Hey, cool. According to State Department, McCain not natural born Citizen

Normally when a child is born overseas to at least one US citizen parent, that child is "covered" under that parent's citizenship and some basic forms are filled out soon after the child's birth to make it "official". Most countries do not have birthright citizenship, so if an American baby is born in one of these countries it must take on the citizenship of one or both of its parents or it will be stateless. This wouldn't be "allowed". The way the world works for the most part is you must "belong" to a country. You cannot walk into a US consulate in Tahiti and renounce your US citizenship unless you have a second passport. The US consulate will refuse your declaration and continue to "claim" you.

To make a long story short, I don't foresee this as being a problem for MeCain as it would be for Arnold.

Just my rambling opinion.

________________

Good luck to us all,

Lisa C.

www.women4ronpaul.com

I didn't know he was born?? I thought bush and cheney bumped into each other in the WH men's room and he popped out of one of their a**es!

He was hatched. Why do think the Vietnamese called him "Songbird"?

The 14th amendment reads:
"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."

Note it does not say only persons born or naturalized in the USA; it says all persons born or naturalized. The amendment clearly establishes a minimum threshold for determining when citizenship and naturalization is automatically conferred upon an individual, however it never states that such rules cannot be extended beyond said minimum.

Now keeping that in mind, the document you reference goes on to discuss alternate methods of obtaining citizenship and naturalization. One of those methods is called "Jus Sanguinis" (AKA "derivative citizenship"). Jus Sanguinis is the legal jargon for the idea that the nationality of an individuals parents determines their citizenship. Therefore, barring some gross oversight in the language of the laws that grant this sort of citizenship in the USA, McCain would in all likelihood have been a naturalized citizen from birth. Which in turn would probably qualify him as a "natural born" citizen of the USA. (I only say most likely because the Supreme Court has never ruled on the meaning of the phrase "Natural Born").

Now I'm no legal student, and I don't have THAT much time on my hands, so its quite possible I am wrong, but if you're going to carry on about how McCain is not eligible to hold the office of commander in chief then you're going to have to do some research on the precise conditions under which Jus Sanguinis comes into effect, paying particular attention to the language relative to when the citizenship is granted to the eligible party.

wrote this on the 9th, before your post... Besides, its not a race, relax. And even if it was, you lost!

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/37509

I'm sure this matter has been brought up to most of the candidates, Romney, Huckabee, and Paul, through supporters letters to them. This has been talked about in other groups as well as RP groups. If there was indeed a case to be made, without a doubt, Romney or Huckabee would be addressing it. I have little doubt that if there was a LEGITIMATE CASE, than it WOULD have been filed. Fact is NO ONE in ANY campaign, including Clinton or Obama, have brought such a case to be heard. I would therefore assume the reason that such case has NOT been brought to be heard is because there are NO SUCH GROUNDS for such case.

Now, can we get back to something more productive like canvassing and making calls?

Unfortunately, the general population of America doesn't seem to care whether the federal government follows the Constitution or not.

This clause is considered particularly arcane by a large portion of the small percentage of Americans who are aware of it. There is even a push to repeal that clause so that Arnold Schwarzenegger can run for President.

The American people don't need arcane clauses from the Constitution enforced, taking away things they want or like. That will only make them angry, leading to cries from more talking heads that the Constitution is out of date and no longer reflects the desires of American society.

What we need to do is educate people about the Constitution and why some of these clauses were put in there. What was the reason the founders decided only "Natural Born Citizens" could be president? Use that answer for making your case about McCain. Arguing the constitution alone isn't effective anymore and would probably end up hurting the Constitution more than McCain.

"Natural citizens can be subdivided into two groups; those who acquired their citizenship by having been born in the United States, and those who acquired their citizenship by been born to parents that are citizens of the United States. Those individuals who are born on U.S. soil are said to have received their citizenship under the doctrine of "jus soli" or by the "right of the land". Natural citizens who are not born within the United States, but who are born from parents who were citizens of the United States at the time of their birth acquire their citizenship under the "jus sanguinis" doctrine or by the "right through blood"" From Vote Utah ( http://www.voteutah.org/learning/citizenship/become.html )

I guess the question for me would be, since IANAL, what is teh difference between jus soli and "jus sanguinis" in how it applies to being a "natural-born" or naturalized citizen

We cold also ponder the difference between who is a "citizen by birth" versus a "citizen at birth"

bah, forgot the rest of what I was going to write...

IMO John McCain would be a citizen by by jus saguinis and not jus soli so it would come down to the court ruling whether or not a natual born citizen is a citizen based on jus soli, jus sanguinis or both/either of the two.

Original

Description

union of the several states
the states united
united states in Congress assembled
these united States of America
The united states of America
The United States of America
The United States
(defined as the original or organic)

Started with Declaration of Independence in
1776, Articles of Confederation in 1778,
and the Constitution in 1787

a "Republic"
having its beginning with the colonial resistance
against England's tyrannical government.
Major opposition against British control began
with The Stamp Act, established by British
parliament on March 22, 1765--Taxation without
representation, followed by the Declaratory Act,
the Boston Massacre of 1770, and the Tea Act
passed by Parliament on May 10, 1773 to save
the East Indian Company from bankruptcy.
Resistance continued with the Quartering Act
established by Parliament on June 2, 1774,
requiring American colonists to provide shelter to
British troops and horses when requested.
From September 5 to October 25, 1774 Twelve
colonies, all but Georgia, sent 56 delegates to
Philadelphia to participate in the First
Continental Congress. The purpose of the First
Continental Congress was to debate and plan a
unified response to British policy and actions.
On March 25, 1775, Patrick Henry delivered his
"give me liberty or give me death" speech to the
Virginia Assembly in Richmond.
Various conflicts took place and blood continued
to be shed.
On May 10, 1775, The Second Continental
Congress convened in Philadelphia. All thirteen
colonies were represented.
After signing the Declaration of Independence on
July 4, 1776, and winning the revolutionary war
which ended with the Paris Peace Treaty signed
September 3, 1783, all American colonists
became free, Sovereign people, endowed with
the same rights that the King of England had.

having a de jure form of government
Of right; legitimate; lawful; by right and just title;
"by law"
--Black's Law Dictionary sixth edition

for more info on the corporate united states
go: http://www.usavsus.info/

The Constitution makes clear differentiation of "Citizen" and "Natural Citizen".

To qualify to be a Senator the Constitution reads, "been nine Years a Citizen of the United States".

To qualify to be the President the Constitution reads, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution".

Notice distinct difference in the two?

So the definition of "natural born citizen" is the question, not the definition of citizen.

I opinionate but only from an outsiders view,- and you'd be right in saying to me 'keep your nose out' but it does sound a bit petty. One day you may get the chance to elect the best president ever (after Ron Pauls presidency, obviously) that was born under similar circumstances to McCane? The fact that he is who he is and may well be not worthy owing to his record, nonetheless he is of fine naval pedigree, could have contributed to the common good and has led the life of an american since birth to american parentage. That makes him worthy in that sense but not of course his presidential qualifications which goes without saying.

'I always think of all you canvassors and precinct leaders at the front line.
Good luck out there &Thank you. It's appreciated'.-fip -U.K

there, would the baby be a natural born citizen eligible to run for President? (Wife and I are both natural born citizens of US) Or would the baby be a citizen by birth right but not as a result of having been born on American soil?

If two Mexicans illegals have a baby on American soil, is the baby eligible to be President by being a natural born cirtizen?

I don't think anyone is disputing McCain's citizenship. The question is whether or not he is a natural-born citizen. My personal belief is that the founders intent was that the person must be born within the borders of the United States, on U.S. soil.

The Panama Canal zone absolutely was not part of the United States. The U.S. had lease rights, not territorial rights.

I agree that McCain is definitely a citizen. But I am a bit unsure as to whether he is truly a natural-born citizen since he was not born on U.S. soil.

It just isn't. I personally was a U.S. citizen at birth, even though I was also born in a South American country. My mother is an American citizen and my dad is a Canadian citizen. I therefore was born with three natural citizenships which are all recognized to this day by all three countries.

This law would ONLY apply to him had he not had at least one American citizen parent.

Again, I wish it were true, but this has been addressed many other times before. There are MANY other reasons to go after McCain... hopefully some of them will come to light very soon.

Nah can not be true, McCain's father and grandfather were both US Navy Admirals, thats why it was so shocking when he was making videos for the Viet-Con when he was in captivity. People were saying is that the Admirals son Johney??!

I'm still trying to figure out how a reptile can become a citizen.

It's stupid conversations like this that are dragging focus away from important issues. People will be here online all day, trying to convince themselves that McCraphead isn't eligible, when he clearly is by every single precedent and legal interpretation of the last 200 years- not to mention the act passed by the first congress in 1790 declaring kids born overseas to be natural born citizens which was NOT overturned in 1795, contrary to what some people are thinking.

Let the issue die. Canvass your neighborhood. If you've already voted, then get together with your friends and make some radio commercials for the states left to vote and start a chip-in to air them. Just do anything, except delude yourself that McRetard isn't eligible. Waste of time.

The location where McCain was born is irrelevant because his parents were US citizens.

Even if the fact that McCain was born to US Citizens off US territory *did* (when written) mean he was not a "natural born citizen", I cannot foresee any Court construing it that way.

Why? Because that would affect not only military members, but also Americans traveling overseas, businessmen (eg Halliburton ?) who are overseas on longterm projects etc. This would prejudice all of those American citizens giving birth off of US territory, surely not the intent of the founding fathers (esp if these citizens were fulfilling duties to serve their country).

I believe "natural born citizen" means anyone eligible for citizenship when born, eg born to US citizens.
IMO, that's what the Courts would rule.

