Archive for January 19th, 2012


Update on Mitt Romney “natural born citizen” state.

January 19, 2012
Posted by clinicalthinker @ 23:05 PM

This is now my third article on Mitt Romney’s eligibility qualifications to become a US President.
I keep thinking it will be my last but daily something new hits my desk.

There has been considerable confusion on the “natural born citizenship” issue now for a number of political hopefuls especially Mitt Romney.

We can all THANK BARACK OBAMA for that.
The “natural born citizenship” issue for Barack Obama was questioned before he was elected, dragged into the court system and IGNORED by all who could actually do anything about it.

That oversight is one of the main causes behind the citizens getting back to their Constitutional Roots. If Barack Obama goes down in history for no other reason … to his credit he will be responsible for that return.

I have spent a number of days sifting through documents on citizenship and how one loses their citizenship. Who is a “citizen” or “natural born citizen” when born to parents of dubious US citizenship.

This is the result as simple as I can make it and why.
Those who choose to refresh on what I have written in the past can find those articles linked below
(this update link will be posted at the top of each article):

Mitt Romney, Barack Obama vs Natural Born Citizenship and the Constitution

Mitt Romney IS NOT a natural born citizen!

Mitt Romney’s Mexico Family Roots

Romney Genealogy

The family history from various Romney Genealogy sites.

  • Miles Park Romeny born in Illinois – Hannah Hood Hill born in Canada (5 wives) (fled to Mexico in 1887 and died there in 1904)
  • Parents to Gaskell Romney born in Utah (father of George W. Romeny born in Mexico)
  • Helaman Pratt born in Iowa – Anna Johanna Dorothea Wilcken born in Prussia (3 wives)(fled to Mexico (1875 – 1878??) died there in 1909
  • Parents to Anna Amelia Pratt born in Utah (wife of Gaskell Romney mother of George W. Romney)
  • Gaskkell and his family lived in Mexico (where George W. Romney was born) for 17 years until the Mexicn Revolution broke out.
  • 2300 Mormon women and children were allowed free passage back to the states and some of the male family members joined them later.

Questions I had that were answered:

Q: Did these Mormon families lose their citizenship with the Morrill and Edmunds Acts?
Did they lose citizenship since they CHOSE TO REMAIN in Mexico for 17 to 30 years or so?

A: “No they did not in George Romney’s case. George Romney gained his U.S. Citizenship from his father via “Jus Sanginis” and thus when he returned to the U.S. he was a U.S. Citizen and did not have to naturalize, etc.”

Q: What about mothers who were not citizens or born in the US?

A: “Before 1922 the wife had her citizenship tied to that of her husband.
If he was a born US citizen so was she as well as their children considered citizens.

George W. Romney WAS a basic simple Citizen of the United States vis his father under “jus sanguinis” and thus legally could re-enter the U.S. without naturalization.”

My conclusion about Mitt Romney being a “natural born citizen” of the United States?
I STILL DON’T KNOW!

There seem to be laws from 1850 to 1930 that are not considered in the answers I got above. There were laws of the US as well as Mexico that come into play. Just because the laws were not enforced does not mean they were not in play.

Should this matter be discussed and BE MADE CLEAR IN THE COURTS IF NECESSARY RIGHT NOW before “we the people” ALLOW ANOTHER ERROR to occur?

Mitt Romney’s situation is still in limbo from what I can determine.

Barack Obama’s situation IS NOT!
Barack Obama clearly is not a “natural born citizen” according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

In the end “we the people” hold a lot of power in our vote.
If the Republicans, Democrats and SCOTUS continue to ignore these issues and not choose to sort them out as their oath to the Constitution requires?
Then it is left to “we the people” to decide for ourselves and vote accordingly.
If there is a question the safe vote is a vote against.