"This state of feeling in between, I would soon learn, defines nearly every aspect of Mormon life in the old colonies."
The settlers’ descendants, numbering several hundred in all, keep alive a culture that’s always been caught between Mexico and the United States, between the past and the present, between stability and crisis....
The Mexican Revolution played a critical role in the history of the Mormon colonies. Were it not for that 1910 uprising and the years of war that followed, Mitt Romney might have been born in Mexico, and might be living there today raising apples and peaches, as many of his cousins do....
And disqualified from serving as President of the United States.
When the first settlers arrived here in the 1870s and ’80s, some were fleeing a U.S. crackdown on polygamy. (The practice ended after a 1904 LDS edict that polygamists would be excommunicated.) They dug canals to channel the flow of the Piedras Verdes River to their crops, though the river’s waters dropped precipitously low afterward. But lore has it that the Lord quickly provided: An earthquake triggered the return of an abundant flow....
Biographers of the Romney family have pointed to the “indomitable will” of the forebears. But this characteristic, it seems to me, is common to many of the Mormons of the colonies. Their shared determination is one of the things that has allowed a relatively small number of English-speaking people to keep their language and way of life essentially unchanged for more than a century, despite being surrounded by an often hostile Spanish-speaking culture.
Leighton Romney, Mitt Romney’s second cousin, told me he hasn’t met the former governor of Massachusetts. (They have the same great-grandfather, Miles P. Romney, one of the 1885 pioneers.) I met Leighton the next day, on a visit to the fruit cooperative, packing house and export business he runs.
A 53-year-old dual citizen, Leighton has lived in Mexico all his life. Four of his uncles and one aunt served with the U.S. military in World War II. He knows the words to both country’s national anthems. Like people of Latin American descent living in the States, he hasn’t lost his sense of “kinship” to the country of his roots. “We’ve got a lot of similarities to Mexican-Americans,” he said. “We’re American-Mexicans.”
I wonder if the Romney campaign has a plan to roll out this American-Mexican dimension of the candidate. How should that be done? And are Americans ready at this point to absorb the story of how the government of the United States persecuted the Mormons?
Posts
78 comments:
And are Americans ready at this point to absorb the story of how the government of the United States persecuted the Mormons?
Why would this matter in an election in 2012? Old history is just that, old. Not current. To "revive" same is to create another victim-hood political culture. And for the record, Mormons also persecuted non-Mormons when they had the chance ... but that was way back then, THIS is now.
Let's judge the candidates on the main issue today ... the economy. Who of them brings the most successful experience to that table vis a vis management of things economic.
WV: handfact mmrift ... that probme Obama has with truth.
It appears that the subtext of "mormonism" has already started--the babbling idiot Bashir on MSNBC, quoting no less from LDS scripture, provided his screed the other day--We dont need to kill all the lawyers, but killing all the MSM would be a good start--this will be a very ugly campaign--thank Gaia our president is a uniter and not a divider. (fortunately no one listens to MSNBC so Bashir's screed fell on deaf ears)
I predict Romney will speak a bit of Spanish in a debate or two and Prez Obama will counter with some Austrian lingo.
Funny underwear.
Republicans are so extreme.. .
and WEIRD !
"Why would this matter in an election in 2012? Old history is just that, old. Not current. To "revive" same is to create another victim-hood political culture."
It seems to me that Americans maintain an interest in the wrongs of our history. These stories are told and retold. We hear of the Indians, the slaves, the Chinese immigrants, etc. etc.
Whether you're critical of the "victim-hood" theme or not, you should want the full dimension of the conversation to be heard.
Also, marriage rights are a current issue, and we have a very specific episode in American history where a group was persecuted because of its nonconforming beliefs about marriage and its members' choices about how to structure private life within the home.
By the way, I'm pretty sure Romney doesn't want to have to talk about polygamy, and the LDS church of today doesn't seem to want to air old grievances.
(But there is still real fear of persecution!)
Considering there is no archaeological evidence for most of the claims in the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith's golden tablets were never seen, nor has any evidence of the two million Jaredite folks killed in battle ever been discovered, I am not sure how much history we do want to absorb. But Mormons generally are a hard working and prosperous group with strong family values, and many Americans can vote for that.
[From the May 18, 1843 journal entry of a William Clayton:]
"Dined with Judge Stephen A. Douglas, who is presiding at court [in Carthage, IL.]
"After dinner Judge Douglas requested President Joseph [Smith] to give him a history of the Missouri persecutions, which he did in a very minute manner, for about three hours."
"He also gave a relation of his journey to Washington city, and his application in behalf of the Saints to Mr. Van Buren, the President of the United States, for redress and Mr. Van Buren's pusillanimous reply, 'Gentlemen, your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you;' and the cold, unfeeling manner in which he was treated by most of the senators and representatives in relation to the subject, Clay saying, 'You had better go to Oregon,' and Calhoun shaking his head solemnly, saying, 'It's a nice question--a critical question, but it will not do to agitate it.'" [end quote]
And that's my answer to Ann's question.
It is a nice question - a critical question - but it will probably still not do to discuss it.
Particularly since the Mormons at that time were mostly white and of European descent.
Interesting couple of comments professor--I do take issue with your assertion that we want to talk about old wrongs--Perhaps in academe where you work, and in critical studies programs, but most folks I interact with dont fret too much about all the injustice that has been inflicted on minority groups in the past-. Just my .02.
And I'd wager that the "progressives" will circle back around to Ann Romney with a "Stepford Wife" critique
"Many English-speaking families fled, never to return, including that of George Romney, then a boy of 5. In the States, George grew up primarily in the Salt Lake City area, attended college nearby, worked for Alcoa and became chairman of American Motors. "
See, there is your Silver Spoon story for you in two breezy sentences. everything is so easy for the one percent, no?
As to Polygamy I would think that Romney would like to talk about it at every opportunity. Obama's father was married to two women at the same time, probably a technicality and an oversight but there you have it. And culturally lets have a long "conversation" about the weird beliefs of the religions of Africa versus those of Mormons. Do let's have that "conversation."
RV--agree with the your basic point, but I would suggest there isnt a hell of a lot of archeological evidence for the Buddah uder the Bo tree, the prophet Mohammed, nor Jesus--there are a few contemporanus references but archeological references? Come on man, be serious. These are matters of faith not reason. Your critique fails for every major religion in the world today.
Give me a neighborhood filled with Romney's sons over one filled with Obama's any day.
“And are Americans ready at this point to absorb the story of how the government of the United States persecuted the Mormons?”
That would be interesting since the key plank of the Republican Party's 1856 platform was "to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery"
Sad to say, but I believe that Obama's supporters will pull out all stops.
Which means that we're all going to get a chance to observe or participate in the same strangely polarized conversation about Mormons and Mormonism that has gone on in America since Joseph Smith attracted notoriety in upstate New York.
The one side exemplified by Abraham Lincoln saying in 1862, "...tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.", and U.S. Grant during an 1875 trip out west saying that he'd been deceived about the Mormons.
And the other side typified by a Colonel Connor, head of Union command of the Utah Military District, who wrote to his superiors in 1862, "It will be impossible for me to describe what I saw and heard in Salt Lake, so as to make you realize the enormity of Mormonism; suffice it, that I found them a community of traitors, murderers, fanatics, and whores...."
We can only talk about odd religions in a critical sense if they're practiced by whites.
THis more of waiving a cartoon cutout and shouting "BOOO! SCARY REPUBLICAN AND MORMON! ITS'A TWO-FER!! BOOOOOOOOOO!! Ignore the Anti-Constitutional Socialist currently in office. MORMONS ARE SCARY BOOO!
This is another one that's going to blow up in Obama's face. Romney's great grandfather was a polygamist, my understanding is Obama is much MUCH closer in number of generations back to polygamy. If one is news and important to discuss, then so is the other yes?
This is probably the last thing Romney is going to want to talk about, polygamy and persecution. He doesn't practice polygamy and doesn't seem to have suffered much in the way of persecution for something his great-grandfather did.
Anyway, we just had a presidential election designed to right old wrongs with the election of Obama. Is that now going to be the goal with each new election, that a representative of some formerly persecuted, victimized minority gets elected so we can all congratulate ourselves on how we've faced our history and overcome old fears and prejudices? If so, there's a long list of the righteously aggrieved in this country. We'll have no shortage of qualified candidates.
Does the Obama campaign really want to bring polygamy into the debate? How about his own bigamist father?
All of my grandparents were the product of polygamous marriages. On my father's side, his grandfather had two wives at the time the practice was made illegal. After serving a stint in the territorial prison, he took both wives and their children to Mexico. (My grandfather was born on the way.) Grandma was born there. (I've always told my kids that they qualified for special benefits as Hispanic; they've never applied for such benefits.) My father's parents left Mexico in the 1920's. He was born in El Paso, his older brothers were born in Mexico.
Mom's side of the family helped to settle Wyoming. My Geatgrandfather's wives lived in different towns, thereby avoiding the attentions of the federal marshals.
All of that to introduce the topic of how the Mormon's felt about the outlawing of polygamy. I never met any of my greatgrandparents, but I did discuss the question with my grandparents. The primary emotion seems to have been one of bewilderment. What did the government expect them to do now that decades-old marriages were declared invalid? Should a man abandon a woman and children who depended on him for their support? Having exhausted their legal appeals, most fled to Canada or Mexico, where their marriages would be respected under the law.
