in response to the McCain controversy

A friend asked me what I thought, so I responded. This was on Facebook, so it is a little informal:

Whether McCain is a natural-born citizen has been getting press (well, minor press) for years, but it makes sense that the politicos would bring it up now. I think the US Constitution was created to define rights between the federal government, the states, and the people, and giving people rights is one of the big things, so it would make sense that “natural-born” would be interpreted broadly. Also, I just spent a few minutes perusing the INA, and sec. 303(a) says “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.” It seems to me that the distinction between “citizen” and “natural-born citizen” is just citizenship at birth. The courts should (at least I think they should) find that the use of “citizen” in the statute means “natural-born citizen.” There.

1 thought on “in response to the McCain controversy

  1. Hello! It’s Danielle. I found you while procrastinating on Facebook during class last week.

    Anyhow…I just wanted to pipe in my two cents: How about the fact that he was born on a military installation? Overseas military installations are generally considered American soil, thus anyone born on them would be an American citizen, no? Either that, or we have lots of little Army brats running around that are not American like their siblings but are German, Italian, Korean, etc.

    Have a good spring break!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.