There is nothing in 14A, or U.S. citizenship law, about birth on a military base.Well there is in Vattel's "law of nations" in the section that covers children born of people in service to their nation in foreign lands.
There is also a roll of toilet paper. If lacking toilet paper, tear out the pages of Vattel's book and cut them into squares, and they will serve the same purpose.
Citizenship of people born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States is controlled by the 14th Amendment. Citizenship of people born outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States is controlled by Federal law in effect at the time of birth.
No foreign law is relevant.
From the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual:
https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030101.html
8 FAM 301U.S. Citizenship
8 FAM 301.1
Acquisition by Birth in the United States
(CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021) (Office of Origin: CA/PPT/S/A)
8 FAM 301.1-1 Introduction
(CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021)
a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes; and
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
[...]
c. Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth: Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a State upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (INA 101(a)(23) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (see INA 310, 8 U.S.C. 1421 and INA 311, 8 U.S.C. 1422). Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. (See 7 FAM 1140.)
d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:
(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
8 FAM 301.1-3 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States"
(CT:CITZ-1; 06-27-2018)
[...]
c. Birth on U.S. military base outside of the United States or birth on U.S. embassy or consulate premises abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad 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 born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth;
(2) The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America. (See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol. 1, Sec. 466, Comment a and c (1987). See also, Persinger v. Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
It appears it was good enough to fool you.Most of the people don't need to know the details about Naval/Military ranking or the particulars of what facilities are available to take care of servicemembers and their dependents. We all like to believe they are taken care of, and for many of us the particulars do not really matter so long as the results are good.
People with knowledge of Service Corps ranks prior to the uniform adoption of Line ranks know there was no such thing as a 1936 Medical Corps officer holding the rank of Captain. If such appeared on a 1936 document, it would suggest Medical Director Irvine did not know his own rank, and appear hilarious to anyone who does know.
With your level of research, and lack of zeal, I would not expect you to know what you are talking about. As demonstrated in the linked article, the fonts change in the changed fields. The bogus document is worse than the Dan Rather documents.
As for taking care of service members and dependents, you are obviously ignorant of the difference between dependents who are command sponsored, and those who are not. Coco Solo was not authorized to have command sponsored dependents. Absent command sponsorship, the Navy does not pay for or do anything for the dependents. Where command sponsorship is not authorized, the Navy does not provide any facilities or services for dependents. There was no base housing. The McCain's lived off-base at their own expense.
Americans inherently understand that the children of servicemen should have full US citizenship. They understand that Vattel's view is correct, even if they had never seen it before.It is clearly natural, and the right thing to do.
What Americans knew is not as important was what Congress critters actually put into the Act of 1934 controlling birthright citizens born overseas. Due to their logic dysfunction they enacted a law which did not apply to anyone born in the Canal Zone, on a base or off a base. In 1936, nobody was born in th Canal Zone outside the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. Nobody met the conditions of the statute. The law is not what the legislators intended to state, it is the words they actually stated and which wre actually enacted into law.
Of course all of my acceptance of the claim was based on the notion that a reporter for the Washington Post would not flat out lie regarding something in which his lie could be discovered. Apparently he is either dumber or more cynical than I would have thought plausible.
Well, you didn't know the name of the reporter or the nwspaper until I spoon fed you.
I did not say he lied. He got all his information from "A senior official of the McCain campaign official." Stenographer Dobbs appears to have printed what the "senior official of the McCain campaign" fed him. He may have had the same knowledge of its veracity as you. But in such a reality, if a "senior official of the McCain campaign" couldn't be absolutely trusted, who could?
Well, he had to make up something. Dobbs reported that:
"In his autobiography, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain writes that he was born "in the Canal Zone" at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Coco Solo, which was under the command of his grandfather, John S. McCain Sr."
Some damage control was needed as the hospital at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station which was under the command of his grandfather, John S. McCain Sr. did not have a hospital before 1942. It appears the campaign made up some crap about the tiny submarine base with five subs homeported there, and Dobbs printed it. As noted, the Factchecker article appears to have been removed from the internet. As it should have.
As for Donald Lynn Lamb, the source of that piece of garbage birth certificate, read on:
The Panama News
Vol. 12, No. 2
Jan. 22 - Feb. 4, 2006Donald Lamb claims Colon
It’s a matter of historical fact that a number of shareholders were cheated in the financial maneuvers by which the United States government acquired the French canal company and the Panama Railroad in the early years of the 20th century. The smaller shareholders in these two enterprises in many cases received nothing, and records were then destroyed. In recent years one Donald Lamb has come along, purporting to represent shareholders in the old Panama Railroad and on that basis claiming title to vast parts of the former Canal Zone and filing many nuisance suits that in the long run have not prospered in Panama’s courts. One major reason for Lamb’s notable lack of success is that the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties had as their main subject matter the ownership of the former Canal Zone and arguably supersedes all prior laws and assertions of legal rights with respect to the real estate. But Lamb persists, and recently he’s been serving businesses in Colon with notices that the Panama Railroad’s lease of what is now the city has expired and that people there now have to start paying rent to him. This is a bit different than the other cases, in that ownership of the city of Colon was not at issue in the treaties.
