Comments on: Times: John McCain not a real American?

By: bobthepeeler

bobthepeeler — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:00:56 +0000

So that’s why McCain believes what he does about illegal immigration: he’s from south of the border too.

By: DavePa

DavePa — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:23:38 +0000

The Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by the first sitting of the US Congress, declared:
.
“And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”
.
Since John McCain is the son and grandson of US Navy Admirals, we can reasonably assume that his father was a “resident of the United States”.
.
Now, I found that information about natural born citizenship after a 3 minute Google search. That the Times apparently did no such search, nor apparently consulted the Times’ own legal staff says to me that either:
1. The writing and/or editing staff of the New Times are incompetent;
AND/OR
2. The writing and/or editing staff of the New Times are so biased against John McCain that they will write this so-obviously wrong and even wilfully dishonest article.
.
Had I any respect left for the New York Times before I read this, which I didn’t, the Times would have just lost it. As it is, the story merely adds to my contempt for that wretchedly biased birdcage liner.

By: Connie

Connie — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:05:28 +0000

Has anyone seen a copy of Obama’s birth certificate? It’s too bad he was born after Hawaii became state. /s Kinda.

Is McCaskill’s Sense of the Senate going to lead to any other discussions? Are they still pushing to get Ahnold to the Oval Office?

By: pueblo1032

pueblo1032 — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:52:35 +0000

Welcome to MSM politics Mr. McSham. You lay down with dogs, you’re gonna get fleas. You are now paying for the ENDORSEMENT. First payment, many to come.

By: Cowardly political musings...

Cowardly political musings... — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:15:49 +0000

Real Americans versus naturalized Americans……

Are you a real American or a naturalized (a.k.a fake) American? A post at HotAir seems to imply that some Americans are more real than others. The title reads:
Times: John McCain not a real American?
The Times never asked that. The Times had an article…

By: jed58

jed58 — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:57:19 +0000

Please, please, please NYT, keep pushing this issue with McCain. Then we can start bringing in to discussion sluts from south of the border wwho want to drop their baby load on this side of the border and continue to show who you are.

By: jimbo2008

jimbo2008 — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:30:34 +0000

It’s simple: Parents are US citizens = children are US citizens regardless of where they are born.

By: Squid Shark

Squid Shark — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:49:57 +0000

Belay my last about Hawaii, sorry :)

By: Squid Shark

Squid Shark — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:43:21 +0000

“Of course the Canal Zone was the territory of these United States. And if he’d been born a few years earlier, Barak! Obama (sorry, a bit of a sinus thing going around these days) would likewise have been born in the Territory of Hawaii.”
Both wrong! The canal zone was rented from the Nation of Pananma but was never a territory of the U.S., ALSO Obama was born in 1961, after Hawaii became a state.

By: TomLawler

TomLawler — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:26:40 +0000

You know it seems strange to me that a person born of two american citizens can not be a ” NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ” while at the same time an illegal mexican can give birth on U.S. soil and the child is given that right of birth.

The laws that currently allow ILLEGALS TO HAVE NATURAL BORN CHILDRED was meant to allow freed slaves and thier children to be treated as american citizens. AND NOTHING MORE.

Get real folks. If McCain is not an american then I just do not know who is an american citizen.

“thats all i have to say about that”
forrest gump

By: Chuck

Chuck — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:10:22 +0000

Besides, if the Times thinks this to be an issue, then why did they endorse McCain in January? Didn’t they bother to do their research on him then?

They were waiting until he was in.
I bet they have a whole lot of stories like this,,,, and the lobby lady affair,,,,
That’ll come out between now and November

We oughtta start a pool on how many McCain hit peices they do before the election and the winner can get a genuine Michelle Malkin autographed picture,,,,,

Through their e-mail

By: Dave R.

Dave R. — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:34:25 +0000

John McCain is a real American, but he ain’t no real conservative.

By: homesickamerican

homesickamerican — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:25:46 +0000

Richard Disney is not correct. Americans born to American citizens in overseas embassies, military bases, or other U.S. territory have no need to be naturalized. They are citizens at birth.

The law code states that there are at least 8 ways to be born a citizen, with no need for naturalization. McCain fits at least three of the different categories for not requiring naturalization.

G. Charles on February 28, 2008 at 5:06 PM

yes. as i said in my original comment when this item was in “headlines”, i was born to U.S. citizens on a U.S. airforce base in spain. i am most definitely and without a shadow of a doubt “natural born” and NOT “naturalized”. no “grey area” whatsoever. furthermore, logic should tell us that there is even less “grey area” in mccain’s case, since he was born not just on a U.S. base in a foreign country like me, but on a U.S. base in a U.S. territory.

but hey, who said logic has anything to do with bureaucracy, much less with the NYT’s editorial process!

