Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: GreenLanternCorps
Wrong as you may think it to be, the US State Dept. says that it has never been determined.

Department of State's Foreign Affairs Manual at 7FAM1116.1-4(c) states;

http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/c22712.htm

“Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic 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 U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

The Foreign Affairs Manual further weighs in on the issue as follows:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President,”

c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”.

The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes. (Emphasis added.)

John McCain was neither born on United States soil, nor was he naturalized. He is a citizen at birth by statute. This is discussed in the Foreign Affairs Manual:

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”

Section 201(g) NA and section 301(g) INA (formerly section 301(a)(7) INA) both specify that naturalization is

“the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth.”

McCain is none of the above. He wasn't born on United States soil and he wasn't naturalized in the United States. Instead, McCain may claim citizenship from 8 USC 1403(a):

“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.”

138 posted on 03/01/2010 9:51:41 AM PST by patlin (1st SCOTUS of USA: "Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: patlin
A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.” On the installation.

IOW, if a foreign national and a service member have a baby born on the installation, or two foreign nationals for that matter, the child is not a statutory US citizen just because of birth on the installation.

But the child of two citizens, at least one of which is serving the country, at the time of birth outside the country, is reputed born in the country. It's the obverse of the "subject to the jurisdiction" criteria in the 14th amendment, which exempts the children of foreign diplomats from being native born citizens, and has been long understood, from Vattel at least, but even he was just documenting the then current (1758) understanding. Service in the diplomatic corps counts too. See "Law of Nations" Book 1 section 217.

359 posted on 03/02/2010 12:10:26 AM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies ]

To: patlin
A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.” On the installation.

IOW, if a foreign national and a service member have a baby born on the installation, or two foreign nationals for that matter, the child is not a statutory US citizen just because of birth on the installation.

But the child of two citizens, at least one of which is serving the country, at the time of birth outside the country, is reputed born in the country. It's the obverse of the "subject to the jurisdiction" criteria in the 14th amendment, which exempts the children of foreign diplomats from being native born citizens, and has been long understood, from Vattel at least, but even he was just documenting the then current (1758) understanding. Service in the diplomatic corps counts too. See "Law of Nations" Book 1 section 217.

360 posted on 03/02/2010 12:10:27 AM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson