Just thought that this would be an interesting discussion, or at least to see what temperature the water is here at on the topic.

The NYT published a story discussing whether or not Senator McCain is considered a natural born citizen based on the fact that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

Questions for debate:

Is there any validity to the question of McCain being a natural born citizen of the United States?
Do you think Congress should amend the constitution in order to better define "Natural Born Citizen"?
Is that particular qualification archaic in today's United States? In other words, should that requirement be eliminated from our Constitution to be President of the United States?

1) No--both American parents, and both his father and grandfather were US naval officers, which is why McCain was born in the Canal Zone in the first place. Also, I thought the Canal Zone was a U.S. Territory by treaty until the property was returned to Panamanian sovereignty by the Carter admin's treaty.

2) No--waste of money.

3) No--if you have access to the "football", you need to have unquestioned loyalty to the United States.

Believe me, I don't disagree with you at all, but, is a territory the same as a state? Since he was born outside of the borders of the United States, does that make him a natural born American citizen?

Another angle, if a baby is born to two American citizens that are on a missionary trip or some other humanitarian aid mission while in another country with an organization that is structured and based in the United States, is the baby a natural born citizen?

I agree with quick's answer to question 1.

I also agree with answer two, but for a different reason. Amending the constitution is a cumbersome process. If this can be clarified (if indeed it needs to be) by an act of congress or a court ruling, then in my opinion, it would be better. The founders left the constitution vague. Maybe they thought we'd have the moxie to flesh in the details as we went along. We wouldn't even have time to begin amending the document before the election.

I do think the natural born citizen thing is a bit archaic, but hey, it keeps The Terminator out of the oval office. One actor in a century is plenty.

I know I wasn't suggesting, and I would hope no one else would suggest getting an amendment ratified before November. Hell, we can't even get Congress to work together on simple bills in a timely manner, a Constitutional Amendment would take decades at this pace.


I'm kind of on the fence on this one. On one hand, I think this country, or any country for that sake, should be lead by a person that was born and raised here, has worked here or served here, and does not have any ties to any other nation. On the other hand, I know some people that otherwise are more qualified than the current collection of candidates aside from their immigrating here to become citizens. Being born here also doesn't ensure loyalty. I think we all know that natural born citizens can often break ties and find allegiance in other places. When it comes down to it, natural born seems to win for me.

Then why did you ask the question in the first place?

If McCain wins, I do not think Democrats will challenge the election on this issue. At that point we have a precedent to support seating a president who was born under these circumstances. After that, it would be like trying to close the stall after the horse had kicked the door off it's hinges.

Is there any validity to the question of McCain being a natural born citizen of the United States?

No. My wife falls into a similar catagory. She was born in England when her father was stationed there in the Air Force. She was issued both a British and a US State Department birth certificate, and could claim dual citizenship if she desired, but is considered a natural born US citizen.

Do you think Congress should amend the constitution in order to better define "Natural Born Citizen"?

No.

Is that particular qualification archaic in today's United States? In other words, should that requirement be eliminated from our Constitution to be President of the United States?

Yes, it is archaic and is not based on any sound basis whatsoever.

I guess this is redundant after DTOM's post above (I was writing when he posted, and didn't see it)....

There are two ways to become a US citizen. A person is either a "naturally born" citizen, or a naturalized citizen. There is no such thing as a naturally born US non-citizen or unnaturally born US citizen, or whatever. Natural born citizens are citizens at birth. This applies to babies born on US territory, babies born by military members when on duty overseas. They are given US citizenship at birth, rather than naturalized later, ergo they are naturally born US citizens.

Is there any validity to the question of McCain being a natural born citizen of the United States?

Not more than that with of any of the first seven presidents of the United States. The rules were established to keep potential immigrant presidents from facing ethical dilemmas involving foreign policy. I don't particularly think of John McCain as a Panamanian (Where's the checkered lapel pin? ) and I don't believe many others do. If he was born to two Panamanians on route from David to Panama City or to two passengers passing through the canal, then maybe it would be questionable, but as far as I'm concerned a military base is American enough for me.

Do you think Congress should amend the constitution in order to better define "Natural Born Citizen"?

No. I think the chances of us running into a real difficult question regarding the legitimacy of being a naturally born citizen (born in an embassy, security council chamber floor, under the flag on the moon...) are minimal enough that we shouldn't waste time or money on the subject.

Is that particular qualification archaic in today's United States? In other words, should that requirement be eliminated from our Constitution to be President of the United States?

I think it's a reasonable requirement.

