# Obama not a natural born citizen



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

I could not have made this up either. :icon_smile:

https://hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?8f9ebef4-027e-424b-a639-d8459868991c


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The question isn't where you're physically born, it's whether you're a citizen when you're born.

For example, children of ambassadors of other countries born here are not (I don't think) American citizens by birth, because they're not subject to our laws.

An interesting aside is that if the federal government stopped granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens by law, they wouldn't necessarily be "natural born citizens."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

:icon_smile_big:

A great statement on the whole issue.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Yeah, well the point is that the guy that wrote this article is a nutter. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, two years after it was admitted as a state. This guy is either joking (the info identifies him as an "entertainer") or some nutjob that is more interested in using this to get publicity for his wingnut separatist claims.

It's either comedy that isn't really funny or its politics that is just plain stupid. :crazy:


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> Yeah, well the point is that the guy that wrote this article is a nutter. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, two years after it was admitted as a state. This guy is either joking (the info identifies him as an "entertainer") or some nutjob that is more interested in using this to get publicity for his wingnut separatist claims.
> 
> It's either comedy that isn't really funny or its politics that is just plain stupid. :crazy:


He would be considered a nutter anywhere except Hawaii. Here, a growing number of people (mostly Nazis in my opinion) argue Hawaii is not part of the United States. The separatist movement unfortunately has been fueled by the U.S. Congress itself, which in 1993 "apologized" for its illegal annexation of Hawaii.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_Resolution

No end of trouble has resulted, the most recent being that the Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled that the State of Hawaii does not have good title to its lands. We also have a body of case law that people with Native blood now have rights in all private real property in the state.

Most of these people want to set up a separate racialized government in Hawaii, where only people with Native blood have control. Again, you would think they are nutters, but a bill has been sitting in Congress for several years that would do just that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaka_Bill

If the Democrats retain control over Congress and we get a Democrat for president, this will become law, and the State of Hawaii will largely become toast. Senator Akaka has said that one option would then be for Hawaii to break away from the Union.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Even assuming all of that (none of which I knew), it seems to me that the odds of the SCOTUS ruling that Hawaiians born after 1959 were not natural born citizens of the US is still zero and this is a nutty argument.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

I agree. However, how about this variation: Will I personally, born during the Territorial period (before 1959) and with Native blood, still be a United States citizen?

Theoretically, I don't see how a US citizen can lose their citizenship. But I also don't see how Congress can make up an "Indian Tribe" out of thin air, which is the legal fiction this separatism bill rests on. I don't want to be stuck in a "Tribe."

Mrs. B will be very unhappy when I get shipped off to the reservation. On second thought, maybe she won't be unhappy. . . .


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

At least if Hawaii breaks away from the Union, the following civil war would be far less deadly than the Civil War in 1861.


----------



## Neal Shields (Mar 11, 2007)

Go to Hong Kong and talk to all the ex British citizens if you don't think you can lose your citizenship.


----------



## Alexander & Overcharge (Feb 20, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The question isn't where you're physically born, it's whether you're a citizen when you're born.


According to one interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, it's both. To be eligible to be president, you have to have been born in the United States, and you have to be a U.S. citizen. U.S. citizens not born in the United States do not qualify.

Since the issue is Constitutional, it can't be easily dismissed. If someone legally contests John McCain's eligibility due to his Panamanian birth, then it will have to be resolved in Congress or in the Supreme Court -- or both. 
.
.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Did you actually read the Constitution? It says "No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . ."

Nothing about being born within the territorial limits of the US.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Beresford said:


> We also have a body of case law that people with Native blood now have rights in all private real property in the state.


Has Hawaii done away with adverse possession? I feel like that would take care of most of the Natives' interests.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

The US and the UK are different though, no?


----------



## Alexander & Overcharge (Feb 20, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Did you actually read the Constitution? It says "No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . ."
> 
> Nothing about being born within the territorial limits of the US.


"Natural born" has been interpreted to mean "within the limits of the United States." However, there are other interpretations as well. It's a complicated mess:

"There are three legal terms relating to citizenship: jus soli ("right of the soil" or born in the United States), jus sanguinis ("right of blood" or born to citizen parents), and lex soli ("law of the soil" or naturalization). John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to American parents, so jus sanguinis applies to him, and is not in dispute. However, jus sanguinis has no basis in U.S. law (only jus soli and lex soli do) except through applying codified law such as the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, so it falls under lex soli. This is the basis of the question: Is a citizen born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 a citizen under jus soli or lex soli (born or naturalized)?

