WaPo nine weeks behind the Times on McCain citizenship

posted at 9:40 am on May 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

At the end of February, the New York Times launched its odd broadside against John McCain, alleging that some rational basis for denying him the Presidency might exist because of his birth at an American military base in Panama — to two American citizens, one of whom was stationed there in service to the US. Apparently, the Washington Post didn’t learn from the guffaws that article produced, because Michael Dobbs reports on the exact same subject more than nine weeks later:

Article II of the Constitution states that “no person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of president.” The problem is that the Founding Fathers never defined exactly what they meant by “natural born citizen,” and the matter has never been fully tested in court. At least three pending cases are challenging McCain’s right to be sworn in as president.

Jurists on both sides of the political divide, consulted by the McCain campaign, insist that the issue is clear-cut. They argue that McCain is a natural-born citizen because the United States held sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone at the time of his birth, on Aug. 29, 1936; because he was born on a U.S. military base; and because his parents were U.S. citizens.

But Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University who has studied the “natural born” issue in detail, said the question is “not so simple.” While she said McCain would probably prevail in a determined legal challenge to his eligibility to be president, she added that the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision.

“The Constitution is ambiguous,” Duggin said. “The McCain side has some really good arguments, but ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution.”

They have “really good arguments”? Please. No one has ever suggested before now that a person born of American citizens at an American military base has any other status than natural-born American citizenship. Otherwise, all children born abroad in military families would have to be naturalized when they came back to the United States. The Constitution doesn’t create a separate category of unnaturalized citizenship, which makes the case rather plain.

As I wrote in February when the Times published its equally-absurd entry on this question:

It’s a slam-dunk to the millions of military families whose service to this country should have left then with no doubts about their children being relegated to second-class citizenry. They sacrificed enough for their country without having to sacrifice the futures of their children. Any other conclusion would amount to a penalty for military service on those who did not volunteer.

The Founding Fathers recognized this. They passed a bill in 1790, three years after the adoption of the Constitution, which made clear that “natural born” applied to children born of American citizens “outside the limits of the United States”. That law remains in effect and has never been challenged. At the least, it speaks to the intent of the founders when they used the term “natural born” in the Constitution.

It’s beyond absurd to argue that John McCain doesn’t qualify to run as an American for the presidency. The candidate or party that files a lawsuit to challenge him on this point runs the risk of alienating a large swath of the public who have served this nation in uniform, in diplomacy, and in government.

Dobbs never mentions the 1790 act in his article, but he manages to work in some fairly deceptive text. For instance:

People born in some U.S. territories, such as American Samoa, are not recognized as citizens of the United States.

In fact, they are recognized as US citizens if born of US citizens. Furthermore, that’s not even an analogous situation. McCain was born on an American base of American parents, one of whom was stationed there by the US Navy. This only adds to the absurdity of Dobb’s reporting on an absurd issue.

McCain is a natural-born citizen eligible for the Presidency. This ridiculous notion either highlights the desperation of his political opponents or the intellectual bankruptcy of the media that insists on debating a non-issue.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Actually this is coming up again because yesterday the Senate passed a resolution asserting that McCain is a “natural born citizen.”

Although some think the resolution is a ploy.

Number 2 on May 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Are American Military Bases US territory?

EJDolbow on May 2, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Thanks for the headsup on this, Ed. I just called ICE and gave them the location of my daughter, born in Germany while I was in the Army. I always knew there was something odd about her.

Limerick on May 2, 2008 at 9:47 AM

If he had been born on February 29, would he be disqualified as a 17-year-old?

mymanpotsandpans on May 2, 2008 at 9:50 AM

Are American Military Bases US territory?

EJDolbow on May 2, 2008 at 9:46 AM

As I understand it, military installations and embassies sit on what is considered sovereign US soil.

What I want to know is when the English language became so convoluted that “natural born citizen” can be so “confusing”. Up until this year, wasn’t it understood that phrase meant people who were citizens by natural right? E.g., granted citizenship by way of natural right (born to citizens, not adopted, etc., etc.).

chrisro on May 2, 2008 at 9:54 AM

If I ever needed any more cementing of my opposition to Obama, it was his idiotic attempt to be magnanimous to McCain by offering to sponsor a bill specifically tailored to address this situation.

Yes, there was confusion on this issue at one time. I was born in Okinawa at a US base hospital, and when my US citizen parents brought me to the States, the red tape merchants at immigration made my mom get me naturalized in addition to filing the report of US citizen born abroad. Of course, she later found out this wasn’t necessary.

Screw you, Obama…I don’t need a gesture of your good will to be regarded as a full-fledged US citizen. With your parentage, your citizenship should be more in question than McCain’s or mine.