Is there any validity to the question of McCain being a natural born citizen of the United States?

I think the question is valid, but I think the answer is that McCain is a natural born citizen.

Do you think Congress should amend the constitution in order to better define "Natural Born Citizen"?

Eh... I think we can interpret the constitution to mean that a "natural born citizen" is someone issued citizenship at birth. No need to amend.

Is that particular qualification archaic in today's United States? In other words, should that requirement be eliminated from our Constitution to be President of the United States?

No, I don't think it's archaic. I think the requirement is perfectly fine.

I would add that given, as several posters here have shown, that there is no real question as to whether or not McCain is a natural born citizen, then the fact that the NYT even published the article at all calls their journalistic integrity into question once again. The case is clear cut...there is no more reason to question McCain's citizenship than there is Obama's or Clinton's. Only an entity with an ulterior motive would even run the story.

The same reason anyone asks a question. Because the article brought it up and I wanted to see what the members thoughts were on the topic.



If McCain doesn't win, there would still be no precedence regarding the issue, and it would still be up for interpretation.

1.) It's a fairly regular procedure, and the answer is always yes. Two American parents working by and large for American interests elsewhere. Neither parent renounced citizenship, therefore, McCain is considered "natural born." Had he been born on a military base in South Korea, the soil is technically South Korean, but the flag flying is American. The two come into conflict for a reasoned mind, but statues say that if an American flag flies, the child is a natural born American.

2.) No. It's worked this long.

3.) Certainly not. I couldn't waltz into Russia and be named president there. I don't want anyone, no matter how stringent the requirements, coming here and sitting in the Oval Office if they were not immediately subject to the rules from birth.

Would this be true if only one of the parents were American citizens? I have found that many American GIs that get stationed overseas as single men, come back to the states with a wife from that country, and sometimes a kid. Where is the line drawn for those that are born outside the borders of the country? If a GI is stationed in South Korea, gets married and has a kid in Korea, is that kid natural born citizen? If a GI is stationed in South Korea and doesn't get married, but fathers a child in South Korea, is that child natural born citizen? This slightly veers from the actual issue with Senator McCain, however it is conversations like these that seek precedence. What constitutes natural born citizen? I am not saying that anyone is wrong, I am just taking the conversation to real world possibilities.

The Swamp did a story on this 10 days ago.



But then again, that's the New York Times. 10 days behind the blogs, and 180º wrong on key issues of the day. At this point, I wouldn't feed the Times to my gerbil.

scubatim, you are right - it is different if only one parent is a citizen. There is some kind of residency requirement that applies - 10 years in the USA, with 5 years over the age of 14, for the non-citizen parent to qualify for their children to be "natural born." Then again, this being the non-partisan NY Times, they would probably write an article that induced labor or a C-section for a Republican makes them not "natural born" at this point.

According to the Pentagon, the whole "military bases are US soil" thing is a myth. If that were true, we'd see pregnant women rushing to Embassy parking lots to give birth. Foreign nationals who are born on US army bases are not on "us soil" and do not qualify for citizenship. It's irrelevant that Panama had a special legal status - McCain's parents were both American citizens, and that's it. McCain could have been born with his parents on vacation in Bermuda, and he would still be a citizen. One of my best friends had a daughter in Paris, and once she's 35 and has lived in the US for 14 years, she will be qualified to be President.

Apparently, this concept dates back to English Common Law, which stipulated that children of ambassadors living outside England were "natural born subjects." link

Thanks for the insight. Just to be clear, if GI Joe were to be stationed in South Korea, and he met Mama San, and the two of them were married and had a child together, the child would have to be at least 19 years old and have lived in the United States for ten years before the child is considered a natural born citizen. Right? Does the same apply if GI Joe and Mama San don't get married? This is the issue that our Founding Fathers could not have predicted. This is where an arguement could become one for precendence.

Yes, it would. My good friend Robin had an Italian mother and an American father, but she was born on an American cruise liner a month early. The circumstance may be a tad different since a U.S. cruise liner is considering floating U.S. soil. I think the same courtesy extends to John McCain, however, since it was an American locale in which he was reared.

Conservatives believe life begins at conception, so did the deed occur in Panama or in America? That's another way to look at it from the GOP perspective.

If the South Korean-American was born on the U.S. base, yes, s/he would be a natural born citizen regardless of the parents' relationship.

Not exactly. You either are born a citizen or you are not; you can't acquire it after a while. As for military babies, I think that this was contemplated - see second-to-last category in the list.

link





Respectfully, you are just wrong about the US cruise ship (which probably flies a Panamanian or Liberian flag anyway) and the Korean military base. The only place you find US soil is in the US.