As to naval bases etc, it would make sense to prevent NON-US Citizens going over to a military base to give birth (like they do in say TX, AZ etc), then claim citizenship rights for the baby. I believe that was the intent behind that preclusion.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
To learn what really happened, check out
www.whatreallyhappened.com

Ron Paul always answers every question straight forward. I would like to ask him directly....Dr. Paul, in your opinion, is John McCain eligible to be President of the United States under the Constitutional definition of "natural born" citizen?

Tomorrow in Lake Jackson, someone get his answer.

Panama Canal Zone, former territory within Panama, 553 sq mi (1,432 sq km), that was administered by the United States under a 1903 treaty (with later amendments) with Panama. The zone included the Panama Canal and an area extending 5 mi (8.1 km) on each side. Under the terms of a later treaty (1977), the zone was abolished in Oct., 1979, and returned to Panamanian rule; the canal itself was ceded to Panama in 1999.
Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0837446.html

I would have to believe Mcinsane could be president and if he wins, we'll be in worse shape then ever before. I think we should start posting this other addy around the web: http://www.gopteaparty.com to try and disrupt his candidacy. I'm sure there's lots more stuff brewing to try and stop Mcinsane too.
-
Show your support on the Ron Paul Map !
People worldwide support Dr. Paul too :-)
http://www.pollingmatrix.com

he is a citizen, no question. But does he fulfill the more stringent restrictions required to be POTUS? I didn't differentiate at first myself but I found the comments by military personnel born in the Canal Zone rather compelling. At best, the question hasn't been settled.

if non Americans had a baby in an American military base it wouldn't gain citizenship but Americans gain their citizenship from being born in America OR being born to one or two American parents. I wasn't born in America but I and all other people born outside of America, are American citizens by birth; natural citizens not citizens by law.

I live in Panama and this has naturally come up for quite a bit of discussion here. Here are some excerpts, notice that even when they disagree with the policy, they recognize it as law:

Not only is he not a natural born US citizen as required by the Constitution. But, under Panamanian law, he is a Citizen of Panama and thus hold dual citizenship which is exactly what the founding fathers where trying to avoid.
Posted by: JW

When we were growing up, those (like me) born in the former American Canal Zone always thought none of us could be President for this very reason. I'd like to see an "official" explanation of why it is possible now.
Posted by: BA

My family on my mother’s and father’s side can be traced back in the United States at least to the early 1700’s. This gives me a 300+ year history of being a US citizen. I am a US military officer for over 25 years, and I write this from the Headquarters, NATO Joint Forces Command in Lisbon Portugal. My father served the US in World War II. Both grandfathers served the United States in World War I. I have relatives buried at Gettysburg (and the Corazal cemetery in Panama), and I have family members that were involved in the Revolutionary War. I have only considered myself to be an American.

Both my mother and father were born in the United States. After World War II my father took a job for the US Government in Washington. In the late 1950’s my family was transferred as a US Government employee to Panama.

I was born in the Panama Canal Zone in Gorgas Hospital (US Army). As I understand the law, the fact that I was born outside of the US makes me ineligible to serve as the Commander in Chief.

The law was enacted to ensure the President and Commander in Chief was a United States citizen, and would not be compromised by loyalties other than to the United States. The law was put in place when travel was not easy, and the United States was not a world power. Since that time there have been millions of military and civilian employees of the United States who have lived lives, and raised families outside of the United States while serving their country, the United States of America. It is my opinion that the law should be replaced with something that differentiates between an American born overseas to United States Citizens (citizen by birth, but born outside of the US), and a foreign national who gains US citizenship. While most of my friends that I grew up with in Panama will not be running for the office of President of the United States, I believe the law is ineffective, and does a disservice to the millions of US Citizens who have been citizens for generations, but had the experience of being born to US citizens working for the US Government outside of the US.

According to several sources, the fact that John McCain was born in Panama at a US base or a US territory (also some dispute) does not make him a "natural born" citizen. John McCain is a citizen, no doubt about that, but he is a "citizen by law" and therefore a "naturalized" citizen not ''natural born"

McCain's right of citizenship was created by law. Laws that were created specifically to included his situation of being born at a base or outside the country.

Since the founders may have never anticipated standing armies outside our borders, "natural born" may indeed constitutionally mean those people born within the geographic borders of the United States.

It could be a very interesting constitutional argument. I hope it proceeds.

It's already been established that if BOTH of your parents are citizens, then you are, too. WHERE you are born doesn't matter.

How do you think Mitt Romney's father, George, ran for president in 1968? He was born in Mexico. Did everyone here suddenly forget Mitt Romney's dad ran for the Republican nomination in 1968? Did everyone here forget Romney's grandparents were Mormon polygamists which is why they had to flee to Mexico- where they gave birth to Mitt's dad?

Let it go. The issue was settled 40 years ago when Romney's Mexico-born pop ran for POTUS.

Let's focus on bringing McCain down the right way. This is a distraction.