Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode
