I'm having a hell of a time finding out how US citizenship was granted when Utah became a state. Hopefully someone will know more. Could Utah citizens have been considered US citizens BEFORE Utah was a state?

I'm continuing to look at that and will update the OP if I find something out.

Much like Hawaii was a Territory of the US when my grandmother, mother, and myself were born...all three of us were considered US citizens at the time of our births.

That's what I'm trying to figure out now. I can find clear evidence for Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, but not dating all the way back to Utah.

To clarify: Has the 14th amendment always been interpreted to include territories? I honestly don't know.

If you were born in a US territory, you are born in the US. The definition of "United States" is inclusive of all states, territories, possessions, and guano atolls (a fascinating little area of sovereignty law).

Arizona was not a state when he was born, but court ruled US territories conferred citizenship the same as states.

Contrary to what some seem to think, I really am trying to learn something here. I'm honestly confused why the constitution was specifically amended to provide native citizenship to persons in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico territories/governance while no specific mention was made of territories such as Utah.

Is it because those are not among the continental US?

I consider this to be a gap in my understanding of civics in my country and I'd like to learn more. I'd be really grateful for any assistance.

but is there a limit to the number of generations that applies?

For example, many European immigrants to the US did not stay here for long and returned to their home country. If someone's great-great-grandparents were born in the US but returned to Germany, could that person claim US citizenship?

I'm sure it's a matter of whether the right was exercised or not. The ex-pat Mormons, probably for racial reasons, never embraced Mexican citizenship and the American government, probably for racial reasons, didn't contest their citizenship when they started to return as Mexico descended into chaos.

For much of US history, citizenship to foreign born children was only conveyed through fathers. It is a mess, and it is far different than what most people believe.

Here is some serious background on the subject:

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

I've posted about all this often here at DU.

when it was a territory entitled them to U.S. citizenship. Otherwise, not a single one of the early Presidents would have been citizens of this country, and therefore not eligible to become President.

This is a non-issue.

Mitt was himself born in Michigan. His father never did become President. This just doesn't matter. Worry about more important things, like why the MSM keeps on insisting that Romney has some kind of advantage in the polls, and his supporters are a lot more enthusiastic than Obama's supporters.

Or worry about the next time a much larger batch of vaccine gets out there contaminated with something that this time results in a communicable disease.

Or anything else.

Again, George Romney's citizenship status has absolutely no bearing on anything.

Before today I knew nothing about Utah statehood, the Mormon wars, etc. At least I'm learning something here.

If someone left the US today, lived abroad for 30 years, paid no US taxes, fought in no US wars, married there, had babies there and then fled to the USA -- would they be an American citizen eligible to run for office?

If someone was born in Puerto Rico ( a US territory and then followed the same path as Mitt's grandfather I don't think their son would be eligible. The person would either have to have legal dual citizenship or they would have had to give up their US citizenship to gain Mexican citizenship.

then yes, they are still an American citizen eligible to run for office. Period. Whether or not that person could realistically be elected is a totally different question.

Someone born in Puerto Rico is a U.S. citizen. Children of that person are also U.S. citizens. Legal dual citizenship (I'm assuming here one is U.S. citizenship) does not preclude running for office.

I have no idea what Mexico requires for one to become a citizen.

Article II of the Constitution states, "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."

In other words, anybody who was a citizen in 1789 was explicitly made eligible to be president -- even if they were foreign born. So that point isn't relevant here.

As a republican, no one overly scrutinized George Romney's birth even though both of his parents had left the US Terroritory of Utah so they could continue the illegal practice of Polygamy in Mexico. Romney's grandparents were neither station there thru the military or served as diplomats, 2 reasons which would not impact someone's ability to run for President (aka John McCain being born in Panama).

You are correct, this has no impact on the current election. But what it does do is show a bit of hypocrisy and racism in these birthers.

If the Romney grandparents were considered US Citizens even though they willingly left the country to avoid the law then why is there even an issue with Barack Obama's birth? Ann Durham, Barack's mother, was a US Citizen and as far as we know she never renounced her citizenship nor left the country to avoid the law. Obama isn't the first US President who had one parent not a US Citizen. At least a quarter of all the US PResidents have had either one or both parents who were non-US Citizens with the most recent (before Obama) being Herbert Hoover.

