Burn-E Posted April 25, 2011 Report Share Posted April 25, 2011 There is a difference? Sheesh, you're both wrong on this account. Military installations and Embassies may be considered islands of US sovereignty but not for a child whose parents are not US citizens. Although the Panama Canal Zone back then was part of the US territories. Erik however is probably referring to the murky question on US citizenship that existed for those born of two US citizens in the Panama Canal Zone since the Supreme Court ruled in 1905 that those children were US nationals but not citizens. The only problem with his argument is that Congress in 1937 passed a retroactive law that resolved this question. Although the Panama Canal Zone was legally an unincorporated U.S. territory until the implementation of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties in 1979, questions arose almost from its inception as to whether the Zone was considered part of the United States for constitutional purposes, or, in the phrase of the day, whether the Constitution followed the flag. In 1901 the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Downes v. Bidwell that unincorporated territories are not the United States. On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated: "While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country." Accordingly, the Supreme Court held in 1905 in Rasmussen v. United States that the full Constitution only applies for incorporated territories of the United States. Until the rulings in these so-called "Insular Cases", children born of two U.S. citizens in the Canal Zone had been subject to the Naturalization Act of 1795, which granted statutory U.S. citizenship at birth. With the ruling of 1905 persons born in the Canal Zone only became U.S. nationals, not citizens. This no man's land with regard to U.S. citizenship was perpetuated until Congress passed legislation in 1937, which corrected this deficiency. The law is now codified under title 8 section 1403. It not only grants statutory and declaratory born citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone after February 26, 1904, with at least one U.S. citizen parent, but also did so retroactively for all children born of at least one U.S. citizen in the Canal Zone before the law's enactment. The rules back then were different from what they are today though for children born to a US citizen outside of the country - in general it also comes to how long the child lived outside of the US after birth and how recently their parent(s) lived in the US and for how long both prior to the birth and after it. It's similar to how my 4 girls all have rights to Canadian citizenship but thanks to the law change that occurred in 2009 only 3 of the 4 have rights to pass that citizenship on to their children. Immigration laws are constantly changing and it's always a question of what rules were in effect at the time of birth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greekone Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110427/ts_yblog_theticket/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
besthaticouldo Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 he released the short form over 2 years ago. this is not news. he just released the long form to get trump to shut his big mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappo Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 he just released the long form to get trump to shut his big mouth. Not going to happen. Trump is enjoying the spotlight and will simply move on to something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyROTech Posted April 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 Not going to happen. Trump is enjoying the spotlight and will simply move on to something else. must first to see if its real. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volvotool Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 Is this a joke? Obama was born in Hawaii. Period, end of discussion. Anyone who's tempted to put a "yeah, but" on that sentence is welcome to put down a deposit on Ted Kacyynski's cabin, if you're not already living there. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 Is this a joke? Obama was born in Hawaii. Period, end of discussion. Anyone who's tempted to put a "yeah, but" on that sentence is welcome to put down a deposit on Ted Kacyynski's cabin, if you're not already living there. Actually, it's not the end of discussion if that's your basis for argument - that he was born in Hawai'i. One could question whether Hawai'i was ever legally integrated into the United States as a State. In other words, was the plebiscite in 1959 a legal procedure? Or did it violate the sovereignty of the native Hawai'ians? One could claim that the statehood vote, both in terms of the questions asked and the people who were allowed to vote, was in no way a valid act of self-determination, and did not legitimize the occupation. Many non-tinfoil hat wearing lawyers have concluded that Hawai'i has never legally been a State of the United States. Try again. I think the whole Obama isn't a citizen discussion is ridiculous but there's no question he is simply because his mother was a US citizen first and foremost. Besides, you never answered the poll questions. :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volvotool Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 One could question whether Hawai'i was ever legally integrated into the United States as a State. "One could" but there's no end to that argument. Sh*t happens. You live your life in isolation, then one day some mean, ugly people show up with superior weapons and your way of life is over. It's Istanbul, not Constantinople now. Yes, Obama was born to an American mother IN an American state. End of that discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 It's Istanbul, not Constantinople now. They Might Be Giants FTW! B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan A Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 I like how some of you answered No to #1 and Yes to #2. :rolleyes: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts