Posted on 07/18/2021 11:18:02 PM PDT by conservative98
Sen. Ted Cruz hadn’t been an official contender for the presidency of the United States for 12 hours before the questions started coming, even in the warm and welcoming cradle of a primetime interview before what should be the friendliest of conservative audiences.
“You were born in Calgary, in Canada,” FOX News host Sean Hannity asked him, glancing into the camera for an apologetic chuckle. “Is there a birth certificate issue?”
It’s a question that’s lurked around the edges of Cruz’s political profile ever since the junior senator gained enough notoriety to be mentioned as a presidential candidate. Google searches for “Ted Cruz Canadian” spiked in October 2013 as he led Republicans towards a government shutdown; the query jumped again on Monday as he announced his White House run.
And some of it is friendly fire. Donald Trump, famed skeptic of prominent pols’ citizenship paperwork, didn’t resist the urge to tweak his fellow Republican on Monday night when making his own appearance on FOX’s primetime programming.
“I hope he knows what he's doing, but I thought you had to be born in the country,” he suggested to interviewer Megyn Kelly, adding that Cruz has “one extra level of complication” because of how long he maintained dual citizenship with both the United States and our kindly neighbors to the north.
Cruz is far from the first – or even the second – White House wannabe whose birthplace has launched quizzical headlines about his fitness to inhabit the White House. Even before the Obama “birther” movement, John McCain’s eligibility was questioned because he was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.
Similar queries were made of Gov. George Romney (dad of Mitt and presidential contender in 1968), who was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
In your opunion was every child of an American GI and a South Korean or South Vietnamese woman during those respective conflicts a U.S. NBC?
It has long been the norm that attaches are considered diplomats so far as their children go.
Are they not still serving their nation in a foreign country? I would think Vattel's understanding of natural law would still apply.
I’m not talking about “citizen”, but rather, natural born citizen. Was every child so born a natural born citizen of the U.S.?
Remember that early on, Hamilton was in favor of POTUS being an office only available to one “born a citizen” after which Jay suggested to Washington that POTUS being only available to one who is a “natural Born citizen”, and the amendment offered by Jay was voted upon and accepted. So there must be a difference.
Many diplomats potentially always, but only ever one ambassador. You’ll agree, won’t you? So the question remains. Your opinion?
It is not a matter to which I have given a great deal of thought because it is hypothetical and has no immediate application to our current situation.
But given the understanding of natural law in 1787, if the man married her, then yes his children would be natural citizens of the United States, according to Emmerich Vattel.
So what is the difference between one born a citizen and a natural born citizen?
He is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. Canada and Cuba are not the United States so that would be up to them to decide but it's really irrelevant for our purposes.
Perfect! That pretty much blows a hole in the idea if one parent is a US citizen then the child is a NBC. Clearly this could not be the case as the Constitutional NBC requirement would be utterly meaningless. Think how many US men have traveled to china and fathered a child who is then raised in China. How could that child possibly be a Natural Born Citizen? Of course they are not.
NBC is a Constitutional term in the U.S. as such it cannot be defined by fiat by Congress and the President enacting an ordinary federal statute, nor can the definition be changed in that way. Even a Constitutional Amendment can’t be held to have changed thar definition if the ordinary meaning of the words of that amendment do not specify such a change or require it (no inferring). We need an on point SCOTUS ruling construing this term in the context of POTUS eligibility.
So what is the difference between one born a citizen and a natural born citizen?
Nothing.
There are two, and only two, classes of citizen - naturalized and natural born. With the emphasis of John Jay to George Washington during the convention, "natural born citizen."
Use Jay's underscore emphasis on the right word and the meaning is clear.
A natural born citizen is one who becomes a citizen at birth. Whether another nation, pursuant to its law, may claim the child as a citizen, is irrelevent to United States law.
In Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408 (DC Cir 1938), the Circuit Court stated,
The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration of Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early American decisions applied that as the common law in this country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen of the State and of the United States.
Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325, 349-50 (1939) at the U.S. Supreme Court:
The court below [the Circuit Court], properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendantsPage 307 U. S. 350
(Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States," and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898)
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that "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," contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.
“Nothing.”
__________
Not for “nothing”, but you could have stopped right there, for all I read further (which is nithing).
You clearly subscribe to the Levin definition of NBC: Any child born anywhere in the world born to at least one citizen parent.
Whereas that is nothing more than more or less the most liberal criteria for becoming a naturalized citizen (after jumping through a hoop or two or three).
