Yeeks. That's a bit of an obscure point to raise, but it is the law. What a mess.
I have the lighter fluid and the matches ready for the GOP - let's burn this mutha down and start over!
The law? Since when have Presidents had to follow the law? What a quaint, pre-9/11 view of the world you have.
Look, the only guys who could possibly push this in a court of law are Romney or Huckabee and they have to do it pretty damned soon; if someone tried to challenge this after a McCain election victory, the Supreme Court would step in with another non-precedent-setting precedent and declare him President.
No, it's bullshit. "Natural born" means being a citizen from birth, rather than starting out as a citizen of another country and being naturalized.
You can be born as a US citizen EITHER by being born in the country OR by being born of US citizen parents. McCain's parents were US citizens, so he's a natural born US citizen.
Dirty Davey is correct. You do not gain citizenship merely by being born on a military base. You do get it at birth when, as is the case with McCain, both your parents are American citizens. The paperwork they had to file was to prove that his parents were, in fact, American citizens at the time of McCain's birth.
This dog won't hunt.
"It seems fairly clear that the Government has said people born on U.S. military bases overseas are not automatically citizens, which implies they are not natural born citizens. Which means John McCain is not eligible for the Presidency."
Again, bullshit. The children of American citizens ARE AUTOMATICALLY CITIZENS whether they are born on a military base or anywhere else in the world. THERE IS NO NATURALIZATION PROCESS FOR A CHILD OF AMERICAN CITIZENS BORN ABROAD.
The rule as stated applies to children of NON-CITIZENS--children of NON-CITIZENS born in the US itself become US citizens, but FOR THAT PURPOSE a military base does not count as American soil. So if a local employee delivers a child in a base medical facility, that child is NOT a US citizen.
BUT IF TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A CHILD, THAT CHILD IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AUTOMATICALLY FROM BIRTH NO MATTER WHERE IN THE WORLD IT IS BORN.
If you really want to get picky: Nine out of the first ten Presidents were born before the Declaration of Independence.
James K. Polk (#11) was the first President born after the Constitution was ratified...
Obama was born in Hawaii less than two years after it became a state, so he barely squeaked in!
Well, McCain maybe a citizen, but his rictus grin is definitely unnatural.
DJ and Davey, the State Department doesn't agree with you.
You may not be aware but us overseas Americans are more aware of these things than you are.
Military people here in Japan have to think about this sort of thing...
This is really a non-starter. Two American parents and born on a military base? He couldn't BE more eligible.
What you have here is petty, Rove-style crap (he actually used this in 2000). Back away, nothing to see here.
Coco AFB, where McCain was born in 1936, is in the Panama Canal Zone. Any person born in a US Territory is automatically a citizen, except if born to foreign diplomatic personnel. The Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. Territory from 1903 to 1979, so, any person born there was automatically considered a U.S. citizen. Woops!
Look it up, bub, and get your facts straight.
"You may not be aware but us overseas Americans are more aware of these things than you are."
Don't talk about what you don't know about. My nephew was born in Beijing, to two American citizen parents, last June.
There is paperwork required to document that the baby is an American citizen, but there is no 'naturalization' process. The child of two US citizens is a US citizen from birth.
The original article is bullshit, start to finish, and is a disgrace to the Group News Blog.
Is McCain a naturalized citizen? If he is not, then he is eligible to run for the presidency. That is all that matters.
The fourteenth amendment doesn't say anything about the status of children born to US citizens. McCain could have been born on a dungheap in Marrakech and he'd still be a US citizen if both of his parents were.
I have to agree with Rob M.; the 12th amendment got killed in the 2000 election:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;
Both Bush and Cheney were residents of Texas, they should not have gotten the Texas electoral votes. (Yeah, Cheney did some footwork to try and get out of this, but if the 12th has any meaning at all, just saying "oh, I'm REALLY a resident of ..." doesn't cut it)
It was the first in a long series of unconstitutional actions.
Not that any of this matters for McCain. As much as it would be satisfying to foist him on another country, we're stuck with him. As a citizen. Hopefully not as a president.
To clarify and expand--inheriting citizenship via parentage ("jus sanguinis", or "right of the blood") is a much older and more widely established principle than deriving citizenship from the location of birth ("jus soli", or "right of the soil"). Many European and Asian countries do not automatically confer citizenship "jus soli"--if two Americans have a child in Japan, that child is NOT a Japanese citizen.
The fourteenth amendment begins "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens..."
Note that this does not say "ONLY persons born...". It is an EXPANSION of the rules for citizenship, and does not eliminate citizenship "jus sanguinis"--and it has never been taken as doing so.
For the words "from the horse's mouth", as it were, see the document 'Naturalization: Waivers, Exceptions, and Special Cases" on website of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services--www.uscis.gov.
It specifically says:
"Children born abroad of U.S. citizen parents derive citizenship from their parents. The Certificate of Citizenship is merely a record of citizenship - it does not confer citizenship on an applicant."
Which is exactly what I have been saying--while there are administrative requirements for documenting the citizenship of a child born to US citizens abroad, the child is a citizen from the moment of birth and is a natural-born citizen in every sense of the term.