8 USC 1400 appears to answers the question. This section of the United States Code comes directly from the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) of 1952, which was passed when McCain was 16 years old. 8 USC 1401 reads:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.

Under 8 USC 1403(a), McCain's situation is addressed more clearly: "Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States." Therefore, McCain is clearly a U.S. citizen. *However, there is still question whether [John McCain] he a natural born (jus soli) citizen or a naturalized (lex soli) citizen.*

*Because 8 USC 1403(a) uses the term "is declared to be a citizen," it implies a lex soli position (naturalization).* Persons born to citizens between November 1903 (when Panama became independent from Colombia with U.S. intervention) and February 1904 are not declared citizens under this section, which indicates that the declaration of citizenship is simply naturalization and not by birth since it is dependent on the law and a calendar date.

Furthermore, naturalization is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(23): "The term 'naturalization' means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." In other words, *naturalization means a person is made, conferred, or "declared" a citizen after birth,* *leaving "natural born" to only mean becoming a citizen at birth (if not "by birth" exclusively). *This is consistent with 8 USC 1403(a), which was enacted when John McCain was 16 years old. So *at 16 years old John McCain was naturalized as a citizen* by legislation (the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952).

The Supreme Court has never addressed the specifics of a natural born citizen, except once in passing, in the dissent of the infamous _Dred Scott_ case. Other cases have looked at citizenship, but not specifically the natural born part of it.

Some articles have brought up the Naturalization Act of 1790 (March 26, 1790), stating that it covers McCain's status as a natural born citizen. However, a close look at the act indicates that it only covers "admission as a citizen," and the act was repealed in part January 29, 1795, and again in total on April 14, 1802. So this law is not controlling because it was repealed. Some will take the position that it is irrelevant because it deals with naturalization. Others will argue it is a relatively contemporaneous expression of the meaning of natural born citizen and should inform the the meaning of the term as used in the Constitution.

Outside federal law, the State Department specifically addresses the situation under 7 FAM 1100:

7 FAM 1111.2 Citizenship (TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)
a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization.
b. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil), a rule of common law under which the place of a person's birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline), a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person's citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called "citizenship by descent" or "derivative citizenship", is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States"
(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)
c. 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.*

This restates that citizenship is either by birth or naturalization. Further, the principle of jus sanguinis is not a part of the law, except by statute (lex soli) according to 7 FAM 1111.2(b)(2). The regulation at 7 FAM 1116.1-4(c) states that birth on a military installation abroad is not a part of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore children born there must be naturalized in order to be considered citizens.

Under 8 USC 1401(c) and 1403(a), there is a difference. 8 USC 1401(c) address births outside the United States, meaning clearly that the "born in the United States" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment cannot apply to this form of citizenship. Therefore a person that falls under 8 USC 1401(c) has to be a naturalized citizen. 8 USC 1403(a) already "declares" citizenship and thus naturalization. The Panama Canal Zone was considered to be outside the United States; otherwise these two sections, 8 USC 1401(c) and 8 USC 1403(a), would never have been needed to be codified into law in the first place; 8 USC 1401(a) would apply instead.

.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

JibranK said:


> The US and the UK are different though, no?


We have it too. The brits take a different view of it than we do though (they do it to punish the bad owner, we do it to reward to good user).


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Alexander & Overcharge said:


> "Natural born" has been interpreted to mean "within the limits of the United States."
> 
> .


By who?


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

nvm...


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

> When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. *Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent*; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador.


-Blackstone (1765) (as cited by the Volokh Conspiracy).

https://volokh.com/posts/1204265246.shtml


----------



## Alexander & Overcharge (Feb 20, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> By who?


"One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a 'natural born citizen,' a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen 'by law' and is therefore 'naturalized.'"

See https://www.iht.com/articles/2004/06/02/expats_ed3_.php

.
.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Paging Jack McCoullough to the thread.


----------



## Alexander & Overcharge (Feb 20, 2008)

Wayfarer, no worries: this isn't a fight, it's a clarification.

.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Alexander & Overcharge said:


> Wayfarer, no worries: this isn't a fight, it's a clarification.
> 
> .


You misunderstand. Our good Jack, in another thread, stated quite categorically that no one would really argue McCain is not able to run for POTUS over this issue. It seems to me people are. Hence the page.


----------



## Alexander & Overcharge (Feb 20, 2008)

Got it. Thanks!

.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Alexander & Overcharge said:


> "One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a 'natural born citizen,' a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen 'by law' and is therefore 'naturalized.'"
> 
> See https://www.iht.com/articles/2004/06/02/expats_ed3_.php
> .


I don't see that substantiated in the link you posted but just because someone is arguing something doesn't mean there's any merit to it.


----------



## Alexander & Overcharge (Feb 20, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I don't see that substantiated in the link you posted ...


Read the link again. My point is supported (substantiated?) by no less than T. Alexander Aleinikoff, "a constitutional scholar who will shortly become dean of Georgetown University Law School in Washington" and who "specializes in citizenship issues."

In the link, Aleinikoff says, "*Clearly, however,* *Article 3 of the Constitution indicates anybody who is naturalized is not natural born*, and this is a ridiculous provision."

I agree that the provision is ridiculous. That's not what's at issue. The question at hand is about the provision's meaning. Aleinikoff, who knows much more about these things than me (and you, I dare say), concludes that under Article 3, a naturalized citizen is not natural born. Under this interpretation, McCain is not natural born ... since he is naturalized.

. 


PedanticTurkey said:


> ... just because someone is arguing something doesn't mean there's any merit to it.


Would you concede that this could apply to the argument _you're_ making?

.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Alexander & Overcharge said:


> Read the link again. My point is supported (substantiated?) by no less than T. Alexander Aleinikoff, "a constitutional scholar who will shortly become dean of Georgetown University Law School in Washington" and who "specializes in citizenship issues."
> 
> In the link, Aleinikoff says, "*Clearly, however,* *Article 3 of the Constitution indicates anybody who is naturalized is not natural born*, and this is a ridiculous provision."
> 
> I agree that the provision is ridiculous. That's not what's at issue. The question at hand is about the provision's meaning. Aleinikoff, who knows much more about these things than me (and you, I dare say), concludes that under Article 3, a naturalized citizen is not natural born. Under this interpretation, McCain is not natural born ... since he is naturalized.


I read it. Did you read it closely? Who says that McCain is a naturalized citizen?

Let me see if I can explain this better: Blackstone makes it clear that the test for being natural-born is not physical presence on "home soil," but owing allegiance to and being subject to the authority of your home country.

McCain was born in the Canal Zone to a US military father. He's a natural born citizen. Obama was born in Hawaii, which, regardless of whatever silliness is going on there, was subject only to the authority of the United States.

Now if one of them had been born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen by virtue of that, you might have an argument. But that's not the case.

And even if you could show that McCain was somehow "naturalized" under some statute, you could just as easily make the argument that someone who is natural born cannot be "naturalized." Obviously the text of the Constitution trumps any statute enacted later.



> Would you concede that this could apply to the argument _you're_ making?.


It does, but that's not really relevant since I'm right...


----------



## Alexander & Overcharge (Feb 20, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Who says that McCain is a naturalized citizen?


Back to post #14:

*Because 8 USC 1403(a) uses the term "is declared to be a citizen," it implies a lex soli position (naturalization).* Persons born to citizens between November 1903 (when Panama became independent from Colombia with U.S. intervention) and February 1904 are not declared citizens under this section, which indicates that the declaration of citizenship is simply naturalization and not by birth since it is dependent on the law and a calendar date.

Furthermore, naturalization is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(23): "The term 'naturalization' means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." In other words, *naturalization means a person is made, conferred, or "declared" a citizen after birth,* *leaving "natural born" to only mean becoming a citizen at birth (if not "by birth" exclusively). *This is consistent with 8 USC 1403(a), which was enacted when John McCain was 16 years old. So *at 16 years old John McCain was naturalized as a citizen* by legislation (the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952).

.


----------



## Alexander & Overcharge (Feb 20, 2008)

Pedantic Turkey, I've got to go back to work. It's been a pleasure conversing with you, and I mean that sincerely. Looking forward to more conversations in the future. Thanks!

.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I don't think you get it. Any process of naturalization is going to be set out by statute, but the statute cannot contradict the Constitution, which is the "law of the land" above and beyond any other authority.

