[FoxTrot9R]

Oh in case you want to try to fry your brain with Natz law, you can figure it out yourself if you dont believe me. He was born August 29 1936

http://www.shusterman.com/cgi-bin/ex...a0fb4b04f5150f

[bird1965]

Originally Posted by FoxTrot9R

It seems his folks were American Citizens. So he is American. I am sure he made the retention requirements of the day. Jus Sanguinis can give you citizenship, not just Jus Soli

Jus sanguinis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jus soli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those mean nothing in American Law. Here is a quote from the actual Natualization Law: "All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Persons born in the United States, and persons born on foreign soil to two U.S. parents, are born American citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under 8 USC 1401. There is some debate over whether persons who were born US citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under U.S. law should also be considered citizens "by birth," or whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized." There is also some debate over whether there is a meaningful legal distinction between citizens "at birth" and citizens "by birth" since U.S. law makes no such distinction, nor does the Fourteenth Amendment use the term "at birth." Current U.S. statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth."[8] One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized."[9] Current State Department policy reads: "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."[10] However, this does not apply to those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for citizenship at birth.[11]" End Quote by reading that you can see there is some controversy over if McCain is citizen by Birth or by Law. Remember McCain was born in Colon(SP?) Panama not the Panama canal Zone. McCain is a citizen we are just not clear on what kind of citizen.

[FoxTrot9R]

Originally Posted by bird1965

Remember McCain was born in Colon(SP?) Panama not the Panama canal Zone. McCain is a citizen we are just not clear on what kind of citizen.

Well as you can see, fro the Nationality chart that I posted, he is an American citizen. Where he was born is completely irrelevent. He did NOT naturalize. I see what you are trying to say. For instance person x is born in India to Indian parentage. He later comes to America and Naturalizes. He could not be president. The difference with McCain is this, his parents are US Citizens. As both of his parents are citizens he derived citizenship the moment he was born, as long as one of his parents resided in the US prior to his birth. Since they /he met the retention requirements, he has always been a US citizen. If he had not met the retention requirements of the day, he would has lost his status and we would have a different discussion. Do not let the fact that he was or wasnt born on something considered us soil confuse you. The chart I showed refers to Children Born Outside U.S. in Wedlock. Outside the USA, not a territory or province or military base. In a completely different country. So by this example he is a citizen and always been by virtue of birth. I have studied Naturalization law extensively. Also, Jus Soli is still very applicable to American Law. Childeren born to Soldiers overseas off military bases use Jus Soli. Missionaries have a child overseas, child would use Jus Soli to get citizenship. When the "anchor babies" of today begin to have children in Mexico, it will be Jus Sanguinis that gets them citizenship. Jus Sanguinis is used to figure foreign born childrens citizenship daily. So it has plenty to do with American Law.

[bird1965]

Originally Posted by FoxTrot9R

Well as you can see, fro the Nationality chart that I posted, he is an American citizen. Where he was born is completely irrelevent. He did NOT naturalize. I see what you are trying to say. For instance person x is born in India to Indian parentage. He later comes to America and Naturalizes. He could not be president. The difference with McCain is this, his parents are US Citizens. As both of his parents are citizens he derived citizenship the moment he was born, as long as one of his parents resided in the US prior to his birth. Since they /he met the retention requirements, he has always been a US citizen. If he had not met the retention requirements of the day, he would has lost his status and we would have a different discussion. Do not let the fact that he was or wasnt born on something considered us soil confuse you. The chart I showed refers to Children Born Outside U.S. in Wedlock. Outside the USA, not a territory or province or military base. In a completely different country. So by this example he is a citizen and always been by virtue of birth. I have studied Naturalization law extensively. Also, Jus Soli is still very applicable to American Law.

But the chart is NOT the Law. If an American couple who are natural born citizen moves to say Iran and have a kid in Iran not on a diplomatic mission but just living there or anywhere would the kid be a "Natural born" citizen or just a citizen? Also IF it was so clear why is the Law so unclear on this point as shows in the above quote from the actual Law? You don't want a court decision? I think it is too late as a Repub Lawyer has filed this exact same case against McCain in a cal. court. Whoever wins in that Cal court the decision will get Appealed and you don't think the SC should here this case. EDIT no doubts McCain is a citizen some doubt whether he qualifies under the Natural Born part.

[Rastas]

Originally Posted by bird1965

But the chart is NOT the Law. If an American couple who are natural born citizen moves to say Iran and have a kid in Iran not on a diplomatic mission but just living there or anywhere would the kid be a "Natural born" citizen or just a citizen? Also IF it was so clear why is the Law so unclear on this point as shows in the above quote from the actual Law? You don't want a court decision? I think it is too late as a Repub Lawyer has filed this exact same case against McCain in a cal. court. Whoever wins in that Cal court the decision will get Appealed and you don't think the SC should here this case. EDIT no doubts McCain is a citizen some doubt whether he qualifies under the Natural Born part.

