The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-28-2002, 07:41 AM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 22,490
Citizenship question (born on a US Army Base)

I was born on an American army base in Germany when my dad was stationed there. The land I was born on was part of the Army base, and I think, therefore technically American land, but I'm not sure.

For the purposes of, say, becoming the president, where one has to be born on US soil (I believe), would I qualify?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 05-28-2002, 07:54 AM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
The army base in Germany is not "US soil".

Happily, the requirement for being President is not that you be "born on US soil" but that you be "a natural-born citizen". This is generally understood to include those who, as the children of US citizens, are themselves US citizens from birth.

Now all you need is to get one of the major parties to nominate you.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-28-2002, 07:56 AM
RealityChuck RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 35,654
Probably. While there can be some interpretation of what is meant by "natural born" (which is how the qualification is worded) the courts most likely would allow you to run if you were born of American parents and never had any other citizenship.

The closest similar case was George Romney, who ran for president in 1968 despite being born in Mexico to American parents. There were some idle questions about whether that was "natural born," but no one tried to challenge him (and his campaign eventually self-destructed due to brainwashing).
__________________
"East is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does."
Purveyor of fine science fiction since 1982.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:03 AM
astro astro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by RealityChuck
There were some idle questions about whether that was "natural born," but no one tried to challenge him (and his campaign eventually self-destructed due to brainwashing).
I thought it was just "a light rinse".
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:21 AM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 22,490
I thought I had read somewhere that US military bases on foreign soil were considered small bits of US territory, and therefore were immune to local laws, things that happened on it were subject to US law, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:26 AM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,399
I don't think that US bases generally possess extra territoritality, which is what you are asking about. Guatanimo Bay in Cuba may be an exception. By agreement, the bases may not be subject to local law, which is not the same as extra territoritality, which implies a sovereign right.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:27 AM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
It's the other way around. They do enjoy some exemptions from local law, and certain aspects of US military and federal law do apply there. But that's not enough to make the "US territory", although a lot of people assume it is.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:36 AM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 22,490
Another, related question: I was born in Nuremburg, but the German spelling is Nürnburg - if I need to file out governmental forms that require my city of birth, which is the way to spell it?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:41 AM
zev_steinhardt zev_steinhardt is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 6,857
Embassies, are, IIRC, considered "part of the country" of which they serve. I don't think that applies to army bases. However, UDS is correct in that a child born to U.S. citizens abroad are citizens of the U.S. themselves.

Zev Steinhardt
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:46 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,830
UDS: United States military bases overseas don't "enjoy some exemptions from local law." There's this thing called the Status of Forces Agreement which describes how member of the US military who do violate local law will be dealt with whilst awaiting trial. The issue of the family members of the military members is quite easy: they're dealt with just like the local population is dealt with by the local law enforcement.

Now, if the military member and his family are stationed overseas in a diplomatic capacity, then they are covered under diplomatic immunity.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-28-2002, 08:52 AM
flodnak flodnak is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: outside Oslo, Norway
Posts: 4,762
Beef, I'll assume you have some sort of American-issued birth certificate. (My kids got "Consular Reports of Births Abroad" from the embassy; might be something different for an Army kid.) Just stick with whatever spelling of the city they used there and it should work fine.
__________________
An American flodnak in Oslo.
Do not open cover; no user serviceable parts inside.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-28-2002, 09:18 AM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 22,490
Quote:
Originally posted by flodnak
Beef, I'll assume you have some sort of American-issued birth certificate. (My kids got "Consular Reports of Births Abroad" from the embassy; might be something different for an Army kid.) Just stick with whatever spelling of the city they used there and it should work fine.
Ah, yeah, and that's what I've been using. (It's spelled the German way).

I just wasn't sure if it was correct.

Actually, we lost that certificate once, and it was such a pain to get back. Apparently it's a pain for the State department to find a record for a birth certificate created in a country that doesn't exist anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-28-2002, 09:53 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,830
SenorBeef:

I also was born in Germany to American parents (actually, one of my parents also had German citizenship). My birth was recorded by the doctor who delivered me as the law for reporting births in Bavaria is pretty much the same as the law for reporting births in most states here. What the local authorities issued is my Geburtskünde. That doesn't have a single thing to do with citizenship at all! It is merely the birth certificate. My father used that birth certificate to prove to the Amercian Consulate that, yes, there really is the child, named Monty, born to my parents at a particular time, date, and place. The consulate issued a Report of Birth Abroad of an American Citizen. A note: in my case, it took years for the consulate to do that. The certificate issued by the Consulate is the proof of citizenship. The Geburtskünde is not.