So I guess that's the reason why I am asking.

BTW list of Presidents who had one or both parents non-US Citizens
George Washington - Both Parents
John Adams - Both Parents
Thomas Jefferson - Both Parents
James Madison - Both Parents
James Monroe - Both Parents
John Quincy Adams - Both Parents
Andrew Jackson - Both Parents
William Henry Harrison - Both Parents
James Buchanan - Father
Chester A Arthur - Father
Woodrow Wilson - Mother
Herbert Hoover - Mother
Barack Obama - Father

And that his father could have potentially benefited from the DREAM act that Mitt opposes.

The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.

All of the early Presidents were born before this was a country, so their eligibility to be President came from having been born in a place that later became part of the U.S. Exactly as the Constitution states.

Mitt Romney's grandparents were born in a place that became part of the U.S. That made them citizens, and made their son George, who was born in Mexico, also a citizen.

Could you direct me to a link? Thanks.

To clarify: has the 14th amendment always been taken to include territories, such that all residents become native citizens (no naturalization required) immediately after the area becomes a territory?

"The Mexican Cession of 1848 is a historical name in the United States for the region of the present day southwestern United States that Mexico ceded to the U.S. in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, but had not been part of the areas east of the Rio Grande which had been claimed by the Republic of Texas, though the Texas Annexation resolution two years earlier had not specified Texas's southern and western boundary."

Utah is clearly part of the territory ceded to the US by Mexico, therefore, it was a "certain territory".

...I can find specific clauses to include residents of Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, Alaska, etc. as US citizens.

I can find nothing pertaining to Utah as a territory. That's my question. Why does the constitution make specific allowances for citizenship for these territories, if it's automatic for ALL territories?

Did citizens from Utah have to undergo naturalization?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/subchapter-III/part-I

Not the U.S. Constitution.

Are you talking about U.S. Code?

Thanks for the correction.

There was no issue when about it when he ran for President in 1964 or any of his Senate elections.

when he moved to Mexico to avoid polygamy laws? It would be interesting if there's anything from him actually doing that...you know, saying screw you and your monogamy?

Thought that was interesting.

Wonder how one could find out?

George may not be but Mitt is.

It's more about the hypcocisy of the birthers

She's an expert!!

Haha...I dare ya to send her this challenge!

...are we seriously starting a Democractic Birther movement? With so many relevant reasons to vote against Romney, why is this even worth discussing?

Mitt was born in the United States. It was his father, George, who was born in Mexico.

Nobody is questioning Mitt's right to run. The only way the question of George's citizenship would be interesting is, if he were not actually a citizen, then he would have been subject to a law like the DREAM act, which Mitt Romney opposes.

Apparently a citizen based on the laws at the time, but not natural born under the Constitution. No question about Mitt -- he is a natural born citizen just by being born here.

natural born citizens or naturalized citizens.

Only question I see about George Romney is whether his parents' fleeing the US was the same as renouncing their citizenship....it doesn't now, but did it then?

The only people I know who believe there is some category of "born a citizen, but not a natural born citizen" are birthers. "Natural born citizen" merely means a person who is a citizen by the consequences of birth. Otherwise, they are a naturalized citizen - ie an immigrant. There is no "third option."

While I see that as a special case of naturalized "immigrant".

and who apply to establish their citizenship. For our children born abroad, we went to the US embassy and obtained special birth certificates for US citizens born abroad.

That is what is done today. I don't know how it worked in George Romney's time, but you have a point. It may be that he should have become a naturalized citizen. It may be that his parents born in Utah automatically became citizens when Utah became a state (just like all other people born and living in Utah).

21 was the most likely the age you became an adult back then, so George Romney's mother could have become a citizen when his mother who was only 20 when Utah became a state (depending on the month) turned 20.

It's complicated and we don't know the law in force at that time (which may have been far more inclusive considering the amount of immigration that was encouraged then) or all the facts about Romney's family. But it is possible that George Romney was not a citizen, not likely in my view, but possible.

And I still can't find anything that states automatic citizenship was granted to residents of Utah when it was a territory. The constitution was amended to provide such provisions to other former territories that are now states, but I can't see anything specific for Utah. I'm sure, I'm wrong, but I can't find the documentation i'm looking for.

because that's all it is, and sorry, it's no less sick then teabagger birtherism.