By: Richard Disney

Richard Disney — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:09:55 +0000

G. Charles, tell me why I am not correct. McCain’s parents filed paperwork to declare John McCain a citizen of the United States. By definition that means he is naturalized.

By: 91Veteran

91Veteran — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:58:14 +0000

Good ol’ drive-by media. And these morons snivel and wonder why the military overwhelmingly votes Republican.

If they truly wanted an answer, they should have asked the Obamanation or the Seahag if they thought McCain (and any child of a military member born outside the US) was qualified.

A smear campaign based on rumor, and a whisper campaign for the Republican candidate.

While on the left, with hard facts such as laundering money through Chinese dishwashers…maybe a mention on the back page…for a day.

How’s that stock price Pinch?

By: Scribbler

Scribbler — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:14:48 +0000

One is reminded of another Arizonan– the redoubtable Barry Goldwater. The man ran for President in 1964, and nobody questioned the fact that he was not born in the States– but in what then was the Arizona Territory. Of course the Canal Zone was the territory of these United States. And if he’d been born a few years earlier, Barak! Obama (sorry, a bit of a sinus thing going around these days) would likewise have been born in the Territory of Hawaii. But for that reason nobody would deny the man’s eligibility to run for the office– his capacity being another matter altogether.

By: Hog Wild

Hog Wild — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:19:46 +0000

This kind of reporting is nothing more than anti-military campaign. That somehow the child of a deployed servicemember born outside the U.S. is somehow less of an American than those born within the U.S. borders. That children of illegal aliens (anchor babies) born inside U.S. borders is more of an American than a child of U.S. servicemembers serving abroad?

Slipshod journalism at it’s finest….

By: Redhead Infidel

Redhead Infidel — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:23:03 +0000

I always thought “natural-born” referred to the automatic American citzen status of a child born to American parents even while overseas. It’s not like McCain is a “naturalized” citizen. He was born to it.

It seems fairly simple to me.

By: jeffNWV

jeffNWV — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:09:39 +0000

This is just about as stupid as the posts on Obama’s middle name. People here seem to be caught up in peripheral. Mccain’s not getting my vote because I don’t appreciate the attitude he’s expressed toward “true conservatives” and I don’t identify with the man. Does anyone honestly believe that either candidate will be eliminated because of citizenship rules? Please, the best republican for democrats is Mccain.

By: mycowardice

mycowardice — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:20:31 +0000

G. Charles on February 28, 2008 at 5:06 PM

I don’t disagree with most of what you said. My point is that, when attempting to resolve a conflict, if there is a discrepancy between what the Constitution says and what the law says, the former will trump the latter. Current or past laws, practices, customs, etc can help when deciphering unclear provisions (for example, what it really means to be “natural born”).

By: Mormon Doc

Mormon Doc — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:52:12 +0000

This is ludacrisp! That’s a phrase from my oldest boy when he was 4. Never was a word more appropriate for such a ridiculous assertion.

By: davidk

davidk — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:44:22 +0000

The guy spent time in a POW camp on our behalf. He’s eligible.

By: orlandocajun

orlandocajun — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:25:33 +0000

So the Times thinks that anchor babies are Americans but question the heritage of McCain? It seems to me that everytime they try to smear McCain, they’re actually helping him. I mean, who in the hell are they talking to? The lunatics on the left already hate him. The moderates and conservatives are sick of that kind of tactic. So, I say let them continue throwing “Pitches in the dirt”. The way I see it, they’re helping him.

By: steveegg

steveegg — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:19:27 +0000

Besides, if the Times thinks this to be an issue, then why did they endorse McCain in January? Didn’t they bother to do their research on him then?

I suppose this qualifies as the world-famous Hot Air Exit Question™. The answer is so they could try to fire this particular torpedo at him in the event he becomes the Republican nominee.

I’m rather surprised they didn’t wait until after the November election to fire it and try to really create a Constitutional crisis, either with the Electoral College or with the House of Representatives that certifies the Electoral College vote.

By: John Walker

John Walker — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:18:45 +0000

The rhetorical structure of this story is also indicative of the bankruptcy of the legacy media. Note:

“…are reviving a musty debate…”

and then read the rest of the piece and try to find a single person arguing that McCain (and Goldwater, and Romney the elder, and Weicker) were ineligible.

Doesn’t a debate imply people both for and against the proposition, and not just furrowed brows amongst the scribblers at the Times and law professors who are paid to argue hypotheticals in journal articles nobody reads?

(Comment posted to complete registration for an immigrant from Captain’s Quarters.)