Most active commenters
  • NoMoreNicksLeft(4)
  • wbl(4)
  • FuriouslyAdrift(4)

←back to thread

116 points mooreds | 12 comments | | HN request time: 0.689s | source | bottom
Show context
bombcar ◴[] No.45655813[source]
For reference, the US has procedures for this: https://www.usa.gov/citizenship-no-birth-certificate because people without birth certificates are still somewhat common, even children.

Vermont didn't require it until 1955!

replies(10): >>45655877 #>>45655962 #>>45656082 #>>45656231 #>>45656476 #>>45657045 #>>45657177 #>>45657357 #>>45658997 #>>45661562 #
nostrademons ◴[] No.45656231[source]
My dad was born in the Philippines in 1939. He came over to the U.S. on a Taiwanese passport in 1959, part of a group of students that MIT imported from the Philippines based on letters of recommendation from their Atomic Energy Commission, and then bounced around on various visas for a decade. Finally got citizenship upon marrying my mom in 1971.

When McCain was running for president, there was a big court case about whether being born in the Canal Zone (a U.S. territory) qualified as being a "natural born citizen". And I made the connection - "Wait. The Philippines was a U.S. territory in 1939. Shouldn't dad have had birthright citizenship?"

Moot point by then, he'd already been a citizen for ~40 years, and died the next year. But it was wild to think that the 10+ years of immigration hassles were basically due to an administrative fuck-up, and that legally, he should have had citizenship all along. The process you link wouldn't work for him, either, because the Philippines is not a U.S. territory now.

replies(4): >>45656308 #>>45656419 #>>45656921 #>>45670778 #
NoMoreNicksLeft ◴[] No.45656308[source]
>And I made the connection - "Wait. The Philippines was a U.S. territory in 1939. Shouldn't dad have had birthright citizenship?"

Unless your dad was part of the elite ruling class which gets to skip and ignore all the rules, the answer is an emphatic no. However, if he was the son of an admiral from a long line of important people who had been in the Senate for years and finally wanted to run for president, well, then Congress might just decide that he's good enough and give their stamp of approval to all of it.

Was your dad the son of an admiral who had been in the Senate for years and finally wanted to run for president?

Besides, the thing with McCain wasn't about whether he was a citizen or not... this was 100% the case. The trouble was that McCain didn't become a citizen until 3 years old. And "natural born citizen" can't happen for a kid who's already 3, nor can Congress pass laws that are ex post facto, meaning they couldn't retroactively declare him natural born. He was absolutely disqualified from running, and if he had had an ounce of decency he would have accepted that and quit pressing his claims.

replies(1): >>45656367 #
wbl ◴[] No.45656367[source]
McCain was the child of two citizen parents and thus a citizen at birth.
replies(2): >>45656729 #>>45659284 #
1. NoMoreNicksLeft ◴[] No.45656729[source]
Legally, he was very much not a citizen at birth. You are simply incorrect. In the year in which he was born, children of citizen parents born overseas were not citizens at birth... that only changed 3 years later when Congress passed a law making it so.

At that point he became a citizen, and not before.

replies(4): >>45657119 #>>45658433 #>>45659305 #>>45668292 #
2. mrgriscom ◴[] No.45657119[source]
None of the founding fathers were US citizens at birth because the US didn't exist yet.
replies(2): >>45658436 #>>45659321 #
3. wbl ◴[] No.45658433[source]
It seems lawyers are very divided on this. And he was never naturalized so I think there's a strong case for him being natural born.
4. wbl ◴[] No.45658436[source]
There is a separate proviso for that!
5. FuriouslyAdrift ◴[] No.45659305[source]
The Cable Act of 1934 allowed his mother to transmit citizenship by blood
replies(1): >>45661115 #
6. FuriouslyAdrift ◴[] No.45659321[source]
There wasn't a concept of citizenship in the original Constitution until the Naturalization Act of 1790
7. NoMoreNicksLeft ◴[] No.45661115[source]
"Allowed" is the operative word. It didn't define it. There was still a process to follow.
replies(2): >>45662097 #>>45673476 #
8. wbl ◴[] No.45662097{3}[source]
The expatriation act of 1907 specifically called those children citizens and I don't think the Cable act is relevant here.
replies(1): >>45673448 #
9. 542354234235 ◴[] No.45668292[source]
>In the year in which he was born, children of citizen parents born overseas were not citizens at birth

This is completely incorrect and is not what the issue was with his citizenship. John McCain was born in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone, the area around the Panama Canal that was controlled by the US. The Naturalization Act of 1855 granted birthright citizenship to foreign born children of a US citizen father [1], and was reaffirmed in 1878 [2]. The Equal Nationality Act of 1934 added that a US citizen mother could also confer citizenship to children born abroad [3].

Most interpretations considered The Canal Zone to be foreign territory for citizenship purposes. The issue was in the extremely specific wording of the Acts, which was that children of US parents born “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” were granted citizenship. The Canal Zone was outside the limits of the US, but was technically under the jurisdiction of the US. So, depending on how you interpret the Act, children born in The Canal Zone are in a weird no man’s land, where they don’t get citizenship as a result of being born in the US, but also technically aren’t on totally foreign territory, which would give them their parent’s citizenship. In 1937 (a year after McCain’s birth, not three years), Congress passed 50 Stat. 558, explicitly making children born in The Canal Zone to a US citizen parent US citizens [4]. There was no citizenship law 3 years after McCain’s birth, but the Nationality Act of 1940 was four years after, however, its significant change was allowing children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother to be given citizenship [5].

[1] “persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.” extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-10/pdf/STATUTE-1...

[2] “All children heretofore or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.” Original Statutes of 1878

[3] “Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such a child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child.” 8 FAM 301.5 SECTION 1993, revised statutes of 1878 extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-48/pdf/STATUTE-4...

[4] “any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-50/pdf/STATUTE-5...

[5] “The provisions of section 201, subsections (c), (d), (e), and (g), and section 204, subsections (a) and (b), hereof apply, as of the date of birth, to a child born out of wedlock, provided the paternity is established during minority, by legitimation, or adjudication of a competent court.” 8 U.S.C. 605; 54 Stat. 1139 https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030106.html

replies(1): >>45676336 #
10. FuriouslyAdrift ◴[] No.45673448{4}[source]
The Expat law of 1907 dealt with naturalization of children born abroad to citizens and that female US citizens would LOSE their citizenship if they married foreign nationals.
11. FuriouslyAdrift ◴[] No.45673476{3}[source]
You had to file the paperwork at the local consulate. If you didn't the child would have citizenship and it was a mess. Lots of American servicemen, their war brides, and children dealt with this after WWII.
12. NoMoreNicksLeft ◴[] No.45676336[source]
My bad. 1 year. I concede the dates as you have outlined.