If both parents are citizens and at least one has lived in US, then then they are citizens at birth, but only natural born if within the territories of the US -- the 50 states, places like PR. Location vs Law.

This gray area is related to the one about the status of US laws in places like Gitmo.

Children born to American citizens overseas (military base or not) are automatically American citizens just as if they were born here, any discussion to the contrary is asinine.

Having worked in a large US Army hospital in Germany, we delivered children daily, and all were US citizens from the moment they drew breath.

Let's talk about something real.

Did Obama have dual citizenship at birth, from his father being a citizen of Kenya, a British colony? I know he was a US citizen at birth. Several of us were discussing this recently and thought it possible that Obama might have Kenyan citizenship or even British Overseas Citizenship (assuming he had not renounced them).

A quick search that night did not find an answer, so I am curious if anyone actually has any facts in these areas:

1) Does Obama have any dual citizenship or rights there to (or did he have in the past)? If so, what kind?

2) What Presidents and VPshave had dual citizenship? (I know that Winston Churchill could have claimed USA because his mother was a US citizen; JFK later made him an honorary citizen.)

BTW Obama's father was not an immigrant from Kenya; he was an exchange student and they are generally not considered immigrants by the US.

First, my background: I graduated from Harvard Law and was for some seven years a law professor, specializing (in part) in citizenship issues and related matters. My point is that I have a lot of expertise in this area. (I am presently retired and living in Canada)

Today, I learned something fascinating from your blog: John McCain was not born in the US. That means he is not a "natural born" citizen in constitutional law terms. He was born in the Canal Zone, and accordingly is only a citizen because his parents were both US citizens and Congress grants citizenship to those with two parents born abroad. There is a special law (Title 8, Sec. 1403) which gives US citizenship to those with at least one American parent born in the Canal Zone. See also www.aca.ch/oncitz.pdf. (which correctly notes that the issue of "natural born" citizenship and its relationship to presidential qualification has never been specifically decided). (I include this reference because it is a nice summary of the leading cases).

Apparently, McCain's issue is starting to surface. According to the last news items I read, Attorney Ted Olsen has been asked by McCain to "look into" the issue. In my view, this issue will become a hot item, once someone with clout starts raising it.

Here's my take

McCain became a citizen not because of the constitution but under a law as established by Congress. It is not the law as established by the Constitution. The term "natural born" is used both in connection with the provision concerning Presidents and in the 14th Amendment. To be "natural born" one must be born within the territory of the US. The Canal Zone was never a formal state or territory of the US. McCain was basically born on a military base in a foreign land (under US control pursuant to treaty).

Congress specifically clarified the law when it legislatively stated that persons born of two foreign parents in the Canal Zone are not US citizens. Neither, by the way, are such persons born of two foreign parents in a US military base, or -- for that matter -- in a US embassy. If any of those places were really "US territory," then birth alone would be sufficient to give citizenship. Congress, in other words, would not need to pass a special law. (Or put it this way: if Congress can pass a law which made John McCain eligible as "natural born," why couldn't it do the same for Arnie S.? Yet no one believes that's possible).

(My own daughter was born in Canada of two US citizens. I don't think she is "natural born," either. She's not planning on running for president, fortunately).

I don't think McCain is eligible to be President. But the question is whether the DNC or someone else is going to raise that.

Personally, I think this is a hot issue. It was raised when George Romney was running for President (Romney was born in Mexico), but he never got close enough for the issue to catch on. This time it may well be different.

Another letter-writer mentioned the Bush/Cheney state residency situation. Is it really that the courts were not sympathetic to challengers' argument, or that there were no committed challengers? I seem to remember the latter, but I don't have any actual documentation to back that up...

I think it's egregious that Bush and Cheney were allowed to run on the same ticket...the latter was clearly a resident of Texas. The point of the rule isn't to make sure the paperwork is correct...and it showed when both showed themselves to be so wholly beholden to Texas oil interests...

There are all kinds of legitimate attacks to be made on John McCain, particularly given the utter emptiness of his "straight-talking maverick" routine, but this is stupid. As to those who are seeing a connection to Guantanamo, etc., McCain's being born on a military base really isn't relevant, since his parents were American citizens. He's perfectly eligible to be a lousy right-wing president; deal with it.

It's an interesting issue, and the NYT article is passable, but fails to really explain the relevant law. The fact is, while it's not a frivolous issue, there is almost no reasonable doubt that McCain is perfectly qualified to be President on this score. The 14th Amendment says that anyone "born ... in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is automatically a U.S. citizen from birth (thus, no one would dispute that such citizens are "natural-born" -- if they're not, who is?). McCain actually was born under U.S. "jurisdiction," because the Panama Canal Zone was (until the Treaty of 1978) under U.S. jurisdiction (as are any military bases or diplomatic embassies in foreign countries). He may not have been born "in the United States," because I think the Canal Zone (would have to research more to be sure) may not have been sovereign U.S. territory under the relevant treaties. By the way, contrary to the NYT article suggestion, there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Barry Goldwater qualified as a "natural-born citizen" directly under the 14th Amendment, because a territory like Arizona before statehood, where Goldwater was born, just like D.C. or Guam or Puerto Rico now, IS in fact part of the United States, so anyone born in such a place is born "in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The U.S. does NOT consist only of the 50 states!

Anyway, back to McCain. There has long been a federal statute on the books, pursuant to COngress's power to confer citizenship on additional grounds going beyond the 14th Amendment minimum standard, granting citizenship at birth to anyone born to U.S. parents outside the U.S. That's only a statutory basis for citizenship as opposed to constitutionalo, but there seems no logical reason whatsoever to think the "natural born" reference regarding Presidents has anything to do with a statutory vs. constitutional distinction. It seems to refer simply to whether someone becomes a citizen at the time of their natural birth, as opposed to being naturalized later. McCain was a citizen from birth, by operation of U.S. (statutory) law, just like someone born in the U.S. is a citizen from birth by operation of U.S. (constitutional) law.

Next issue.