DD
Non-starter issue -- McCain's parents were both citizens, so he's a natural-born citizen, no matter where he's born.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons why McCain shouldn't be elected -- let's not waste time with non-issues.
This is important. I write a Constitution themed blog. Would you please consider allowing me to crosspost this there, or better yet, would you consider crossposting it there yourself?
It's too good to just snippet a quote or two, and I can't do it proper justice compared to your terrific presentation.
Thanks-
Hub; careful now! :o)
Let's not be TOO hard on St.-John-The-Course-Stayer. :o)
We don't want a last minute miracle-charge by Chuck Hagel, or somesuch.
McCain is sticking his foot in his mouth with endearing regularity, if you're a democrat. I happen to be of the opinion that for the repubs to wind up with a candidate who is foursquare for NOT "cutting and running", is a FINE choice for them to make. :o)
In fact, I got a "patriotic" hard-on that a cat couldn't scratch, when I thought about John, 6 months from now, wandering the campaign trail with george bush and "mission accomplished" implanted on his ass like some kind of anal-sphincter pacemaker, to make sure that everything works OK, and that he remains, as bush annointed him:
"The candidate best able to carry forward my policies." :o)
I think he's the perfect voice to sing the GOP Te Deum. Choirboy purity.
(Okay; ageing, half-senile, choirboy purity.... :o) )
Bollox; "rictus grin". :o)
It really is, in't it? :o)
Gang, I aint shittin' you an inch; we NEED this guy.
In fact, we need him the way the repubs need Hillary. :o)
On second thought, we don't need him quite THAT badly; we could have made do with Romney or the Rudester, but WTF; if the goopers want to hand us McCain, like a blessing from Jeebus, then who are we to argue with them?
:o)
This dog shouldn't hunt. Why? Because it's a bullshit law. It's discrimination based on an arbitrary facet of a person's birth. That's not a card progressives should be playing.
What does it have to do with anything? Not one person here can tell me that being born outside the borders of the U.S. has a damn thing to do with McCain's policies, his leadership skills, his qualifications to hold the office. A cheap technicality law.
If progressives have to stand up and defend a law like this, a pissy little stupid law that does nothing but burden people due to the accidental circumstances of their birth, we become massive hypocrites. Those are the sort of laws we fight against.
We wouldn't use some outdated Jim Crow law because it happened to be convenient for us at the time. We shouldn't use this one.
Defeat McCain based on who he is, not where his mother happened to go into labor.
"McCain's parents were US citizens..."
Are we sure? Based on that death's head grin of his, I'd take even money that his real mother was a she-wolf. Was he born during a full moon?
I have the lighter fluid and the matches ready for the GOP - let's burn this mutha down and start over!
Wanderer I think you mean burn this mutha down, salt the earth and post a 24/7 with uzis to make sure it never rises again. 
man HS where did you cross post this too? that is some fast response time...we ll i guess mccain is spendign his illgotten campaign donations well.
hey DD I sufficantly drage down TNB in these here comments that nothing posted could ever be a disgrace....well not counting some of the apple love or no meat containg recipies...those are allwyas disgracefull.
Why shouldn't we highlight this as a potential issue and require that McCain prove he is eligible? Dems are standing with the Constitution versus Bu$hco and McMaverick ignoring it on civil liberties, etc - why shouldn't we question if McCain's candidacy actually meets the Constitutional requirement?
Let him spend his time and money to prove it. No negative for Dem surrogates to promote the question - are we planning to run Arnold Governator or some other non-native born folks?
Why shouldn't we highlight this as a potential issue and require that McCain prove he is eligible?
Because it's not an issue. McCain's parents were citizens -- hence, he is absolutely and without any possible doubt a natural-born citizen, and is eligible to run for the presidency.
This is the type of thing you see blathered about in freeperzones, not in the reality-based community.
You know... these charges may be false. BUT... the charges DO exist, so we have treat them as IF they were true.
And since when did a slavish devotion to the facts ever become a part of the GOP?
Let me play this game:"John McCain has decided to pimp out his wife and adopted child. After all, if he and his wife can't produce a white child, why is he wasting American resources bringing up a mudchild?"
"Obviously, he doesn't have the virility to produce a child to stem the tide of foreign (black, muslim) babies to keep America white, like it should be."
"And doesn't Malkin have a mudchild too? What happened to the GOP?"
Just writing that made my throw up in my mouth -- but damned if this isn't making the rounds out the truly shitbag right.
Oh please. Let's say you're right on the law. When the Supreme Courtiers get asked you know what they'll say. McCain is eligible! And, no, that doesn't mean anyone else they don't want to be eligible is eligible because if that looks like the likely reading for their decision they'll repeat their 2000 performance and say, "Now don't go construing this decision to applyin' to no other folks!"
This is absurd. My daughter was born five months ago, in Brazil, to an American father and a Brazilian mother. She is a US citizen and has been since birth -- the only paperwork involved proving that I am a US citizen. Let's talk about substantive problems with McCain, not this crap.
Seriously, it's an old charge. It was used against McCain in the primaries years ago, and it was debunked then.
Someone else picked this one up a few weeks ago (possibly Balloon Juice) and updated with a correction and a link to the debunking.
Ah... here we go. From 1998, no less.
