# Setting the record straight on Americans born overseas and the presidency? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 14, 2013, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/setting-the-record-straight-on-americans-born-overseas-and-the-presidency/666177 "2013-08-14T01:46:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/setting-the-record-straight-on-americans-born-overseas-and-the-presidency/666177/121 "2013-08-19T16:41:20Z")
> [@Tee](#): > > Unless I missed something, I doubt it’s been resolved that McCain was not a citizen at birth. The circumstances of my birth are similar to his, born elsewhere to US citizens, one on active duty. Geographic location didn’t seem to be the determining factor in my case, and I’m not sure why it would be in his. The law was different in 1936 when McCain was born. The law back then was phrased in such a way that NO ONE born in the Panama Canal Zone would automatically become a citizen. Because of the way the law was phrased and because of the unique status of the Canal Zone, it was apparently the only place in the world where this applied. In 1937, one year after McCain was born, Congress passed a special law that applied only to the Canal Zone that made everyone born there to a US Citizen parent after 1904 a citizen. The special law that was passed in 1937 and applied only to Panama is still in effect. You can read it here: [8 USC § 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/setting-the-record-straight-on-americans-born-overseas-and-the-presidency/666177/122 "2013-08-19T16:45:51Z")
Congress had to pass a statute defining children born to US parents in the Panama Canal Zone (and some other places) as NBCs. You were probably born long after its passage. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/setting-the-record-straight-on-americans-born-overseas-and-the-presidency/666177/123 "2013-08-19T16:49:09Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Congress had to pass a statute defining children born to US parents in the Panama Canal Zone (and some other places) as NBCs. You were probably born long after its passage. The law made them citizens. It said absolutely nothing about whether they were or weren’t Natural Born Citizens (NBCs). [Please read the law](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403), it’s very short. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/setting-the-record-straight-on-americans-born-overseas-and-the-presidency/666177/124 "2013-08-19T16:50:56Z")
I stand corrected. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/setting-the-record-straight-on-americans-born-overseas-and-the-presidency/666177/125 "2013-08-19T17:36:34Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > The law back then was phrased in such a way that NO ONE born in the Panama Canal Zone would automatically become a citizen. Because of the way the law was phrased and because of the unique status of the Canal Zone, it was apparently the only place in the world where this applied. In 1937, one year after McCain was born, Congress passed a special law that applied only to the Canal Zone that made everyone born there to a US Citizen parent after 1904 a citizen. I understand that much, but the question makes two separate assumptions: that baby McCain was not eligible for citizenship due to location of birth, and that it was then granted by the 1937 law. McCain could have, and probably did, attain citizenship at birth due to both parents being US citizens, married, and (at least one) in military service on active duty. I do not think it has ever been resolved that he was not, in fact, a citizen at birth under those conditions. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/setting-the-record-straight-on-americans-born-overseas-and-the-presidency/666177/126 "2013-08-19T17:49:48Z")
> [@Tee](#): > > I understand that much, but the question makes two separate assumptions: that baby McCain was not eligible for citizenship due to location of birth, and that it was then granted by the 1937 law. > > McCain could have, and probably did, attain citizenship at birth due to both parents being US citizens, married, and (at least one) in military service on active duty. I do not think it has ever been resolved that he was not, in fact, a citizen at birth under those conditions. Just saying “attain citizenship at birth due to both parents being US citizens, married, and (at least one) in military service on active duty” does not make it so if the law in 1936 did not say so. [Read Professor Chin’s paper and the rebuttals here.(pdf)](http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/mccain.pdf) It will explain the reasoning to you. Then let us know if you agree or disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/setting-the-record-straight-on-americans-born-overseas-and-the-presidency/666177/127 "2013-08-20T00:11:30Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > Just saying “attain citizenship at birth due to both parents being US citizens, married, and (at least one) in military service on active duty” does not make it so if the law in 1936 did not say so. > > [Read Professor Chin’s paper and the rebuttals here.(pdf)](http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/mccain.pdf) > > It will explain the reasoning to you. Then let us know if you agree or disagree. There is not much reasoning to assess, just the statement that McCain was not born a citizen and (or because) no statute in effect at the time applied to births in the Panama Canal Zone. The idea of a problem area, a “no man’s land” being in effect suggests a debate, an open question, some kind of decision-making process and is therefore subject to habit, custom, precedent, courtesy, protocol, special dispensation, or whatever. Chin spends no time on that from what I can see and supplies only the judgement. His own. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/setting-the-record-straight-on-americans-born-overseas-and-the-presidency/666177/128 "2013-08-20T03:58:19Z")
> [@Tee](#): > > Unless I missed something, I doubt it’s been resolved that McCain was not a citizen at birth. The circumstances of my birth are similar to his, born elsewhere to US citizens, one on active duty. Geographic location didn’t seem to be the determining factor in my case, and I’m not sure why it would be in his. Yeah, you obviously missed something. Unless you were born in the Panama Canal Zone before 1937, your situation is irrelevant to McCain’s. McCain’s father’s military status also had nothing to do with the question. I explained early in the thread the unique status of the Canal Zone and why according to the law prevailing in 1936 children born to US citizens in the Zone technically did not qualify for US citizenship at birth. The fact that the law was changed in 1937 specifically to grant them citizenship indicates that they were, in fact, not citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/setting-the-record-straight-on-americans-born-overseas-and-the-presidency/666177/129 "2013-08-20T13:29:31Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > The fact that the law was changed in 1937 specifically to grant them citizenship indicates that they were, in fact, not citizens. Well, not necessarily. It indicates that there was a _question_ about whether they were citizens. There is a great deal of case law indicating that individuals born in Panama during the relevant period are not US citizens, absent the statute (US v. Connolly, 552 F.3d 86, for example). However, there is none indicating whether individuals born in the PCZ during the period would not otherwise be citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/setting-the-record-straight-on-americans-born-overseas-and-the-presidency/666177/130 "2013-08-20T14:31:22Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > Even if that was some sort of colossal drafting error, under what legal theory could a court overturn it? Courts don’t overturn otherwise Constitutional laws just because they think that Congress didn’t really mean to say what they said. Or can you provide an example where they have done so? I can. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/setting-the-record-straight-on-americans-born-overseas-and-the-presidency/666177.md?page=6)