If you're looking for help on getting your birth certificate, contact the Germany Embassy or Consulate. Both times I needed a certified copy issued by the same office that issued the birth certificate, they helped me and I got the thing for no charge. Nowadays, it costs about $20 to get it. For assistance on getting the Certificate of Citizenship from the State Department, you can get some info from http://www.vitalchek.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-28-2002, 11:07 AM
Gorgon Heap Gorgon Heap is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Here is a story written by a friend of mine in SJA. I dosn't have any "official" rules, but it has a lot of background and could give you a place to start. Viel gluck.

http://www.usma.edu/PublicAffairs/PV/020419/MLaw.htm
__________________
The continuing stooOOory of a quack who's gone to the dogs.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-28-2002, 01:16 PM
chula chula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
"Natural born" means a citizen at birth - I don't think there's been any dispute about that. In the early days, it wasn't clear who was a citizen at birth. Congress has the power under Article I of the Constitution "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization," so legislation over the years has clarified the meaning of the term "natural born." INA § 301 (8 U.S.C.A. § 1401) lists eight categories of people who are citizens of the United States at birth. It includes
  • Anyone born in the United States
  • Anyone born to a member of an Indian tribe
  • Anyone born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  • Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  • Anyone born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  • Anyone found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  • Anyone born outside the United States, if one is an alien and as long as one is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  • Anyone born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-28-2002, 01:28 PM
Cliffy Cliffy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
Embassies, are, IIRC, considered "part of the country" of which they serve.
This is a common misapprehension. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, the premises of a foreign diplomatic mission are "inviolable"; that is, under no circumstances can they be entered by the local government without consent, and the property is immune from search, seizure, attachment, and the like, but it's still part of the same country. See Articles 20 - 25 of the convention, available at the UN website here:

http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/diplomat.htm

--Cliffy
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-28-2002, 02:42 PM
Milton De La Warre Milton De La Warre is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Very minor point: "Anyone born to a member of an Indian tribe"

I understand that this was not the case until 1901 (or so). Before that, Native Americans were not (legally) Americans.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-28-2002, 02:50 PM
Big Kahuna Burger Big Kahuna Burger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
The closest similar case was George Romney, who ran for president in 1968 despite being born in Mexico to American parents. There were some idle questions about whether that was "natural born," but no one tried to challenge him (and his campaign eventually self-destructed due to brainwashing).
Similarly, Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was still a colony. Ultimately, no major objections were made because LBJ knew he'd kick his butt. Plus, every president before Van Buren was born when the United States were still colonies. Also, John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, which was American soil at the time.

I read an article on Michigan gubenatorial candidate Jennifer Granholm, who was born in Vancouver but moved to Detroit when she was fairly young. People said that if she won the governorship she'd be a great presidential candidate if she wasn't foreign-born. I wonder if the Romney case would apply to her, but I'm not sure on whether her parents were Americans or not.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-28-2002, 02:58 PM
chula chula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
You're right JCHeckler. In Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that Indians were not citizens, since they were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. It wasn't until 1940 that Congress made all Indians born in the United States citizens at birth. Of course, slaves were also not considered citizens when the Constitution was written. The statute I referred to reflects current law and was most recently amended in 1994.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-28-2002, 03:09 PM
Hirsel Hirsel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Hi guys,

do I say it or don't I?
Okay, just to let you know: people who
are born in Germany are not automatically Germans. So
whatever you are, when your parents are non-German, you are also non-German. Sounds pretty rough, but the Germans
leave it up to the foreigners to sort out whether their child
is also a foreigner or without any citizenship. In SenorBeef's
case he would be US citizen, but not German. I think the law
has changed slightly in recent years, but propably not
dramatically.

[smartypants on]
Also, you were probably born in Nürnberg, not Nürnburg, where
berg means mountain and burg means castle, quite a difference.
[smartypants off]
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-28-2002, 04:29 PM
Spavined Gelding Spavined Gelding is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
My oldest daughter was born at the US Army hospital at Landstuhl, Germany (then West Germany). IIRC the documents we received and filed with the local recorder of deeds when we got back to the States were a German birth certificate, a certificate of some sort from the attending physician and a document from the State Department attesting to the birth of a child to US nationals overseas. These three papers, or copies certified by the recorder of deeds, were sufficient to establish her age, date of birth and nationality sufficiently for her to get a driver’s license and a US passport. The important thing is to file the papers with the local office that accepts, among other things, armed forces discharge papers to qualify for veterans’ exemption on real estate taxes.

My little sister was born at Fort Sam Huston, Texas. This was real trouble since at that time Fort Sam was an exclusive federal enclave by cessation by the State and was not part of the State (or republic) of Texas. Accordingly there was no Texas birth certificate for her. There may have been an entry on my mother’s medical charts, but other than that there was only a decorative certificate from the medical detachment adjutant. We had to establish her bona fidies with an affidavit from our mother and her high school transcript.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-28-2002, 07:25 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,480
Quote:
Originally posted by chula
INA § 301 (8 U.S.C.A. § 1401) lists eight categories of people who are citizens of the United States at birth. It includes
  • Anyone born in the United States
  • ....
  • Anyone born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
And 8 USC 1402 and other later amendments further qualify that in some US possessions -- e.g. Puerto Rico -- "jus solis" citizenship applies too, so everyone born there is Americans by birth.
(In our case, those who were alive in 1917 -- my grandparents -- were made Americans by Act of Congress; those born between 1917 and 1941 -- my father -- were born American by parental inheritance; and those born after 1941 -- my mother and myself and siblings -- have been American by our own birthright. )
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-28-2002, 07:37 PM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 22,490
Quote:
Originally posted by Hirsel
Hi guys,

do I say it or don't I?
Okay, just to let you know: people who
are born in Germany are not automatically Germans. So
whatever you are, when your parents are non-German, you are also non-German. Sounds pretty rough, but the Germans
leave it up to the foreigners to sort out whether their child
is also a foreigner or without any citizenship. In SenorBeef's
case he would be US citizen, but not German. I think the law
has changed slightly in recent years, but propably not
dramatically.



Actually, my mom told me that I was offered dual citizenship, but she just took American citizenship.

Quote:

[smartypants on]
Also, you were probably born in Nürnberg, not Nürnburg, where
berg means mountain and burg means castle, quite a difference.
[smartypants off]
Ah, thanks.

It's not often that I actually have to spell it - the only time the issue comes up, actually, is on NICS checks.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-29-2002, 02:26 AM
chula chula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by JRDelirious
And 8 USC 1402 and other later amendments further qualify that in some US possessions -- e.g. Puerto Rico -- "jus solis" citizenship applies too, so everyone born there is Americans by birth.
I'm being nitpicky, but § 302 (8 U.S.C.A. § 1402) is not an amendment to the section I cited but rather another section. It establishes that all persons born in Puerto Rico after 4/11/1899 are citizens, and all persons born after 1/12/41 are eligible to be president. This section came into effect in 1952. Of course, there are almost as many portorriqueños en Nueva York que en Puerto Rico, y vivo en la Loisaida, so I wouldn't exclude the portorriqueños if it were relevant to the topic of children born on military bases in Germany.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-29-2002, 07:41 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,480
Quote:
Originally posted by chula
I'm being nitpicky, but § 302 (8 U.S.C.A. § 1402) is not an amendment .
[A Bill]
Sect. 1: In the article originally posted by JRDelirious on 28 May 2002, after "8 USC 1402" strike "and other later amendments" and replace by: "and other later sections of the c. 1951 Immigration and Naturalization Act, including those which replaced and amended all or parts of sections of the earlier c.1940 Nationality Act, as well as other related statutes and amendments thereto,"
Sect. 2: This amendment shall go into force immediately upon ratification
Sect. 3: Notification shall be made to Opal pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SDMB
[/A Bill]
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-29-2002, 12:27 PM
Regina Regina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
I was born in Panama in the Canal Zone in a military hospital. My parents had two birth certificates, one official and one from the hospital, and when they moved from Panama when I was 2, had me "naturalized," and I was issued a "Certificate of Naturalization," which I understand has now been replaced with the Consular Report of Birth Abroad as mentioned by flodnak and Monty. Apparently for a while there was a special certificate just for Canal Zone births.