If under the meaning of the Constitution, McCain is a "natural born citizen," it's utterly irrelevant whether some law purported to "naturalize" him, because the statute can't contradict the Constitution.

See where I'm going with this?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Alexander & Overcharge said:


> Pedantic Turkey, I've got to go back to work. It's been a pleasure conversing with you, and I mean that sincerely. Looking forward to more conversations in the future. Thanks!
> 
> .


Likewise. Take it easy.


----------



## capitalart (Apr 2, 2007)

Alexander & Overcharge said:


> According to one interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, it's both. To be eligible to be president, you have to have been born in the United States, and you have to be a U.S. citizen. U.S. citizens not born in the United States do not qualify.
> 
> Since the issue is Constitutional, it can't be easily dismissed. If someone legally contests John McCain's eligibility due to his Panamanian birth, then it will have to be resolved in Congress or in the Supreme Court -- or both.
> .
> .


Since the issue is one concerning the interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court would be the appropriate party to interpret and possibly resolve the issue. 
Its my understanding that A child born of U.S. citizens anywhere in the world is considered a natural born U.S. citizen and is eligible.


----------



## capitalart (Apr 2, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I don't think you get it. Any process of naturalization is going to be set out by statute, but the statute cannot contradict the Constitution, which is the "law of the land" above and beyond any other authority.
> 
> If under the meaning of the Constitution, McCain is a "natural born citizen," it's utterly irrelevant whether some law purported to "naturalize" him, because the statute can't contradict the Constitution.
> 
> See where I'm going with this?


I believe this is the Supremacy Clause in action.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Alexander & Overcharge said:


> "Natural born" has been interpreted to mean "within the limits of the United States." However, there are other interpretations as well. It's a complicated mess:
> 
> "There are three legal terms relating to citizenship: jus soli ("right of the soil" or born in the United States), jus sanguinis ("right of blood" or born to citizen parents), and lex soli ("law of the soil" or naturalization). John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to American parents, so jus sanguinis applies to him, and is not in dispute. However, jus sanguinis has no basis in U.S. law (only jus soli and lex soli do) except through applying codified law such as the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, so it falls under lex soli. This is the basis of the question: Is a citizen born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 a citizen under jus soli or lex soli (born or naturalized)?
> 
> ...


I believe there is a form of Immodium available for verbal diarrhea


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Rather than start a new thread, I will post here. Arnold Swartzenneger is not a natural born citizen. But he is doing a pretty good job and some folks would like to see him run for president. Here's another one. You can be a member of a pre invasion native american tribe who's territories extended across our northern and southern borders. By law you are either a mexican, U.S. citizen or canadian. We need a litmus test of who WANTS to be, and practises being an american. Arnold certainly qualifies, politics aside. The Alcalde of Pueblo de los Angeles, with his reconquista college politics may not.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Arnold is doing a good job? Oh, I forgot, you're an environmental type (and THAT, Wayfarer, is the final group at my door and the reason the contingent on you is undermanned)


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

A logical argument that proceeds from a faulty assumption is still invalid.

This whole argument seems to flow from A&O's proposition that:

_"There are three legal terms relating to citizenship: jus soli ("right of the soil" or born in the United States), jus sanguinis ("right of blood" or born to citizen parents), and lex soli ("law of the soil" or naturalization). John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to American parents, so jus sanguinis applies to him, and is not in dispute. However, jus sanguinis has no basis in U.S. law (only jus soli and lex soli do) except through applying codified law such as the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, so it falls under lex soli. This is the basis of the question: Is a citizen born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 a citizen under jus soli or lex soli (born or naturalized)?_

There is no authority given for the claim that "jus sanguinis has no basis in U.S. law," which makes sense, because it is utterly unfounded. If it were true, everything else, including the statement that McCain is naturalized, might flow logically.

However, since the Constitution doesn't define "natural born citizen" and since people in the position of McCain (and Goldwater, and Romney) have never had to go through a naturalization process to establish their citizenship, the reasonable conclusion is that they are natural born citizens.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Congress has an express power to establish "an uniform rule of Naturalization" as per article 1 section 8. So the Constitution isn't silent on the issue; it's whatever Congress says it is. There's no reason to think that Congress would have to make it any kind of "process."