I'm not wrong. Her birth certificate, social security card, all official documents give the legal impression that she is natural born. It can be taken up with the State Department, but she is a legal American citizen because the precedent has been that all children born on American-holdings or American Armed Forces institutions are under the protection of the United States Constitution- thereby making it U.S. soil.

Again, with respect, I linked the applicable regulations, which made no reference whatsoever to being on ships or bases. (They do refer to 'outlying possessions' but that means Puerto Rico, Samoa, etc. If you say "I'm not wrong," perhaps you could extend the same courtesy and provide some evidence?

Never said you were wrong. I'm saying, the operational precedent in place seems to be in conflict with the law because Armed Forces children and someone I know could run for president uninhibited.

Also, the Panama project would've been outlying posession, per your edit.

On the nature of the cruise ship, her family relates that they were in international waters at the time. Well the ship belongs to America. She can't just be country-less.

to clarify - I pointed out that you were wrong about all of these places being American soil, and you said "I'm not wrong."



I take it that is a "no" to my request for evidence. If you have some evidence that "operational precedent" deviates from what the law says, please provide it.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Panama Canal. McCain could have been born on the moon, and he still would be a citizen, because both of his parents were citizens, and they lived in the US prior to his father serving overseas.
If your friend is a natural born citizen, it would be because her father was a citizen and her mother lived in the US, and therefore was a US national. This would be true whether she was born on a ship or anywhere else outside the US and its possessions.

I agree with most of the responses to the first two question.

He's been a citizen since birth, hence he is a naturally born citizen.

It's the third question that interest me, so far only DTOM, quick, and VDemosthenes have (I think) looked at the situation.

...and only DTOM with what I think to be clear reasoning.


I don't think the stipulation is archaic.

I think it was probably always wrong and reflected an irrational paranoia that continues in some circles to this day.

Foreign birth is no real reason to question the loyalty of a president. Heck Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis where born here too.

Furthermore this whole idea of loyalty in elected officials is essentially a nonsense question but in any case something for the voters to decide.

In respect to reason we should dump this provision..

Which provision exactly would you dump? The law which applies, (which I have linked) has a list of exceptions to the foreign birth qualification. What other exceptions would you add? Or are you suggesting that naturalized citizens should also be allowed as President?


Back when the "Obama won't wear a flag pin on his lapel" debate was going on, I heard several commenters ask "what's next - loyalty oaths?" Well, yeah. That's what's next, if he wins. Should we eliminate the oath of office as well?

Yet another negative story about John McCain by the New York Times... Looks like my prediction about The NYT is coming true....

I've been trying to find more balance in my life as of late because a wise person once told me "In an argument there are always two stories or accounts and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Even though I am supporting Obama for president, I can't stand by idle and watch the NYT contradict themselves by endorsing McCain then printing negative story after negative story.

I wonder when the NYT will unendorse McCain.

While I think that he isn't a natural citizen, what scares me more is that if McCain is out, Huckabee steps up, and that's worse than having a candidate born elsewhere.

Is there any validity to the question of McCain being a natural born citizen of the United States?
Do you think Congress should amend the constitution in order to better define "Natural Born Citizen"?
Is that particular qualification archaic in today's United States? In other words, should that requirement be eliminated from our Constitution to be President of the United States?

Yes, there is validity to the question. McCain was neither born on US soil or US possession soil. The US never had possesion of Panama. A military base does not qualify as an embassy. In 1964, the US Supreme Court suggested that 'natural born' meant in the US.

No, an amendment is not necessary to clarify a single term.

No, this qualification should not be eliminated from the Constitution. You would have to be very narrow minded and naive to even entertain the idea. The Constitution is a very enlightened and wise document considering the period of time in which it was drawn up and signed.

I have now posted the relevant statute 3 times. What in the world are you people doing, arguing that someone needs to be born "on US soil" or the like? It is irrelevant. An urban myth. Congress clarified its opinion in 1790, a whopping year after the Bill of Rights was passed. Stop it please.

That is precisely what I'm suggesting.

I am sympathetic to a number of years residency in order to acquaint a candidate with the American way of life, but where one is born says nothing conclusive about loyalty one way or the other.


...but the oath of office is not a loyalty oath, merely a statement of the purpose of the presidency.



Should we eliminate say, the pledge of allegiance?

Sounds like a grand idea to me, who needs it?

If you are so sure that "natural born" was clearly defined in 1790, explain why the Supreme Court arrived at a different interpretation in 1964.