My sisters used to tease me all the time that I couldn't be President since I wasn't born in the U.S. Of course, they couldn't offer me any cites. It's good to know I can now run for President! (Let's see, now how to wipe the memories of all the friends I had in High School . . . )

BTW, in attempting to obtain a passport, I have been round and round with both INS and the State Dept. trying to get a certified copy or duplicate original of my Certificate of Naturalization becuase I do not trust the passport office or post office to return my original. After three months of frustration and even a call to my U.S. Senator, who just succeeded in muddying the waters, I finally just sent the darn original to the passport people. Sure hope they send it back.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-29-2002, 02:05 PM
chula chula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
§ 303 (8 U.S.C.A. § 1403) gives citizenship to any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904 to a citizen parent. But the fact that you were naturalized implies that you are not a “natural born citizen” - I can’t see why you would need a Certificate of Naturalization. Maybe it’s because that section didn’t come into effect until 1952.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-29-2002, 02:38 PM
Merlot Merlot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by SenorBeef


Actually, my mom told me that I was offered dual citizenship, but she just took American citizenship.
[/B]
My mother told me the same, however she never mentioned taking American citizenship and indicated that at or by age 18 I must declare my citizenship.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-29-2002, 03:40 PM
Regina Regina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by chula
§ 303 (8 U.S.C.A. § 1403) gives citizenship to any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904 to a citizen parent. But the fact that you were naturalized implies that you are not a “natural born citizen” - I can’t see why you would need a Certificate of Naturalization. Maybe it’s because that section didn’t come into effect until 1952.
Well, I hate to date myself, let's just say it was the late 60's. I guess my folks were just doing whatever they were told to do like good Air Force parents. Maybe the AF just kept doing the same paperwork year after year regardless of the law. I can't believe my parents played with my ability to become President like that! Think if I tell the passport office about Sec. 303 they'll get on with issuing my passport already so I can take my trip?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-29-2002, 04:13 PM
chula chula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
I'm not saying that the certificate changes anything - it's just that you shouldn't need one, if I'm not totally misunderstanding the statute. I'm thinking that they probably just continued to use the old procedure for a while after the law was passed. According to the passport webstie, if you are born abroad, you need either a Certificate of Naturalization or a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. It's because it's too hard for someone in the United States to know what a valid Panamian birth certificate looks like.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-29-2002, 04:47 PM
Regina Regina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by chula
. . . you need either a Certificate of Naturalization or a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. It's because it's too hard for someone in the United States to know what a valid Panamian birth certificate looks like.
And I guess the difficulty in getting a certified copy from a foreign country. Although right now I don't see how this could be any more difficult than getting the darn duplicate original or certified copy or whatever the heck I've paid the State Department $30 for but haven't seen yet. My Congressman said I should fill out form 565-N or some such with the INS for a replacement certificate. I looked it up on their website: $155 for this! I attempt to call the passport office thinking they'll know if what I want comes from the State Department or the INS; all they have is a $4.95 per call telephone number! Sorry about this little hijack; you can probably sense I'm a little put out about this.

So anway, chula, you're saying the passport people need the Certificate of Naturalization not to prove I'm a citizen but because they can't determine what a valid Panamanian (it's in English) birth certificate looks like? I guess I could get copies of my parents' birth certificates and prove my citizenship that way. Well it's all moot for me anyway since I took a chance and mailed the original document to the passport office. Not to mention the absolute moot-ness of the issue of my being able to run for President. If only I had known a little earlier in life . . .
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-07-2014, 08:59 AM
Cartooniverse Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 11,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
It's the other way around. They do enjoy some exemptions from local law, and certain aspects of US military and federal law do apply there. But that's not enough to make the "US territory", although a lot of people assume it is.
This varies by country. I stood in Ramstein Air Force Base last week and had a conversation with my son and daughter-in-law ( both active duty USAF ) about just this. They informed me that the current situation at least in Germany is that German Law dominates all on-base legal problems. The Germans work closely with US Military Police, but a law broken on base that violates German legal statue is a law broken, period.

For example. We left Ramstein and drove a few moments to a smaller US Army Base. When entering that base ( unlike Ramstein ), there were exactly zero US MP's guarding the gates and doing ID checks. Instead we found ourselves facing German Polizei. They did the ID check, inspected the car and then waived us through. I asked about it and was told that it varies from base to base as to which police entity controls access.

Interesting. I'd also always thought that bases like Ramstein were essentially US Soil within a foreign nation. Not so in this case. I cannot speak for any other countries where the USA has military bases, but this is the arrangement that the US DOD has with Germany regarding all bases, USAF, Army and so on.
__________________
If you want to kiss the sky you'd better learn how to kneel.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-07-2014, 10:05 AM
Broomstick Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 19,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
The closest similar case was George Romney, who ran for president in 1968 despite being born in Mexico to American parents.
Also, John McCain was born in Panama.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-07-2014, 10:13 AM
jtur88 jtur88 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I thought I had read somewhere that US military bases on foreign soil were considered small bits of US territory, and therefore were immune to local laws, things that happened on it were subject to US law, etc.
Not in the same sense as an Embassy. US bases overseas remain the sovereign territory of the geographical country, and the USA leases the rights to use them, with varying immunity to impediments according to the terms of the treaty.

