Born in the USA. Or was he?
By David Usborne in New York
It is not WHEN he was born that might cause John McCain problems come the general election in November - let's face it, he is pretty vigorous for a child of 1936 - but rather WHERE. We all know that drawing your first breath on United State soil is a must if you ever want to become president. A "natural born citizen" is the precise wording in the US Constitution. Arnie Schwarzenegger could conceivably work harder at erasing his Austrian accent but the path to the White House will always be forbidden to him anyway.
Lucky for Barack Obama then that Hawaii had become a fully-fledged state just two years before his birth on the Pacific island chain. Hillary certainly qualifies, being of Illinois stock. And then there is John McCain, an American hero through and through. But is he American enough?
A mini panic has gripped the McCain camp as they grapple with the thorny problem that he was not born within America's borders but rather on a military installation in the US-controlled Canal Zone in Panama. His father, a Naval officer, had been stationed there. Yikes. What might this mean? Disqualification at the last moment and ceding the nomination to the runner-up? (Now we know why Huckabee refuses to give up.)
Seems there is no cast-iron means of saying what the authors of the constitution really meant by "natural born citizen". The McCain folk are sufficiently worried that they have hired former solicitor general and legal scholar Theodore Olson to look into the matter. He is still in the research phase, we learn.
Boris Johnson was born in NYC.
Perhaps the Americans would take him?
Posted by: Neil McGowan | 11 March 2008 at 03:57 AM
If there's a court battle over McCain's status, then one outcome might be a greater interest in a way to remove the prohibition on naturalized citizens running for the presidency without it being tied to a particular candidate.
That's the political problem right now: there's only interest when there are prominent naturalized politicians, but that's likely to create opposition along partisan grounds.
Any constitutional amendment formation would likely have to include a delayed implementation, in any case, to make it clear that it's not a 'Schwarzenegger Amendment'. A modern formulation, I think, would be based on age and period of residency.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | 02 March 2008 at 02:34 PM
Interesting that you should say that "Arnie Schwarzenegger could conceivably work harder at erasing his Austrian accent but the path to the White House will always be forbidden to him anyway". What about constitutional amendments? Around 200 ammendments are proposed each year, the last that was ratified was in 1992. The constitution is not so set in stone as one would imagine. In an increasingly globalised world, I believe the notion that only a 'natural born citizen' can become president will become an increasingly outmoded concept. I'm hoping McCain's status as citizen or not won't even be an issue, hopefully Obama will nip the problem in the bud. If the worst comes to the worst though and McCain does win, perhaps this will provide a precendent which will start the ball rolling for constitional change so we can finally have President Schwarzenegger after McCains' 4 year stint. Every cloud has a silver lining....
Posted by: Lewis | 02 March 2008 at 12:24 PM
Christians do not vote as they should.
www.carnalzoo.com
Posted by: del Rog | 02 March 2008 at 08:36 AM
JohnT's right about the single distinction that exists in law between naturalized citizens and ones who are citizens from birth.
That's somewhat beside the point, though, because we're talking about Article II, not the Immigration and Nationality Act (the current governing statute) or Amendment XIV. The precise circumstances have never arisen whereby the eligibility of a presidential candidate was challenged on this bit of Article II, so there's no precedent.
Marcelo's right that there are genuine legal questions, as to whether statutory citizens from birth come under the auspices of 'natural-born', or whether there's a distinction between 'Fourteenth Amendment citizens' and those 'considered' and 'declared' natural-born.
««There is no doubt that he is a natural born US citizen. Anyone who says otherwise is either uninformed or trying to use a fake "controversy" to score politcal points or get people to read their news articles.»»
Simply untrue. There's sufficient doubt -- or more precisely, uncertainty -- for the McCain campaign to enlist Ted Olson to prepare a brief. There are lots of controversialists misrepresenting the subject, but in the absence of precedent, there's room for a case or controversy.
I think that McCain qualifies, but I also think the Supreme Court needs to rule on it for a degree of clarity, given the lack of precedent and variety of legal questions. The ruling may be a narrower one than we'd like, extending only to the natural-born-ness of 'Zonies', rather than McCain's other claim as a jus sanguinus citizen, but when you have a court that doesn't give advisory opinions, you take what you can get.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | 02 March 2008 at 04:05 AM
It doesn't matter: The next president of the US is the present holder of that office, by stealth and deceit. S&D will also suffice for making himself the last president who ever faced an election. Now the Bush crime family has attained the status they always hungered for. There is no way that GWB will walk away from this power, and return to being a "nobody" again...as he started out. Just hire a few thousand rioters (with the billions in graft from EXXON, SHELL, etc and start a little ruckus down in Texas (where ALL of America's problems originate) and declare martial law....no constitution....Bushland is born!
Posted by: George in PA | 01 March 2008 at 03:21 PM
Fernando, you must be kidding - are you really that stupid?
Posted by: Pollux | 01 March 2008 at 11:10 AM
Fernando, you must be kidding - are you really that stupid?
Posted by: Pollux | 01 March 2008 at 10:25 AM
If you look at 8 USC 1403(a), it addressed McCain’s situation rather clearly:
(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.
So it’s pretty clear that John McCain is a citizen.
But is he a natural born (jus soli) citizen or a naturalized (lex soli) citizen? This is where it gets tricky.
Because 8 USC 1403(a) uses the term “is declared to be a citizen” (emphasis added), that leans heavily towards a lex soli position (naturalization). And persons born to citizens between November 1903 (when Panama became independent from Colombia with U.S. intervention) and February 1904 are not declared citizens under this section, which indicates that the declaration of citizenship is simply naturalization and not by birth since it is dependent on the law and a calendar date.
Furthermore, naturalization is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(23):
(a) As used in this chapter—
(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
More details here:
http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain.html
Posted by: Marcelo | 01 March 2008 at 02:55 AM
There are only two kinds of US citizens: Natural born US citizens and Naturalized US Citizens. Naturalized citizens are former citizens of other countries who obtain US citizenship sometime after their birth. They are not elligible to become President of the US. Natural born US citizens include babies born to US parents abroad (who get an extra page stapled to their birth certificates "Birth of US Citizen Abroad") and babies born in the US or in any US territories. John McCain was born in a US territory, to US citizen parents. There is no doubt that he is a natural born US citizen. Anyone who says otherwise is either uninformed or trying to use a fake "controversy" to score politcal points or get people to read their news articles. You could simply contact the State Department or immigration services or any military hospital abroad if you wanted to verify this.
Posted by: JohnT | 01 March 2008 at 02:48 AM
This is a good way to disregard or deter people from looking into Barack Hussein Obama as a muslim/terrorist supporter.
Posted by: Fernando | 29 February 2008 at 09:03 PM