« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Do you live in the USA? Are you SURE?
No one has yet satisfactorily explained to me why it is that John McCain, having been born on a US Military base in Panama, can be considered a "natural born citizen", yet Constitutional protections do not apply on a US Military base in Cuba because it's not US soil.
Now there's this. Apparently, Kennedy Airport is no longer technically a part of the United States.
So my advice is, no matter where you live, make sure your passport is up to date. You never know when you're going to find your location declared outside the US and you'll need the passport to get back in.
Advertisement
Comments (16)
Well, just to be nitpicky, you do not have to be born on US soil to be a natural born citizen. You merely have to have been a citizen from birth. E.g., being born to American parents overseas is sufficient.
I'm a natural born citizen although I was born in Germany. And although I, too, was born on a military base, it was not a necessary requirement for me to have been a natural born citizen.
July 1, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not quite so simple. Children born to US citizens abroad are considered citizens "at birth", but there's some question as to whether this is the same as "natural born citizens". It's never really been tested.
July 1, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right that no one has ever been elected president who was born outside the United States. However, I'm not aware of any questions about it, other than in the blogosphere. What exactly are the questions about it?
I wouldn't mind hearing from Tena or Elizabeth2 (2 lawyers here) about their opinions on this, but I've never seen this fact questioned by anyone who is actually in a position to know.
July 1, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, from the Naturalization Act of 1790:
July 1, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Naturalization Act of 1790 seems pretty clear on its face, but there is dissent. In the Dred Scott case the dissenting opinion held that this was a form of naturalization. Given that the majority opinion of the Dred Scott case was overturned by the 14th amendment, that might be seen as giving more credence to the dissenting opinion. The US congress addressed the issue earlier this year confirming that McCain was a natural-born citizen.
This is really a tempest in a teapot. The real point of the post is the ridiculous notion that a passenger can be seized at Kennedy airport, held there for several days, then sent to Jordan, and the court has no jurisdiction because he was not technically in the United States.
July 1, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I got your larger point, and it was spot on (and I rec'd). That's why I said I was being nitpicky.
I also appreciate the added insight on the Dred Scot case, but I'd argue that overturning the majority opinion does not mean accepting the minority opinion.
July 1, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't hear about this, btw, as I just assumed no legal response was necessary. Do you have a link for this? I'd love to see what arguments were present on the floor.
July 1, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt there was even any discussion. It was only a Senate resolution introduced by Leahy and McCaskill.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
July 1, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. This bit surprised me:
I wasn't aware of any such candidates. I wonder if they're talking about 3rd party candidates, or are you (or anyone) aware of this happening before with a major party candidate?
Also, although the resolution itself does mention him being born on a base, I noticed that in their statement Leahy and McCaskill only mentioned that it was because he was born to American parents.
Finally, I find it interesting that it was 2 Democrats that introduced the resolution. I wonder if they were wanting to make sure this information got a little more public attention?
July 1, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was still a territory. Splitting hairs, to be sure, but there it is.
George Romney is a more interesting case. His grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children when Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's parents retained their US citizenship and returned shortly after the Mexican revolution broke out in 1910.
The third is McCain, who was also a candidate in 2000.
July 1, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the obscure history lesson!
July 1, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mitt Romney's father, George, was born in Mexico to American Mormon parents. His eligibility was questioned before he lost the Republican nomination to Dick Nixon.
And there were rumors that President Chester Arthur, while officially born in Vermont, was actually born on a Quebec farm his family owned.
The rumor was fueled by conflicting statements about exactly which year he was born in.
Canadian citizen Maher Arar, on the other hand, was definitely born in Syria.
Not only does this bar him from being elected U.S. president, it also seems to have been the rationale for subjecting him to rendition to that country, followed by a year of imprisonment and torture.
Canadian and U.S. security services were about equally to blame for this human-rights fiasco, which today's appeal court ruling compounds.
July 1, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
My son, a natural-born U. S. citizen married a Canadian and their child was born in Canada. The child could not be registered with the consulate as a U. S. citizen however. There was a time when a child could have dual citizenship if s/he was born outside the U.S. to one parent with U. S. citizenship. There came a point when the child had to choose, I believe, but this was all changed due to all the people who fled to Canada during the Viet Nam war.
July 1, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, although it's very hard to attain dual citizenship after birth, if you're born with it, you are allowed to keep it.
As odd as it might sound, for a while I wasn't sure if I had dual citizenship or not. I do not. In order to be born a citizen of Germany back when I was born (1970), your father had to be a German citizen. This law was a direct response to many American servicemen taking German wives, and the people of Germany not want the children of such marriages to be German citizens. Although they eventually changed that law, they did not make it retroactive.
July 1, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn kraut! Should have known better than to trust you.
July 1, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm reminded of Tom Hanks in The Terminal.
July 1, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment