John McCain: Is he "Natural-Born"?

[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".

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

A child born to two American parents outside of the U.S. is still an American citizen...actually, I think as long as one of the parents is American, the child is an American citizen, born in the U.S. or not. We know he/she is not a "natural born" citizen, but is that considered naturalized? That doesn't seem right, either.

The issue is not whether John McCain is an American, but whether he is technically "natural born" and whether he fits the intended criteria to be President. It sounds like technically he might not be "natural born" if indeed the Canal Zone is not considered U.S. soil. But, I think we all know what the intent was of our Founding Fathers, who were scared of and pissed off at the English and wanted to make sure they never had control of our country It is a judge's/court's place to interpret law, so I say let the Supreme Court interpret this one and be done with it.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

A child born to two American parents outside of the U.S. is still an American citizen...actually, I think as long as one of the parents is American, the child is an American citizen, born in the U.S. or not. We know he/she is not a "natural born" citizen, but is that considered naturalized? That doesn't seem right, either.

The issue is not whether John McCain is an American, but whether he is technically "natural born" and whether he fits the intended criteria to be President. It sounds like technically he might not be "natural born" if indeed the Canal Zone is not considered U.S. soil. But, I think we all know what the intent was of our Founding Fathers, who were scared of and pissed off at the English and wanted to make sure they never had control of our country It is a judge's/court's place to interpret law, so I say let the Supreme Court interpret this one and be done with it.

Agree-but will it ever get that far?
And if so, the who,what, when, where, how and why will all be rather interesting.
And all are filled with major consequences.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

A child born to two American parents outside of the U.S. is still an American citizen

That's what I always thought, but that's not what the State Department seems to be saying.

The issue is not whether John McCain is an American, but whether he is technically "natural born" and whether he fits the intended criteria to be President.

I agree. But it does pose an interesting question for strict constructionists.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I agree. But it does pose an interesting question for strict constructionists.

Does it? Is there any precedent on this? I think even strict constructionists are going to have to practice a little Constitutional Divinity in order to sort this one out.

In the end, I can't see five justices saluting the idea that a person is not "natural born" for the purposes of this Article if they are born on a military installation located on foreign soil.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

In the end, I can't see five justices saluting the idea that a person is not "natural born" for the purposes of this Article if they are born on a military installation located on foreign soil.

I agree. But since the idea of an American military establishment on foreign soil would have been completely foreign (pun intended) to the framers, and since the intent of that provision seems to have been to ensure that only persons born in the United States could be president, I do think it presents an interesting question for a strict constructionist. Interesting, not insurmountable or hypocracy-inducing, just interesting.

[AGDee]

It's futile to go over election 2000 again because it's history.

I will become even more discontent with the DNC if they bring this up as a point of contention than I am now. While I'm liberal in most of my beliefs, I'm furious that I didn't get a say in the primary (being from Michigan and all) and I'm sick of mudslinging as a campaign strategy. It's not easy being a Democrat these days, especially in Michigan and Florida.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

That's what I always thought, but that's not what the State Department seems to be saying.

I think the document does say that such a child is a citizen, but that the citizenship route was established by practices and laws other than those actually listed in the Constitution.

ETA: There's no question about citizenship, just a question about "natural-born," in McCain's case, right? It's because we not only have to worry about whether he's a citizen, but whether he's a "natural-born" citizen in the Constitutional sense. It could affect Nittyalum's friend too, but only if she runs for President, right?