2012 at 3:59 pm
  
  No Boo, you are wrong on this one. IIRC, both of George Romney’s parents were US citizens. Under the law in force when George was born (1907), that made him a US citizen at birth by jus sanguinis. Now it is true that the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen”, but a lot of the same folks who wrote the Constitution served in the 1st Congress and wrote the first naturalization act, which distinguished those who needed to be naturalized from “natural born citizens.” Since someone who was already a citizen at birth does’t need to be naturalized, you can make a damned good argument that they are “natural born citizens”.
  - BooMan on January 17, 2012 at 4:50 pm
    
    well, maybe I’m wrong. The truth is that under our current law, you may be entitled to become a citizen at birth without actually being one until you exercise that right. And your right can be forfeited by your parent/grandparent if they don’t exercise it for you and do not move permanently to the United States.
    
    In George Romney’s case, his parents were essentially outlaws, or at least the children of outlaws. See: Romney et al v. the United States. Their claim to citizenship came from being born in the territories, however they scampered to Mexico once the government told them to knock off the polygamy. They came back under duress and were presumably welcomed back by the Mormon community without any participation by the federal government.
    
    From what I’ve read, the Mormon communities of the time were never granted Mexican citizenship, so that speaks in their favor of having retained their birthright citizenship, should there be any doubt about it. (You can lose your birthright citizenship in certain circumstances).

Bob Stanley on January 17, 2012 at 2:10 pm

World Nut Daily created a Frankenstein with their birth certificate conspiracy nonsense. In the comments of this article the Birthers are using their crank theories of eligibility against Romney.

MITT ROMNEY NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN?

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

RT on January 17, 2012 at 2:26 pm

So it’s going to be the Mexican vs. the Kenyan. Conspiracy nuts must be orgasmic over this.

rikyrah on January 17, 2012 at 2:42 pm

I continue to want someone to explain to me how George Romney could even run for President. He was not a natural-born citizen.

BooMan on January 17, 2012 at 2:54 pm

Well, you can make a case for him. It depends on his parents having been U.S. citizens, and a generous interpretation of the constitutional clause. Also, the current law is different than the law back then. I believe today that George Romney’s parents would probably have to nothing other than continue to live in the United States to confer automatic citizenship on their son. However, you can theoretically be a citizen without being a natural-born citizen, even if one or both of your parents are U.S. citizens.

Back in the day, no one questioned George Romney’s citizenship when he became the governor of Michigan, but that didn’t require him to be “natural-born.”

The truth is that no one knows how the courts would have ruled in 1968, or if they’d rule differently today.
- seabe on January 17, 2012 at 3:46 pm
  
  “Natural-born,” is a bunch of crap anyway. Why shouldn’t Arnold Schwarzenegger be allowed to run if he wants? It’s probably unconstitutional to take it that far, but in that case I’d like it amended. A citizen is a citizen.
  - priscianus jr on January 17, 2012 at 6:26 pm
    
    Maybe you’re right, but the question is about “is” not “should”.

mainsailset on January 17, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Don’t forget the head scratching about McCain’s nationality. It seemed a given, yet the GOP took the investigation into his eligibility seriously enough to ask Ted Olson to look into it.

DaveW on January 17, 2012 at 8:10 pm

I would think Romney Sr’s citizenship/eligibility would be affected by the fact that he was born in a foreign country of parent fleeing criminal prosecution in the US. Do criminals hiding out abroad retain all the rights of US citizenship?

mainsailset on January 17, 2012 at 1:36 pm

Speechless
Anonymous on January 17, 2012 at 1:45 pm

If your parents are US citizens, you are a “natural born” US citizen, regardless of where you were born or why your parents were out of the country.
- anarchronarchist on January 17, 2012 at 1:57 pm
  
  http://www.legalzoom.com/marriage-divorce-family-law/family-law-basics/is-your-child-us
  
  ..But this process only applies to children permanently residing in the U.S. If the child is under 18, was born outside the United States, but lives abroad in the physical and legal custody of a U.S. citizen parent or U.S. citizen grandparent, the parent or grandparent must apply for naturalization of the child. In addition, more criteria must be met.
  