Yeah, let's go ahead and eliminate the pledge of allegiance. Let's forget about loyality oaths, everybody is on the take anyway. The flag can go too. You see on TV, groups are burning it all the time anyway. The guy down the street would make a good President. Yeah, he's a convicted felon and has been in the US for only 2 years, but heck, who cares. These statements are pure sarcasm.

There are reasons for the procedure we follow. Today's American is so far removed from the American of the late 1770's.
No pride in this country anymore. Its just about what one can get for the least amount of effort and most amount of money.

was he granted citizenship as an american upon his birth ?

if yes, then he is a "Natural Born Citizen"

end of story.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever that the USSC arrived at a different interpretation in 1964. Link please? The only thing I could find was the SCHNEIDER v. RUSK case, and I see nothing there that supports your argument. The USSC ruled on whether or not citizenship could be revoked for living overseas for an extended period of time. It applied to naturalized citizens only, not those granted US citizenship at birth. The girl represented in this case was born in Germany to German parents, who later moved to the US and became citizens.

Again, "natural born" means granted citizenship at birth. Nationalized means acquired citizenship after birth. There is no other vernacular to fit. Even the strictest constructionist would agree on this. The Constitution also says Congress shall have the power "To coin money, and regulate the value thereof". Does that mean our paper dollars have/should have no value? Exactly the same logic you are using.

Hopefully the voters. Why do we need these pointless laws to protect us from ourselves?

This is America. The state is meant to be loyal to us and we'll elect who we darn well please.

I'm painting with a broad brush but really naturalized citizens are no less American that citizens by birth.

Well, what you fail to mention is that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was explicitly repealed and superceded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removes the term "natural born" from the relevant phrase:



No subsequent naturalization act re-introduces the term.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 is irrelevant.

So, while I have my own opinion on the subject, the question regarding his eligibility to be President under the Constitution is valid.

On a side note, the research I did provided some interesting tidbits. I didn't realize that Madeleine Albright was not a part of the line of succession because she is not "natural born", two current cabinet members are removed from the line of succession for this reason.

It isn't irrelevant. We aren't debating the Act itself, but the phraseology. The Naturalization Act of 1790 provides sound evidence of precisely what the founders intended when they said "natural born citizens" during the time the Constitution was written.

I agree completely with DTOM on all points, particularly this last one. This debate is ample evidence of why it is archaic, and in fact can even be abused. There is no more reason to question McCain's 'natural born' status than there is Obama's. Both would be equally absurd, yet we're only having the one issue raised. The concept itself is outdated, given the internationalization of the world. Arnold Schwarzenegger is probably the perfect example of that...think what you want of his politics, but is there any doubt about where his loyalties lie, or on how 'American' he is? No. I think, in fact, that many (most?) naturalized citizens probably have a greater appreciation of what it really means to be American now than most natural born citizens...just as those born without money have a much better appreciation of having it than those who were born with it. If the American voting populace has a concern about someone's naturalization status, then they would have amply opportunity to voice that concern during the election process and in the voting booth.

Well, five years later the phrase was removed. The same founders who approved the 1790 Act approved the removal of that phrase. Frederick Muhlenberg, John Adams and George Washington held the same positions at the time of both Acts. Their names are on both Acts. It has never been included in any subsequent naturalization law. It appears that the founders changed their mind.

Okay, where did the founders define 'natural born citizen'? In the first Act. When did they redefine it? Oops, they didn't. Did the 1790 Act distinguish a difference between the type of citizenships given at birth? No, it didn't. Well, then by the above reasoning I suppose it could be argued that the 1790 Act, in usurping the first, must indicate that there are no longer any "natural born citizens" at all and no one can run for president.

If the first Act provided the definition of "natural born citizen" rather than including a specific group in that category, then one could also argue that the Naturalization Act of 1790 limited the eligibility for the Presidency to only those "children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States." But, I think it's safe to say that the phrase was not a definition of the term "natural born citizen", but rather a definition of a group that was to be included in the category of "natural born citizen". That inclusion was repealed five years later by the same people that put it in.

And I think you probably mean "...the 1795 Act, in superceding the first..."

wow I did not know that I said any of that please enlighten me as to where I posted that garbage.

For what it's worth, I found a very detailed analysis of this question in the Yale Journal of Law. The summary, after a lengthy explanation with a corresponding plethora of legal documentation is this:

Amazing how a lawyer can manage to take twenty pages of writing to finally conclude the self-evident (IMO).

