Natural Born Citizenship
Quote: teddysTRIVIA TIME: When was the last time two major presidential candidates who ran against each other were both born outside the United States? (Hint: It's not Barack Hussein Obama and John McCain).
Obama vs McCain ins't the last time because Hawaii is the US, right?
I'm guessing it's Jefferson vs whoever he ran against.
Yes. Hawaii was a state at the time Obama was born there.Quote: Nareed
Obama vs McCain ins't the last time because Hawaii is the US, right?
Nope. It's a bit of a trick question, I'm afraid. Neither one was elected president.Quote:I'm guessing it's Jefferson vs whoever he ran against.
Quote: WizardI'm not an expert, but I'm quite sure a child born on a US military base would be immediately considered a US citizen. I think that as long as the US flag was flying over wherever the birth took place would be the applicable test.
"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."
Of course, if your parents are U.S. citizens, it doesn't matter where you were born; you are a U.S. citizen by blood.
A lot of issues arose with G.I.'s parenting children in places like Korea and Vietnam, and then the children claiming citizenship benefits when they grew up. Congress passed a lot of legislation in response to this.
Quote: Wizard
I'm not an expert, but I'm quite sure a child born on a US military base would be immediately considered a US citizen. I think that as long as the US flag was flying over wherever the birth took place would be the applicable test.
I think it would still need to be born to at least one American parent. eg: if a child was born to a Specialist in the US Army in Germany then yes, US Citizen. If a South Korean foodservice worker went into labor on her shift at a base there then no. Just an educated guess.
Quote: Wavy70
"Seen" is past tense of "saw" so he sawed it.
But he doesn't say he saw the actual BC, he says he saw that it was recorded. Big difference.
Quote: RobSingerI just saw where Donald Trump produced his ORIGINAL birth certificate yesterday, I believe. I also have mine. I expect these are the ones given to the parents upon birth, with a copy on file at the hospital. The FactCheck piece sidestepped the issue of why the actual person couldn't submit a certified copy or an original and why the Campaign and now Administration obfuscated the issue when there should be no need to.
There has been no "obfuscation", just a refusal to spend any time acknowledging the claims of the right-wing loony bin. To answer their shrill cries would be to afford them a dignity they do not deserve.
In any case, it is birth in the United States, not the existence of a birth certificate, that confers US citizenship.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. -- Article II, section1.
The way I interpret "natural born Citizen" is that he became a citizen naturally at birth. Like the way one would naturally be a citizen if born in any of the 50 states or DC -- no questions asked. So I tend to think if a Korean cafeteria worker gave birth in the break room that a case could be made that the child would be a US citizen. I'm not claiming that, but don't see why not. If McCain was naturally born a US citizen, why not the cafeteria baby?
Regarding children born to US military fathers, they were generally not born on US bases, so don't have a case based on alleged paternity alone.
Again, this is getting way out of my area, so take anything I say with a bucket of salt. I just find the topic interesting.
Quote: teddysWould be a fine argument, except U.S. bases aren't U.S. territory under the 14th amendment. (They may be territory for other legal purposes, but do not grant citizenship to people born there). The only places that qualify are the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam, and NMI.
Seems kind of silly in any case--how often would a child be born on a US military base, and NEITHER of the parents is a US citizen? If either the mother or father is a US citizen, then the question of location of birth is moot.
Quote: WizardPer the comments above, at least I'm learning something. Regarding John McCain, the constitution says:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. -- Article II, section1.
The way I interpret "natural born Citizen" is that he became a citizen naturally at birth. Like the way one would naturally be a citizen if born in any of the 50 states or DC -- no questions asked. So I tend to think if a Korean cafeteria worker gave birth in the break room that a case could be made that the child would be a US citizen. I'm not claiming that, but don't see why not.
Regarding children born to US military fathers, they were generally not born on US bases, so don't have a case based on alleged paternity alone.
Again, this is getting way out of my area, so take anything I say with a bucket of salt. I just find the topic interesting.
The "US Father" example I was using I was more thinking of a child born to a married couple living or/and giving birth on the base. Even if the spouse was say a German he met there I'd say the child gets citizenship. An illigetimite child I would not know. It was an episode of MASH where they had a case of this and said the child was not a citizen, take that for however accurate you like as I know it is not a good source, but also not one to be ignored without investigation.
Onto the Korean cafateria worker. I am not a lawyer, but my take is that there will be different rules for a national working as labor on the base and an American there. It just seems logical to me. And yes, fascinates me about as much as it seems to you.
As to Americans born overseas I have two experiences. I had a boss born in Haiti. IIRC he never had any citizenship issues. I know another American married to a Mexican living in Malaysia. He said his child can have dual citizenship for USA/Mexico. I think he said he was going to do that as there can be benefits of not having to travel under a USA Passport in some cases.
Quote: WizardFor anyone wondering, this thread is a spin-off of If you were POTUS: what would you do about LIbya?.
My friend and her sisters were born of a naturalized US citizen and his wife who was a Panamanian citizen. As long as all three were born in the hospital inside the canal zone they were considered citizens from birth.
I think the canal zone is different than a military base. You don't want pregnant women trying to sneak onto a base, to have a baby to try and get citizenship rights.
===========
Regarding the eligibility of Barack Obama. Personally, I am satisfied with the letter from Hawaii attesting to the certificate. I also think we are at least 30 years overdue in brining a constitutional amendment to change this requirement from the constitution. We have changed so much as a nation when that clause was written that we should be free to elect anyone president, regardless of birth or residency.
I assume this certification of live birth is different than a birth certificate?
Quote: pacomartin
I think the canal zone is different than a military base. You don't want pregnant women trying to sneak onto a base, to have a baby to try and get citizenship rights.
It was different from a military base and I believe different from a territory in that it was still part of Panama but American run. I have heard the workers had a sort of culture there and they were rotated back to the states often so they did not get too cozy with the locals. I do know the USPS gave it it's own two-letter abbriviation "CZ" where if it was a military base it would have been "APO AA" (Army Post Office Area Americas." This was abandoned sometime after the treaty schedueling its return as I remember learning how to address a letter in school using the codes in 1984 and the teacher said "CZ" was no more even though the old book had it listed.
If they fail you could try the Mormons, they're big on breeding records.
By the way, I was just in the Canal Zone a month ago, as many of you know. Despite having given it back 11 years ago, it still stands apart nicely from the rest of the Panama City, with big American-style houses with big grass lawns. It looks like kind of like America in the fifties. Also, I have some Canal Zone license plates in my collection.
Quote: pacomartinQuote: WizardFor anyone wondering, this thread is a spin-off of If you were POTUS: what would you do about LIbya?.
Regarding the eligibility of Barack Obama. Personally, I am satisfied with the letter from Hawaii attesting to the certificate. I also think we are at least 30 years overdue in brining a constitutional amendment to change this requirement from the constitution. We have changed so much as a nation when that clause was written that we should be free to elect anyone president, regardless of birth or residency.
I assume this certification of live birth is different than a birth certificate?
An obvious forgery. However I contend the Real Barack Obama was born in Hawaii but was replaced in Indonesia with a child hand reared by the KGB as a sleeper agent. If this was not true he would have said so. His silence only incriminates him more.
I think its more like what Donald Trump is saying. He's not disputing that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. He says there's something on there Obama doesn't want made public. The only thing I can think that would be of concern is maybe his parents weren't married. On mine it gives the marital status of my parents.
'The Corn State'. Yes, it is.
Quote: EvenBobAccording to this site http://mistupid.com/facts/page050.htm Wyoming is the only state with no license plate slogan. My fave's are NY CA and Iowa.
'The Corn State'. Yes, it is.
I find the state of New Hampshire has one of the most curious slogans: LIVE FREE OR DIE. How do you think the prison inmates felt as they were hammering the letters on to the plates? Not to mention that there is very little real freedom in the US or any other country (reference to the "too many laws" thread...).
Quote: TheNightflyI find the state of New Hampshire has one of the most curious slogans: LIVE FREE OR DIE. .
I've always like NJ's 'The Garden State'. What part is that, exactly.
Quote: EvenBobOn mine it gives the marital status of my parents.
Mine (California 1965) has fields for, not including the usual obvious things:
Age of mother and father.
Race of mother and father.
Birthplace of mother and father.
Address of mother.
Occupation of father.
Type of industry of father.
I guess mothers were not expected to be working back in 65.
My daughter's is the same, except it doesn't ask for the race of the parents or the occupation or industry of the father.
Quote: WizardMine (California 1965) has fields for, not including the usual obvious things:
Age of mother and father.
Race of mother and father.
Birthplace of mother and father.
Address of mother.
Occupation of father.
Type of industry of father.
I guess mothers were not expected to be working back in 65.
My daughter's is the same, except it doesn't ask for the race of the parents or the occupation or industry of the father.
Does it have the name of mother and father?
Quote: Aussie. One thing I can't fully understand is the need for this requirement in the constitution? Why should not being born in the USA preclude someone from being president?
The concern is that the president cannot have allegiance or obligation to any other country, even in theory.
Many people, born to parents who are foreign citizens, acquire foreign citizenship at birth automatically (and sometimes, it also is not a very easy thing to get rid of), and, obviously, even when you are not a citizen of another country, but your whole family are, that is also not a very desirable situation for a president.
Of course, there are other ways to deal with this issue, but Constitution is not intended to be exhaustive, it is more of a prescription to make laws, then the actual law, telling you what to do. I think, it is exactly for that reason that it just says "natural-born" without further clarifying what it means.
There is also the fact that it is very hard to change the Constitution in this country. It is more than two centuries old, and some concepts in it are hopelessly outdated. Why does everybody, born in the US have to be a citizen for example? Back then, it made sense, and meant just that the people, who lived in colonies would automatically become citizens, but now it is just crazy. Or take the "right to bear arms" ...
Quote: weaselmanOr take the "right to bear arms" ...
Why take that one away? Not sure about you but I want to be able to protect myself from the bad guys. Which city has more restrictive gun laws, Washington, DC or Salt Lake City? Which is safer?
Quote: WizardAsk and ye shall receive.
The green on white plate is obviously not the CZ, but US forces in Germany.
Wow-that was fast. If you had been running GM in the 1970s we wouldn't know what a Toyota is!
I wonder if the German one was issued by the Germans or the US Military? And also if they are still used?
Quote: EvenBobBTW, Mike is that your house? Is that chair an antique or a reproduction. I was an antique dealer for 20 years and thats a cool piece if its an old one.
I don't know, but I'd bet on reproduction. When I bought the house I live in now the previous owner also sold me most of the furniture in it, including that chair. She had an eye for things that looked good at first glance, but were actually of dubious quality. DorothyGale can tell you a story of a harp that came with the deal, which I gave to her. Later she had it appraised as a piece of crap.
Quote: AussieWhat about a situation where a married couple immigrate with a 3 month old child. That child will have lived for all intents and purposes their entire life in the country yet from my understanding would not be eligible to be president.
I would say by the letter of the constitution that would preclude eligibility to be president. However, if he/she had enough popular support, I think the courts could and would grant citizenship retroactively back to the point of birth, which seems to suffice.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy take that one away? Not sure about you but I want to be able to protect myself from the bad guys. Which city has more restrictive gun laws, Washington, DC or Salt Lake City? Which is safer?
I just don't think it belongs to Constitution. It is silent about people's right to own cars, or keep pets, or to study world literature.
200 years ago the right to bear arms was essential, especially in the country, that has just had to earn its own independence in the Revolutionary War. But now ... I don't think, this right is really all that much different from the right to smoke pot or to own a computer program with 128-bit encryption technology, or a car that runs on diesel.
I don't have much against it, I just don't see how it belongs to the Constitution.
Quote: WizardPosts about blowing up the Panama Canal have been moved to What would happen if terrorists blew up the Panama Canal?.
So how else do we hijack the thread? :P
Back on topic, here's another question:
What prevents a natural born citizen from developing allegiance to another nation? Throughout history there have been plenty of spies, traitors and renegades in every nation on the planet, including America.
Quote: weaselmanI just don't think it belongs to Constitution. It is silent about people's right to own cars, or keep pets, or to study world literature.
200 years ago the right to bear arms was essential, especially in the country, that has just had to earn its own independence in the Revolutionary War. But now ... I don't think, this right is really all that much different from the right to smoke pot or to own a computer program with 128-bit encryption technology, or a car that runs on diesel.
I don't have much against it, I just don't see how it belongs to the Constitution.
It is there to protect the other rights.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is there to protect the other rights.
From who?
Quote: Nareed
What prevents a natural born citizen from developing allegiance to another nation? Throughout history there have been plenty of spies, traitors and renegades in every nation on the planet, including America.
It is the same kind of question as "what is the guarantee a driver isn't dangerous if he is not drunk". There is no guarantee, just a reduced risk.
Quote: weaselmanFrom who?
A potentially opressive government.
Quote: AZDuffmanA potentially opressive government.
Seriously? Does it really make sense to you to have a special provision in the Constitution to legalize riots, unrest and civil war?
Quote: WizardThe state of Hawaii has examined the records and issued this in response to the conspiracy theorists, such as yourself: Hawaii news release.