And while the Constitution doesn't define "natural born citizen," it's a term of art that had a pretty clear meaning when it was written-- which is what it still means today.


----------



## Alexander & Overcharge (Feb 20, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I don't think you get it. Any process of naturalization is going to be set out by statute, but the statute cannot contradict the Constitution, which is the "law of the land" above and beyond any other authority.
> 
> *If* under the meaning of the Constitution, McCain is a "natural born citizen," it's utterly irrelevant whether some law purported to "naturalize" him, because the statute can't contradict the Constitution.


Okay, I'm back.

The key word here --and I'm glad you included it-- is "if". It remains to be seen whether McCain is a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. That's what we have the Supreme Court for: to interpret the Constitution's meaning. Not you, not me, not journalists, not commentators -- the Supreme Court.

.


----------



## Alexander & Overcharge (Feb 20, 2008)

rip said:


> I believe there is a form of Immodium available for verbal diarrhea


I believe the "Reader's Digest" sentences in red are for you. (Just pulling your leg) 

.


----------



## Alexander & Overcharge (Feb 20, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Congress has an express power to establish "an uniform rule of Naturalization" as per article 1 section 8. So the Constitution isn't silent on the issue; it's whatever Congress says it is. There's no reason to think that Congress would have to make it any kind of "process."


Interesting. Let's see what Congress ends up doing.

.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Alexander & Overcharge said:


> Okay, I'm back.
> 
> The key word here --and I'm glad you included it-- is "if". It remains to be seen whether McCain is a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. That's what we have the Supreme Court for: to interpret the Constitution's meaning. Not you, not me, not journalists, not commentators -- the Supreme Court.


Okay, but the Court can't simply decide to issue a statement saying, "We think it's this"; there actually has to be a lawsuit that would probably be decided by several lower courts before it ever got up there. And when or if the issue ever does get there, the Court is going to have to use the same kind of analysis that we're undertaking right here...

It often doesn't, but that's a whole 'nother thread.



Alexander & Overcharge said:


> Interesting. Let's see what Congress ends up doing..


Whatever it is, they've already done it... but like I said, I'm not sure it matters. While they can claim to define constitutional terms like "natural born citizen," as a general rule, well, they can't.

Can you imagine if Congress passed a law like, "and 'due process' shall mean only 'procedural' due process."


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

rip said:


> I believe there is a form of Immodium available for verbal diarrhea


Can it be administered involuntarily?


----------



## Justin (Feb 27, 2008)

Now I don't know if this has been brought up or not so here is the "bing, bang, boom" to as why McCain IS a natural born citizen;

John McCain was born of US citizens in the soverign nation of Panama. Correct? 

NO.

John McCain was born on a US military base in the canal zone under US supervision. 
-This means he was born in Panama while it was a protectorate of the US. Therefore, American soil. 
-And if THAT weren't enough, he was born in the canal zone which WAS American soil until 1999.

No ifs ands or buts- he was born on American soil to American parents.

Justin


----------



## Alexander & Overcharge (Feb 20, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> A logical argument that proceeds from a faulty assumption is still invalid.
> 
> ... There is no authority given for the claim that "jus sanguinis has no basis in U.S. law," which makes sense, because it is utterly unfounded.


Not faulty, Jack. The quote says that "_except through applying codified law such as the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952", _there is no basis on U.S. law for_ jus sanguinis. _This is, in fact, quite true. And before 1952, there wasn't even as much as a codified law for it.

McCain did finally receive his legal _jus sanguinis_ recognition, but only when he was already 16 years old -- the year of the 1952 Act. It's important to note that the act was not retroactive. That is, it didn't recognize McCain's citizenship as _jus sanguinis _from his birth onward_ ... _only from his 16th birthday onward.

"Natural born" does not mean "natural 16th year of life". It remains to be seen whether John McCain will be considered natural born by Congress or the high courts.

.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Alexander & Overcharge said:


> Not faulty, Jack. The quote says that "_except through applying codified law such as the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952", _there is no basis on U.S. law for_ jus sanguinis. _This is, in fact, quite true. And before 1952, there wasn't even as much as a codified law for it.


That's still nothing more than a naked assertion. It's just like saying that because the Constitution didn't include a specific provision that, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," nobody born in the United States before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was a citizen. I don't think this was ever true, even before any statute was adopted on citizenship by birth.