I’d say try again, but the likelihood of us having a fruitful dialogue on this topic seems slim.
Oh, and regarding Wong Kim Ark.
"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,...
The origin and usage of the word "Citizen." Where did this word come from, and how came the United States to start using it?
The term dates back to the 14th century. In England, the citizenry were subjects of the sovereign king. English common law (court made law) used the term natural born subject. The United States, without a king, and the collective people being the sovereign, used the term natural born citizen.
The term citizen existed in English law when the original thirteen colonies became English colonies. English law was the law of the English colonies. Either in their constitution, or in their statute laws, each of the original thirteen States adopted so much of the English common law as was not inconsistent with the United States Constitution. The English legal system, following prior precedents, is the basis for the Federal legal system, and the system of 49 of the 50 states. Louisiana was never an English colony. It was purchased from France. The basis of its state legal system is the Napoleanic Code system it used as a French colony.
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.
citizen, n. (14c) 1. Someone who, by either birth or naturalization, is a member of a political community, owing allegiance to the community and being entitled to enjoy all its civil rights and protections; a member of the civil state, entitled to all its privileges. Cf. RESIDENT, n.; DOMICILIARY, n.• birthright citizen. Someone who acquires citizenship in a polity solely by virtue of having been born within its geographic borders.
• citizen by naturalization. See naturalized citizen.
• federal citizen. (1885) A citizen of the United States.
• natural-born citizen. (18c) 1. A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government. 2. A person born outside the jurisdiction of a national government to a parent who is a citizen of that nation. 3. A person born outside the jurisdiction of a national government to a father who is a citizen of that nation. • Sense 3 was the common-law sense of the nearest analogous phrase in English law (common-law subject) at the founding of the United States of America. See NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE.
• naturalized citizen. (18c) A foreign-born person who attains citizenship by law. — Also termed citizen by naturalization.
2. For diversity-jurisdiction purposes, a corporation that was incorporated within a state or has its principal place of business there. 28 USCA § 1332(c)(1).
3. Popularly, someone who lives in a particular town, county, or state.
- - - - - - - - - -
natural-born subject. (17c) 1. A person born within the dominion of a monarchy, esp. England. 2. A person born outside the dominion of a monarchy to a parent who is a subject of that monarchy. 3. Hist. A person born outside the dominion of a monarchy to a father who is a subject of that monarchy. See natural-born citizen (3) under CITIZEN (1). Also termed liege subject. Cf. NATIONAL, n.
You clearly subscribe to the Levin definition of NBC: Any child born anywhere in the world born to at least one citizen parent.
I have not seen the Levin definition. If it is as you state it, it is manifestly wrong and I do not subscribe to it. It may be that you have misstated his definition; I do not know, nor do I care about the Levin definition.
All persons born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, i.e., subject to its laws, regardless of parentage, are born citizens of the United States, pursuant to the black letter text of the 14th Amendment. The child of two illegal aliens, both in a detention center awaiting deportation, if born in the United States, is born a citizen thereof. There are no parentage exceptions in the language of the 14th Amendment other than having a parent who enjoyed immunity at the time of birth of the child, and the Congressional debates on the passage of the Amendment made explicitly clear that no exception was intended other than that resulting from a parent with immunity from our laws, such as an accredited diplomat. Accredited diplomats do not include consular officials. Those who are immune include accredited diplomats and visiting royalty.
All persons not falling within the 14th Amendment citizenship provision have their claim to birthright citizenship regulated by the applicable Federal law at the time of their birth. The applicable law may differ by location of birth.
Not all persons with one citizen parent automatically become citizens at birth. The Federal law typically provides additional requirements.
See 8 U.S.C. §1431; in effect on July 22, 2021.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1431&num=0&edition=prelim
§1431. Children born outside the United States and lawfully admitted for permanent residence; conditions under which citizenship automatically acquired(a) In general
A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.
(b) Adoption
Subsection (a) shall apply to a child adopted by a United States citizen parent if the child satisfies the requirements applicable to adopted children under section 1101(b)(1) of this title.
(c) Children of military and Federal Government personnel residing abroad
Subsection (a)(3) is deemed satisfied in the case of a child who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States if-
(1) the child is residing in the legal and physical custody of a citizen parent who is-
(A) stationed and residing abroad as an employee of the Government of the United States; or
(B) residing abroad in marital union with an employee of the Government of the United States who is stationed abroad; or
(2) the child is-
(A) residing in the legal and physical custody of a citizen parent who is-
(i) stationed and residing abroad as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; or
(ii) authorized to accompany and reside abroad with a member of the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the member's official orders, and is so accompanying and residing abroad with the member in marital union; and
(B) authorized to accompany such member and reside abroad with the member pursuant to the member's official orders, and is so accompanying and residing with the member.
(d) Name and birth date
A Certificate of Citizenship or other Federal document issued or requested to be amended under this section shall reflect the child's name and date of birth as indicated on a State court order, birth certificate, certificate of foreign birth, certificate of birth abroad, or similar State vital records document issued by the child's State of residence in the United States after the child has been adopted or readopted in that State.
See 8 U.S.C. §1433, as in effect in effect on July 22, 2021.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1433&num=0&edition=prelim
§1433. Children born and residing outside the United States; conditions for acquiring certificate of citizenship(a) Application by citizen parents; requirements
A parent who is a citizen of the United States (or, if the citizen parent has died during the preceding 5 years, a citizen grandparent or citizen legal guardian) may apply for naturalization on behalf of a child born outside of the United States who has not acquired citizenship automatically under section 1431 of this title. The Attorney General shall issue a certificate of citizenship to such applicant upon proof, to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, that the following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1) At least one parent (or, at the time of his or her death, was) is1 a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
(2) The United States citizen parent-
(A) has (or, at the time of his or her death, had) been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years; or
(B) has (or, at the time of his or her death, had) a citizen parent who has been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
(3) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
(4) The child is residing outside of the United States in the legal and physical custody of the applicant (or, if the citizen parent is deceased, an individual who does not object to the application).
(5) The child is temporarily present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission, and is maintaining such lawful status.
(b) Attainment of citizenship status; receipt of certificate
Upon approval of the application (which may be filed from abroad) and, except as provided in the last sentence of section 1448(a) of this title, upon taking and subscribing before an officer of the Service within the United States to the oath of allegiance required by this chapter of an applicant for naturalization, the child shall become a citizen of the United States and shall be furnished by the Attorney General with a certificate of citizenship.
(c) Adopted children
Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to a child adopted by a United States citizen parent if the child satisfies the requirements applicable to adopted children under section 1101(b)(1) of this title.
(d) Children of Armed Forces members
In the case of a child of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States who is authorized to accompany such member and reside abroad with the member pursuant to the member's official orders, and is so accompanying and residing with the member-
(1) any period of time during which the member of the Armed Forces is residing abroad pursuant to official orders shall be treated, for purposes of subsection (a)(2)(A), as physical presence in the United States;
(2) subsection (a)(5) shall not apply; and
(3) the oath of allegiance described in subsection (b) may be subscribed to abroad pursuant to section 1443a of this title.
That is current law. In each individual case, it is necessary to determine the applicable aw in effect at the specific time of birth.
He was born at Coco solo naval base. I've seen the doctor's signature on an admission page for his mother. Somewhere back in all the stuff i've written is links to that information.There is a fake McCain birth certificate floating around, and it has been tracked back to the origin certificate it was photoshopped from. McCain did show his actual birth certificate to a reporter, and the reporter stated he had seen it, but McCain never released it to the public.
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Building_Bases/bases-18.html
Coco SoloNaval Air Station. -- The Coco Solo air station occupies 185 acres of hard land, on the east side of Manzanillo Bay. Existing facilities in 1939 included a small landing-field, three plane hangars, one blimp hangar, barracks, officer's quarters, three seaplane ramps, and a few miscellaneous buildings.
When the development of the station was begun on August 1, 1940, the approved plan contemplated expansion sufficient to serve seven patrol squadrons of seaplanes. The original site, though limited, was considered to be the most advantageous that could be found in the Canal Zone; consequently, maximum expansion was advocated rather than construction of an additional base in another locality.
. . .
Hospitals
To care for the large increases in personnel which accompanied the expansion of the naval establishment, a new 200-bed naval hospital was built on a 40-acre tract of high land, on the north side of the new Trans-Isthmian Highway, about 3 miles from the Coco Solo air station. This facility consisted of a four-story structure, with additional buildings for quarters, laundry, garage, and sewage plant, all of reinforced concrete. It was commissioned in September 1942, and later enlarged by the addition of two temporary wards of frame construction, to provide 500 beds.
