Perverse Consequences
MichaelW on Feb 29 2008 at 10:57 am | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Election 2008, Law, Media, MichaelW's Page
Does it strike anyone else as tragically ironic that, if indeed John McCain were declared not to be a “natural-born citizen” due to the locus of his birth, then an “anchor baby” could be elected President but the child of an Armed Services member born overseas could not?
Think about that. Child of illegal aliens born on American soil: Presidential material. Child of American citizens born on a military base: Ineligible.
The scary thing is that this probably makes sense in someone’s world view.
Sphere: Related Content
Michael!
It makes Constitutional sense in my world view. Having been born and raised in the US, would you personally feel less American if your parents weren’t born here? The whole argument against born citizenship has a yucky “sins of the father” smell to it. Or is it just me?
By the way lawyer guy, certainly there’s got to be a law stating that the foreign born children of members of the military while on assignment are considered born US citizens, hasn’t there? I mean that’s something that occurs nearly every day I’m sure. If there isn’t, well then I think you’ve found your ticket to Congress. Run Michael run!
This makes Constitutional sense to you?
How so?
I’m not sure what that has to do with the question. There is no “feels like an American” requirement to be constitutionally eligible to sit as U.S. President. Are you making an argument against there being any “natural-born” distinction at all?
In fact, there are several, and one in particular that deals with the Canal Zone (if you root around these comments you’ll find the links). However, none of them uses the term “natural-born” even though they declare qualifying children as citizens at birth. What’s missing in the legal history of the term is a definitive statement from the U.S. Supreme Court or Congress saying exactly what the term means in the Constitution. We all know what it means, but legally it’s an x-factor.
This is, of course, what law professors exploit to make an issue out of.
I’m sorry Michael, I should have made it clear that I was referring only to half of the comparison, which is apples and oranges. The part of the Constitution which gives people born here a claim is different from the Constitutional restrictions on who can serve as President.
The only reason McCain wasn’t born in the US proper was because his parents were compelled by the governmnet to serve in a foreign locale. Disqualifying him from serving as President would not only be the meanest possible reading of the Constitution, it would be impossible to argue that the Founders intended to keep someone in McCain’s circumstance from running for President.
Foreign Embassies are considered US territory under the law, as are US ships at sea. Certainly foreign US military installations should be considered such as well.
I see. I think that’s right: “soil-born” is different than “natural-born.”
My only point was to highlight he absurdity of the position posited by some that McCain could not serve whereas a child of illegal immigrants could. As you note, it would take an awful lot of logical gymnastics to arrive at such a conclusion, and it would certainly subvert the intention of the Framers.