Replies

“Because the Canal Zone was a “no man’s land,” (14) in 1937 Congress passed a statute granting citizenship to “any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904” who had at least one U.S. citizen parent. (15) This Act made Senator McCain a United States citizen before his first birthday. “

You are not listening.

McCain was not born in the Canal Zone. He was born in Colon, Republic of Panama.

The rest of us who were born in the Canal Zone of American parents knew from the beginning none of us could become president of the U.S. because of where we were born. That was a given.

This would have also included slippery McCain had he been born in the Canal Zone which he wasn’t. Again, for the millionth time, he was born in Colon, Republic of Panama.

Do you want me to draw you a picture?

And don’t argue with someone who has lived here most of her life. You know nothing about life here concerning Americans born in the Canal Zone and those who weren’t...like McCain.

I'm not picking a fight. I admire McCain for his duty and sacrifice for our country (although I despise him for his RINO voting record). I obviously don't understand the issue about his birth location as a local might.

However, I think the contention seems to be about McCain's UNIQUE circumstances in terms of YEAR and EXACT LOCATION of his birth.

Again, from Why Senator John Mccain Cannot Be President -- Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship -- by Gabriel J. Chin (FINAL)

McCain’s mother could have, as many Americans did, delivered in Colon Hospital in Colon, a facility built, owned, and located in a town owned by the Panama Railroad, a U.S. company, but under Panamanian sovereignty. He would have been a citizen at birth under R.S. § 1993, because born out of both the territory and jurisdiction of the United States.

Under a principle called the "plenary power doctrine," judicial challenges to immigration and citizenship policies are strictly limited. The reverse of strict scrutiny, plenary power review is deferential in theory, virtually non-existent in fact. To this day, no person denied immigration or citizenship based on race, political belief, sex and out-of-wedlock birth or sexual orientation has persuaded the Supreme Court that such discrimination is unconstitutional. Because exclusion of undesirables might well be "essential . . . . to the preservation of our civilization," the Court holds that " 'over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over' the admission of aliens" and that it is unobjectionable that "in the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, "Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

Other foreign-born children of U.S. citizens were made U.S. citizens, as Senator McCain would have been had his mother elected to deliver a hundred yards over the border in the Republic of Panama. Birth in the Canal Zone is justifiably treated differently from birth in other parts of the world, but those differences warrant more favorable treatment, not less, as Congress determined in the 1937 Act. Arguably, a well-functioning Congress would not have left those born in the Canal Zone in limbo for years after the problem became clear in 1932.

I have NO doubt that had McCain WON, the Left would be challenging him as many Conservatives are challenging Obama, based upon the arguments in this academic paper and in other investigations on this subject.