John McCain was born in Panama

Look, if John McCain was NOT eligible for President, don't you think we'd all know by now? Don't you think his foes would have uncovered it? Don't you think the news media would have uncovered it?

This thread is a joke. I can't believe how incredibly illogical some of you are. The fact is, both his father and grandfather were Admirals in the US Navy. He comes from a long line of military men. AMERICAN military men.

People born to American parents who are American citizens while the parents are in another country are automatically considered American citizens upon entering America IF the parent was physically present in the United States for at least five years prior to the birth of the child. There is paperwork that has to be filed within a period of time (I believe 60 days) after the child enters the United States. It doesn't even matter whether they were on a military base or not.

Geez, I can't believe you folks are still here arguing. Military bases, even outside the U.S. are legally considered U.S. soil. As such, anyone born on base is a U.S. citizen, born in a U.S. military hospital, which is ON THE MILITARY BASE, which is legally considered to be U.S. soil.

There is nothing more to argue about, those are the facts. Sorry, I don't have time to look up sources on the internet, but those are the facts. My dad was a navy officer, I grew up knowing this and that is how the law reads.

Originally posted by dk3000
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

No law or court ruling has ever established the precise definition of a natural born citizen.

Yes, the law has indeed established just that. Had you read the entire thread, you would have seen my post concerning The U.S. Code Title 8, Chap. 12, Part 1401 :

1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person

reply to post by ClintK



You seriously trust the media as deciding what is credible and what is not?

www.youtube.com...

This thread is not a joke. McCain's citizenship is the joke. I am not trying to make people angry or stirring the pot. I see things one way and there are people who see it another.

JMO

However:

What Is the Procedure?

By now you might be getting the idea that naturalization documents are not necessarily as easy to use as some other records, such as the census. Generally, for most of our history there are two rules that apply to naturalizations:

1. It was a legal process handled through the courts.
2. It was usually a two-part procedure, the first being a Declaration of Intent indicating that the person intended to become a citizen (voluntary after 1952). This may have included as part of the document or as a separate certificate or record information on the individual's date and place of arrival into the United States. After a required period of residency (five years, with some exceptions) the individual would then file a Petition for Naturalization and, if granted, would receive a Certificate of Naturalization. Both or either the Declaration and/or the Petition may contain valuable genealogical information.

The McCain clan filed no papers at the time of his birth. There are no records on file to be found in the National Archives. This document would need to be present in order to justify his eligibility.

McCain was born in Panama- Period. At least in this case as Panama records clearly indicate. Upon birth his parents should have filed the naturalization papers- but they did not. Just had a baby and skipped a step- this step may be more important that imagined.



[edit on 1-2-2008 by dk3000]

Dk3000, I understand your suspicions, but in this instance, you have no case. That is what the law is, and under it, McCain is a U.S. citizen, plain and simple - there's no ambiguousness about it. It's not about what the media is telling us, this is the law.

Here's a few questions: How do we know that any who run for the US Presidency are citizens of the US? I've never seen any proof of citizenship from any of them. Tax forms that ask the question, "Are you a citizen of the United States?", do not constitute proof when the answer is, "YES".. Have we seen any birth certificates from any of the current cadre who are running for office? Have we seen our current Commander in Chief's birth certificate? Birth certificates and Social Security cards are what's needed as the most basic forms of proof of citizenship. So, how do we really know? We just take their word for it. If we are going to demand proof from McCain, then we should demand proof from them all, including Gee Dubya. Do all political parties in all counties and states require proof of citizenship to register?

Originally posted by Areal51
Do all political parties in all counties and states require proof of citizenship to register?

Yes they do. The REAL ID will take care of all these questions.

And for the record I am not trying to build a "case". I am simply bringing up an issue that has been an issue for quite some time and according to the National Archives- there is no "proof" that an assumption of citizenship can be legally recognized due to the bureaucratic mishandling of paperwork by McCain's parents.

Here is the link that explains the entire process:
www.usconstitution.net...

In addition, I specifically show the section that people seem to be concerned about.:
"Many parts of the world have law to provide them with special status, to allow children born in those places to be considered natural-born. This allows families with a long history of working in these areas without ever returning to the U.S. to be considered natural-born. For example, the Panama Canal Zone had been in U.S. possession for a full century, and some families lived there for generations. 8 USC 1403 handles the Zone specifically, stating that anyone born in the Zone on or after 2/26/1904, to at least one citizen-parent, is a natural-born citizen. Similar law is in place to handle the acquisition of territories, such as Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii."

reply to post by dk3000


Yeah, there's nothing like a real ID. Can't wait to get rid of all the fake one's I have -- college alumni ID, job ID, state issued driver's license, and government issued US Passport. It'll be cool when they finally give me something that's real.

Oh boy.

No where does it state that a person has to be born on US territory, soil, or in controlled zone. It says that they must be a natural born citizen. Meaning, they're mother and father must be citizens of the United States.

Here's a prime example: The Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger could never be president of the United States even if he were born here. His mother and father were never citizens.