Executive Order 8981 - Navy Hospital Area, Coco Solo, Canal Zone, December 17, 1941, signed by President Franklin D Roosevelt said, "The following-described area of land in the Canal Zone is hereby reserved and set apart as, and assigned to the uses and purposes of, a naval reservation, which shall be known as Navy Hospital Area, Coco Solo, and which shall be under the control and jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy...."
Whether McCain was born in the non-existent hospital on the base, or the existing hospital just outside the gate, McCain was born on foreign soil. Birth on a military base overseas confers absolutely nothing. Pursuant to a treaty, within the canal zone, the United States exercised jurisdiction "as if" it were the sovereign. Panama remained the sovereign, and McCain was born within the sovereign territory of Panama, and outside the sovereign territory of the United States.
voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html
The WAPO fact checker, Michael Dobbs, maintained that McCain was born in the Coco Solo "family hospital." The Navy has, and has had, commands with the title U.S. Naval Hospital. It has never had anything called a "family hospital." The Navy registry of naval hospitals shows that no naval hospital existed at Coco Solo until 1942.
The McCain campaign never released any copy of a birth certificate to the public. The fact checker claimed a campaign official showed a copy of a birth certificate to a reporter (he later claimed he was the reporter in question), and the birth certificate purportedly showed birth at the Coco Solo "family hospital."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224_pf.html
See Article of May 2, 2008. It appears the two articles have been edited since original publication.
It was originally claimed that the birth certificate was signed by U.S. Navy CAPT William L. Irvine, a doctor who was director of the medical facility at the submarine base. Of course, in 1936, no Navy doctor held the rank of Captain. The ranks of staff corps officers were not changed to be the same as line officers until the 1950s. There was a William Lorne Irvine at the submarine base, and he was a doctor with the rank of Medical Director. That was his rank, not a title. An earlier junior rank was Assistant Surgeon. Those were ranks, like the line ranks of Lieutenant, Commander, or Captain. There was no hospital at the submarine base.
The registers for the Panama Canal Zone Health Department were transferred to the National Archives in College Park, MD. John McCain does not appear in the August 1936 part of the register, as demonstrated by the records and the WAPO fact checker.
Because of a congressional snafu, the McCain claim to citizenship is a legal mess. Shortly prior to his 1936 birth, Congress passed legislation to the effect that all persons born to American citizens in Panama "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States," were born citizens of the United States. For their intended result, Congress needed "outside the territory or jurisdiction" of the United States.
The 14th Amendment clearly covered all persons born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. The congressional intent was to cover all those born in Panama and therefore not covered by the 14th Amendment, but that is not what their chosen language did. The Canal Zone was was within the jurisdiction but without (outside) the territory of the United States. McCain was not born outside the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. For a few years, including McCain's birth year, this affected all American births in the Canal Zone. Shortly thereafter, further legislation corrected the error and all affected persons were declared thereby to be citizens.
https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=50&page=675#
AN ACTRelating to the citizenship of certain classes of persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, 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.
Sec. 2. Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, 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, is declared to be a citizen of the United States,
Approved, August 4, 1937.
At issue would be whether McCain, if born in the Canal Zone in 1936, was born without U.S. citizenship, and if this Act of 1937 could have retroactively made him a citizen at birth, i.e. a natural born citizen.
In his autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, McCain had told a fanciful tale of his birth in the hospital at the U.S. Naval Air Station, Coco Solo. To this day, you will find at Wikipedia that "John Sidney McCain III was born on August 29, 1936, at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, to naval officer John S. McCain Jr. and Roberta (Wright) McCain."
There was no Naval Hospital at the Naval Air Station in 1936. There was never a Naval Hospital at the Sub Base. There was never a Naval "family hospital" anywhere.
At Wikipedia, topic Coco Solo, is found,
United States Senator John McCain was born in 1936 at a small Navy hospital,[2][3] at Coco Solo Naval Air Station.[4][5]The larger Coco Solo Hospital was constructed in the summer of 1941.[3]
That is enchanting, but footnotes 2 and 3 go to the WAPO fact checker article, and book by Paul Alexander at page 12 which makes no mention of a hospital, large or small.
The U.S. Navy Registry of Hospitals lists all Naval Hospitals in the history of the Navy. There was no U.S. Naval Hospital at Coco Solo in 1936. There may have been a naval station medical clinic holding sick call. The hospital at Colon, about 100 yards outside the gate of Coco Solo, was established by the Isthmian Canal Commission (ICC) after the canal was completed. See An American Legacy in Panama, A Brief History of the Department Of Defense Installations and Properties, The Former Panama Canal Zone, Republic of Panama; A publication of the U.S. Army South, at page 67.
Id. at page 72:
Coco Solo HospitalDuring World War II. several previously established Panama Canal area military reservations, including the Coco Solo Submarine Base, were improved and expanded. A 200-bed hospital was commissioned in September, 1942, and the Coco Solo Naval Hospital was constructed on a 41-acre tract in the southwestern corner of what was later called Coco Solo Navy Station, just off the Boyd-Roosevelt Highway.
See also Republic of Panama and the Canal Zone, 1939 Guide Book, pp. 199-203; Coco Solo Naval Air Station and Submarine Base.
COCO SOLO NAVAL AIR STATIONThe Coco Solo Naval Reservation was officially established by Executive Order in 1920. The air station occupied 185 acres of hard land, on the east side of Manzanillo Bay. Its facilities in 1939 included a small landing-field, 3 aeroplane hangars and a hangar for a blimp, barracks, officer's quarters, 3 seaplane ramps, and a few miscellaneous buildings.
Further development of the station began in August 1940, with the approved plan contemplating expansion sufficient to serve 7 patrol squadrons of flying-boats (as proposed by the Hepburn Board recommendations). The original site, though limited, was considered to be the most advantageous that could be found in the Canal Zone; and therefore expansion at Coco Solo was advocated rather than construction of an additional base in another locality.
The greatest single deficiency of the station was the lack of sheltered water for full-load take-off immediately adjacent to the base. There was a wide gap of open water between the eastern breakwater and Margarita Point, through which heavy ocean swells entered Manzanillo Bay, frequently making seaplane operations hazardous — and this was tackled first. In addition, the station also lacked sufficient hangars, ramps, parking aprons, housing, storage, and repair facilities.
At the air station itself, the work from 1940 saw 3 large steel hangars, 4 seaplane ramps, 700,000 square feet of concrete parking area, engine test stands, and a large aircraft assembly and repair shop added to the operating area fronting on Manzanillo Bay. To make expansion possible, 30 acres of beach was reclaimed, with a steel sheet-pile sea wall, 2,100-feet long, to enclose 2 edges of this reclaimed area. Other work included new barracks, a bombproof command centre, an operations building, and a large administration building to house the administrative offices of both the air station and the adjoining submarine base. Also added were several large warehouses.
- - - - - - - - - -
COCO SOLO SUBMARINE BASE
Originally established in 1917, and later modernised, the submarine base at Coco Solo occupied a 130-acre peninsula bounded on the north by Margarita Bay and on the west and south by Manzanillo Bay, and additional facilities were accomplished under the wartime construction programme begun during Autumn 1940 with the developments being confined entirely within the limits of the existing boundaries.
A wide mole pier enclosed with steel sheet-piling was built as an extension to the original north quay wall, to provide additional berthing space and increase the basin area. It was paved with concrete, equipped with water, oil, and air lines, a railway spur, a large transit shed, several storehouses and shop buildings. The south quay of the base was likewise extended a distance of 500 feet and equipped with water, oil, and electric services. A net depot, including a large storage building, was built along this quay, and the basin dredged to a depth of 32 feet.
There was an industrial area, where extensions were made to the torpedo shop, ship fitters' shop, and battery shops. A large storehouse and a 3-story structure to house the machine and optical shops were erected.
In addition, a low-lying, 20-acre area fronting on Margarita Bay was enclosed with a steel sheet-pile seawall, with coral fill dredged from the bay. This was later developed as the main housing area for the station, and a chapel and library, theatre, tennis courts, and a recreation building for enlisted men and officers were also located in the area.
The place did not get built up until WW2 started in Europe. Prior to that, there was insufficient military population to support building and manning a Naval hospital.
If McCain were born 100 yards outside the gate at the hospital, then he was born outside the territory and jurisdiction of the United States and enjoyed a claim to birthright citizenship pursuant to Federal law (not the 14th Amendment) at the time of his birth. The only problem would be that the autobiography contained a bit of story telling.
The screwed up law in effect at the time of John McCain's birth began,
48 Statutes at Large, page 797. [Under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 112, the printed edition of the Statutes at Large is legal evidence of the laws, concurrent resolutions, proclamations by the President, and proposed and ratified amendments to the Constitution.]
73d CONGRESS, SESS. II., CH. 344, MAY 24, 1934.[CHAPTER 344.
AN ACT
To amend the Law relative to citizenship and naturalization, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1993 of the Revised Statutes is amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 1993. Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child.
[...]
That was so screwed up that persons born outside the territory, but within the jurisdiction, of the United States were not covered by the 14th Amendment or the Federal law. They fell into the legal limbo of no man's land.
This was clearly not the intent of the law makers, but the law is what the words enacted say, not what the law makers meant to say.
Sifting through what you’ve written.
In the meantime, let’s say, hypothetically, that there was a valid and fully incorporated 14th Amendment to the Constitution of Panama at the time of John McCain’s birth, and that McCain was born in Colon Hospital, Colon, Panama as has been alleged.
Also hypothetically, in 2021, an astute commenter named branch pusher says the following on FR about that amendment of the Constitution of Panama:
All persons born within the territory and jurisdiction of Panama, and subject to its jurisdiction, i.e., subject to its laws, regardless of parentage, are born citizens of Panama, pursuant to the black letter text of the 14th Amendment.
So we have woodpusher saying McCain is a born citizen of the United States, and branchpusher saying Mchain is a born citizen of Panama.
Can both be correct?
Let’s further say that the Constitution of Panama has an identical provision to the U.S. Constitution, confining the office of President of Panama only to Natural Born Citizens of Panama. Is it possible that McCain can be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States AND a Natural Born Citizen of Panama, simultaneously eligible to run for and hold both countries’ office of President?
Yes it does, but what did it mean in 14th century English? What does it's roots imply?
hypothetically, in 2021, an astute commenter named branch pusher says the following on FR about that amendment of the Constitution of Panama:All persons born within the territory and jurisdiction of Panama, and subject to its jurisdiction, i.e., subject to its laws, regardless of parentage, are born citizens of Panama, pursuant to the black letter text of the 14th Amendment.
So we have woodpusher saying McCain is a born citizen of the United States, and branchpusher saying Mchain is a born citizen of Panama.
Can both be correct?
Both could be correct. U.S. determination of its citizenship is a strictly domestic affair, as is such determination by every sovereign nation on earth.
Panama is free to determine who is a citizen of Panama pursuant to Panamanian law. That has no affect effect whatever on U.S. citizenship.
If birther theory were correct, The Duchy of Grand Fenwick could extend citizenship to all persons born in the United States who are not accredited members of an Indian tribe, the result being that the only persons eligible to run for President would be accredited members of an Indian tribe. The definition of U.S. citizenship is not at the mercy of any foreign law.
United States law is not changed by what any foreign nation enacts as its domestic law. The Constitution and all of its provisions are irrelevant to United States domestic law. U.S. law is the supreme law within U.S. territory.
It is quite impossible to be born under the territorial jurisdiction of more than one sovereign.
Let’s further say that the Constitution of Panama has an identical provision to the U.S. Constitution, confining the office of President of Panama only to Natural Born Citizens of Panama. Is it possible that McCain can be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States AND a Natural Born Citizen of Panama, simultaneously eligible to run for and hold both countries’ office of President?
To put your hypothetical to a more real life test, consider the child born in Belfast, Northern Ireland in 1970 to two parents born in Belfast, and who had never left Belfast. As Northern Ireland was (still is) part of the United Kingdom, the child would be a citizen of the UK. However, prior to the change of its constitution following the Good Friday Agreement, Eire (the Republic of Ireland) claimed all 32 counties, including those of Northern Ireland, whilst conceding only that it could not then govern over what it considered to be six counties of Ireland under British occupation. As far as Ireland was concerned, such child was born in Ireland and could obtain an Irish passport and become Taoseach. According the the UK, the child could become Prime Minister. Notably, it is unlikely that the child could reach adulthood and maintain its sole, official residence of record in both nations simultaneously.
Yes it does, but what did it mean in 14th century English? What does it's roots imply?
The term originally applied to an inhabitant of a city or town, back when people primarily so identified, rather than with a nation or country.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/citizen
Sense of "freeman or inhabitant of a country, member of the state or nation, not an alien" is late 14c.
It implies someone who, by either birth or naturalization, is a member of a political community, owing allegiance to the community and being entitled to enjoy all its civil rights and protections; a member of the civil state, entitled to all its privileges.
In England, the members of the political community were also subjects of the king. In the newly formed United States, the members of the political community were its citizens, but were not subjects of a monarchy. They could not be natural born subjects because they were not subjects.
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765), Vol I, p. 361.
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.
Jus albinatus equals the law of alien confiscation.
The U.S. closely followed the English law, and not the French law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.