Exactly. The question then becomes simply "Were you born a U.S. citizen?" If the answer is "Yes", then you qualify. Was McCain born a U.S. citizen? Yes. End of issue (not that there ever should have been one to begin with).

Well, I haven't read it all yet - just the first couple of pages, but allow me to point out the first flaw in her reasoning:

She makes the assumption that, because the 14th Amendment says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States", that all persons born with citizenship must be natural born regardless of where they are born. That is flawed, however, because the section clearly says "born... in the United States." So, the 14th Amendment does not serve her argument in the way that she claims.

I'll keep reading.

Yes, that seems to be exactly what the conclusion was. I wouldn't call it an assumption, it is actually the conclusion based on their research of the law. Again, their can only be two types of citizens, natural born or naturalized. Therefore, if you are a citizen, and you were not granted that through the naturalization process, then you must have been natural born.

Well, as regards the 14th Amendment, it is an assumption. Perhaps you can point to the "research of the law" that makes this not an assumption?

According to current State Department Policy,



Now, this could be interpreted to protect against foreign nationals going to one of the above facilities and having their child so that it could be considered a US Citizen by reason of birth and could be questioned regarding it's applicability to the current situation, but here is another law that specifically relates to the area in which John McCain was born:



So, this would mean that prior to the passing of this legislation in 1952, a person born in the Canal Zone regardless of who the parents were was not a citizen. This would mean that John McCain was naturalized as a citizen at the age of 16 when this law was passed and would not be considered natural born.

Naturalization, under US Law, is defined as:



This would include the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by legislation.

Yes. All the above means is that the scores of foreign personel who work on the overseas bases (for example) cannot give birth on the base and have babies who are automatically US citizens.



How did you find the date when this legislation was passed? I didn't see the year 1952. The answer to the above of course, would depend on what the prior legislation this usurped said. This issue didn't just come up in 1952. Do you have a link to the first piece of legislation?

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 was passed in... well, 1952. In terms of previous legislation, what previous legislation are you referring to that deals with establishing the citizenship of persons in the Canal Zone?

I haven't kept up with this thread since my initial post, but hadn't we already discovered that children born to servicemembers overseas, had American citizenship? Am I missing something as to why this is still an issue?

I didn't know that the document you linked to was based on the Immigration and Naturalization Act. What would that have to do with US citizens born overseas? They are neither considered immigrants, nor "naturalized". I thought you had something for a minute, but now that I know this....your previous statement is a logical fallacy. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that "prior to the passing of the legislation in 1952, a person born in the Canal Zone regardless of who the parents were was not a citizen" unless you actually have proof of some change in policy respective to military children born overseas, and all evidence presented so far points to the contrary.

I'm glad you are so familiar with the Act that I refer to. I am sure, then, that you are aware that it also mentions other situations regarding the conferring of citizenship at birth.

Before I continue, let me state that there are two ways of attaining citizenship under the Constitution: by birth in the United States or by naturalization.

Congress - under Article I, Sec 8 - has the power "[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".

Congress has passed many laws over the years regarding derivative citizenship - citizenship as a result of the status of one or both parents as citizens.

Naturalization means "...the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." This would include citizenship established at birth by an act of Congress in exerting its power under Article I, Sec 8 of the Constitution. The derivative birthright only exists via statute and is not embodied in the Constitution. So, one could argue that a citizen at birth would be either born in the United States or automatically naturalized via US law at birth.

So, what does this mean regarding the definition of "natural born", well... those children born abroad to US citizens are also citizens. Those children born abroad to US citizens between 1790 and 1795 would be considered "natural born" under the Naturalization Act of 1795 - even though that appears to go against the very concept of "natural born" in the Constitution. After 1795, those children born abroad to US citizens are citizens, but not natural born... they are citizens by statute.

One might argue that the term "natural born" was removed from the Naturalization Act because a natural born citizen would not need a law to establish birth right... they would be naturally born a citizen.

So, upon further research, I stand corrected in one sense... the law at the time of John McCain's birth was such that he would be a citizen.

U.S. Citizenship Acquired By Birth Abroad

But that doesn't mean he is a natural born citizen under the Constitution.



Current State Department policy - since you bring up policy - also states that the concept of jus sanguis is not embodied in the Constitution.



The US Congress could never constitutionally pass a law that altered or limited the citizenship of anyone born in the United States. Anyone born in the United States is, under the Constitution, regardless of parental nationality and irrespective of any act of Congress, a citizen... such a person is a natural born citizen.



American citizen and natural born citizen are not mutually exclusive. One can be an American citizen and not be a natural born citizen.