D
I remember looking that up when I turned 35, because I was born overseas (in England) to two American parents, and I was curious if I could legally run for president. I can, and so can John McCain (even more so since the CZ was actually US territory when he was born there).
I am not a British citizen or a dual-national, and I had a passport from when I was a baby.
This post proves that wingnuts can come from both sides of the political spectrum.
Isn't there something sane to discuss?
DJ and Davey, the State Department doesn't agree with you.
You may not be aware but us overseas Americans are more aware of these things than you are.
So I guess my law degree from a top-25 law school is worthless? I think not.
The real point here is that there's just no precedent that can be accurately cited.
Does the current law on citizenship to those born overseas to citizen parents negate the 1790 Naturalization law? Does being 'regarded as natural-born' equal being natural-born? And so on.
We can say for sure that McCain isn't naturalized, and the presumption is usually that you're either natural-born or naturalized. But is there an exception for the office of president?
If McCain does win, I'd expect there to be a challenge, simply to get the precedent on the books. I don't think it's that contentious, but I do think it's an unresolved issue. If the SCOTUS could give advisory opinions, it wouldn't be the subject of debate. But SCOTUS can only deal with actual cases.
That said, the post itself is bollocks, and really not up to GNB standard.
(Hint: if you want to know about US citizenship and immigration law, ask an immigrant.)
It needs some heavy updating.
Sorry but the act from 1790 was struck down by the enactment of the 14th amendment...
you will have to try harder...
and no, you law degree doesnt mean shit. unless you study constitutional law... which clearly you don't.
Boy, there sure are a lot of "concerned" people.... 
I find this post interesting for different reasons. What is McCain's position on the Panama Canal Zone? I remember hearing anecdotes from people awhile back that the type of US culture down there when it was controlled by the US was extreme militant rightwing. We should really investigate and push deep into the attitudes and influences that McCain has had just as the rightwing has attempted to do to Barack Obama.
From what I can glean so far McCain is the son and grandsons of Admirals who carried a very militant colonial conception of the world. I have seen nothing in McCain that would make me think that he is any different. Has there been one invasion, one bombing, one "intervention" that he has not supported over the years? In some ways I think that McCain is more dangerous than Bush in McCain's ability to use his military and war experience to thrust the lance of imperialist action anywhere on the globe.
This technical qualification isn't that interesting to me, and since he's white McCain will get a pass anyways. What we really need to know is how his experience in these elite circles of conservative military politics will effect what he wants to do if America fucks up and votes for him.
Davey, you're new around here.
Listen for a day or two and you'll learn how we do things.
On another topic, to understand the issues surrounding the obligation to prove citizenship for US citizens born abroad one is better off ignoring the 'top 25' credentials and focusing on the pragmatic knowledge base of those of us who have DONE the process for ourselves or our kids.
There is no precedent that I'm aware of in which a federal court has addressed the burden of proof to meet the qualifications for the Presidency. Can someone correct me on that narrow issue?
Because if the burden is on someone else to point out that an individual may not be able to prove her qualifications by bringing a suit, then this is an interesting conversation. It's not gutter racist garbage as was suggested above.
IF there is a precedent to suggest that anyone has standing to bring suit to demand that a candidate for federal office prove her qualifications, well, that would have all kinds of surprising and lousy implications. But if it were the case, well, there's an opportunity here.
It is not cheap, easy or fast to get the document that is the ONLY legal way to prove citizenship to a federal agency.
However, I suspect that McCain has a certificate of citizenship to go along with a birth certificate stating that it does not serve as proof of citizenship. If they did it the same way back then, which I'm not sure of.
The reason I suspect he's proven his citizenship already is that he adopted a child born abroad to another set of parents. In order for Bridget to get her proof of citizenship, one or both married parents had to prove theirs.
The reason that being born to US parents on foreign soil infers citizenship is so that we can't be running around the world creating stateless babies.
I could talk more but I'm out of time...
Boy, there sure are a lot of "concerned" people....
I'm concerned that you're embarrassing yourself.
Were McCain's parents both American citizens? Yes? Congratulations, he was born an American citizen, no need for naturalization. He's 100% eligible to run for president.
funny, I don't feel embarrassed.
I don't think it's "embarassing" at all; it's a good thread; worth talking about and even arguing about...some.
I just don't want to lose John, to run against!
(tanbark whines; clutches pearls...:o) )
they don't have any other bench tb...
Wanderer I think you mean burn this mutha down, salt the earth and post a 24/7 with uzis to make sure it never rises again.
Baltogeek, I've heard that there are places in France that are forbidden for entry -- and may always be -- because of buried munitions from World War I that may still go off.
Maybe we could take that as a model for the Repub burial zone.
(1) I'm not new around here, I just don't comment often.
(2) While HS pontificates that "the State Department doesn't agree with [me]", he COMPLETELY IGNORES the quote from the CURRENT WEBSITE, hosted by an arm of the Department of Homeland Security:
"Children born abroad of U.S. citizen parents derive citizenship from their parents. The Certificate of Citizenship is merely a record of citizenship - it does not confer citizenship on an applicant."
This is not a "law passed in 1890"--this is the current interpretation of the law promulgated by the federal government.
Let's focus one sentence at a time...
CHILDREN BORN ABROAD OF US CITIZEN PARENTS (yep, that's exactly the case we're talking about) DERIVE CITIZENSHIP FROM THEIR PARENTS (no mention of any sort of naturalization process or any sort of paperwork).
THE CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP (I assume this is the paperwork that makes HS somehow think naturalization is required) IS MERELY A RECORD OF CITIZENSHIP (that is, it doesn't actually DO anything) - IT DOES NOT CONFER CITIZENSHIP ON AN APPLICANT (which means that the person that gets it was a citizen all along).
Do you care to explain how that page--titled "Naturalization: Waivers, Exceptions, and Special Cases" and available by searching www.uscis.gov--is not the policy of the government?
Look, HS. You fucked this one up. Just admit it and move on.
and no, you law degree doesnt mean shit. unless you study constitutional law... which clearly you don't.
Spoken like a man whose flop sweat is overwhelming.
Let's take it slowly, if only for my benefit. By the 14th Amendment, all persons "born or naturalized" within the United States are citizens. Initially, this was meant to confer citizenship on all African-American former slaves, but this has been expanded by caselaw to include any child born in the U.S. (a 1924 statute extended citizenship to American Indians)
That, however, is not the only way one can become a U.S. citizen at the moment of birth. By statute, if both a child's parents are citizens of the U.S. at the time of the child's birth, and at least one of them has established a residence in the U.S., the child becomes a citizen as well. If only one parent is a citizen, the baby becomes a citizen provided certain residency requirements are met.
By statute, American military bases are not considered U.S. territory for purposes of the 14th Amendment. So, if jus soli were the only way one could obtain U.S. citizenship, your contention would be correct. But it's not.
Understand, I'm not addressing the merits of McCain as a candidate, just your argument that he is not a natural-born citizen. As stated above by others, the issue has never been ruled on by a court. But if it was, and you argued similarly to this, I'm pretty sure you'd lose.
Further, let's look at form N-600, "Application for Certificate of Citizenship", which is what you fill out if you're a US citizen who has a baby abroad. It says:
"If you are the biological child of a U.S. citizen, you were born outside the United States and you are claiming citizenship by having been born to U.S. citizen parent(s), you automatically become a U.S. citizen at birth if:
"A. You were born to two U.S. citizen parents and at least one of your parents had a residence in the United States or one if its outlying possessions. This
residence had to have taken place prior to your birth; or
"B. You were born to parents, one of whom is an alien and the other a U.S. citizen[....]"
Let me repeat the key phrase there:
"YOU AUTOMATICALLY BECOME A US CITIZEN AT BIRTH."
Now maybe Hubris has some constitutional theory that explains that "become a US citizen at birth" is different from "natural-born citizen". But that theory sure ain't shared by the folks who actually handle citizenship paperwork.
DD.
Funny how these two show up at the same time..
Anyway, I am not disputing he is a citizen. The question holds. Is he a NATURAL citizen. If he had to fill out form 37 stroke 8 dash 12. I would suspect this doesnt pass muster. I never had to register as a citizen. Because I was born in the U.S. ... So... all your uppercase typing aside, the question remains, is he a natural u.s. citizen. and my reading of this is that he is not.
1. There is flop sweat but it aint mine buddyroll.
2. DHS has no jurisdiction here.
Obama was born in Hawaii less than two years after it became a state, so he barely squeaked in!
Not necessarily. One of the three potential presidents in history who was not born in one of the States of the Union was Barry Goldwater, who was born in the Arizona Territory (Arizona became a state in 1912). As the Territory was part of the United States, Goldwater (I would maintain) was a "natural born citizen" of the United States. Also, I would assume that at least one of his parents was a citizen, so he'd get it that way.
There is flop sweat but it aint mine buddyroll.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info...o/
info_609.html
The best way to get yourself out of a hole is to stop digging.
Listen closely DJ... I am not disputing he is a citizen. The question is whether he is a natural citizen as I am. It seems not.
Repetition is not convincing argument.
"DHS has no jurisdiction here."
Yeah, Hubris, you're right. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services--a division of DHS--has nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship. They actually handle agricultural subsidies--somebody figured if they gave them a clever name, only those "in the know" would be able to get the checks cut.
If you follow DJ's link to State.Gov--the State Department you keep citing--you'll read:
"Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)."
And if you follow that to the source you get:
"Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
[...]
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;"
So--your contacts at the State department tell you that "natural born citizens" is different from "citizens of the United States at birth"?
And do they talk to you on the phone, or are they coming in through the fillings in your teeth?
Note that clause (a) of Sec. 301 is:
"(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"
So the actual law in place treats born-in-the-US and born-outside-the-US-to-two-citizen-parents EXACTLY the same. Both are "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth."
[Yaawwwnnn]
Here's the deal--put some money where Hubris's mouth is. Find me a section of US code, or a statement from a recognized and legitimate US government site, that contradicts any of what I've cited above, and that says children born to two US citizens abroad must go through some sort of naturalization process to become citizens--as opposed to simply documenting or registering the fact that they ARE citizens--and I'll pay Hubris $1000 IF he commits to pay me same if he cannot find such evidence inside of a week.
Did your parents have to PROVE their citizenship?
Man, McCain not being a natural citizen really has you riled up!
