Full Version: McCain's Citizenship
Today, I read an article that stated that Presidential Candidate McCain was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028) His parents were both US citizens at the time (August 1936).
Acticle II of the US Constitution, which outlines the qualifications of candidates for presidency, states the individual must be a "natural born' citizen.
The US never had possession of Panama or the Panama Canal, just permission to be there. Where does his citizenship stand? He was not born on US soil nor the soil of a US possession. Is a military base considered US soil?
What were the forefathers intentions regarding the use of the term 'natural born'? Does that mean birth on US soil? A law passed in 1790 by the first Congress provided that the children of US citizens born outside the US "shall be considered as natural born citizens." This law is no longer in effect. In 1964, the Supreme Court suggested that "natural born" meant born inside the United States.
It appears no one wants to define 'natural born' or ramifications of the place of birth in relation to citizenship. Surely, a newborne can not decide.
Scenerio One: A child born to US citizen parents, regardless of the location of the birth, is a US citizen. A child born to Mexican citizens, on US soil, is a Mexican citizen.
Scenerio Two: A child born to US citizen parents in France, is a French citizen. A child born to Mexican citizens on US soil becomes a US citizen.
President McCain may face discussion of this Constitutional Issue.
Up for debate: What does 'natural born' mean in the context of the Constitution? If we determine it to be US soil or US possession soil, how would that affect children born to US parents across borders? If we expand the defination to the parentage, what responsibilities does the child have in regard to the US, specifically if they stay out of the US or if they try to re-enter the US?
Acticle II of the US Constitution, which outlines the qualifications of candidates for presidency, states the individual must be a "natural born' citizen.
The US never had possession of Panama or the Panama Canal, just permission to be there. Where does his citizenship stand? He was not born on US soil nor the soil of a US possession. Is a military base considered US soil?
What were the forefathers intentions regarding the use of the term 'natural born'? Does that mean birth on US soil? A law passed in 1790 by the first Congress provided that the children of US citizens born outside the US "shall be considered as natural born citizens." This law is no longer in effect. In 1964, the Supreme Court suggested that "natural born" meant born inside the United States.
It appears no one wants to define 'natural born' or ramifications of the place of birth in relation to citizenship. Surely, a newborne can not decide.
Scenerio One: A child born to US citizen parents, regardless of the location of the birth, is a US citizen. A child born to Mexican citizens, on US soil, is a Mexican citizen.
Scenerio Two: A child born to US citizen parents in France, is a French citizen. A child born to Mexican citizens on US soil becomes a US citizen.
President McCain may face discussion of this Constitutional Issue.
Up for debate: What does 'natural born' mean in the context of the Constitution? If we determine it to be US soil or US possession soil, how would that affect children born to US parents across borders? If we expand the defination to the parentage, what responsibilities does the child have in regard to the US, specifically if they stay out of the US or if they try to re-enter the US?
QUOTE(Janabrute @ Feb 29 2008, 09:44 PM) 
Today, I read an article that stated that Presidential Candidate McCain was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028) His parents were both US citizens at the time (August 1936).
Acticle II of the US Constitution, which outlines the qualifications of candidates for presidency, states the individual must be a "natural born' citizen.
The US never had possession of Panama or the Panama Canal, just permission to be there. Where does his citizenship stand? He was not born on US soil nor the soil of a US possession. Is a military base considered US soil?
What were the forefathers intentions regarding the use of the term 'natural born'? Does that mean birth on US soil? A law passed in 1790 by the first Congress provided that the children of US citizens born outside the US "shall be considered as natural born citizens." This law is no longer in effect. In 1964, the Supreme Court suggested that "natural born" meant born inside the United States.
It appears no one wants to define 'natural born' or ramifications of the place of birth in relation to citizenship. Surely, a newborne can not decide.
Scenerio One: A child born to US citizen parents, regardless of the location of the birth, is a US citizen. A child born to Mexican citizens, on US soil, is a Mexican citizen.
Scenerio Two: A child born to US citizen parents in France, is a French citizen. A child born to Mexican citizens on US soil becomes a US citizen.
President McCain may face discussion of this Constitutional Issue.
Up for debate: What does 'natural born' mean in the context of the Constitution? If we determine it to be US soil or US possession soil, how would that affect children born to US parents across borders? If we expand the defination to the parentage, what responsibilities does the child have in regard to the US, specifically if they stay out of the US or if they try to re-enter the US?
Acticle II of the US Constitution, which outlines the qualifications of candidates for presidency, states the individual must be a "natural born' citizen.
The US never had possession of Panama or the Panama Canal, just permission to be there. Where does his citizenship stand? He was not born on US soil nor the soil of a US possession. Is a military base considered US soil?
What were the forefathers intentions regarding the use of the term 'natural born'? Does that mean birth on US soil? A law passed in 1790 by the first Congress provided that the children of US citizens born outside the US "shall be considered as natural born citizens." This law is no longer in effect. In 1964, the Supreme Court suggested that "natural born" meant born inside the United States.
It appears no one wants to define 'natural born' or ramifications of the place of birth in relation to citizenship. Surely, a newborne can not decide.
Scenerio One: A child born to US citizen parents, regardless of the location of the birth, is a US citizen. A child born to Mexican citizens, on US soil, is a Mexican citizen.
Scenerio Two: A child born to US citizen parents in France, is a French citizen. A child born to Mexican citizens on US soil becomes a US citizen.
President McCain may face discussion of this Constitutional Issue.
Up for debate: What does 'natural born' mean in the context of the Constitution? If we determine it to be US soil or US possession soil, how would that affect children born to US parents across borders? If we expand the defination to the parentage, what responsibilities does the child have in regard to the US, specifically if they stay out of the US or if they try to re-enter the US?
See this debate here.
Topic closed...
Reason: Duplicate topic.
Recommended action:
Please use the search feature to locate a similar topic. If you are unable to find a similar topic, please contact the staff member who closed the topic by clicking the PM button below this post.
Helpful links:
- Simple Search
- Advanced Search
- Starting New Topics
- Survival Guide
- The Rules
- Staff Directory
Note: This is an automated response.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.