The issue, as correctly stated in an earlier post, is that "natural born" refers to the totality of the circumstance of birth and whether it imparts natural citizenship on the child, not the geographic location of the obstetrics, which by itself is only one of several contributing factors..

Last edited by jtur88; 08-07-2014 at 10:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-07-2014, 11:55 AM
MikeS MikeS is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New London, CT
Posts: 3,314
The real question is: If a U.S. citizen dies abroad and is resurrected as a zombie, does he or she gain the citizenship of the foreign country?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-07-2014, 05:27 PM
Hari Seldon Hari Seldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Two of my children were born abroad and all they ever needed to get US passports, driver's permits, etc. were the consular reports of US Citizens born abroad. The consular officer questioned my wife and me about our US residencies, but didn't ask for proof, although I guess that could conceivably be questioned if one of them ran for president.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-07-2014, 05:52 PM
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 25,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Also, John McCain was born in Panama.
Actually in the part of Panama that was at the time the US-controlled Canal Zone. By an odd quirk of wording in the law in effect at the time, this made McCain not a citizen at the time of his birth, despite that fact that both his parents were US citizens.

At the time, the children of US citizens who were "born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" were eligible to become citizens. The Canal Zone technically remained part of Panama, even though by treaty it was under US jurisdiction. Therefore children born there were outside the limits of the US, but not outside US jurisdiction, so the law didn't apply to them. Ironically, if McCain had been born in Panama outside the boundaries of the Canal Zone he would have been a citizen.

The law was amended within a year of McCain's birth to retroactively close this loophole and make people born in the Zone to US citizens automatically citizens. It is, however, arguable whether McCain would qualify as a natural born citizen. (I believe he would, since his citizen came from the circumstances of his birth rather than through naturalization, and Congress passed a resolution to that effect>0
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-07-2014, 06:50 PM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
Probably. While there can be some interpretation of what is meant by "natural born" (which is how the qualification is worded) the courts most likely would allow you to run if you were born of American parents and never had any other citizenship.
Wait. Why "and never had any other citizenship" ? Obama had another citizenship as a child [though not overlapping with his presidential run]. McCain is a citizen of Panama, though as far as I am aware he does not claim or make use of his second citizenship.

Signed,
Thanks, Ma, Now I Can't Be President.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-07-2014, 07:17 PM
RealityChuck RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 35,654
It's a moot point. The US does not recognized dual citizenships. Sometimes someone can be claimed as a citizen of another country automatically, but if you don't formally give up your US citizenship, you remain a US citizen. So as far as the US is concerned, neither candidate stopped being US citizens.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-08-2014, 08:34 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
McCain is a citizen of Panama, though as far as I am aware he does not claim or make use of his second citizenship.
McCain renounced his Panamanian citizenship. But Chuck is not saying that never having held foreign citizenship is a requirement, merely that it's one of the factors a court would likely weigh. This is all pretty theoretical because no court has ever construed the natural-born citizen clause for this purpose - and it's highly likely that they would call it a political question and refuse anyway (basically, the electorate gets to decide what "natural born" means.)
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-08-2014, 08:52 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 32,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
Obama had another citizenship as a child
No.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-08-2014, 09:03 AM
bob++ bob++ is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
You guys have a lot of the British Isles (well - mainly Southern England) under a Stars and Stripes. One oddity is that they are all nominally RAF stations - RAF Lakenheath, RAF Alconbury etc. Someone once suggested that this country is the USA's largest aircraft carrier. I have no doubt that the citizenship rules are the same here as elsewhere and simply being born here does not give the right to British citizenship.

On the bases at one time, British law was only applied in serious cases like murder, but recently it has changed:

Quote:
Status of Forces Act

Drawn up in 1951 and then set in legislation as the Visiting Forces Act, this is the legal framework for what foreign military personnel can – and cannot – do in the UK.

It reserves jurisdiction over United States personnel to the US (as applies to British personnel in Nato countries). Minor offences such as driving infringements are nonetheless settled in the British courts. But concern is growing that the legislation has been overtaken by technology, and that new safeguards are needed to maintain the UK veto over what activities are permitted.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) Despite this being the benchmark for what secret surveillance and investigation can be carried out by public bodies, there is no requirement to monitor compliance to Ripa by US military personnel in Britain. Peers and MPs are concerned that Anglo-American eavesdropping is not being monitored.