The one emotion that seemed to be missing was any bitterness toward the USA. My grandparents all loved the USA and claimed their parents did, too.
Waiting for the Demos to bring up the Mountain Meadows Massacre ("Roughing It" has a dandy description).
I doubt, however, they'll bring up the Mormon trek to Utah, pulling handcarts across the plains and mountains, the service of the Mormon Battalion in the Mexican War, or the Mormon War, begun by James Buchanan as a similar Democrat ploy to get people's minds off what one of his advisors called "this nigger business" (slavery).
PS All this may backfire and strike a responsive chord in Catholics and Jews.
holdfast said...
“Does the Obama campaign really want to bring polygamy into the debate? How about his own bigamist father?”
Holdfast,
Seeing that the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln, was designed to target the Mormon practice of polygamy, and, since the measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, Lincoln chose not to enforce this law and gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War, I don’t think Romney would want to bring up the issue as well.
Hating on Mormons is one of the new hip bigotries for the left. So, they'll go all in.
roesch/voltaire said...
Considering there is no archaeological evidence for most of the claims in the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith's golden tablets were never seen, nor has any evidence of the two million Jaredite folks killed in battle ever been discovered, I am not sure how much history we do want to absorb. But Mormons generally are a hard working and prosperous group with strong family values, and many Americans can vote for that.
After a little flirt with religious bigotry, rv hits the nail on the head. Most Americans feel that religion is as religion does. It's easy to see that Mormons are by and large productive, self-sufficient people who value family, very American traits.
Every religion contains elements that can be held up to ridicule. Every religion has elements that guide its adherents to better behavior. It behooves us as Americans, as people, to respect the beliefs of others.
But if some are intent on bringing Mormonism into the mix, let's make sure to bring it all in, including the historical Mormon views on government.
Said Brigham Young, timely then and timely now:
"It is a pretty bold stand for this people to take, to say that they will not be controlled by the corrupt administrators of our General Government.
"We will be controlled by them, if they will be controlled by the Constitution and laws; but they will not.
"Many of them do not care any more about the constitution and the laws that they make than they do about the laws of another nation.
"That class tramples the rights of the people under their feet, while there are also many who would like to honor them.
....
"They care no more about them than they do about the Government of France....
"And the most of the characters they have sent here as officers cared no more about the laws of our country and of this Territory than they did about the laws of China, but walked them under their feet with all the recklessness of despots."
A little-known Mormon battalion heroically fought even earlier (1847), making San Diego safe for statehood: link.
Tyrone Slothrop wrote: Every religion contains elements that can be held up to ridicule.
We read yesterday about the nut jobs at the core of the AGW religion, ready to slay all non believers.
36fsfiend said...
Seeing that the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln, was designed to target the Mormon practice of polygamy, and, since the measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, Lincoln chose not to enforce this law and gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War, I don’t think Romney would want to bring up the issue as well.
If you've ever been to Salt Lake and driven up to old Fort Douglas, it's the perfect strategic position, overlooking the entire valley.
Union troops manned that post throughout the Civil War and after, so any untoward moves by the Saints would have been crushed posthaste. At the time, the Army had bigger fish to fry with the Indians and the Confederacy, but the Mormons got the message.
As more non-Saints settled in UT after the completion of the InterContinental Railroad, the Mormon position became increasingly inconvenient for them if they wanted a place in national affairs and the edict withdrawing support for polygamy seems part of the price for statehood.
Roger J. said...
---------
That Martin Bashir video was priceless. He sounded unhinged, a lunatic exacerbated by his face and his accent.
Edutcher,
I appreciate the history. I’m simply responding to Ann’s question that asks if Americans are ready to absorb the story of how the government of the United States persecuted the Mormons.
Lincoln, the first Republican president, signed a law prohibiting polygamy but decided to let the Mormons continue practicing polygamy as long as they didn’t get involved in the war being fought to end slavery.
I don’t think that’s a topic the Romney campaign would want to talk about.
I read the article and Obama people will have a hard time making the campaign that Mormons are weird. To an atheist like me, sure, they are weird but no more than any other religious group. If anything the article highlights their work ethic, generosity, willing to assimilate and blend in local cultures.
If we are talking about groups where these respective candidates come from, Obama's would be the Rev. Wright's commune and the AAs(don't blame me for pointing it out, they voted for him 90+%). His race and skin color were obviously a big draw in the last go around -- so if Mormons as a group are fair game, let us talk about the group he comes from.
Ann Althouse said...
By the way, I'm pretty sure Romney doesn't want to have to talk about polygamy, and the LDS church of today doesn't seem to want to air old grievances.
(But there is still real fear of persecution!)
------------------------
According to the article:
When the first settlers arrived here in the 1870s and ’80s, some were fleeing a U.S. crackdown on polygamy. (The practice ended after a 1904 LDS edict that polygamists would be excommunicated.)
@rv:But Mormons generally are a hard working and prosperous group with strong family values, and many Americans can vote for that.
_____________
Yes!
36fsfiend said...
Edutcher,
I appreciate the history. I’m simply responding to Ann’s question that asks if Americans are ready to absorb the story of how the government of the United States persecuted the Mormons.
Lincoln, the first Republican president, signed a law prohibiting polygamy but decided to let the Mormons continue practicing polygamy as long as they didn’t get involved in the war being fought to end slavery.
I don’t think that’s a topic the Romney campaign would want to talk about.
As others have mentioned, Zero's polygamist past is a lot closer to him than the Romster's.
More to the point, the Mormons had no time for the Confederacy, IIRC, and, as I noted earlier, the persecution of the Mormons might well strike a responsive chord with many Catholics and Jews, especially the former, whose forebears had experienced plenty of it in the same period.
And, of course, the Muzzlims, whom the Lefties profess to love so much, also are allowed by their religion to practice polygamy. Be interesting to see their reaction.
The Mormons can truthfully say, "We came to see it was a bad idea and we abandoned it over a century ago".
If the Demos persist in beating this particular horse, it may end up kicking them in the head.
Roger J. said...
---------------
No archeological evidence for Buddha?! There would be more if the Muslims had not burnt down the monasteries and schools (Nalanda).
Ajantha/Ellora caves, my friend.
"And disqualified from serving as President of the United States."
Yes, birth in Mexico would have disqualified Mitt from serving, just like it should have disqualified John McCain. So why the double standard? You see, when you take an illogical position you get tied up in knots! I didn't see you saying McCain was ineligible for being born in Panama (No, US military bases are not US territory, see 7FAM). The PCZ was leased, not owned by the US.
The point here is, if you want to be logical, The Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 did not take away US Citizenship. That means Mitt's grandfather was still an American Citizen when Mitt's father was born in Mexico-- so Mitt's father was likely born a dual Citizen, in Mexico, and was certainly not a natural born Citizen. Mitt's father moved back to the US at age 5 or 6 he was still an American citizen, and needed no naturalization, and lost any birthright Mexican citizenship at 18 YO. Mitt was then born in Detroit to US Citizen parents and is certainly a natural born Citizen.
John McCain needed US Code 8 S. 1403 to be a US Citizen (Birth to US Citizens in PCZ), and is certainly not nbC.
Rubio, born of resident alien Cubans in Miami is certainly NOT eligible for VP (12th Amendment).
Santorum has unresolved questions regarding whether his father naturalized before Rick was born.
Jindal, born to Indian resident aliens in La. is certainly not nbC.
Obama, supposedly born in Hi. (not yet proven) to a British subject father is certainly not nbC
If you think it's a coincidence that so many have eligibility questions, think again.
There are unresolved questions
@DKWalser:
The primary emotion seems to have been one of bewilderment. What did the government expect them to do now that decades-old marriages were declared invalid? Should a man abandon a woman and children who depended on him for their support? Having exhausted their legal appeals, most fled to Canada or Mexico, where their marriages would be respected under the law.
--------
Comments like these are why I read here. Thanks.
36fsfiend. Agree that the Romney people will not want to make the 1865 case for Polygamy and the Honest Abe angle. But they might want to discuss the immediate antecedents The two fathers both of whom were born overseas, one of whom became president of an auto company and the other who drunkenly had three car wrecks and the loss of both legs. That would be the drunken father of our president, the guy who ran from responsibility and who drank himself to death. A former worker for an evil oil company. A failure. Who ditched his animistic beliefs for the comforts of the Anglican school. Lets have that conversation.
edutcher,
Obama isn’t going to bring up the religion issue simply because he knows he will not win over the Evangelicals. There’s simply no reason for it, unlike the Republican primary campaigns.
Michael,
I don’t think Romney would want to go there from the past family angle as well.
If anyone digs deep enough into any family’s past, you are bound to find unseemly information.
Better to stick to the issues facing the country.
36fsfiend said...
edutcher,
Obama isn’t going to bring up the religion issue simply because he knows he will not win over the Evangelicals. There’s simply no reason for it, unlike the Republican primary campaigns.
Yet some of the useless idiots, proxies for Axelrod and Plouffe, seem Hell-bent on it.
Which, of course, brings up an interesting point.
