Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Debate audience boos Romney's Mexican heritage

I realize it's the usual hypocrisy -- and that it's also South Carolina, where boorishness is home-schooled -- but if SC Republicans actually don't hate legal immigration, why the booing?

During a Fox News debate at the Myrtle Beach Convention Center on Monday, the Republican audience booed loudly after being told that Romney’s father was born in Mexico.

In a report last week, NBC revealed that Romney’s great grandfather, Miles Park Romney, had fled to Mexico with other Mormons to escape persecution for polygamy. Romney’s father, George, was later born in the northern Mexico colony of Colonia Dublan.

At the age of five, George Romney returned to the United States illegally after the Mexican Revolution broke out.

Were they booing Romney being an anchor baby? I doubt they were sophisticated enough to figure that out quickly enough to launch a catcall.

The audience also booed when Gingrich was asked about his "food stamps" remarks recently to a black audience, and then cheered his retort wildly. So obviously nobody reminded them that it was MLK Day. Or something.

South Carolina is breaking strongly for Mitt so this behavior is even more puzzling.

How do these Republicans behave -- what do they say -- when they're at their homes, with each other at their meetings which aren't televised? Worse than this?

I think these debates where they boo gay soldiers, boo the mention of Mexico, cheer for the death penalty and the repeal of child labor laws are something akin to picking one's nose while in traffic: I'm all alone here in the car, no one can see me, I can quickgetthis booger.

I hate to tell you this buddy, but people are watching, and they're disgusted.


PCzubryt said...

Worse yet, why didn't Mitt call them on booing his ancestors? Imagine the strength that would have shown. Instead, he stands silent and ignores it. Say goodbye to the latino vote.

Greg said...

You really need to use more reliable sources for your posts, my friend. George Romney did not "return to the United States illegally". He was, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States, the son, grandson, and great-grandson of natural-born citizens. In fact, George Romney even ran for President in 1968 -- and there are many who believe that the country would have been better off if he had more success in that endeavor.

Greg said...

By the way -- the fact that Raw Story claims that "last week NBC revealed" the whole Mexican sojourn of Romney's ancestors is absurd -- it has been something on the record for the American public for about a half-century, and there were any number of articles about it in 2008.

Greg said...

By the way, you really ought to watch the video. It can't be more than 3 or 4 people booing, and it is impossible to tell if the boos are directed towards that aspect of Romney's family history or towards the panel member for bringing it up.


That anyone would try to make an issue out of this non-story is rather pathetic.

Greg said...

Have you actually watched the video? The boos sound as if they came from a group that could be counted on one hand with fingers left over.

And George Romney -- a natural born US citizen son of a natural born US citizen son of a natural born US citizen son of a natural born US citizen -- by definition could not have entered the country illegally as a child because of his US citizenship.

Lastly, the Romney family sojourn to Mexico was reported in 2008 -- and for that matter, was reported back in the 1960s when George Romney was a highly-touted possible GOP presidential candidate.

PDiddie said...

Since you provide no evidence to support your premises -- just partisan bluster -- I will provide some that refutes your (mostly hyperbolic) contentions.

"While Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered a viable and legal candidate for United States president. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives had fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished U.S. citizenship. While the Constitution requires that a president must be a natural-born citizen, the first Congress of the United States in 1790 passed legislation stating: "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States." Romney and his family fled Mexico in 1912 prior to the Mexican Revolution. However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the Act of 1790 and removed the language explicitly stating that the children of U.S. citizens are natural-born citizens. As such, it is not clear that Romney was actually eligible for the office of president."


This precise eligibility question swirled around John McCain in 2008, which as you aware prompted the re-discussion.


"Claim: John McCain does not qualify as a natural-born citizen because he was born in Panama.

Status: Undetermined."


More on the closeness of the question:



More to the matter of "legal" versus "illegal":

Is it legal when a citizen of the US flees the country to avoid persecution, and then returns years later -- not via any proper channels mind you (since by all appearances there were none in 1912), and with thousands of other war refugees?


Your position seems to be 'yes'.

I find that as tenuous a conclusion as the rest of yours.

Beyond that, both George Romney's and John McCain's eligibility to be President is GREATLY more precarious than, say ... Barack Obama's.

Notice how nobody really makes a big deal out of it, though.

Henceforth, Greg, your comments will not be published unless you verify your contentions. And that goes for your pal Gnat Bramanti as well.

PDiddie said...

None of the comments you submitted meet the above requirement for posting, Greg. You're a teacher, right? What do you tell your students when they refuse to follow instructions?

Don't make me suspend you permanently...

Greg said...

And as an aside, I'll agree with you that the whole natural born question is murky. I'd argue, however, that the language set in that first immigration act gives us a pretty clear insight into how the generation that wrote and adopted the Constitution understood the term -- and that the failure to include it later is evidence that this was so clearly understood that it was not considered necessary to include the definition in later legislation.

Greg said...

By the way -- a similar question was raised regarding Barry Goldwater in 1964. He was born in the territory of Arizona prior to statehood. Was he a natural born citizen, having not been born within a state? It was overwhelmingly believed that he was -- just as most implicitly accept the notion that the child of US citizens born abroad are also a natural born citizen.

PDiddie said...

Far, far from "overwhelming", by any stretch of your hyperbole-swollen elastic waistband. I'm glad you at least clicked on the NYT link, though.

The links I posted agree that the question is divided, and mostly inconsequential... just like this conversation, which is officially and forever concluded.

You have any more to say about it, please do so at your shop (and link back to me).

Greg said...

I'm curious -- why did you not approve the comment that shows that George Romney's parents did not flee to Mexico to avoid prosecution and were, in fact, born in the US and taken south of the border while they were both underage and unmarried -- and were monogamous.

Maybe you didn't like the Fox link to the Associated Press story, so here's one to Salt Lake City's major paper -- http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660198565/Polygamy-was-prominent-in-Romneys-family-tree.html

Now doesn't integrity demand that you admit that you relied on inaccurate source s and have therefore misrepresented the situation under which two US citizens brought their US citizen child into the US in 1912?

Oh, and admit that the same sources mischaracterized the response to the question that was asked.