Military by-laws Under an overhaul of by-laws, the MoD is tightening the rules surrounding US bases, including RAF Croughton. Under the new rules infringements, from failing to collect dog waste to taking photographs, would be arrestable offences.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-9084129.html

Last edited by bob++; 08-08-2014 at 09:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-08-2014, 10:30 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Back in Riderville
Posts: 17,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake
Obama had another citizenship as a child.
No.
I think Dr. Drake is referring to Obama's potential Kenyan citizenship through his father. If I recall correctly from previous threads, Obama was not a Kenyan citizen, but could have claimed it if he had moved to Kenya prior to a certain age.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-08-2014, 10:34 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Back in Riderville
Posts: 17,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
It's a moot point. The US does not recognized dual citizenships.
This is often said, but it doesn't match what is on the SecState web-page. When a dual citizen is in the US, they're treated solely as a US citizen, but it's not like the US denies the existence of dual citizens, or even requires a new US citizen to give up their other citizenship.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-08-2014, 12:33 PM
slash2k slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
I think Dr. Drake is referring to Obama's potential Kenyan citizenship through his father. If I recall correctly from previous threads, Obama was not a Kenyan citizen, but could have claimed it if he had moved to Kenya prior to a certain age.
Actually, I believe Obama was born a citizen of the UK and Colonies by virtue of Obama Sr.'s citizenship; when Kenya became independent in 1963, both Jr and Sr automatically became Kenyan citizens.

However, the President lost his Kenyan citizenship when he failed to take an oath of allegiance to Kenya by his 23rd birthday.

See Factcheck for cites to the controlling statutes.

None of this, of course, affects his U.S. citizenship by virtue of birth in Hawai'i.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-08-2014, 12:43 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 32,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
I think Dr. Drake is referring to Obama's potential Kenyan citizenship through his father.
The stated claim was that Obama did in fact once have another citizenship, not that he could have qualified for it.

He did not, neither Kenyan nor Indonesian.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 08-08-2014 at 12:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-08-2014, 12:46 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 32,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
Someone once suggested that this country is the USA's largest aircraft carrier.
Might have been George Orwell.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-08-2014, 01:12 PM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The stated claim was that Obama did in fact once have another citizenship, not that he could have qualified for it.

He did not, neither Kenyan nor Indonesian.
He did have a second citizenship—see the post above yours. As far as I know, like McCain he never claimed nor made use of it, and it did not overlap with his political career, and he certainly does not now.

My query was because RealityChuck made the claim that EVER being a dual citizen was a disqualifier, which directly contradicts his statement that the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship. (If they don't recognize it, why would they even consider it?)

I was looking for the logical that a dual citizen is somehow not a natural-born citizen, the initial claim that RealityChuck made, since it has never precluded any of the previous office holders (Obama, but also earlier presidents who were born with a claim to British citizenship, such as Chester Arthur).
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-08-2014, 01:29 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 32,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
He did have a second citizenship—see the post above yours.
No - he could have qualified if he applied for it in time, yes, but he did not do so and therefore did not have a second citizenship, despite your claim.

Quote:
the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship.
The US tolerates it, and only to a point. See Cecil.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-08-2014, 01:41 PM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
No - he could have qualified if he applied for it in time, yes, but he did not do so and therefore did not have a second citizenship, despite your claim.
I think you are conflating two things.

It is the government, not the individual, that determines whether someone is a citizen or not. When citizenship is conferred by birth (jus sanguinis), it is the act of birth that makes someone a citizen. The paperwork is merely formal recognition of it.

In Obama's case, when he was born he held British citizenship by jus sanguinis, through virtue of his father. The fact that the British government was never formally informed of his existence does not negate the fact that he held citizenship. Upon Kenya's independence and the creation of Kenyan citizenship, he became a Kenyan citizen by the same process. Read the factcheck cite above: it's very clear. Obama was a dual citizen from 1961, when he was born in Hawai'i, until 1984, when he Kenyan citizenship lapsed through lack of action on Obama's part.

Since this is GQ, can you provide a counter-cite to the Factcheck which states that one's jus sanguinis citizenship does not begin until a claim is filed?

All of this, in my mind, is absolutely immaterial to his status as a natural-born citizen of the USA.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.