Citizen Mccain's Panama Problem

Daily Paul ^ | February 10th, 2008 | Praetorius

[Clemenza]

This is one of the STUPIDEST urban legends I have seen on this site.

[devere]

The Panama Canal Zone was unquestionably U.S. territory when John McCain was born there. It wasn’t a foreign military base like Guantanamo, it was U.S. territory like Hawaii. This silly question will hopefully never come up again!

[ReignOfError]

That’s not the issue.Inside and outside of military installations and diplomatic facilities, the Canal Zone was a US territory.

[VanShuyten]

Don’t forget everyone born in Alaska and Hawaii prior to their entries in 1959.

[abenaki]

A similar problem was presented when Goldwater ran in ‘64. He was born in the Territory of Arizona, and not of course in one of the United States. The “problem” became moot very quickly when it became evident that his chance for election was nil. The sniping talk dried up. It would be nice, though, if there were more precision in the written laws controlling these things. Let’s ask Al Gore if he knows of any “controlling legal authority”.

[mountainbunny]

I have a few points and a few questions, which I would appreciate anyone answering. Questions in bold.

1). The Panama Canal Zone was a US Territory until 1979.

2). Plenty of jobs require US citizenship. Untold thousands of military children have gotten these jobs without an issue as to their citizenship. Voting, as well as other benefits require US citizenship as well. Could you show me a single case in all of the years that the US has been a nation where any child of any military personnel born on foreign soil to US parents has been permanently denied citizenship or even just the rights of citizenship?
(and)

2b). If, as you imply, all of these people are not citizens, would you recommend suing them for fraud or simply suing them for the benefits they received, but were in no way entitled to?

3). This line of questioning, which has been answered before in spades can only serve to upset and anger members of the military in an election year. What would you tell those military members who risk their lives daily for our nation, but whose children you do not consider citizens?

My husband was born on a military base, so I eagerly await your reply. I'd just hate like anything to be married to an illegal alien

/s

[puroresu]

There are lots of reasons to vote against McCain but this isn’t one of them. The Panama Canal Zone was U.S. territory when McCain was born there. It isn’t now, because Jimmy Carter and a traitorous Senate gave it away. Using this as an issue against McCain just distracts from the real reasons to oppose his candidacy.

[K-oneTexas]

Interesting, yes. I don't know what the State Department is trying to do but it seems the language is specific to consular/diplomatic missions and not the US Military.

The fact remains he is a US citizen born of US citizens, his parents, who happen to be living abroad. Both parents are US citizens, and most likely came from the States before his father was posted overseas.

I find this a ridiculous notion that John McCain would not a considered a US citizen because he was born in a US Territory, which was subject to US jurisdiction at the time, the son of US citizens. He will not be disqualified to run for office.

What this line of argument is actually saying is that "Anchor Babies" are more of a citizen that children of US military families. That will not fly.

[devere]

It seems that Freepers are bored, and dreaming up legal non-issues to discuss. Even if McCain had been born in Russia while his father was hypothetically stationed there as naval attache, the courts are likely to rule that any child born to two U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen of the U.S. Since Johnny was actually born on U.S. territory, there is only an issue for those who can’t think of anything more interesting to talk about.

[Luke21]

McCain is a scumbag, but this is ridiculous criticism.

[ASA Vet]

Same crap, and same silly arguments as on the Feb 8 post.

Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.

[kathsua]

The 14th Amendment defines two classes of citizenship those born in the United States, which would include its territories, or naturalized.

[TinaJeannes]

Your darn right it would

[abenaki]

McCain has little respect for the 1st Amendment, so why should anyone have any respect for the 14th?

[K-oneTexas]

I also wonder if the US itself would not be illegitimate ... since the first dozen (maybe) President's were not natural born citizens. They would all have been in violation of the Constitution and not eligible to run in 1789 when it was ratified.

I think this is a try to remove an unpopular candidate from running. At any rate I just can not see the courts disqualifying him and upholding an anchor baby to run.

[icwhatudo]

Sure its silly, but its still interesting.

I keep reading “The Panama Canal Zone was U.S. territory” but I can’t seem to find any sites to back that up. I find comments about it having been a territory administered by the U.S. and the military base there was US territory-but nothing putting in the same place as say Puerto Rico. Anyone have a link?

P.S. Yes, I know its silly, no need to keep reminding us, this is just for fun.

[K-oneTexas]

I guess while were on running for President, we should let it be known that if Hillary or Obama get elected their two appointments to the US Supreme Court would rule in removing him and any other similarly situated. Thus allowing anchor babies and even illegals to have rights ahead of other US citizens. It’s all in the vote ... and who makes it.

[Perchant]

This would also have been George Romney’s problem, if he’d every gotten beyond the very first primary state.

Yes. George Romney wasn’t a natural born US citizen. It isn’t even debatable.

Google news archives search will inform you about past prospects that never advanced beyond the wishful thinking stage because they weren’t natural born citizens, even though they were born to parents who were American citizens. George B. McClellan and Christian Herter for starters.

Republicans are trying to ignore the Constitution for what they feel is a “should be”. If the Constitution means nothing unless it conforms to our idea of “should be”, it truly means nothing.

[devere]

Thanks for the legal information.

[LibertarianInExile]

Here’s the canal zone treaty of 1903: http://www.octc.kctcs.edu/mmaltby/his109/panama_canal_treaty.htm

Here, in contrast, is the Adams-Onis Treaty (by which Spain ceded Florida):

http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/adamonis.htm

The naivete of those so dismissive of the language difference is striking—do they really think that custom and tradition are going to mean a damned thing if the Rats lose? If McCain wins, this will go to the SCOTUS. Might be a losing battle, but it’s one that will be fought.