posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Gazrok
I believe the only thing the Constitution says is "natural born", but technically, a child of two parents (who are not US Citizens) could be born
here, and that child could be President?
Yes. The existing law and rationale is based on a Supreme Court case from 1898,
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, where the court found Ark was a US
citizen at birth, despite his Chinese parentage. From the opinion—
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty,"
"obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such
allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not
restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity
so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. ...
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are
natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as
of England. ...
We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here
with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
The exceptions are—
[T]he children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation
of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be
said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
The child would (by most nations) have dual citizenship.
Dual citizenship is of no consequence to US citizenship, particularly if it was
acquired by involuntary means, like by virtue of birth, as was the case with Obama. From a Supreme Court decision concerning the alleged loss of US
citizenship by acquisition of a foreign citizenship, Perkins v. Elg
And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law, on the resumption of that
citizenship by her parents, does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a
citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or
congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.
What about McCain? He was born in the Panama Canal area...so technically, was he even eligible to run? I never really looked into it much, but
Considering the common law principles and precedents, and US Supreme Court case law, at this moment there isn’t a conclusive
answer to that question.
From a strict interpretation, McCain might not be considered a natural born citizen, seeing as his citizenship was granted by a naturalization statute
(8 USC 1403
) several months after McCain’s birth.
However, if the Supreme Court had to rule on it, it’s incredibly unlikely they would deem McCain to have not been eligible, and I wouldn’t have a
problem with that decision.
edit on 19-4-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)