Though, some in the government are looking to admen this stipulation. Legislation has already been introduced. Don't be surprised if you see a lot more of Arnold in the coming years.

reply to post by Areal51



You are hilarious! Thanks I needed the laugh! Anyway I have a friend who is doing major research because there are many steps to being legal when born on foreign soil to U.S. citizens. She's all over this. I will dutifully report back even if my suspicions turn out to be wrong.

btw, I ran into this: knowbeforeyouvote.com...

While its unrelated to the specific of this thread- since McCain is in fact running for the presidency- I feel there is some wiggle room here.

Big deal if McCain was born in Panama. It would make more sense if Obama was born in Africa, but he is not. Obama is black we all know but he was born in america. That makes him an african american. That would make mccain a panamanian american wouldnt it? He is a veteran and deffinitly proved himself to loyalty to america. Why does it matter if a person is born in a diffrent country any way. HIllary might as well be born in China. If she was, I think i might change my opinion on forigners running for president.

i really dont see what the big deal is.

If your born in US soil... ie: a military base,
or to US citizens...

then you are a US citizen and are allowed to run for presidency....

yeesh, i cant believe i added another response to this thread lol

Originally posted by robwerden
This may not be big news, but I felt it was worth talking about.

What does it say about our society that no one is talking about this when it is clearly a subject that could destroy his run for the nomination.

My feeling is the Democrats are saving this for the General Election. Something like this could be pulled out the day before the general election vote to destroy the chances of the Republican party from getting the White House.

The Canal Zone was US Territory until Jimmy Carter gave it away.

Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state and no one seriously questioned his eligibility to run for President.

McCain is disqualified by his positions: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, voting against tax cuts, claiming to be Pro-Life and yet filing a Friend of the Court Brief against Wisconsin Right to Life, etc.

Originally posted by robwerden
This may not be big news, but I felt it was worth talking about.

What does it say about our society that no one is talking about this when it is clearly a subject that could destroy his run for the nomination.

My feeling is the Democrats are saving this for the General Election. Something like this could be pulled out the day before the general election vote to destroy the chances of the Republican party from getting the White House.

This is a total NON-issue. It amazes me how many people are ignorant of the Constitution and of Google. It speaks volumes about the American
educational system.

John McCain IS a natural born citizen of the United States. You do not have to be born within the United States borders to be a natural born citizen. Being born to US citizens makes one a natural born American.

I believe he was born in the Canal Zone, which at that time WAS US territory.

Also this issue was debated in the 1960's when George Romney ran for President. Apparently he was born in the Territory of New Mexico, and this issue of his citizenship was then questioned by people who were either ignorant of the Constitution or were trying to confuse people as to his validity.

No one is waiting to spring this at the last minute in an effort to derail McCain simply because it is not an issue.

Besides do you really think that if this was an issue they would have dealt with it the last time he ran?

Originally posted by Clear Thinker

Originally posted by robwerden
This may not be big news, but I felt it was worth talking about.

What does it say about our society that no one is talking about this when it is clearly a subject that could destroy his run for the nomination.

My feeling is the Democrats are saving this for the General Election. Something like this could be pulled out the day before the general election vote to destroy the chances of the Republican party from getting the White House.

This is a total NON-issue. It amazes me how many people are ignorant of the Constitution and of Google. It speaks volumes about the American
educational system.

John McCain IS a natural born citizen of the United States. You do not have to be born within the United States borders to be a natural born citizen. Being born to US citizens makes one a natural born American.

I think you need to read the law a little better....

www.state.gov...

7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United
States"
(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)
a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic
zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does
not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth (Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d
316 (9th Cir., 1928)).

b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S.
territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S.
citizenship by reason of the place of birth.

c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S.
diplomatic or consular facilities 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 subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

reply to post by grim13


Nice research Grim13. I believe what they are saying is that just because a child was born on a U.S. military base doesn't make it a U.S. citizen, UNLESS the parents are U.S. citizens. If both parents are U.S. citizens, there is no argument, because the child automatically becomes a U.S. citizen due to the parentage of the child.

Hello, ATS. New member here. First post to this board, actually.

Have read through this thread as well as other places on the Net where this issue is being discussed, and it is not a "silly" topic. dk3000 definitely has a handle on this and is entirely correct. The issue is notwhether McCain is a "citizen" of the US or not. No one is arguing that. The problem is that not all citizens are capable of running for the Presidency. By most definitions, "Natural born" means being born inthe USA, and not having been "naturalized." Naturalized citizens are not able to run for President. The Canal Zone was never "part of" the United States. It was never even a territory.

As dk3000 pointed out, the most striking aspect to all this is that no one has officially rebuffed it yet. It has only been ignored.
That's the most important question.

Nice to be here, btw. You've got quite a site.

reply to post by IPCRESS


It's not in the Constitution, but there is precedent in United States law for a person born outside the U.S. to citizens to be considered "natural-born".

Citizen McCain's Panama Problem?

But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States."

[edit on 2/9/2008 by eaglewingz]

reply to post by eaglewingz

But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, etc...

That's an act of Congress and not an Amendment to the Constitution.
There's enough grey area here to throw it into the Supreme Court.