nm

and yes, he was born in mexico. that was a problem that they had no problem with.

this latest rmoney is also a problem, but not for this issue. we all agree that he's a natural born citizen.

I thought McCain was a military brat and so therefore he could be born wherever he wanted because his father was at base. Bruce Willis was born in former West Germany but on a military base there, so technically even he would be eligible to run for president.

I have also heard that because Cruz's mother is an American citizen, he is still eligible to run. Which still boggles my mind about the hubbub over Obama: even if he was in fact born in Kenya, he would still be eligible to become POTUS because Ann Dunham, his mother, was still an American citizen. He could have been born on Mars as long as one parent was American.

(NB: It would be great if he's related to Lena Dunham.)

But yeah, I know birtherism was never about the constitution or the rule of law. It was about "he's too brown to be president, so let's throw in doubts about whether he's 'one of us'." They don't really care about Latinos either. Cruz is "eligible" in their eyes only because he doesn't have the same complexion as George Lopez. It's all about being white enough.

and that at the time of his birth, there was absolutely nothing to grant him citizenship at all, never mind the natural-born variety.

my understanding was that the law granted citizenship retroactively to anyone who was born to at least one u.s. citizen parent (assuming they filled out the right paperwork or whatever within the right timeframe). so mclame became a citizen under that law.

I vaguely remember either someone comparing the McCain situation to Bruce Willis or Bruce Willis saying it himself.

Also, constitution question. Say McCain died midway through the '08 campaign, leaving Palin to run (I know, mass suicides would ensue, but bear with me). Let's say that both Palin and Obama were born in 1956 in their respective states (Alaska and Hawaii), well before either became a state in 1959 (Congress had approved statehood by 1958 but the "official" certification did not happen until '59). Eligibility for POTUS is restricted to natural-born citizens of the "United States," but does that mean that the place of birth has to have already become a state at the time the person was born, or is the statehood designation applied retroactively, i.e. even though Alaska and Hawaii weren't states yet, they are now, rendering the point moot?

Are people born in Puerto Rico eligible to become POTUS, or does it have to be an actual state and not just a territory/possession? What if someone was born in a place that used to be under U.S. possession (i.e. if someone was born in the Philippines in 1940, six years before it became an independent nation in 1946), but isn't anymore? Does the law go by what it was when the person was born or what it is now?

add his name to the list of dubious "natural-born citizens" who nevertheless have run for president.

the courts have never resolved the matters, and never defined "natural-born citizen".

it seems most likely that any court case would only happen *after* someone questionable had already been elected, and at that point the court would be hard pressed to overturn a national election on a technicality, so most likely they would let the election stand, almost no matter what the circumstances.

arguably the original intent was to prevent anyone born in britain from becoming president, so perhaps it's no great loss for the "natural-born" part to fade into irrelevance.

fun fodder for discussion though!

i don't think being born in the canal zone is relevant. if a panamanian couple was brought into the canal zone and gave birth there, would the baby be considered a u.s. citizen? i don't think so.

my understanding is that people born in u.s. territories like guam and american samoa are not automatically u.s. citizens. i don't know if the same applies for people born in puerto rico.

No BC ... it all goes out the window, Teddy.