Listen closely DJ... I am not disputing he is a citizen. The question is whether he is a natural citizen as I am. It seems not.
Read closely my posts of 7:15 pm and 7:37 pm. In both, I use the term at issue "natural born citizen."
As Molly Ivins said, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."
No, my eight-month-old nephew went through exactly this situation. Never been "naturalized" and yet he has an American passport to clutch in his chubby little fist.
As was said upthread--the original post is just proof that there are folks on the left with theories just as nutty as you'll find on Free Republic or NRO.
I didn't say "natural born".. I said "natural citizen"...
You 2 dumbasses keep setting up your own strawmen. Try that shit on someone else. I aint biting...
dumbass right wing trolls...
I am neither right-wing nor a troll.
And while you claim you "didn't say 'natural born'.. [you] said 'natural citizen'.", Article II of the Constitution--which was after all where you started--says "natural born citizen".
So if you have some spiritual land-based definition of "natural citizen" that's distinct from a born citizen and for which citizenship law is not relevant, that's really dandy for you but has nothing to do with the Constitutional qualifications for the White House.
Oh... I see, you're a "centrist".
If my "theory" is so nutty, why is:
1. The NYTimes writing about it.
2. The IHT is writing about it.
3. You are spending so much time on it?
"the child is a citizen from the moment of birth and is a natural-born citizen in every sense of the term"
This is your argument, except it doesnt hold and it certainly hasnt been challenged yet.
Again, the question remains.
I'm not a centrist, I'm a raving leftist. But I happen to have recent family experience with this exact situation.
If your "theory" is not nutty, why can you provide no evidence for it other than speculative newspaper articles? Surely if the "State department" makes this distinction they should document it somewhere, no?
Surely you would agree that this clause of the constitution has not been tested yet?
The government has made it clear that some "barrier" is in place when being born overseas. The parents must prove their citizenship. Therefore, there is some requirement.
There exists a step that I did not have to take. That the vast majority of Americans don't have to take.
The question is, is this what the framers were talking about? This question has not been addressed yet.
But make no mistake, McCain calls it into question.
here is your citation:
http://209.85.175.104/search?q=c...en&ct=clnk&
cd=1
To focus the point, the issue is whether the statutory citizenship given by act of Congress to children born to U.S. citizens is identical coterminous in meaning to the term "Natural Born Citizen" in the U.S. Constitution.
It is theoretically possible, though I doubt the Court would go there, to put daylight and distance between the definitions. I think that the Court would state that Congress has the constitutional power to expand the set of those who get to be "born citizens," and has done so in McCain's case.
A little known fact: while people born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens (I won't go there as to the Constitutional issue for the Presidency for the moment), people born NOT to U.S. citizens in certain outlying Pacific islands do not "have" citizenship but do have essentially a green card from birth, and accelerated procedures by which to become citizens if they show up here.
State is explicit...
"are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment"...
As the government itself says, "The Certificate of Citizenship is merely a record of citizenship - it does not confer citizenship on an applicant.".
Which is to say, the child is a citizen BEFORE the parent files the paperwork. The paperwork does not "make" the child a citizen.
If you look at actual debates of the framers, what they were talking about is pretty clear--they were concerned about the possibility of a foreign prince or nobleman coming to the US and becoming President in order to make the US a vassal state or colony of their original land. (This is discussed in more detail by those arguing for an amendment to allow naturalized citizens like Schwarzenegger or Granholm to run for President.)
(And, as I said upthread, "jus sanguinis" is a much older and more deeply-rooted tradition of citizenship than "jus soli". The 14th amendment does not mention blood citizenship not with the intent to exclude it--again as I said above, it says "all" and not "only"--but because blood citizenship was taken as a given and was not at issue. The 14th was meant to reverse the Dred Scot finding and establish that black folks born here were indeed citizens; there were no issues with blood citizenship, so the amendment does not mention it.)
"are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment"...
Right--this means that if you are born there to a NON-citizen, you do not so get citizenship. This says nothing about blood citizenship, only about the soil citizenship granted by the 14th amendment.
The military base in Panama is in the same category as a civilian hospital in Beijing--if you are born of US citizen parents you are a US citizen, and if you are born of non-US-citizen parents you are not a US citizen.
Our focus on the framers is regarding what they said it was, not what they said it aint.
The government has made it clear that some "barrier" is in place when being born overseas. The parents must prove their citizenship. Therefore, there is some requirement.
Actually they must do more than that. It is not enough for the parents to be US citizens. one of them must have been a resident of the US (i.e. lived in the US) prior to the birth also.
Without this residency requirement, US citizenship could perpetuate generation after generation without anyone ever setting foot in the US. A child born abroad to US citizens who never returns to the US cannot pass on his citizenship to his children.
As for the McCain thing. I have a feeling this is one of those areas where our "strict constructionst" conservative majority will not be so strictly constructionist.
Again, I am not disputing he is a U.S. citizen.
Because his parents had to verify that... on that we agree..
The parental verification you keep citing specifically says that it does NOT change the child's status.
"The Certificate of Citizenship is merely a record of citizenship - it does not confer citizenship on an applicant."
If it does NOT confer citizenship, but the child is a citizen, then the child must have been a citizen naturally.
sorry. That doesn't carry.
Here is another question. Is McCain a citizen of Panama? does he hold 2 passports?
Kent makes some excellent points.
More relevant to McCain-again from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which Hubris seems so unwilling to trust--there is a specific page on the Canal Zone. Note that the Canal Zone is not simply a military base or diplomatic facility:
Interpretation 303.1 United States citizenship acquired in the Canal Zone; Republic of Panama.
(a) The Canal Zone
(a) The Canal Zone The Republic of Panama leased the Canal Zone in perpetuity to the United States by treaty ratified February 26, 1904. 1/ The first legislative enactment of August 4, 1937, conferred United States citizenship, as of such date, on all persons born in the Canal Zone, after February 25, 1904, and before the 1937 date, whose fathers, mothers, or both were United States citizens at the time of such persons' birth. By the same act, persons born on or after the 1937 date, under the same conditions of parentage, were declared to have similar status at birth.
Similarly,
Sec. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403]
(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
Kent is correct about the residency requirement--which is not an issue, of course, in the McCain case.
And gee, still State does not include the canal zone in the list of places... go figure...
I guess it still doesn't count.
Again--State's description of places relevant to the fourteenth amendment is directed only to children of NON-citizens. For two citizen parents, there is no legal difference between the Canal Zone or Tokyo. In either case, citizenship is through the blood.
And the Canal Zone is different today, of course, because we gave it back. With respect to McCain, the issue is the status of the Canal Zone in the 1930s, not today.
Congress can declare anyone to be a citizen, that is their right under the consitition including a foreign prince. It don't make them eligible to be President.
You still haven't come up with any documentation saying that the child of two US citizens born outside the US is not a natural born citizen of the US. If it's so obvious, why can't you find a statement?
Although this sort of thing is fun to argue about, I don't think there's a chance in a million that McCain would be disqualified because he American parents happened to be serving overseas in the military at the time of his birth.
That's certainly a winning argument for Obama to pursue.
I am sorry but the State Department manual I link to certainly pertains to a child of 2 U.S. parents.
Further, it is clear that there is some requirement for children born abroad. If McCain's parents did not submit the paperwork he would NOT be recognized as a citizen automatically. Clearly that implies that he is not "naturally" a U.S. citizen...
wasn't he born before 1904? he looks older than Moses
No, it implies that the paperwork is different. A birth certificate is an official document of where you were born and who your parents are, but it is not an official record of your parents' citizenship.
If you are born abroad of US citizen parents, your birth certificate does not in and of itself prove citizenship--but that does not mean you are not a citizen. It provides half the proof of citizenship--establishing parentage--and the additional certification of parental citizenship completes the documentation.
The state department brochure (which you do not link to, but the Wikipedia article you link to does), cites the same section Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] which I do above--and that section makes the EXACT SAME STATEMENT about children born on US soil and children born to two US citizen parents--both "shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth".
It does NOT say that a child of two US citizen parents is not a US citizen if born abroad. The clause you keep citing says NOTHING about the citizenship of the parents.
Real slow now... What the state department is saying is...
(1) One way to become a US citizen is to be born on US soil, regardless of your parents' citizenship.
(2) For the purpose of invoking item (1), military bases etc. do not constitute "US soil".
Note that this says NOTHING about blood citizenship.
I provided the link in this thread and its not a "brochure".
And you are doing quite the job of changing your language as this goes on.
The question remains. In fact numerous questions remain. None of which you have answered.
Think of the parental paperwork like this. To fill out an I-9, you need to prove two things--identity and eligibility to work.
Someone born on US soil is like someone who has a passport--a single document which provides all the necessary proof that the person is eligible to work.
Someone born to US citizens abroad is like someone who has a drivers' license and a social security card--the former establishes identity and the latter establishes eligibility, and together they prove that the person is eligible to work.
In both cases the status of the person is the same--it's just that in one case it takes two documents to prove it and in the other it only takes one document.
Exact same document I was looking at, and cites the same section of the law that makes no distinction between soil and blood citizenship.
Nevertheless, If his parents didn't fill out the paperwork, he would not automatically be a citizen.
Someone should ask him on the campaign trail if he has a Panamanian passport.
YAWN.....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
If you look at actual debates of the framers, what they were talking about is pretty clear--they were concerned about the possibility of a foreign prince or nobleman coming to the US and becoming President in order to make the US a vassal state or colony of their original land.
It seems ridiculous to me. Wouldn't the nobleman have to get elected first? Then wouldn't he have to get colonization through the Reps and the Senate?
The natural born clause doesn't even seem that effective for preventing would-be annexers. If I was (say) Catherine the Great, and I wanted to take over the early U.S., I wouldn't find some duke or count to run for president. Instead, I'd pay off some greedy but vulnerable local-born American S.O.B. to be my puppet - my Batista. A Manchurian candidate, as it were (although folk back then would probably call it a Siberian candidate...)
If there have been no court challenges to the 'natural born citizen' clause, then all we can do is infer what it actually means. Davey seems to be hung up on the 'citizen' part of the phrase, trying to prove that McCain was indeed an American citizen from birth - which, all evidence seems to indicate he was, but could probably do with a court ruling just to clarify the law, which, from a layman's view, certainly looks muddled.