  The U.S. citizen parent or grandparent must have been physically present in the U.S. for five years before the child’s birth, at least two of which were after age fourteen. Further, the child must be temporarily present in the U.S. for the naturalization process and to recite the oath of allegiance. Of course, if the child is too young to understand the oath, this requirement may be waived.
  
  At this naturalization ceremony, the foreign-born, foreign-resident babies gain not only a certificate of citizenship but also membership into an exclusive club. The Constitution rules that only “natural born” citizens can hold our highest office, so it seems these new Americans won’t grow up to be President either. The regulations suggest parents who contemplate baby’s future run for the White House may want to consider permanent residence in the United States after the birth of little George or Hilary.
- BooMan on January 17, 2012 at 2:04 pm
  
  yeah, that’s not true.
  - jqheywood on January 17, 2012 at 3:59 pm
    
    No Boo, you are wrong on this one. IIRC, both of George Romney’s parents were US citizens. Under the law in force when George was born (1907), that made him a US citizen at birth by jus sanguinis. Now it is true that the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen”, but a lot of the same folks who wrote the Constitution served in the 1st Congress and wrote the first naturalization act, which distinguished those who needed to be naturalized from “natural born citizens.” Since someone who was already a citizen at birth does’t need to be naturalized, you can make a damned good argument that they are “natural born citizens”.
    - BooMan on January 17, 2012 at 4:50 pm
      
      well, maybe I’m wrong. The truth is that under our current law, you may be entitled to become a citizen at birth without actually being one until you exercise that right. And your right can be forfeited by your parent/grandparent if they don’t exercise it for you and do not move permanently to the United States.
      
      In George Romney’s case, his parents were essentially outlaws, or at least the children of outlaws. See: Romney et al v. the United States. Their claim to citizenship came from being born in the territories, however they scampered to Mexico once the government told them to knock off the polygamy. They came back under duress and were presumably welcomed back by the Mormon community without any participation by the federal government.
      
      From what I’ve read, the Mormon communities of the time were never granted Mexican citizenship, so that speaks in their favor of having retained their birthright citizenship, should there be any doubt about it. (You can lose your birthright citizenship in certain circumstances).
Bob Stanley on January 17, 2012 at 2:10 pm

World Nut Daily created a Frankenstein with their birth certificate conspiracy nonsense. In the comments of this article the Birthers are using their crank theories of eligibility against Romney.

MITT ROMNEY NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN?

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-not-a-natural-born-citizen/
- RT on January 17, 2012 at 2:26 pm
  
  So it’s going to be the Mexican vs. the Kenyan. Conspiracy nuts must be orgasmic over this.
rikyrah on January 17, 2012 at 2:42 pm

I continue to want someone to explain to me how George Romney could even run for President. He was not a natural-born citizen.
- BooMan on January 17, 2012 at 2:54 pm
  
  Well, you can make a case for him. It depends on his parents having been U.S. citizens, and a generous interpretation of the constitutional clause. Also, the current law is different than the law back then. I believe today that George Romney’s parents would probably have to nothing other than continue to live in the United States to confer automatic citizenship on their son. However, you can theoretically be a citizen without being a natural-born citizen, even if one or both of your parents are U.S. citizens.
  
  Back in the day, no one questioned George Romney’s citizenship when he became the governor of Michigan, but that didn’t require him to be “natural-born.”
  
  The truth is that no one knows how the courts would have ruled in 1968, or if they’d rule differently today.
  - seabe on January 17, 2012 at 3:46 pm
    
    “Natural-born,” is a bunch of crap anyway. Why shouldn’t Arnold Schwarzenegger be allowed to run if he wants? It’s probably unconstitutional to take it that far, but in that case I’d like it amended. A citizen is a citizen.
    - priscianus jr on January 17, 2012 at 6:26 pm
      
      Maybe you’re right, but the question is about “is” not “should”.
mainsailset on January 17, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Don’t forget the head scratching about McCain’s nationality. It seemed a given, yet the GOP took the investigation into his eligibility seriously enough to ask Ted Olson to look into it.
DaveW on January 17, 2012 at 8:10 pm

I would think Romney Sr’s citizenship/eligibility would be affected by the fact that he was born in a foreign country of parent fleeing criminal prosecution in the US. Do criminals hiding out abroad retain all the rights of US citizenship?

About The Author

BooMan

14 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments