If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Michael D. Jackson

Does Mitt Romney meet the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 as a "natural born Citizen?"

(Jan. 15, 2012) — Editor’s Note:  The following ballot challenge to Willard Mitt Romney for President of the United States was filed on January 13, 2012 with the Illinois State Board of Elections in Springfield, IL.  The notarized copy is found below.

William McGuffage
IL State BOE Chairman
1020 Spring St.
Springfield, IL 62704

Chairman McGuffage,

My name is Michael Jackson. My residence is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  I am a registered voter in the state of IL.  I am a constitutionally law abiding U.S. citizen born on U.S. soil. My father was born in MO and born to U.S. citizen parents. Though proudly and thankfully I am a legal and lawful U.S. citizen, this I can attest to, but I cannot attest that I am a Natural Born Citizen as my mother was not naturalized as a U.S. citizen until after I was born, thus I could never be a Natural Born Citizen.

It has come to my attention that Willard Mitt Romney has been placed on the Republican primary ballot for IL as a candidate for President.  Pursuant to Illinois Statute 10 ILCS 5/10-5 chap 46, para 10-5 said candidate “…being first duly sworn” and “signed” that said candidate is “…legally qualified to hold such an office”.  With great concern to the yet unanswered question as to said candidate’s being “legally qualified to hold such an office” I am herewith submitting my “objector’s petition” pursuant to 10 ILCS 5/10-8 chap 46 para 10-8: whereby “any legal voter…” “… having objections to any certificate of nomination or nomination papers or petitions filed, shall file an objector’s petition together with a copy thereof in the principal office or the permanent branch office of the State Board of Elections, or in the office of the election authority or local election official with whom the certificate of nomination, nomination papers or petitions are on file”.  Moreover, with respect to 10 ILCS 5/1A-2.1 (from Ch. 46, par. 1A-2.1):Each member of the State Board of Elections, before entering upon his duties, shall subscribe to the Constitutional oath…” Your charge is great in order to preserve the integrity of our ballot and voter’s rights to a legal and lawful election.  I submit therefore that your responsibility and duty is to prohibit and remove from our primary and general election ballot Mr. Willard Mitt Romney, as he is not “legally qualified” to hold the Office of President. One must be a Natural Born Citizen in order to be “legally qualified to hold such an office”.  The U.S. Constitution as set forth in Article II Section I Clause V relating to the Office of President: “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.”  We have U.S. Supreme Court precedent establishing Article II Section I with the ruling of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. pg. 167-68 (1875).    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that  ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,‘ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens” (emphasis added). 

In addition, supporting case law has been adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court which confirms and helps define a Natural Born Citizen. 1. The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 289 (1814):  Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition of Vattel: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”   2. Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830):  Justice Story, who gave the ruling, cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”: … she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.

With these supporting lawful and legal precedents it behooves those who have the power and constitutional responsibility to confirm and authenticate if Mitt Romney is legally qualified to be   president by virtue of being a Natural Born Citizen.  Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney was born in Chihuahua, Mexico in 1907, the son of Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt. George Romney came to the U.S. reportedly in the late 1920’s.  However, George Romney was a Mexican citizen by birth and this is established by law in the Mexican Constitution – Chapter II:    

Article 30.  Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:

A. Mexicans by birth are:

I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents:

II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father.

By virtue of this law, in order for George Romney to have become a U.S. citizen he would have to be naturalized.  Moreover, in order for Mitt Romney to be a Natural Born Citizen both of said candidate’s parents would have to be naturalized as U.S. citizens prior to Mitt Romney’s birth.  The burden of proof falls upon said candidate to provide the necessary legal and authentic documentation to the veracity of said candidate’s parent(s) being naturalized U.S. citizens before the birth of Mitt Romney’s on March 12, 1947 in Detroit, MI.

The dates and any legal documentation pertaining to George Romney’s being repatriated or naturalized are crucial in order to determine Mitt Romney’s eligibility as President specifically related to the Natural Born Citizen clause set forth in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 Sect 201, 54 Stat. 1137, provides the law by which a person born outside the U.S. is bound by in order to qualify legally as a U.S. citizen.  Therefore if candidate Romney’s parents weren’t lawfully U.S. citizens according to this Act, Mitt Romney is therefore not “legally qualified to hold such an office” as president by virtue of not being a Natural Born Citizen.   The Romney’s had purposely left American legal jurisdiction:  http://www.our-genealogy.com/Latter-Day-Saint-Families/Romney-Family/george_wilcken_romney.htm.  The real legal question is this: Romney’s father was born in Mexico. Under their Constitution, he was a Mexican citizen. If George Romney was naturalized as a U.S citizen, what date was that naturalization obtained?

I, Michael Jackson seek relief by the prohibition of Willard Mitt Romney on the U.S. Presidential ballot; for Mr. Romney to attest to the dates of his father George Romney’s U.S. naturalization with legal and authentic documentation to the veracity of such facts; that any litigation expenses plaintiff incurs will be recovered in full; moreover that my 14th Amendment rights provided in Section 1 of U.S. Constitution are not deprived nor caused to suffer injury.

For Christ and Country and Most Respectfully,



Page 1 of challenge to Mitt Romney's constitutional eligibility filed in Illinois
Page 2
Page 3

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. The qualification listed in the constitution is settled law and does not require it to be enforced by any specific authority for a reason. Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application “would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind . . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.” http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/supremecourtintro.html

    It falls first to the people who hold the right to petition for redress any violation of the constitution. The candidate seeking office without proper qualification must know that if he succeeds he will be removed as per the law at some point and then be held liable for his intransigence in a criminal court and in civil court owing compensation to the petitioners for damages. Every officer sworn to uphold and defend the constitution has, upon becoming aware of reasonable information, the duty to begin all acts within his power to fulfill that oath. Protection of the constitution does not mean one can sit on the sidelines thinking one branch or the other is responsible. It means ALL sworn must do due diligence or risk the righteous indignation of the public seeking to reward their inaction / treason justly when available and as history points out, by any means available when it isn’t.

  2. Here is a link to the Mexican Naturalization Law which was enacted on May 28, 1886. This law was in effect when George Romney was born in Mexico in 1907:


    Three comments:

    1) Under the 1886 law, if you were a foreigner in Mexico, you automatically became a Mexican citizen if you either (a) acquired Mexican real estate, or (b) begot a son born in Mexico, — unless you chose to retain your foreign nationality. We know that George Romney’s father (Gaskell) acquired property in Mexico and had four Mexican-born children prior to 1907. The title/deed of Gaskell’s Mexican property and the birth certificates of his children, would indicate whether Gaskell actually became a Mexican citizen prior to George’s birth. If Gaskell had accepted Mexican citizenship, he would have probably lost his US citizenship, in which case the US citizenship of Mitt’s father, George, would be in doubt.

    2) A child, born in Mexico, of non-Mexican parents, automatically acquired Mexican citizenship, but such citizenship did not materialize until the child reached the age of majority, at which time the child had to choose between his Mexican citizenship and his parent’s nationality. Until a child’s Mexican citizenship materialized in adulthood, the child was technically a “foreigner” as far as Mexico is concerned.

    Assuming Gaskell had retained US citizenship, George Romney was a Mexican citizen at birth, but only in a qualified sense. His Mexican citizenship remained dormant until after he reached adulthood:

    Quote: Children of a foreign father or a foreign mother and an un-known father, born within the national territory, [are foreigners] until they attain the age when, in conformity with the law of nationality of the father or mother, respectively, they should be of age. After the year succeeding that age has elapsed, without their declaring their intention before the political authority of their residence that they follow the nationality of their parents, they shall be considered as Mexicans.

    3) Mexican citizens lose their Mexican citizenship if they are absent from Mexico, without permission, for more than 10 years. So, I must agree that George Romney had probably lost his Mexican citizenship (if he had Mexican citizenship to begin with) around age 31, well before Mitt Romney was born.

    There is still an unanswered question as to whether Gaskell accepted Mexican citizenship and lost his US citizenship while he was living in Mexico. Gaskell’s land records and the birth certificates of his children would give us the answer to this question.

  3. Michael D. Jackson:
    Thanks for this article. Please do one also on Rick Santorum, as his father was born in Italy, and Rick’s eligibility has not been documented either.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Any registered voter can file a ballot challenge against any candidate during the official period in his or her state.

  4. Here is an excerpt from a ruling, by an International Arbitral Commission, which cites the 1886 law granting Mexican citizenship to children born in Mexico of non-Mexican parents:

    Quote: The Mexican Constitution of 1857 provided that aliens who had Mexican sons were to be considered Mexican, unless they manifested the intention to conserve their nationality. It also provided that Mexican citizenship would be lost by reason of serving officially the Government of another State. A law of 1886 provided that sons born in Mexico of an alien father should be considered as Mexicans, unless within one year after reaching majority they should manifest their intention to retain the nationality of their parent before the political authority of the place of their residence. (Pinson v. Mexico, Report of International Arbitral Awards, 19 October 1928, p.328)


    Admittedly, the above excerpt does not show the full text of the 1886 law. It merely summarizes the law.

    In Pinson v. Mexico, the claimant was born in Mexico, to French parents, in 1875, and apparently received Mexican citizenship retroactively when the 1886 law was enacted. At some point after 1884 (the year the claimant’s father passed away), the claimant left Mexico and relocated to France. He did so BEFORE reaching the age of majority. When the claimant reached the age of majority, he was ALREADY serving in the French military.

    The Commission ruled that the claimant had lost his Mexican citizenship because he had served in a foreign military. There is no indication that the claimant had lost his Mexican citizenship as a result of his early departure from Mexico.

    Also, we have congressional testimony indicating that George Romney did acquire Mexican citizenship at birth.


    We need to find/publish the complete text of the 1886 law. Until then, we have two independent sources indicating that George Romney acquired Mexican citizenship at birth.

  5. Mitt Romney’s father George Romney was considered a natural born citizen of the United States or he would not have been able to run for President of the United States.

    Furthermore, Barack Obama’s father was never naturalized to my knowledge. Obama’s only claims to be an American are the claim that he was born in Hawaii (still questionable) and his mother’s US citizenship.

    Mitt Romney’s mother was a Hollywood actress, and certainly an American citizen. It is also undisputed that he was born here in the United States. Therefore, Mitt Romney is at least as qualified as Barack Obama to be on the ballot, if not much more so.

    I believe Mitt’s father’s parents may also have been born in the US, which would make Mitt’s father a natural born citizen of the United States and also of Mexico, so Mitt would also be at least a natural born citizen of the United States and possibly a dual citizen…

    1. George Romney’s status as Natural Born Citizen was question but because he dropped out of the race it was not pursued. He was never proven to be a Natural Born Citizen.

    2. George Romney was questioned as to his NBC status but dropped out of the race early on and was never vetted for the criteria. He was allowed to run the same way Obama was allowed to run. No one is vetting, or is tasked with vetting the candidates. What is troubling to me as a US citizen is that there are ALOT of assumptions going on with respect to Mitt Romney’s status of NBC. If he is NBC, GREAT. However, to tell the People to take him at his word is insufficent. He needs to clear up the questions.

      1) When George Romney’s parents left the US, they left the Territory of Utah, which was seperate and sovereign from the the US. Utah was not yet a state and while George’s parents were State Citizens, they were not Federal US Citizens. Since they were in Mexico at the time Utah was made a state, it is questionable that they could automatically assume US citizenship because they were no longer under the jurisdiction of the US, but of Mexico.

      2) US Code states that in order for US Citizen to be granted via descent, the US parent must have resided in the US for 10 years prior to the birth of the child. It is not clear if the 10 years is immediately prior to the birth, or off and on or some other pattern. It is also not clear if this requirement was in effect at the time of George Romney’s birth.

      What is clear is that George Romney was a child born out of the jurisdiction of the US and whould have had to have been made a citizen under the method of derivative citizenship. Paperwork exists, or should exist, to show that George was recognized as a US citizen. That’s the paperwork that needs to be displayed.

      The point is, as a candidate, if there are ANY questions surrounding your qualifications per the US Constitution to be President, you need to address them NOW.

      That Romney hasn’t so far, is troubling. I don’t trust him. I certainly don’t value his word on ANYTHING. If he is asked to prove he is NBC, then it should be no trouble at all for him to produce the necessary documentation.

      As a voter I do not bear the burden of proving he ISN’T a natural born citizen. I’m not making the claim that he is NBC, Romney is. Back it up or stop wasting time and money.

  6. All: I do not believe that George Romney was born a Mexican national under Mexican law or recognized as such under U.S. law. It is my understanding that the “jus soli” provision in the 1886 law only applied to persons born in Mexico who maintain Mexican residency to the age of majority. That is they had to be born in Mexico and remain and live there until they were legally an adult. Since George Romney left Mexico at circa age 5 with his father Gaskell Romney, that jus soli provision of 1886 law would not apply to George Romney. It is also my understanding, that the 1886 law also had a provision for loss of Mexican status, if one had it in the first place, for extended absence from the country. I do not believe that George Romney was born a Mexican national and recognized as such under Mexican law or U.S. law.

  7. This question must be asked loudly and repeatedly until satisfactorily answered: “Was Mitt Romney born with sole allegiance to the USA as recognized by US law and treaty?”

    Note that we require that naturalized-as-an-adult citizens must first officially renounce any other citizenship and then freely swear an oath of sole allegiance to the USA, thereby breaking all bonds to any other country. Our government does not recognize dual citizenship for any such naturalized citizen. Their freely-sworn exclusive loyalty is also why they may produce and raise children who then themselves are natural born Citizens.

    However, US-government-recognized dual citizens may occur by birth and apparently in some cases by the free choice of a former exclusively American citizen (something that should never be allowed, in my opinion – either you are in or you are out). This unwise loophole leads to a gray area with regard to natural born Citizenship where citizens may be born on native soil, but to parents, one or both of whom may be dual citizens. Such children clearly may be born and raised with divided allegiance (in fact, quite plausibly with a stronger loyalty to their “other” country, especially if they are predominantly raised in the other country – for example, a situation quite likely for the children of two “citizens” who themselves were born as anchor babies).

    That these children could ever be classified as natural born Citizens is an anathema to the Constitution, the security and protection of our country and the intent of the Founders. I believe this debased sort of hybrid “natural born Citizen” was neither possible nor ever envisioned as being possible in the time of the Founders, which is why it may not have been directly addressed. But one only need look to the guidance of the clearly expressed intent to protect the nation from foreign interest and influence to see that such a mixed classification of “natural born Citizen” should never be allowed.

    Yet, today we suffer under a usurper president whose citizenship does not even rise to this questionable hybrid standard. Obama is a man whose father never was himself a citizen (nor even a permanent resident) of this country. Obama is a man who was bred (and probably born) under the flag of an alien land. His life story is more jumbled than a fresh load of wash at the end of the spin cycle (in fact, his presidency is one big spin cycle). Is it no wonder that he is a self-proclaimed citizen of the world?

    That our once great nation would ever let such a man become its Commander-in-Chief is a disgrace to us all. May we have the courage not to grant this fraud the legitimacy of a full term and have the resolve not only to remove him, but serve him with the full and fair course of justice that his crime demands. (Such action would also serve as a much needed “inspiration” to the other scoundrels in Washington.)

    As President Thomas Jefferson famously said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

  8. It is true that, when George Romney was born, the Mexican Constitution of 1857 did not confer Mexican citizenship to children born in Mexico, of alien parents. However, a Mexican law, enacted in 1886, did. When George Romney was born in Mexico in 1907, he definitely acquired Mexican citizenship at birth. That fact is not in dispute. See, for example, Congressional testimony in 1967 regarding George’s presidential eligibility:


    According to the Congressional testimony, George acquired both Mexican citizenship and “qualified” US citizenship at birth. When George became an adult, the US State Department expected him to “elect” the citizenship he wished to retain. Did he ever formally “elect” US citizenship? If so, how and when? Where is the official government document conclusively establishing that George “elected” US citizenship in adulthood? Did the US State Department construe his passport application as an “election” of US citizenship?

    Was George Romney still a Mexican citizen when his son, Mitt, was born in 1947? A Mexican citizen loses his Mexican citizenship if he serves in a foreign military. But George never served in the US military, so he did not lose his Mexican citizenship for that reason. George might have lost his Mexican citizenship when he formally “elected” US citizenship or when he entered the “employment” of the US government. But how do we know that George ever “elect” US citizenship? Where’s the documentary evidence?

    George worked, as a stenographer and later as a research assistant, for U.S. Senator David Walsh in 1929 and 1930. Was this Government “employment” within the meaning of Mexican law? As far as I know, George was never employed as an “official” of the Federal or any State government until well after Mitt’s birth.

    “Natural born citizen” means US-born of US-citizen parents. But this definition presumes that adult US citizens are citizens of the US exclusively. Although children could acquire dual citizenship at birth, dual citizenship among adults (in 1787) was rare. Is Mitt Romney a “natural born citizen” if he (a) was born in the US, of a parent who was a citizen of both the US and a foreign country, and (b) acquired foreign citizenship, at birth, from that parent?

    1. @Steve: It is my understanding that the “jus soli” provision in the 1886 law only applied to persons born in Mexico who maintain Mexican residency to the age of majority. That is they had to be born in Mexico and remain and live there until they were legally an adult. Since George Romney left Mexico at circa age 5 with his father Gaskell Romney, that jus soli provision of 1886 law would not apply to George Romney. It is also my understanding, that the 1886 law also had a provision for loss of Mexican status, if one had it in the first place, for extended absence from the country.

  9. The question I would like answered is: “Was Mitt Romney born with sole allegiance to the USA as recognized by US law and treaty?”

    Regarding Mitt, this and only this would satisfy the intent of our founders in requiring that only a natural born Citizen may become our president. Anyone born with dual citizenship per US law or treaty cannot be such a natural born Citizen (furthermore, one must also be born of US citizen parents within the bounds of the USA).

    Many other countries may claim various citizenship rights and obligations of certain of our citizens, but the key to ensuring natural born Citizen status is that the USA NOT legally recognize any dual birthright citizenship, as such is the case regarding the British birthright citizenship of putative president/ usurper Obama per the US recognized British Nationality Act of 1948.

    Was Mitt Romney’s father George born an exclusive US citizen or was he born a dual citizen with Mexico? If so, and it turns out that he never formally renounced that citizenship before Mitt was born, was his son Mitt also then born with derivative dual Mexican birthright citizenship as recognized by US law or treaty? This is a completely different question than whether George Romney simply had US citizenship when Mitt was born and must be answered, lest we soon suffer yet another Constitutionally unqualified usurper in the White House. (Note that during our nation’s youth, in the time of the founders, such an unnatural hybridization of legally recognized dual citizenship would not have been possible.)

  10. This should not be an issue for anyone seeking to run for the POTUS period.
    It is our right to know that we are getting a constitutionally eligible candidate. Saves a lot of time and heartache. Look what we have with obama. He is worse than a cockroach to get rid of.

  11. This challenger is citing the new 1917 Mexican Constitution installed after the revolution in Mexico. When George Romney was born in 1907 in Mexico he was governed by the 1857 Mexican Constitution which did not recognize simple birth on the soil as a way to gain Mexican Citizenship. Here is the section of the 1857 Constitution which was in effect in 1907. The Gaskell Romney’s family fled Mexico in 1913 due to the revolution.

    De los mexicanos
    30. Son mexicanos:
    I. Todos los nacidos dentro ó fuera del territorio de la
    República, de padres mexicanos.
    II. Los extranjeros que se naturalicen conforme á las leyes
    de la federación.
    III. Los extranjeros que adquieran bienes raíces en la
    República ó tengan hijos mexicanos, siempre que no manifiesten
    la resolucion de conservar su nacionalidad.

    SECTION II of the mexicans 30. Are mexicans:
    I. All persons born within or outside the territory of the Republic, from mexican parents.
    II. Foreigners naturalicen in accordance with the laws of the federation .
    III. Foreigners who acquire real estate in the Republic or have mexican children, provided that they do not manifest the resolution to retain his nationality.

    People who are challenging Mitt Romney would have to prove that both his grandfather Gaskell and his grandmother Anna renounced and/or totally lost their birthright U.S. Citizenship when they lived as expatriates in Mexico. The U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 says they did not. That law was enacted 7 years before Mitt was born in Detroit MI in 1947.

    See my report and analysis of the citizenship status of Mitt Romney. I do not believe there is any doubt that Mitt Romney is a natural born Citizen, whose foreign born father had two U.S. Citizen parents. But there are still questions out there about Rick Santorum who Italian born father did not have U.S. Citizen parents. Santorum has yet to produce copies of the naturalization papers for his father Aldo Santorum, born 1923 in Italy, which was, I believe in a part of Italy which was part of the Austrian Empire at the time.

    Here is my report on Mitt Romney. George Romney was not eligible, but I believe the facts show Mitt is: http://www.scribd.com/doc/77518311/Ancestry-Ahentafel-Genealogy-Chart-Citizenship-Status-of-Mitt-Romney-by-CDR-Charles-Kerchner-Ret

    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

  12. This is an excellent ballot challenge because, although Romney most likely is indeed a natural born Citizen, some very reasonable doubt does exist that he is not and the sovereign Citizen voters of Illinois have every right to know that only qualified candidates are placed on the ballot. Also this is a very sublime backdoor challenge to the usurper fraud that is currently in illegal occupation of the White House. (Personally, I would like to see Obama’s next term be an extended one served without term limits – in the big house. Jumpsuit orange would be a very good color for him, don’t you think?)

    Anyway, if Romney’s father, George, who was born in Mexico, was indeed a legal citizen of Mexico, then he was, at best, a dual citizen of the USA. Upon reaching the age of majority, a dual citizen would likely have been required to formally assert his US citizenship and renounce his equal Mexican citizenship in order for the USA not to recognize George Romney’s children as being born dual citizens as well. A dual national cannot be a natural born Citizen of any nation. Mitt Romney owes it to us all to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he, himself, was not born a dual citizen. Mitt must produce the records for all to see.

  13. If Romney’s grandparents did not renounce their U. S. citizenship than according to American law his father was born an American citizen and natural born, at that.
    I think I saw somewhere that the only way you can get Mexican citizenship is to be born there so Romney’s grandparents probably could not have become Mexican citizens even if they wanted to.

    1. Zeb, I think you are probably right, but since Romney’s background is definitely NOT that of a plain vanilla natural born Citizen, as a presidential candidate wannabe, the onus of removing any and all doubts about his nbC status should fall squarely on his shoulders. It shouldn’t be the responsibility of the people to prove otherwise, but only to ask that Romney do so.

      We now have so asked. It is his turn to provide proof or not be listed on the ballot.

    2. George Romney was not a natural born citizen because he was not jus soli. That has never been questioned. However, the twist in this story is what the lawyers believe natural born citizen is. By my research only a minority of lawyers in the US believe that natural born citizen is both jus soli and jus sanguinis. The rest have chosen to invest in an incorrect definition of NBC in a common law dictionary. The Majority of the members of the judicial system (Judges and lawyers alike, and thus politicians) have placed Black’s law dictionary above the US Constitution and have done so with the intent to subvert the Constitution for global gain.