(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.
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama 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 employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
Interesting about the RR company. History is there that I’m not aware of.
It took you how long to find that, a couple of minutes? And the great fact-checking organ of the NYT could not do that???
thank you for the clarification.
He's obviously a citizen, that's not the question.
However, neither of those laws overrides the Constitution.
It specifically says, “natural born,” which has only meant to date that the person must have been born natively, within the borders of the United States.
This is where it gets interesting. Anyone born in another country can be a US citizen if they go through the process. But those people cannot be president.
You just don't get it, do you? How many times do you have to be told that the concerns of the NYT are far, far, far more authoritative than the Constitution (which was written by a bunch of dead, white guys) or any statute? ;-)
Doesn’t this statute say he’s declared a citizen, but not a natural born citizen?