We all know about that poll where 20% of US students thought Sudan was located in Asia, and 63% couldn’t find Iraq on a map.
But one expects a little more knowledge of history and Geography at the New York Times.
Today’s paper has a story questioning if McCain was eligible to be president, because he was born outside the United States.
McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out
screams the headline.
McCain’s father was in the Navy, and McCain was born on a military installation in the Panama Canal Zone.
Now, legally military installations, just like US Embassies, are considered US soil. So although one might question the child of a diplomat born in a civilian hospital overseas as being “a natural born” citizen, it’s hard to stretch such thinking to imply that those born on military installations to military personnel are also considered the same as those born overseas to any traveling American parent.
But in the case of McCain, he was also born in a US territory, not on a Naval base located on foreign soil. And this fact is ignored in the NYTimes article.
Under a 1903 treaty, the US was granted sovereignty over the Canal Zone. It was not a “foreign country” but legally a US territory.
That is why many Americans became upset when President Carter turned over the canal AND the Canal Zone to Panamanian sovereignty: It was not merely giving away a military base or a US facility, but was giving back US territory to another country.
And at least one legal brief implies that both Guantanamo and the Canal Zone although geographically located in other sovereign nations, is not foreign territory, but have the status of US territory. (Lawyers might want to debate where this leaves the Gitmo prisoners).
So there you have it: Born by two US parents, working for the US government, born in a military hospital on a military installation that is considered US soil, in a US Territory.
Does this cover the term “natural born citizen”?
So why question it?
So where does all the disinformation come from?
A couple far right wing web sites, including those pushing Mike Huckabee. And the NYTimes admits toward the end of the story that they found the story there:
But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications — a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.
Well, yes. Like the bimbo story of last week, the NYTimes is digging the dirt from dubious sources and starting to resemble the National Enquirer rather than the Newspaper of Record.
Luckily, Obama was not born in Hawaii until 1961, two years after that territory became a state, or we’d be hearing the same nonsense about him.
Yes, legal minds that will hinge questions of perjury as “depending on what the definition of ‘is’ is…” but for the rest of us, we wonder how far the legalistic deconstruction of the term “natural born” will go…for example, does it include those
“not born of woman but from (their) mother’s womb untimely ripped”?
————————–
Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the rural Philippines. Her webpage is Finest Kind Clinic and Fishmarket.
Loading ...
5 users commented in " Don’t know much about Geography "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackFrom the State Department website:
7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of “In the United States”
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.
The Canal Zone was not U.S. territory. It was the “Panama Canal Zone”, and not US owned territory. The US had the right to act as if it were sovereign, by treaty, but in fact the US paid an annual fee to Panama. Also, Panamanians born within the Canal Zone were citizens of Panama, not the United States. Since both his parents were American citizens Mccain obtained his citizenship by descent which “is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute.” This differs from a “natural-born citizen” “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.”
Mccain should not be constitutionally eligible to be President.
Ah, but an alternate state department site lists the Canal zone births in a different category.
The debate is if outsiders come on base to deliver, similar to those Mexicans who take a bus to deliver in San Diego.
As for the Canal Zone prior to the 1970’s, it was considered US territory. Unlike places (e.g. Clark AFB) Both Gitmo and the Canal Zone had different legal status since US had sovereignty.
But one doubts anyone but a paranoid right wing McCain hater would say the children of military personnel are ineleigible because their parents sacrificed to serve their country oversease.
The 1790 Act of Congress defined those born at sea as “natural born citizens” presumably to cover his birth….http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/junkie/archive/junkie070998.htm
The NYTimes article’s headline is mirroring the anti McCain hatred of right wing web sites in this. That was my other point.
Nope. PCZ was a land lease and we paid rent; it was never a territory. The 1790 act was repealed in 1795 in part and the rest in 1802.
The real facts are found at http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain.html.
The State Dept reg hits the nail on the head period.
One does NOT PAY to RENT what is theirs. The USA had LEASE rights NOT TERRITORY rights. Period.
Nancy Reyes, Then you are accusing the Constitution of the United States as being anti-military.
Laws/acts get to decided how one gets to be a citizen BUT there is no authority other than via Constitutional amendment than can change what the Constitution says, therefore, he is NOT a NATURAL born citizen nor was Goldwater & any court that says so would be wrong. The Constitution says (my ONLY change in the following is to put certain words in ALL CAPS for emphasis):
*****Article 2 Sect 1: 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…”*****
The 1790 act was NOT included in the Constitution & specifically CONTRADICTS the Constitution & therefore the act itself is un-Constitutional. His birth place may not mean he can’t be a citizen or that his parents/he had to get naturalized for things OTHER THAN presidency (see Art 1, Sect 8 on naturalization), however, “natural-born” he isn’t…period. The Constitution ONLY gives Congress the right (minus a new, as of now non-existent, Constitutional amendment) to establish what a “naturalized” citizen is & how that is accomplished (via Article 1, Section 8 giving Congress the right/responsibility: “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”) Congress was not given the Constitutional authority to pass any “acts” other than the NATURALIZATION process. If Congress wants to say that children born to USA parents ANYWHERE can be automatic USA citizens & say they do not have to go through the standard naturalization process they can BUT they are not allowed to re-define “natural born” in regards to the presidency.
BTW, I DESPISE the ultra-right AND ultra-left of politics which means to tell you that I am not a “Kool-Aid” drinker for any side & come to my own conclusions USING FACTS.
Of course, if all the Constitutional FACTS are ignored by Congress & the courts & they allow via means OTHER THAN Constitutional amendment ppl like McCain to be prez it WOULD NOT BE THE 1ST TIME NOR UNFORTUNATELY MOST LIKELY THE LAST TIME the Constitution was ignored.
When coming back here to check to see of there had been a response to my post…I re-read my post & noticed that I left something out of it…which is the following which is a follow-up/further info to what Tannim said:
EVEN IF also even IF the 1790 act had been Constitutional (which it was NOT) it STILL would NOT matter b/c that part was CHANGED IN 1795 to REMOVE the word “NATURAL” & the reason they changed that part IMHO is b/c someone figured out that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL to try & change what a “natural” citizen is w/o a Constitutional Amendment…once again b/c the Constitution says that Congress can decide how someone is naturalized NOT natural…And the PCZ was NOT A US TERRITORY…the US PAID RENT ON THE PROPERTY, therefore, it was NOT SOVEREIGN USA property, PERIOD.
Leave A Reply