But do we even have a legal explanation for what 'natural born' actually means? If a future president were born via caesarian, or labour was induced, or they're the result of IVF treatment, are they all 'natural born'?
You 2 dumbasses keep setting up your own strawmen. Try that shit on someone else. I aint biting...
dumbass right wing trolls...
Name-calling ill suits you. But if that's all you can respond with...
You are certainly correct that the issue has yet to be decided in a court of law. I maintain that if the issue of whether John McCain is a "natural born Citizen" pursuant to Article II of the Constitution ever gets to court, the court would rule that he is.
"(1) One way to become a US citizen is to be born on US soil, regardless of your parents' citizenship.
(2) For the purpose of invoking item (1), military bases etc. do not constitute "US soil"."
That's the way I read this, too. It seems to me your argumentation is flawed on that point, Sonic. And I have to say, after reading this discussion, DJ and Davey spend a lot of time citing statues, laws, and the official handling of the issue. You countered this with, hmm, determined stubborness and nothing else, as far as I can see. You may have a point with insisting on "naturally born" is meant to be more exclusively defined, ok, but then, shouldn't you be able to find at least some authoritative evidence supporting your view?
:-/
Interesting point by jqheywood, a commenter at Salon.com:
"While the meaning of clause 5 of Article II (the "natural born Citizen" clause) has never been tested, I think the founders pretty clearly intended the "natural born" language to include those of us born of citizen parents. The original citizenship law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, enacted by a Congress that had many of the founders as members, and signed by George Washington, provided that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens . . . ." Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104. I think that says it all."
http://letters.salon.com/
politic...296e33ff90.html
"I think the founders pretty clearly intended the "natural born" language to include those of us born of citizen parents"
Thats quite the stretch Gray...
you argue as well as the other 2.
I don't think there's a legal issue. There *might* be a polical issue with certain wingnuts:
"He was born and grew up south of the border! Speak's spanish like a native! That explains his immigration policy, he's one of them!"
If the democratic candidate was born in the CZ, that's the kind of viral email that would be going around, rather than nonsense about middle names, madrasses, and silly dress-up robes.
"Thats quite the stretch Gray..."
Imho it's the most compelling argument about how the constitutional statement about "natural born citizen" was meant to be understood. Well, essentially you are making a constructionist case here, arguing that "natural" means "born on US soil". But where do you have any evidence for your view? The 14th ammendments doesn't give a new explanation of the term, so it's safe to say that it relies on the established definition, as given by the 1790 act. Or is there a different view anywhere in the law?
:-/
"you argue as well as the other 2."
:blush: Thx, that's very flattering!
:D
But the 1790 was struck down... geez...
and the State Department is very clear that being born on a base does not automatically make you a citizen...
crikey...
Look, I am saying, as I did from the beginning. there are questions. it is questionable.
There is leeway in the Consitution and McCain's situation increases the questions...
so.. tired now... must... keep going...
oh bugger all...
HS, stop feeding the far right libratarian troll...we are dealign with a rather murky constitutioanl issue here. it gose into nuances of teh law...you have far surpassed the ability of any libratarian...mentaly he will never get it so its not worth trying...
sure its a good idea to educate folks, but start at his level, simple adition, pattern matching and what not.
Nevertheless, If his parents didn't fill out the paperwork, he would not automatically be a citizen.
That's not the case. No-one is 'automatically' a citizen. There is not something in the air within the borders of the United States that bestows a special halo of citizenship on those emerging from the birth canal.
If your parents and/or the hospital hadn't filled out your birth certificate -- would you 'automatically' be a citizen? That's still 'paperwork' with the salient detail -- 'place of birth' -- that entitles you to US citizenship.
Indeed, it's an issue many African-Americans born at home during the days of the segregated South now face. For most, it's not an day-to-day problem, because no one assumes they swam in across the Rio Grande. But if they wanted to fly to Canada, it would be trickier to get a passport. And if their states institute voter ID laws, they're screwed.
If you were born overseas, and find out later in life that both (or sometimes just one) of your parents were US citizens, you can apply for a US passport by submitting the right documentation.
You don't 'apply for citizenship', you apply to have the citizenship you were legally granted from birth officially documented by the US. Your citizenship was already there; you (or more importantly, the US govt) just didn't notice it until now.
The only question here is whether the 'natural-born' requirement for preznit resolves to 'not naturalized' or '14th amendment citizen' or some baroque alternative, also taking into account the status of the Canal Zone. It may well be that a ruling doesn't even need to address the issue of foreign-born, citizen-parent citizens if the courts were to rule that Zonies count as natural-born. (Or, what DJ said.)
My guess is that it won't be put to a legal test. You may see a challenge after the GOP convention, but I don't even know if SCOTUS would grant cert. on it until after a McCain general election victory. And I don't see that happening.
I do think, if it came down to a ruling, that it would be perverse to go against the existing legal framework, in which there's only one alternative to 'naturalized'.
One final legal note: failure to file a DS-240 to report a birth overseas to the local consulate does not constitute a waiver or revocation of citizenship.
The DS-240 is designed to help create a paper trail. That's all.