That was under the former governor. The current governor, a friend of the president made an effort to quell the discussion and ordered the health authorities to show him the original certificate.
After some delay, he reported back that it could not be found.
Quote: AZDuffmanA potentially opressive government.
I think it's the same here as it is in Libya right now. When a tank can run over your house, a gun is not much protection against an oppresive government. You need much of the military with the respective more powerful weaponry on your side too.
Good god, let it go, people.
Sometimes, I wonder what people have against the man. He was elected president fairly. His campaign produced a copy of the birth certificate. No one else has been able to prove otherwise. The state of Hawaii and the Supreme Court have affirmed this. This I think is just republican payback for the 2000 election results when Bush was elected. Fair enough.
I think it's fine if you have something against his ideology or the way that POTUS has done his job in the last 2+ years, but really, making the claim that Obama was born in Kenya and shouldn't therefore be president is about as ridiculous as stating that Bush Jr is a bigot or lost the 2000 election. The Clinton impeachment was a waste of time as well. So are the steriod hearings in Washington. Get over it. Life goes on.
Let's focus on the tasks at hand -- getting the US economy on track, instead of making stupid claims and having hearings on friggin' baseball and trying to figure out where the sitting president of two years was born.
Quote: SanchoPanza
That was under the former governor. The current governor, a friend of the president made an effort to quell the discussion and ordered the health authorities to show him the original certificate.
After some delay, he reported back that it could not be found.
Source, if you please.
Quote: bbvk05I think Obama was born in Hawaii. Even if Obama was born abroad his mother was an American citizen and that makes him natural born.
I don't think the dispute is about where he was born. His parents may or may not have been married in the eyes of US law. It would be extremely harmful to a presidents image if he was born out of wedlock. Thats all this can be about, what else is there, if he was indeed born in Hawaii.
Quote: EvenBobI don't think the dispute is about where he was born. His parents may or may not have been married in the eyes of US law. It would be extremely harmful to a presidents image if he was born out of wedlock. Thats all this can be about, what else is there, if he was indeed born in Hawaii.
Harmful to whom? It isn't usually the child's fault if the parents were not wed. Does this mean that any child born out of wedlock is in a different category?
Why not just toss him in a lake to see if he floats. If he floats he is a witch.
Quote: Wavy70Does this mean that any child born out of wedlock is in a different category?
Are you kidding? Do you realize what an uptight country this is? Do you remember what huge deal was made of George Bush getting a drunk driving ticket 25 years before the election, when he was in his 20's? What do you think will happen if it turns out Obama's parents weren't married? The Xtions will go bananas, among others.
Quote: EvenBobAre you kidding? Do you realize what an uptight country this is? Do you remember what huge deal was made of George Bush getting a drunk driving ticket 25 years before the election, when he was in his 20's?
It was something Bush did himself though, not what his mother did.
Even Stalin said that children should not be held responsible for the acts of their parents ... And he was a very "uptight" guy :)
Quote: WizardSource, if you please.
We, "the Birthers", aren't as ignorant about google, as someone suggested :)
713,000 results
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Quote: weaselman
Even Stalin said that children should not be held responsible for the acts of their parents ..
Um, do you realize what kind of ammo this would give the other party? In the world of politics, being a real life bastard does not get you many points... At one time, not that long ago, calling someone that was a major insult.
Quote: EvenBobUm, do you realize what kind of ammo this would give the other party? In the world of politics, being a real life bastard does not get you many points... At one time, not that long ago, calling someone that was a major insult.
In the past, yes, but times are changing. Nowadays, I can see something like this scoring him extra points sooner than hurting him (even better, if it turned out if he had some kind of "unorthodox" family - one with two daddies or something).
What is so bad about being born out of wedlock anyway?
It used to have a bad stigma for two reasons - blood lineage (especially when it was about inheriting some kind of a title - that's where the "bastard" came from, and why it was offensive, but you would not be considered one, if your parents got married after your birth, only if they never did, usually, specifically because your father was already married to another woman), and religion (but this reflects badly on the parents rather than on the child).
Now, Obama does not hold any kind of hereditary title, and folks, that value religion, already hate his guts anyhow.
Beyond that, what else is wrong with giving birth before you are married?
Quote: weaselmanIn the past, yes, but times are changing.
Not in politics they're not. If its true, now you have a cover up. At the local bowling alley, maybe illegitimate children are welcome with open arms. In politics, they generally are not. Who cares anyway. The doofus in chief has a lot more to worry about than his parents being married or not.