----------



## Akajack (Jun 15, 2007)

I was under the impressing the McCaskill/Obama sponsored bill would take care of all of this, well in time for the election.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Parents have to be legal in order for children to be natural born citizens of the USA*



PedanticTurkey said:


> The question isn't where you're physically born, it's whether you're a citizen when you're born.
> 
> For example, children of ambassadors of other countries born here are not (I don't think) American citizens by birth, because they're not subject to our laws.
> 
> An interesting aside is that if the federal government stopped granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens by law, they wouldn't necessarily be "natural born citizens."


The law is actually quite clear. In order to be a natural born citizen of the united states your parent(s) has to be "under US jurisdiction" meaning hear legally.
There is really no arguement. If your parents are illegal aliens or undocumented aliens and your born in the USA you are NOT a natural born citizen.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Okay, but the Court can't simply decide to issue a statement saying, "We think it's this"; there actually has to be a lawsuit that would probably be decided by several lower courts before it ever got up there. And when or if the issue ever does get there, the Court is going to have to use the same kind of analysis that we're undertaking right here...


Actually, the Supreme Court could claim original jurisdiction if there was a lawsuit - like Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court has done this other times in the past too, because I don't think it is really in a district court's jurisdiction.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Capt Ron said:


> The law is actually quite clear. In order to be a natural born citizen of the united states your parent(s) has to be "under US jurisdiction" meaning hear legally.
> There is really no arguement. If your parents are illegal aliens or undocumented aliens and your born in the USA you are NOT a natural born citizen.


No. That's just wrong. You may not like it but if you're born here you're a citizen. Period. There is no provision of the Constitution or statutes that establishes any additional requirement to be a natural born citizen.
.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Actually, the Supreme Court could claim original jurisdiction if there was a lawsuit - like Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court has done this other times in the past too, because I don't think it is really in a district court's jurisdiction.


Well, I did say it would _probably_ be decided first by lower courts, didn't I? I don't know offhand whether the SC could hear a suit right off the bat (we all agree there would have be a suit, right)?

BTW it seems like someone filed suit to stop McCain from running, somewhere. I'm not sure about the details.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> No. That's just wrong. You may not like it but if you're born here you're a citizen. Period. There is no provision of the Constitution or statutes that establishes any additional requirement to be a natural born citizen.
> .


Err, you can be born here and not be a citizen, so it's pretty silly to say that if you're born here you're automatically a "natural born citizen."


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
14th Amendment


If your parents are in the diplomatic service of a foreign country and you're born here, you're probably not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This is not true of illegal aliens. They are fully subject to all of the laws of the United States and of the state in which they are located.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You're making the mistake of trying to analyze the words by their modern meaning instead of the historical or contemporary use.

Plenty of people have analyzed the 14th amendment, the history leading up to to it and its interpretation and execution, and almost all agree that the children of transient foreigners present in the US are not made citizens by the 14th amendment. Now, by statute these peoples' children _are_ citizens and so they're probably "natural born citizens" and can be president.

But they don't have to be under the 14th amendment.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Capt Ron said:


> The law is actually quite clear. In order to be a natural born citizen of the united states your parent(s) has to be "under US jurisdiction" meaning hear legally.


People illegally present in the United States are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction? Fascinating. That certainly solves the illegal immigration "crisis." Who knew that the reach of diplomatic immunity was so great?



> There is really no arguement. If your parents are illegal aliens or undocumented aliens and your born in the USA you are NOT a natural born citizen.


The citizenship of children born within the United States to non-citizens has been established law since at least 1898. The children of resident foreign diplomats are excluded from this privilege.



brokencycle said:


> Actually, the Supreme Court could claim original jurisdiction if there was a lawsuit - like Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court has done this other times in the past too, because I don't think it is really in a district court's jurisdiction.


The Supreme Court did not exercise its original jurisdiction in _Bush v. Gore_; it heard the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1257(a) which states: "Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari . . ." The matter was presented to the Court by the expedited means of an emergency application for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's order, which application was granted and treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court's original jurisdiction is defined in 28 U.S.C 1251, and there would appear to be little basis for the Court to exercise original jurisdiction in the case of a dispute over the nature of McCain's citizenship.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

> Mr. HOWARD. ... This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. _This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons_."


^^ The guy who wrote the amendment, proposing it to the Senate...


----------