What part of "natural born" don't you understand. Due to his parents being citizens he was an U.S. citizen at the time of his birth....natural born citizen.

[FoxTrot9R]

Originally Posted by bird1965

But the chart is NOT the Law. If an American couple who are natural born citizen moves to say Iran and have a kid in Iran not on a diplomatic mission but just living there or anywhere would the kid be a "Natural born" citizen or just a citizen? Also IF it was so clear why is the Law so unclear on this point as shows in the above quote from the actual Law? You don't want a court decision? I think it is too late as a Repub Lawyer has filed this exact same case against McCain in a cal. court. Whoever wins in that Cal court the decision will get Appealed and you don't think the SC should here this case. EDIT no doubts McCain is a citizen some doubt whether he qualifies under the Natural Born part.

Well I really could care less about the decision. That chart is the law. The info is contained in its entireity in the INA ( Immigration and Naturaliztion Act), which is where all Immigration law comes from. Ill post a link for you, but youll have to search for the passeges, as it is not layed out in chart form in the INA. The link I posted just copied it down. It is not their opinion, it is Federal Law. As far as the difference, you had quoted an 8USCcode, they are generally used differently than the INA. If they make a ruling thats fine, trust me, it will be in McCains favor. Feel free to poke around CIS website, it will tell you what you are looking for.

Citizenship of Children

Immigration and Nationality Act

[bird1965]

Originally Posted by Rastas

What part of "natural born" don't you understand. Due to his parents being citizens he was an U.S. citizen at the time of his birth....natural born citizen.

That is not true according to Law. The Law is murky yes but some (including me) take it to me exactly what it says you must be born in the US to be a Natural born citizen. So Arnold's kid, IF Arnold moved backed to Austria, would be born in Austria but would be a natural born US citizen that makes zero sense.

[bird1965]

Originally Posted by FoxTrot9R

Well I really could care less about the decision. That chart is the law. The info is contained in its entireity in the INA ( Immigration and Naturaliztion Act), which is where all Immigration law comes from. Ill post a link for you, but youll have to search for the passeges, as it is not layed out in chart form in the INA. The link I posted just copied it down. It is not their opinion, it is Federal Law. As far as the difference, you had quoted an 8USCcode, they are generally used differently than the INA. If they make a ruling thats fine, trust me, it will be in McCains favor. Feel free to poke around CIS website, it will tell you what you are looking for.

Citizenship of Children

Immigration and Nationality Act

None of those things seem to trump the Naturilization LAW not Act of 1795 which took away the Natural Born status of those born on the high seas or in foreign terrotory which is where McCain was born a foreign country.

[FoxTrot9R]

Originally Posted by bird1965

That is not true according to Law. The Law is murky yes but some (including me) take it to me exactly what it says you must be born in the US to be a Natural born citizen. So Arnold's kid, IF Arnold moved backed to Austria, would be born in Austria but would be a natural born US citizen that makes zero sense.

I am sorry that it makes zero since. I can not really comment on your example, as I do not know Arnolds Immigration status. Is he a citizen of the US? But if the baby he had with Maria Shriver was born in Austria, it was be a Natural Born Citizen, by virtue of her American Citizenship. Being a Natural Born Citizen simply means you were born and were a citizen. Period. Not how or where or any of that. If you were a citizen when you were born , you are natural born citizen. On the other side of the coin, if you had to petition and file paperwork and take a naturalization test, prior to obtaining you citizenship, You are a Naturalized citizen. You would have entered America, spent some time as a LPR( Lawful Permanent Resident) and done everything necessary to obtain citizenship (read/write/speak/understand english, not commited a CIMT(crime involving moral turpitude) etc). But in a all reality, I will let you think whatever it is that you want. I just wanted to give you the facts, not trying to argue with you.

[FoxTrot9R]

Originally Posted by bird1965

None of those things seem to trump the Naturilization LAW not Act of 1795 which took away the Natural Born status of those born on the high seas or in foreign terrotory which is where McCain was born a foreign country.

Ok so this is last thing I will post. The INA does trump the previous versions of Immigration Law. It was ammended and ratified in 1952, and is the ONLY Immigration act/law which is legally relevant, because any act/laws passed after the INA become included in the INA. Dont let the fact that it says ACT and not LAW throw you. It is the Law. Anyway Suerte bro.


The first paragraph addresses you concern over the whol Immigration law of 1795 and All of the previous Laws inclusion into the INA. SOmehtings were changed when entered, obviously.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia