John McCain: Is he "Natural-Born"?

[Kevin]

If a child born to an illegal alien is "natural born," surely a child born on a U.S. military installation is natural born.

Hillary would litigate this if she had a chance to though.

She'd lose, then claim the election was stolen.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If a child born to an illegal alien is "natural born," surely a child born on a U.S. military installation is natural born.

Hillary would litigate this if she had a chance to though.

She'd lose, then claim the election was stolen.

Your first case is only true is the child is born in the US.
And as the story IIRC stated, John's kids would not have been
"natural born" if born in The Zone.

And as some have pointed out, this matter may have to be looked at by one of the two branch's of government sooner than later.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Your first case is only true is the child is born in the US.

That's what he meant - obviously if said alien isn't IN the US, he isn't illegal.

This is ridiculous and Ron Paul just makes himself look like an idiot bringing it up.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by 33girl

That's what he meant - obviously if said alien isn't IN the US, he isn't illegal.

This is ridiculous and Ron Paul just makes himself look like an idiot bringing it up.

Check around, it is NOT just Ron Paul bringing it up.
And this has been around, in one form or another since at least Chester A. Arthur.

And it is the Republicans (Bush) who claim to be "strict constructionists" when it comes to the Constitution.
Just found this Souther POV:
http://southernledger.com/blogs/roge...spective/?p=48

[33girl]

This was checked out the first time he ran.

I don't see why it's an issue now.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by 33girl

This was checked out the first time he ran.

I don't see why it's an issue now.

Just because it was "checked-out" does not make it have any legal status.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by 33girl

That's what he meant - obviously if said alien isn't IN the US, he isn't illegal.

This is ridiculous and Ron Paul just makes himself look like an idiot bringing it up.

I don't know if he brought it up, but I think a little less of him knowing he's hosting that crap on his site.

I think there's a really important distinction about the material in the wiki article about whether, say the child of a German mother in the 1970s who gave birth in a military hospital is considered natural born and acquires citizenship by being born on base, which he or she clearly doesn't and the idea that the child of an American mother and father living on the Army base, who is born on base, is somehow not being born an American. The American's living on the base are certainly under the rule of US law.

In my mind, for American members of the military, a US base is just a little bit of the US installed temporarily someplace else.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If a child born to an illegal alien is "natural born," surely a child born on a U.S. military installation is natural born.

I don't know that's necessarily the case. (It should be, but whether it would be, I don't know.) It seems that the question might turn on whether the child in born on land under US sovereignty. At least according to the Wiki article cited (usual disclaimers, I know), "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

The way it looks to me, though, is I only know of two kinds of citizens -- natural born and naturalized. Working from the assumption that he is a citizen, if he's not naturalized, then doesn't he have to be natural born?

I'm glad I don't do immigration law.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't know that's necessarily the case. (It should be, but whether it would be, I don't know.) It seems that the question might turn on whether the child in born on land under US sovereignty. At least according to the Wiki article cited (usual disclaimers, I know), "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

The way it looks to me, though, is I only know of two kinds of citizens -- natural born and naturalized. Working from the assumption that he is a citizen, if he's not naturalized, then doesn't he have to be natural born?

I'm glad I don't do immigration law.

If you want to get into a founders' intent argument, I would say that the founders' intent in placing this provision in the Constitution was to keep individuals with potential loyalties to foreign powers (namely, England) from being able to run for President.

If it comes down to a Supreme Court decision, I don't see a decision coming down against McCain.

Dems will love this because it will allow them to whine about how the Republicans "stole" the election yet again.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If you want to get into a founders' intent argument, I would say that the founders' intent in placing this provision in the Constitution was to keep individuals with potential loyalties to foreign powers (namely, England) from being able to run for President.

i thought it was because Madison didn't trust Hamilton

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

i thought it was because Madison didn't trust Hamilton

From the quoted/linked story:
"The phrase "natural born" was included in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to "declare expressly" that only a natural-born citizen could be president."

I know a person working on one of the campaigns. Next time I see them, I will ask about this matter.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Dems will love this because it will allow them to whine about how the Republicans "stole" the election yet again.

Please don't make ridiculous assumptions like this. Most Dems would NOT love this because they want elections to be about real issues, not crap like this.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Please don't make ridiculous assumptions like this. Most Dems would NOT love this because they want elections to be about real issues, not crap like this.

Why is it ridiculous? Do you, as a Democrat think it was ridiculous that Gore took a vote counting case to the Supreme Court? Most Democrats seemed rather supportive of him at the time.

How is this really so different?

[AGDee]

Yes, I do think it was ridiculous that it went to the Supreme Court. I also think it was ridiculous that voters were disenfranchised, that the whole thing became such a huge circus. I think there should have been a fair, valid recount and I still think we need to re-visit the whole electoral college thing and consider that the popular vote winner should just be the winner (and I expressed similar beliefs to that idea in one of the primary threads too... one primary day, everybody votes, most votes wins, period).

I think most Americans were embarassed by the whole Election 2000 thing. It made a mockery of our whole system with the dimpled chads and pregnant chads and hanging chads, dominating the news night after night.

This citizenship thing should be verified and decided upon long before you get to election day. It should be done the minute that they announce they are running. Who is responsible for checking that people meet the criteria? Is that actually spelled out anywhere?

[scbelle]

Based on the Form FS-240, or known as the "Consular Report of Birth Abroad",a child is a citizen of the United States of America at birth because both of his parents are citizens, even though he was born in Germany. Military installations are indeed considered "American soil." So while McCain wasn't born within the 48 states (at the time), he was on government property (if born in a military hospital). But citizenship was conferred upon him at birth, regardless of whether he was born in a military hospital or not. Here in Germany, there are only a couple of military hospitals outfitted for labor and delivery, so many children are born in German hospitals. These children also receive automatic citizenship to the United States based on the citizenship of his parents. They are not required to register the birth with any state, county or municipality within the United States because the State Department has already registered the birth. I just don't see how it's not a slam-dunk. It's not like military brats are Arnold Schwarzeneger... they aren't naturalized citizens, or for that matter, "nationals" or "aliens".