You have become what you deplore. congrats on that, dear.

How was citizenship granted to those living in the Utah territory?

I have never questioned Mitt's right to run for President, and have defended his right to do so throughout this thread.

If his father was not actually a citizen, however, it does bring into question Mitt's refusal to support the DREAM act.

Tagging him as an "anchor baby," one of those 'awful things' that repubs loathe. I haven't seen anything yet that seriously considers questioning Willard's citizenship. He's obviously an American, having been born in Michigan. George's citizenship is ultimately irrelevant, except in relation to the anchor baby status. If there's more repub hypocrisy, especially in regards to the U.S. Constitution that they hug like it's their own personal woobie, it should be exposed. Not to mention, I find the changing laws and norms of establishing citizenship over the years to be a fascinating topic on its own.

No idea where "teabagger birtherism" came into this.

Statehood is not required. There is no requirement that one be born in a state. The constitutional requirement is that one be born in the United States.

Our territories are the United States. There's plenty of good reading here, if you care to do so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_incorporated_territory_of_the_United_States

"The Supreme Court of the United States is unanimous in its interpretation that the extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution of the United States to the inhabitants of a territory in effect produces the incorporation of that territory. The net effect of incorporation is that the territory becomes an integral part of the geographical boundaries of the United States and cannot, from then on, be separated."

Or you can continue with your quest.

That's what I've been trying to figure out all day. I couldn't find it in the constitution and figured it had to be Supreme Court, but couldn't find it anywhere! It's been a long time since I took US history! And obviously those Supreme Court decisions would be retroactive (i.e. the decisions cited there all occurred after Utah became a state).

Your point?

also their son, while born in Mexico, left Mexico in 1912, my mistake, I thought after 1917... so that constitution nixes what I said before.

Mexico did not really have a good basis for granting citizenship to foreign citizens under Porfirio, and the 1917 Constitution would not really apply to the young Romney since they left Mexico in 1912 if I get the timeline correctly. Those born in the territories were also considered natural born by the way.

Also his dad ran at a time when we did not pay that much attention to this, regardless Mitt is a citizen.

did they live in the US enough time, before George was born, to pass their citizenship on to them?

If we are born and raised in the US and leave after age 18 we can pass our citizenship on.

But Gaskill was 13 and Anna Amelia unknown when they left the US - analyzed against the law at the time, they may not have had enough ties to the US to be able to pass their citizenship to foreign born children.

Romney's parents, Gaskell Romney (1871–1955) and Anna Amelia Pratt (1876–1926), were American citizens and natives of the Territory of Utah.[7][8][9] They married in 1895 in Mexico and lived in Colonia Dublán in Galeana in the state of Chihuahua (one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico), where George was born on July 8, 1907.[1][4][10]

So Gaskell was in Mexico at age of 24 and married Anna who was 19. George was born in 1907.

wiki:

Birth abroad to two United States citizens
A child is automatically granted citizenship if:
Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth;
The parents are married; and
At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child's birth. INA 301(c) and INA 301(a)(3) state, "and one of whom has had a residence."
The FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) states "no amount of time specified."
A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of citizenship. They may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have their citizenship recognized.
[edit]

Both his parents were US citizens at time of his birth, they were married, and Gaskill had lived in the US before George's birth.

That includes Puerto Rico, Guam. etc. The Constitution is specific about this. Also includes people born abroad to US citizens.

It also includes US government installations abroad, such as military bases and embassies. This situation came up four years ago with John McCain, who was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone, which was then a US territory.

The Constitution allows Cobgress to enact uniform rules for naturalization. It is through the naturalization laws that children born abroad to citizen parents in some cases acquire citizenship.

Military bases are not considered US territorities for purposes of citizenship. Nor was the Canal Zone. The CZ acquired a special status some years after McCain was born, but was never US sovereign.

Puerto Rico is not a state. Neither is Guam. But people born there are US citizens.

Any territory or possession of the United States is still the United States.

That's why I started this thread, to get help figuring it out.

U.S. as illegal immigrants, probably still under arrest warrants.

The entire Romney family history has been white-washed.

But hey~~~GHWB's father was a NAZI, and it was never mentioned.

this is a nonissue, making an issue of it is silly. This is like arguing that Barry Goldwater wasn't a citizen because he was born in Arizona before it became a state.