The only question here is whether the 'natural-born' requirement for preznit resolves to 'not naturalized' or '14th amendment citizen' or some baroque alternative, also taking into account the status of the Canal Zone. It may well be that a ruling doesn't even need to address the issue of foreign-born, citizen-parent citizens if the courts were to rule that Zonies count as natural-born.
I would expect, if it came to court, that SCOTUS would be happy to do what they like best, which is to rule very narrowly. So the result you'd get, I bet my house, is a decision that says 'Anyone born in the CZ to US citizen parents is natural-born for Art 5 purposes'.
And since John McCain is older than dirt, he'd be the only person this ruling would ever end up applying to.
I'm still interested in the question, How and who can make him prove Constitutional eligibility? Does one of you top-25 lawyers want to swing at that one?
Pseud is definitely right and I looked it up and I'm definitely right. (Married couples adopting foreign born children have to BOTH meet the I-600A tests. Therefore he has something that the Feds have accepted as proof of citizenship in the past 15 years.)
So we know that he can prove he is a citizen and that the process was not a naturalization process but a recognition process. On to a more interesting point: who gets to make him prove it?
I'm still interested in the question, How and who can make him prove Constitutional eligibility? Does one of you top-25 lawyers want to swing at that one?
I think there'd be standing if McCain were to receive federal funds. (As opposed to just listing them as collateral.)
There might even be standing for a challenge to McCain's place on a primary ballot, though the Dems would probably not want to be officially associated with it, because the argument is mainly coming from the kooky, Paulbot part of the internets.
The reason that being born to US parents on foreign soil infers citizenship is so that we can't be running around the world creating stateless babies.
Absolutely, given that pure jus soli citizenship is increasingly rare outside the US, and was never the guiding rule in much of the world.
(You could also impishly say that it's designed to ensure that the IRS can tax the foreign-born kids of citizens.)
I think there'd be standing if McCain were to receive federal funds. (As opposed to just listing them as collateral.)
This is interesting, but I'm not sure the court would allow an average citizen to assert standing as a representative of society based on McCain's receiving federal funds (the courts have refused to recognize "taxpayer standing" for example).
The better person(s) to assert standing would be McCain's primary voters, as they could claim they were personally injured by McCain's presence on the ballot.
As many on the board have stated, it is an interesting issue.
You know, I really did mean to say "McCain's primary opponents." Think before you type, DJ, think before you type...
who brings the case....
my guess ron paul or the huckster.
"the State Department is very clear that being born on a base does not automatically make you a citizen"
But it does not automatically make you a noncitizen requiring naturalization either.
Let's put the logic in pseudocode, zero is false and one is true.
* This is what the state department says ;
if (bornOnMilitaryBase=1) then bornInUSA=0 ;
* This is what the citizenship law says ;
* With some additional cases omitted ;
if ((bornInUSA=1) OR (bornOfTwoCitizenParents=1)) then naturalBornCitizen=1 ;
else naturalBornCitizen=0 ;
* This is what the 14th Amendment says ;
if ((bornInUSA=1) and (naturalBornCitizen=0)) then throw _new_ ConstitutionViolatedException() ;
Note that the state department's claim is NOT that being born on a base makes you a noncitizen, it is that being born on a base abroad does not permit you to use your birthplace to claim citizenship.
But if you use your parents' citizenship to claim citizenship, the location of your birth is irrelevant.
pseudonymous in nc @- 8:55/9:03 am is correct.
You don't 'apply for citizenship', you apply to have the citizenship you were legally granted from birth officially documented by the US. Your citizenship was already there; you (or more importantly, the US govt) just didn't notice it until now.
My American father didn't register me when I was born. So when 15 year old me took my British Passport to the US embassy in London to get a visa to visit the States and the application form asked if there were any American relations and I said yes, people got all excited. (Marines escorting me into the bowels of Grosvenor Sq
The vice consul then informed me that
a)I WAS a citizen
b)no I didn't have a choice about it
c)I couldn't refuse it
d) it was illegal for me to enter the US on another passport.
Anecdotal perhaps, but I think the US Embassy has a better idea of the law regarding foreign born citizens than
Hubris does.
Two questions:
1) Is the standard for President different from what it would be for an ordinary citizen?
2) did the web site being cited change recently? (The Repubs have screwed with other websites since Bush the Younger has been king.)
For what it's worth, the State Department issued me a "Report of a US Citizen Born Abroad." I have no birth certificate, nor do tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of US citizens who were born to US parents who were overseas. The assertion that they are not naturally born citizens is absurd and offensive; further, it flies in the face of actual State Department practice. As others have said, documentation of citizenship is most definitely not the same as a conferring of citizenship.
While it may be possible to challenge the "natural born" status of John McCain, perhaps one would be better off not pursuing such an idea for the pragmatic fact that the US government in practice recognizes these children as automatic citizens and also for the more idealistic notion that actively seeking a reading of the constitution which puts the citizenship of the children of the members of our armed services into question would make you a terrible person.
julius:
I think it needs to be challenged, in the unfortunate attempt that McCain is elected, just to get the case on the books and the precedent established.
Foreign-born citizen-from-birth presidential candidates don't come along too often, though they're more likely to do so nowadays. The SCOTUS doesn't give advisory opinions: it needs actual cases to rule upon.
As PhoenixRising points out, it may end up as a very narrow ruling that doesn't clarify th