Given that the Mormons were persecuted for pursuing an alternative form of marriage, could that win the Romster the sympathy vote from the same sex crowd?
Just askin'
Tyrone,
You say that every religion has elements that can be held up to ridicule.
That is true of your religion and every other one. Mine is the sole exception.
And if you ridicule my religion I will hunt you down like the dog that you are and kill you. (Then barbecue you for dinner. Never waste food)
John Henry
PS-Just kidding. All do have elements subject to ridicule including mine.
36fsfiend. Oh, I disagree. I think that Romney's fathers life story would be very interesting to compare with that of Obama's and I think, in contrast to Obama, Romney is very proud of his father. Let's have that conversation as we progress.
edutcher,
I haven’t heard anything from the Obama campaign about religion. Who specifically are you referring to?
I appreciate the history. I’m simply responding to Ann’s question that asks if Americans are ready to absorb the story of how the government of the United States persecuted the Mormons.
=================
I don't see the Republicans as wanting to wallow in Victimhood, outside some in the religious right.
Americans have learned that part of the Victimhood game is simply to lay stake to various entitlements.
Part of America wants to play the Victimhood game for money and entitlements...others parts of America shun it. Mormons are in the 2nd category.
1. To perpetual ones (affirmative action), as two many Trayvons with bad grades and suspensions would have a hard time getting jobs or college slots otherwise.
2. Emotional entitlements arising from Victimhood (Bond with us and fight the patriarchial system! Men have suppressed not just us jewish stalinist NYC women of wealth, but all women who now have feminism and rape politics as weapons.)
3. Tidy cash shakedowns lawyers can extract on Victimhood based claims.
The Hero victims of 9/11 are the highest pinnacle of Victimhood of the 440 million Americans who have ever died. Government OWES each noble victim of that event 3 million each, please!
Our handicapped client can't see your store exit signs above the clothes racks from a sitting position in several spots in your store. It will only take 40,000 for us lawyers and 10K for our client to go away and bother another store chain Victimizing him!
It says that Leighton Romney is a dual citizen. I would be curious how he got his US citizenship. Do the women folk come to the US to have their babies?
I have some friends on the island of Antigua. The great grandfather originally immigrated from Portugal and somehow they all hold Portugese citizenship in addition to their Antiguan citizenship.
He and his brothers and children were born in Canada so also hold Canadian citizenship.
The practice in his family, and apparently other Antiguan families, is that when the women get close to childbirth, they go to Canada for the birth.
You might argue that it is because medical facilities are better in Toronto. He is quite upfront that it is because he wants his kids to have Canadian citizenship.
John Henry
Michael,
Isn’t a part of the American Dream that one can rise to a higher station in life regardless of one’s family's past?
You may not agree with the actions and choices of Obama’s father, but the man’s son is the President of the United States.
And I’m certain that Romney is very proud of his father, but as I stated, if you dig deep enough, you can find less than flattering information about any family.
36fsfiend said...
edutcher,
I haven’t heard anything from the Obama campaign about religion. Who specifically are you referring to?
MSLSD, for openers.
edutcher said...
“Given that the Mormons were persecuted for pursuing an alternative form of marriage, could that win the Romster the sympathy vote from the same sex crowd?”
I don’t think so since Romney has come out against same-sex marriage.
edutcher said...
"MSLSD, for openers."
If you are referring to MSNBC, they are not the Obama campaign.
36fsfiend. "Isn’t a part of the American Dream that one can rise to a higher station in life regardless of one’s family's past?"
Yes. And that is why the progessives take a dangerous road if they wish to demonize Romney's father or to mock his religion. Our president is highy vulnerable Both he and his father rode the gravy train.
Michael,
Who in the Obama campaign is demonizing Romney’s father or mocking his religion?
Get back to me when one of Mitt's foreign relatives enters the country illegally and gets on welfare and public housing (Aunt Zeituni) or drives drunk and gets his license back (Uncle Onyango).
With the drug cartel violence in the area, Romney's relatives are probably more deserving of asylum.
Ann said: ...you should want the full dimension of the conversation to be heard.
My lead off question had nothing to do with the obvious virtue of exploring and knowing history. It had everything to do with its relevance to the Presidential election of 2012. History , in fact, is my hobby, but I don't apply vote relevance to events from the mid-19th century.
edutcher said: ...a similar Democrat ploy to get people's minds off what ... [you can fill in the blank for the target ... they change a lot]
Re-hashing or re-bringing old history, that prior to the life of a candidate, is a distraction in this election cycle, bearing not a whit on qualifications of the candidates. IMO it is intended to be distracting just as Fluke, Rosen, Trayvon, et al ad nauseum have been created distractions or intentional enlarged versions from smaller real events. No crisis left not taken advantage of, yada yada.
Lawler Walken said: Is that now going to be the goal with each new election, that a representative of some formerly persecuted, victimized minority gets elected so we can all congratulate ourselves on how we've faced our history...
Yep. Apparently so, or at least it seems like it. Distraction from real time events can do that, and leave many feeling warm and fuzzy.
Now when Obama begins discussing why his administration and Congress itself has not passed a budget in nearly 4 years, and why this is fact ... I'll be gin paying attention to that history.
I've been military and I've been a "fed" ... and I promise you, guarantee you, that lack of a formal budget creates unaccountable spending, because there is no template, nor oversight. All you need to do is examine that past 3+ years to see it clearly.
So, yeah, let's dissect Romney's ancestor's history, or Obama's great "struggle", or Fluke's grievances, or whatever handy distraction comes along next. THEN we will get the government we deserve. The warm and fuzzy will fade,and we'll still have that government.
John said...
It says that Leighton Romney is a dual citizen. I would be curious how he got his US citizenship. Do the women folk come to the US to have their babies?
===================
People have talked so much about the 2nd path to citizenship they forget about the 1st, and more legitimate path to citizenship.
Jus sanguinis vs. the foolhardy jus solis version.
Citizenship by blood, vs. deliberate or accidental birth on US soil (we are now the only 1st world nation that still is stuck with jus solis citizenship).
Every year, tens of thousands of US Citizens are born away from US land..to red blooded American expats or soldiers and soldiers families or other US personnel serving America overseas.
Anal retentives worshipping the Sacred Parchment and claiming that an illegal plopping out an anchor baby has a more "legitimate" insta-citizen than a US soldier having her baby in Germany due to the Holy 16th Amendment have no clue. Being stuck with a ill-considered jus solis Amendment did not extinguish the more legitimate citizenship of the offspring of real US citizens, anywhere in the world.
EDH said...
“Get back to me when one of Mitt's foreign relatives enters the country illegally and gets on welfare and public housing (Aunt Zeituni) or drives drunk and gets his license back (Uncle Onyango).”
EDH,
As I’ve stated twice already, if you dig deep enough into anyone’s family history, you will find unseemly information.
Heck, even Jesus Christ had a betrayer and denier in the company that He kept.
36fsfiend said...
MSLSD, for openers.
If you are referring to MSNBC, they are not the Obama campaign.
Yeah, dat's da ticket.
"36fsfiend said...
Michael,
Isn’t a part of the American Dream that one can rise to a higher station in life regardless of one’s family's past?"
The qualifications for President are not about the "right" to be President. They are security eligibility requirements--- one has to be Constitutionally eligible.
Obama isn't, and Romney is.
Mick said...
"The qualifications for President are not about the "right" to be President. They are security eligibility requirements--- one has to be Constitutionally eligible.
Obama isn't, and Romney is."
So Mick, let's hear about the faked moon landings during the Apollo missions.
"Cedarford said...
John said...
It says that Leighton Romney is a dual citizen. I would be curious how he got his US citizenship. Do the women folk come to the US to have their babies?
===================
People have talked so much about the 2nd path to citizenship they forget about the 1st, and more legitimate path to citizenship.
Jus sanguinis vs. the foolhardy jus solis version.
Citizenship by blood, vs. deliberate or accidental birth on US soil (we are now the only 1st world nation that still is stuck with jus solis citizenship).
Every year, tens of thousands of US Citizens are born away from US land..to red blooded American expats or soldiers and soldiers families or other US personnel serving America overseas. "
That one is a US Citizen by birth on US soil is only assumed,never ruled on by the SCOTUS. Birthright citizenship is certainly not the holding of Wong Kim Ark, despite what those who have never even read the decision say. Even so, if the laws of the US say that those born in the US are US Citizens, w/o regard for citizenship of parents, it certainly does not "amend" the definition of natural born Citizen, i.e born in the US of US Citizen parents (88 US 162, 167). Those children would be naturalized at birth by US naturalization law, which is the responsibility of Congress (A1S8C4). Article 2 must be amended to alter it's definition of born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents.
"So Mick, let's hear about the faked moon landings during the Apollo missions."
Of course your Alinsky tactics fail to address the constitutional disaster of one born of foreign citizenship sitting in the White House. If the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was the prevention of foreign influence, then it is not possible that one born of foreign citizenship is eligible.
When was A2S1C5 amended?
Mick,
I don’t know anything about Alinsky tactics. I just think this whole birth certificate issue falls in the same category with faked moon landings and that 9/11 was an inside job.
But, whatever floats your boat.
"36fsfiend said...
Mick,
I don’t know anything about Alinsky tactics. I just think this whole birth certificate issue falls in the same category with faked moon landings and that 9/11 was an inside job.
But, whatever floats your boat".
Of course you fail to even understand that Obama is not eligible, even if born on the Oval Office desk. He was born a British subject, of a British subject father-- therefore not natural born>
"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." 88 US 162, 167
This is probably the last thing Romney is going to want to talk about, polygamy and persecution. He doesn't practice polygamy and doesn't seem to have suffered much in the way of persecution for something his great-grandfather did.
Are we talking about Romney or Obama?
...how is polygamy an "issue" for Romney when Obama's father was specifically polygamous but Romney's dad wasn't.
Nor was his grandfather.
Seeing that the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln, was designed to target the Mormon practice of polygamy, and, since the measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, Lincoln chose not to enforce this law and gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War, I don’t think Romney would want to bring up the issue as well.
Why is it Mitt Romney's fault that Brigham Young believed something?
Hell, Obama isn't held responsible for sitting in a bigoted church for 20 years and having his daughters baptized by a total bigot? But Romney is responsible for what Brigham Young did?
If you are referring to MSNBC, they are not the Obama campaign.
Since when? They are known to email Mika on Morning Joe on-air and getting her to change the slant of a story.
that 9/11 was an inside job.
...but enough knocking Obama's choice for Green Jobs Czar, noted Marxist Van Jones...
36fsfiend said...
As I’ve stated twice already, if you dig deep enough into anyone’s family history, you will find unseemly information.
It's not what Obama's relatives did, but the favorable treatment they've received after running afoul of the law.
damikesc,
I didn’t state that it was Mitt Romney's fault that Brigham Young believed something. I stated that I don’t believe the issue of the government supposedly persecuting the Mormons over polygamy is something the Romney campaign will want to talk about.
Again, the voters would be better served if the campaigns stick to the issues affecting the nation.
Sending e-mails to the media doesn’t make them part of the campaign or else the same could be said about Fox. And is Van Jones currently a member of the administration?
EDH said...
"It's not what Obama's relatives did, but the favorable treatment they've received after running afoul of the law."
EDH,
Have there been any stories that provide evidence Obama took direct action to influence the treatment of relatives?
Romney and his father were both governors. Do you really want the opposition digging to find out who did favors for who during those administrations?
Again, what purpose will that serve?
Also wrote: Also, marriage rights are a current issue, and we have a very specific episode in American history where a group was persecuted because of its nonconforming beliefs about marriage and its members' choices about how to structure private life within the home.
Yet I think a majority of Americans are just fine with the history outcome of that experiment in the American context. Another, more vocal minority, might seek to glom the past for present glamor.
Mick said:
"That one is a US Citizen by birth on US soil is only assumed,never ruled on by the SCOTUS. Birthright citizenship is certainly not the holding of Wong Kim Ark, despite what those who have never even read the decision say."
Hey Mick? Bullshit. I think you are lying. I think you know better than that. If you don't know better than that you are woefully ignorant.
Of course it is entirely possible that you are both ignorant AND lying.
The in Kim the Supremes ruled precisely that a person born in the US, regardless of parentage or their citizenship is a US citizen by birth.
The only exception is if the parents are here in diplomatic status. Diplomats are the only ones who are not "Subject to the jurisdiction [of the US]" Everyone else who is here, legally or illegally, passing through or residing, employed or not, is subject to US jurisdiction as long as they are in the US.
Being subject to Chinese jurisdiction as well does not change that.
Since you may not have seen it before, here is the last paragraph of the ruling. Hard to imagine anything much clearer and less subject to interpretation. Note particularly the phrase "becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States" So now sit down, STFU and let the adults here carry on a conversation:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Is Martin Bashir a Muslim? Maybe Romney should have quizzed him on the tenets of HIS religion - Taquiah anyone?
Holdfast,
Bashir's religion is "Journalist"
It is perhaps the only major religion that does not consider lying to be a sin.
John Henry
"If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard" - Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina
If they play the Mormon card, Republicans better play the Trinity United Methodist Church card. And they better do their homework, and not just settle for those Jeremiah Wright sound bites. Black liberation theology is a separatist/supremacist philosophy as noxious as Nation of Islam.
(Wow, my Captcha phrase is actually pronounceable.)
Barack Obama I's first and presumably only legal wife is alive and well and living in London.
I think I remember reading that he also picked up at least two more (and also European?) "wives" after he returned to kenya.
Romney's French is apparently very good. He spent 30 months in France during his Mormon Mission. That might help him pick up parts of northern Maine and parts of Louisiana. He's not a monoglot multicultural like his opponent.
"Biographers of the Romney family have pointed to ..."