James on May 2, 2008 at 9:55 AM

Apologies for saying “natural right” twice unnecessarily for saying “natural right”.

Makes me sound silly.

chrisro on May 2, 2008 at 9:55 AM

I love it when MSM makes a fool of itself for all the world to see.

petefrt on May 2, 2008 at 9:56 AM

What do they have to do to become embarrassed? I mean, if I wrote something like that in a major paper I would be humiliated.

right2bright on May 2, 2008 at 9:56 AM

Ed, I am not sure that:

No one has ever suggested before now that a person born of American citizens at an American military base has any other status than natural-born American citizenship. Otherwise, all children born abroad in military families would have to be naturalized when they came back to the United States.

Is an accurate statement. My wife was born on a US base in what was West Germany. When she was 18 she had to go before a judge and pledge her loyalty to the United States. I am not sure if this means that she is a nautalized citizen or not, but on her passport, under “place of birth,” it says West Germany.

dentalque on May 2, 2008 at 9:56 AM

And the New York Times wonders why they are losing readership.

Maxx on May 2, 2008 at 9:57 AM

My guess is the netroots have been deluging the Post’s political desk demanding that they look into this, and today’s article was a “throw them a bone” response. Cindy Sheehan complained back in 2005 that the people at the Post’s D.C. office brushed her off as a nutcase when she tried to make her case personally, before the left adopted her as their anti-Iraqi war poster child for absolute moral authority.

Unlike the Times, the Post has shown moments where it’s not off in unicorn and rainbow fantasy land when it comes to things like children of U.S. military personnel born overseas. But unlike complaints from the right, which are brushed off without any qualms, loopy people or ideas on the left are reported on sooner or later when they reach critical mass, because the Post’s management has to deal and even live with these types every day in and out of the office.

jon1979 on May 2, 2008 at 9:57 AM

Number 2 on May 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM

They went through with it? Dammit, I can’t express how angry I am at this without getting banned. Thanks a f-ing lot, Congress, for spitting in my face.

James on May 2, 2008 at 9:57 AM

dentalque on May 2, 2008 at 9:56 AM

That’s interesting. Are/were both her parents US citizens?

dish on May 2, 2008 at 9:58 AM

This is coming from the same mindset that “feels” if you manage to sneak into this country, you are entitled to all the benefits it provides its citizens, plus free health care and living above the law.

Hening on May 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM

dish on May 2, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Yes, born and raised in Connecticut. My father-in-law was in the army at the time and serving there.
I believe that my wife and her brother had the option to declare German citizeship at that time of the loyalty oath. This was an issue for her brother as Reagan has just started draft registration at the time this occured. I do not remember the details and I will not see her until tonight when this threat will be very stale.

If someone knows more, I would like to hear it.

dentalque on May 2, 2008 at 10:12 AM

But Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University who has studied the “natural born” issue in detail, said the question is “not so simple.”

For most academics, nothing is ‘simple’ because there is no black or white, only a billion shades of gray.

rockbend on May 2, 2008 at 10:16 AM

I had a friend, now departed from this mortal sphere, who was born in Hawaii in September 1942 while his father was stationed there. I used tease him about not being a citizen, but of course he was, even though Hawaii wasn’t a state in 1942. It’s a no-brainer.

Bob's Kid on May 2, 2008 at 10:23 AM

None of this would be even the slightest concern if the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment were clarified by the SCOTUS but that wouldn’t so soft and furry for some millions of children born to illegal aliens on US soil, thus every effort to get the fourteenth before the SCOTUS has been blocked.

Speakup on May 2, 2008 at 10:26 AM

dentalque on May 2, 2008 at 10:12 AM

I have a girlfriend who was also born in WGermany in the ’60′s. I’ll ask her. It’s possible that it was German law at the time and she could have declared German or American citizenship. I believe some countries allow for a dual citizenship for children born on foreign soil, but I assumed a US base was US soil…Maybe it was the politics of the times. Here is a website that might help:
http://www.aca.ch/icitiz.htm

dish on May 2, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Has Obama ever produced a birth certificate?

How do we know he is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?

Red Pill on May 2, 2008 at 10:30 AM

A couple of points here:

(1) All individuals born in the United States or its sovereign territory are natural born US citizens.
(2) We have status of forces agreements with many nations that declare US Bases as sovereign US territory. When we were the occupying power in Germany and Japan after the war and I believe all US bases were so declared
(3) John McCain was born in the US Panama Canal Zone, which was sovereign US territory in its entirety until we turned it over to Panama under the Carter-era treaty.

In 1964, some people suggested that Barry Goldwater was ineligible for the Presidency because he was born in Arizona territory in 1908. The argument was dismissed as nonsense by commentators from both political parties. Perhaps this was the case because Goldwater was going lose big time anyway and the Democrats had yet to transform themselves into a totalitarian party. The Democratic Party of today is more likely to press this issue if it helps elect a socialist president in 2008.

jerryofva on May 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM

Although the MSM probably wouldn’t even raise the issue if he was born in Mexico and crossed the border illegally.

kirkill on May 2, 2008 at 10:48 AM

(3) John McCain was born in the US Panama Canal Zone, which was sovereign US territory in its entirety until we turned it over to Panama under the Carter-eraCarter Error treaty.

Fixed.

dentalque on May 2, 2008 at 10:51 AM

“The Constitution is ambiguous.”

Yeah, but would it be ambiguous if a Democrat had been born outside the U.S.? In fact, the Constitution is not even remotely ambiguous on this; Article I, sec. 8 gives Congress the right to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Thus, to the extent that the meaning of “natural born” is not, on its face, clear enough to include the child of two U.S. citizens born on a U.S. military base on territory controlled by the U.S., the fact that Congress’ “uniform Rule of Naturalization” accords citizenship to someone in McCain’s position (see 8 U.S.C. sec. 1401) makes this so abundantly clear that anyone who doubts it is: 1) an ignoramus; 2)a moron; 3) a law professor; 4) a die-hard and completely unprincipled Democrat desparate to ensure, at any cost, that McCain can’t become president; or 5) (most likely) a combination of some or all of the above.

morganfrost on May 2, 2008 at 10:56 AM

My wife is a foreign national, and were we to have a child anywhere in the world, that child would have the right to US citizenship without having to be naturalized, so long as we declared the birth at the local US embassy. Likewise that child would have the right to citizenship of her country after declaration at her embassy. In her country’s case, dual citizenship is allowed so the child would be able to hold citizenship in both nations.

For a foreign born child to have a right to be considered a natural born citizen only requires one parent to be a US citizen, and it doesn’t matter whether the birth occurs on a US base or even if you’re affiliated with the US government/military in any way. Having lived/travelled overseas for much of my life, I know this as a fact, which is why I nearly bust a gut laughing when this whole thing started.

Cowboy is a compliment on May 2, 2008 at 11:05 AM

My understanding, and this is from dating a “Zonian” woman for over a year, is that all the kids born in the former US Canal Zone were granted dual citizenship US/Panamanian. So McCain is likely a Panamanian as well as a great American Hero. (and unfortunately a terrible Senator).

I’ve visited the Zone twice in my lifetime, once when it was US and just two months ago. The US still has the right to defend the canal with our Military.

kirkill on May 2, 2008 at 11:13 AM

kirkill:

That applies to children of Panamanian ancestry not to US citizens born in the Canal Zone. When McCain was born the Zone had the same status as the Philippines, Guam, Hawai, Alaska, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

If Barak Obama grew up in Puerto Rico instead of Hawaii he would still be eligible to run for President because the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is sovereign US Territory.

jerryofva on May 2, 2008 at 11:21 AM

One of my friends is an old hippy who lived in Europe during the late 60s and early 70s. She married a Northern Irish guy and they moved around. Eventually she ended up in the Canary Islands, where she had twin girls. They are both US citizens from birth, as mom is a US citizen. All they had to do was register the birth with the US consulate in the Canaries. (Interesting tidbit: since dad was a UK citizen, the girls also received UK citizenship when they turned 18 and requested it).

sdillard on May 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM

jerryofva,

Ok, that makes sense then. The parents of the woman I dated fits that description. Her father was born in the US and was stationed in the Air Force, and her mother was Columbian, but was probably naturalized as a Panamanian.

kirkill on May 2, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Jim Lindgren at Volokh had a brief post on the subject having to do with the meaning of Natural Born

Dusty on May 2, 2008 at 11:32 AM

Eugene Volokh posted with the link for the Yale Law Journal article (pdf) which was cited in that NYT’s story.

Dusty on May 2, 2008 at 11:47 AM

If Barak Obama grew up in Puerto Rico instead of Hawaii he would still be eligible to run for President because the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is sovereign US Territory.

jerryofva on May 2, 2008 at 11:21 AM

That’s true… up to a point.

Under the Jones Act of 1917, every person born in PR is considered a US citizen; however, if born in the territory, one cannot run for the Presidency and, if a resident of PR, one cannot vote in the Presidential elections. That’s why you don’t see any native Puerto Rican trying to run for President nowadays. Of course, for those born here in the Mainland, the story is different.

As for the Presidential elections, since we as PR residents cannot vote, one has to wonder why campaign there for delegates to the conventions, since our sole Delegate in Congress does not have a vote on the floor.

newton on May 2, 2008 at 12:08 PM

What confuses the left is this “natural” born part of the statement. First, they are confused, why wouldn’t they abort him. Second no conservative could be natural, we are a freak of nature. Third, if they wanted him to be a citizen, they would have crawled under the fence and used a hospital here in the U.S. Fourth, the Panama Zone was an illegal territory illegally occupied by illegal armed forces from the illegal U.S…Carter understood this and gave it back. Fifth, and final…because…

right2bright on May 2, 2008 at 12:36 PM

As for the Presidential elections, since we as PR residents cannot vote, one has to wonder why campaign there for delegates to the conventions, since our sole Delegate in Congress does not have a vote on the floor.

newton on May 2, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Because a Shark can become a Jet? (I am dating myself)

right2bright on May 2, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Well the fast way to settle this is to ask McCain if he has a green card, if he says “no,” …. then he must be legal. Isn’t’ that the way the LEFT usually settles these issues?

Maxx on May 2, 2008 at 12:51 PM

[newton on May 2, 2008 at 12:08 PM]

That’s part of the reason so much of this issue is so convoluted. The question begins with what natural born means. If the founders took it to mean what the bench mark at the time, i.e., English Law, then, of course, McCain is natural born. That this is the view seems backed up by Congress’ elaboration on it in 1790 Act.

But that is a statute as is all legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. Yet, that is also what SS1401 of Title 8, is and that defines those born in PR as: citzens at birth. Now even if you might in some way reason that those who were alive at the time of the passage of this law as not natural born citizens, because they were granted it by the legislation, what about the children of those born of these citizens or the children of these children? Your explanation would seem to put them still outside the realm of “natural born” for the purposes of running for President. On it’s face, that doesn’t seem any more right than denying McCain natural born status, imho.

This apparent contradiction such as it seems, brings us bak to legal differences in terms and what differences accrue when speaking of Constitutional text and Statutory text. It’s why the issue is uncertain.as opposed to certain. It’s why the McCaskill’s resolution, which is “non-binding”, was moronic and a waste of political posturing time.

Dusty on May 2, 2008 at 12:56 PM

Has Obama ever produced a birth certificate?

How do we know he is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?

Red Pill on May 2, 2008 at 10:30 AM

This is a very good question. The media is not asking it. I would like to see the outcome of the passport investigation by the state department.

Entelechy on May 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM

[Entelechy on May 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM]

Let it be an October surprise.

Dusty on May 2, 2008 at 1:22 PM

OMG
Don’t forget he resided in a Communist nation at war with the US for five years! Damn traitor.

RobCon on May 2, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Mitt Romney’s father George ran for president in the sixties. He was born in a foreign country (Mexico?) to US citizens. There was never any question that he was a US citizen. There was plenty of discussion about whether he was a “natural born citizen” as used in this one clause in the Constitution. It wasn’t resolved at the time as he dropped out of the race.

burt on May 2, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Ed, I am not sure that:

No one has ever suggested before now that a person born of American citizens at an American military base has any other status than natural-born American citizenship. Otherwise, all children born abroad in military families would have to be naturalized when they came back to the United States.

Is an accurate statement. My wife was born on a US base in what was West Germany. When she was 18 she had to go before a judge and pledge her loyalty to the United States. I am not sure if this means that she is a nautalized citizen or not, but on her passport, under “place of birth,” it says West Germany.

dentalque on May 2, 2008 at 9:56 AM

Dental,
Way back when, kids born to US parents in Germany gained “dual-citizenship,” but it wasn’t permanent, at age 18 they had to declare one or the other. Her oath to the judge wasn’t a naturalization, it was more of a rejection of her rights to the German citizenship and affirmation of her American one. That’s changed now, my own daughter born not long ago in Germany on a US base to a non-US non-German mother cannot in any fashion be claimed by Germany, and couldn’t be even if born off-base, she is an American. She has claim to Congolese citizenship if she were to seek it, but she won’t ever be required to make a choice in order to keep her American citizenship, as Congo hasn’t already “granted” citizenship as Germany used to.

A bit confusing, but anyone confused about McCain’s status as a US citizen is either terminally stupid or cravenly disingenuous.

Maquis on May 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM

So, if a person is born as a result of in-vitro
fertilization, is that also not a natural born citizen?

gary on May 2, 2008 at 6:40 PM

Maquis on May 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Thanks, that clears it up a bit. It is not surprising that laws have changed since the 60′s. I also understand that Germany has had immigration from (Muslim) Turkey and does not want them to give them unlimited citizenship.

A bit confusing, but anyone confused about McCain’s status as a US citizen is either terminally stupid or cravenly disingenuous

I agree 100%

dentalque on May 2, 2008 at 6:54 PM