- - - - -
The Panama News
Vol. 8, No. 2.
Jan. 26 - Feb. 8, 2002Colon property owners file criminal charges against Lamb
The Urban Property Chamber of Colon, a group of business and land owners in the Atlantic side province, has filed criminal charges against Donald Lamb and several of his associates. Lamb heads a group of individuals who claim to own stock in the old Panama Railroad Company, which was taken over by the US government in the early part of the 20th century as part of the construction of the Panama Canal, and which was transferred to Panama under the 1977 Carter-Torrijos Treaties. Lamb and his followers claim that the 1904 and 1977 transfers were illegal and that they thus own vast stretches of property in the former Canal Zone. They have asserted their claims to such real estate as the ports of Cristobal and Coco Solo Norte by filing numerous lawsuits and registering claims to many properties. While in a few cases Lamb and his followers have prevailed in lower courts, such favorable judgments have been overruled on appeal. Last year, in response to Lamb's activities, the Supreme Court ordered the Registro Civil to eliminate all deeds in the former Canal Zone that do not derive from ARI's master deed. One provision of the controversial concession for Colon's multi-modal transport center requires the Panamanian government to indemnify the Consorcio San Lorenzo for any legal problems that Lamb's claims cause for the development. Now attorney Alberto Navarro has begun a legal counter-offensive on behalf of the Urban Property Chamber, accusing Lamb and his associates of falsifying documents, usurping lands, fraud, extortion and illicit association in their attempts to get money or land titles from chamber members Attia & Attia, Colon 2000, Rada SA, Nirzvi SA, Oficina Quijano, Victor Lum Lee and the Panama Canal Railway Company.
It befuddles me that a mind so good at legal research will utilize such commentary in a debate. Meh.
It appears it was good enough to fool you.
Well the main reason for that is because I just didn't care. I don't have a problem with McCain being born wherever, while his father was in the military and deployed. It just doesn't register on my give-a-damn-scale.
As for taking care of service members and dependents, you are obviously ignorant of the difference between dependents who are command sponsored, and those who are not. Coco Solo was not authorized to have command sponsored dependents. Absent command sponsorship, the Navy does not pay for or do anything for the dependents. Where command sponsorship is not authorized, the Navy does not provide any facilities or services for dependents. There was no base housing. The McCain's lived off-base at their own expense.
Okay. See previous comment above.
The law is not what the legislators intended to state, it is the words they actually stated and which wre actually enacted into law.
I have long disagreed with this notion, but of course it is universal in the courts. They operate as though the law is carte blanche to make it into what they want, but when they want to be @$$holes, they will interpret it so literally that it violates the intent of the legislative body that created it.
Laws should always be viewed in the light of legislative intent, *IF* that is discernible from the available records. (I believe Jefferson said something similar, or perhaps it was Madison)
Well, you didn't know the name of the reporter or the nwspaper until I spoon fed you.
As I have indicated previously, it wasn't a topic I cared about to any significant degree, and less so with each passing year. I may have a link to the source on one my computers, but the forest of links is so great now, I simply do not want to look through them anymore.
I did not say he lied. He got all his information from "A senior official of the McCain campaign official."
So McCain's staff lied or fabricated it? Well I could believe that too. I actually met John McCain back in 1994, and I liked him at the time. Little did I know what a greasy piece of sh*t he was. I now believe he was up to his eyebrows in the Keating 5 scandal, rather than just being a Republican scapegoat as he claimed.
So someone made it up.
One major reason for Lamb’s notable lack of success is that the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties had as their main subject matter the ownership of the former Canal Zone and arguably supersedes all prior laws and assertions of legal rights with respect to the real estate. But Lamb persists, and recently he’s been serving businesses in Colon with notices that the Panama Railroad’s lease of what is now the city has expired and that people there now have to start paying rent to him.
I remember Carter giving away the Panama canal, and I said at the time he was a stupid dumbass for doing it. Every subsequent thing Carter did simply reinforced my opinion.
But the Donald Lamb character appears to be a grifter.
Now attorney Alberto Navarro has begun a legal counter-offensive on behalf of the Urban Property Chamber, accusing Lamb and his associates of falsifying documents, usurping lands, fraud, extortion and illicit association in their attempts to get money or land titles from chamber members Attia & Attia, Colon 2000, Rada SA, Nirzvi SA, Oficina Quijano, Victor Lum Lee and the Panama Canal Railway Company.
Not surprised. The guy's got chutzpah to even try the stunts he's trying.
So the Washington Post was reporting lies that may have come from a McCain staffer. And Donald Lamb made up the fake McCain birth certificate that circulated back in the day.
Okay, I feel chastised and better informed. McCain's citizenship status fell through a loop hole. Okay then.