I did not find the names of these "biographers" by searching the net, but I came across this WP article - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-and-romney-both-come-from-a-ancestry-of-polygamy/2012/04/12/gIQA3TI8CT_story.html - that points out generations of polygamists in Obama family as well, from his great grandfather on including Obama's father who became one by virture of marrying Obama's mother, since he was already married in Kenya. You know, the father of "The Dreams from My father" fame. Did not he break the US law, which made him a criminal, methink.
Somehow Obama's family biographers did not bring to our attention to so important fact in 2008.It must be important for Obama, if they continuously dwell on Romney family history in that respect, right?
It seems that Obamamedia minions can't come up with any subject about Romney that does not backfires.
Ann Althouse said...
"It seems to me that Americans maintain an interest in the wrongs of our history. ..."
I think that media spin machine thinks that, or at least hopes to, so they might be able to create diversion from Obama performance as a president and the current and running wrongs against all of the Americans, that will take years to overcome.
The subject of polygamy is esp. problematic this election for the Dems. Romney is several generations safely away from his polygamist roots. Obama is not. His father, father's father, etc. were all polygamists. Unless, you wish to view him as illegitimate.
The other interesting factor about Romney is that his non-polygamist ancestor apparently defended the polygamist grandfather of the two Democratic Senators Udahl (or, is it "Senator Udahls"?) (And, then he was defended by a Jewish turned Anglican Goldwater).
One of the interesting things about Mormons is how successful they are politically. A surprising number of sitting Senators are LDS, from both sides of the isle. Haven't counted them recently, but on a par with the large number of Jewish Senators. When I was living in Nevada, both of my Senators were Mormon - our junior Senator a conservative Republican, and our senior Senator the infamous Harry Reid. About the only things that they seemed to agree on were their faith and an opposition to gun control.
Talking about Mormon Senators though brings to mind how Utah got statehood.
Utah applied for statehood some 50 years or so before it was granted. Besides the morality issue of polygamy and the addition of the Book of Mormon to the Christian canon, throughout much of this time, from 1860 onward, the Mormons were allied with the wrong party - the Democrats, during an era when the Republicans were dominant. The heart and soul of the Republican party were the New England and upper east mid-west (Ohio, Michigan, Illinois), etc. And, much of these Republicans were fairly conservative Protestants. And, keep in mind that Joseph Smith had been raised in this religious climate. The result was that the papers of the biggest Republican states strongly opposed statehood for what is now Utah from a moral point of view.
What changed, allowing the Mormons to finally get their state? Obviously one factor was the revelation by the Church's prophet that polygamy was no longer necessary, and was ultimately outlawed by the church.
But more than occurred during that time. I think that it was a son of Brigham Young who went back east to obtain statehood. He did two things. First, he spread a lot of money around, buying advertising in those big Republican papers that had opposed statehood for so long. Rumor is that it was in the millions, and that was a huge amount of money back then. While they couldn't come out in favor, they used the changed position of the Church about polygamy as an excuse to stay quiet on the issue.
And, then there was the grand bargain with the Republicans. One of the things helping to prevent Utah from becoming a state was that it was allied with the Democrats. The deal was that the Mormons promised the Republicans that if they granted Utah statehood, the Mormons would give them eight Senators - two each from Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and, I think, Wyoming. Three of those states provided George W. Bush his highest reelection percentages (ok, Dick Cheney was from Wyoming). I think that Wyoming has moved away from Mormonism as its center of population ended up in the eastern part of the state. And, Senator Harry Reid is Mormon, but not Republican. But, to a great extent, the bargain remains in place 100 or so years later.
Why would the Mormons have been aligned with the Democrats throughout much of the second half of the 19th Century? One theory is that Mormonism is a lot more communitarian than is the independent ethos you see throughout much of the rest of the west. Another is that the type of Protestantism that Joseph Smith broke away from was tied fairly closely to the Republican party at that time. And, similarly, the Democratic Party of that time was to a great extent built by the other minorities of the time banding together to oppose this New England/Upper Midwest Protestant Republicanism. And, the Mormons, if nothing else, were a discriminated against minority. Probably even more hated and reviled than the evil Papists immigrating from Ireland, Italy, etc.
I became aware of a lot of this history when I stumbled into a monument at some point when I was living in Salt Lake City maybe a decade ago that described much of it. I was frankly surprised, since it was not the most flattering thing that I had seen about the LDS Church there. (You know that the Church has a commanding presence there, when you discover that the entire city, along with most of its suburbs, are laid out in relation to the Temple downtown - almost all addresses are essentially so many blocks north or south, and east or west of the Temple - I worked at essentially 4th East and 4th South, and lived at approximately 12th East and 24th South, or something like that).
Post a Comment