The Naturalization Act of 1795
superseded and expressly repealed the 1790 law. Therefore the 1790 law has no effect today.

---
Huckabee/Hunter '08

Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<

First a definition for clarification:

Jurisdiction: the territory over which authority is exercised. 

As to the  United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795, Section 3 states

"... and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States...",

which means that if this Act were used to determine citizenship status of McCain, then he would not be a naturalized citizen but a natural born citizen because the Panama Canal Zone was under the jurisdiction of the US at the time of his birth.

On to soil versus blood.

Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline ) which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

While bloodline is not expressly embodied in the words of the Constitution, certain "statute(s)" grant citizenship called "derivative" and not "naturalization". 

c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

Note the use of "jurisdiction" again, in this case used to denote that merely having a military installation or a consular facility does not mean control of a territory.  The US has a military base and a diplomatic facility in Germany but the Germans have control over the German territory.  IMO, the above refers to foreign nationals who give birth in one of those facilities mentioned, that their offspring is not automatically granted US citizenship.  The goal is not to encourage foreign nationals to give birth on American installations for a jackpot entrance into the USA.  The same goes for foreign diplomats, enemy occupation, Foreign ministers and their offspring, even if born on American soil/territory, including those born of foreign nationals on a foreign registered ship while in US waters.  The opposite is true for offspring of American citizens, though ancillary statutes to the Constitution grant the citizenship... and their is no calculus of "naturalization" involved. 

Interestingly, a foreign national giving birth on a foreign registered airline (eg Quantas) while over US territory would not confer US citizenship to the child, yet, an illegal alien held in a US territory detention center who gives birth would confer US citizenship to the offspring.

c. Historically, Congress, through statutes, granted U.S. nationality, but not citizenship, to persons born or inhabiting territory acquired by the United States through conquest or treaty. At one time or other natives and certain other residents of Puerto Rico, the U.S.Virgin Islands, the Philippines, Guam, and the Panama Canal Zone were U.S. non-citizen nationals.

Once again this is dealing with foreign nationals and not offspring born to US citizens. 

7 FAM 1116.1-1 States and Incorporated Territories

(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

a. The phrase “in the United States” as used in the 14th Amendment clearly includes States that have been admitted to the Union. Sections 304 and 305 of the INA provide a basis for citizenship of persons born in Alaska and Hawaii while they were territories of the United States. These sections reflect, to a large extent, prior statutes and judicial decisions which addressed the l4th Amendment citizenship implications of birth in these and other U.S. territories. Guidance on evidence on such births should be sought from CA/OCS.

b. Sec. 101(a)(38) INA provides that, for the purposes of the INA, The term “United States”,... when used in the geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States. In addition, under Pub. L. 94-241, the “approving Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America”, (Sec. 506(c)), which took effect on November 3, 1986, the Northern Mariana Islands are treated as part of the United States for the purposes of sections 301 and 308 of the INA.

c. All of the aforenamed areas, except Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, came within the definition of “United States” given in the Nationality Act of 1940, which was effective from January 13, 1941 through December 23, 1952.

d. Prior to January 13, 1941, there was no statutory definition of “the United States” for citizenship purposes. Thus there were varying interpretations. Guidance should be sought from the Department (CA/OCS) when such issues arise.

So, there were NO definition of what constituted the USA when it came to determining citizenship prior to 1/13/41.  Whatever was decided at that time was the ruling. 

Since the word "jurisdiction" comes up frequently in the discussion of what is US territory, I would believe that the birth of John McCain to American citizens in the Panama Canal Zone meets "jurisdiction" qualifications.  From Wikipedia:

 From 1903 to 1979 the territory was controlled by the United States of America, which had built and financed the canal's construction.

"Control" equates to "jurisdiction" and qualifies as US territory, which would mean that McCain's birth was on US Territory by US citizen parents, thereby granting McCain "natural born" citizenship status as outlined in the  US State Department document you linked.  (IF McCain's parents were BOTH foreign nationals, then you would have an argument)

There is little in your argument to change my opinion that McCain is nothing less than a "natural born" citizen, even by the documentation you reference.

The only thing you have demonstrated on this thread is your inability to read information differing from what your beliefs are, and your inability to critically think, which is legion (and that depresses me to no end).  Not to mention an irritating ability to insult my intelligence, which was gained by direct personal experience as outlined above.

My sister's birth certificate clearly states that she is a U.S. citizen, because she was born to two U.S. citizens.  End of story.  She is a citizen of the United States because she was born to two U.S. citizens.  The status of the territory on which she was born (a hospital on land leased from the German government) is 100% immaterial.  And so it goes with McCain, who was born in similar circumstances for similar reasons.

I realize you want your populist hero to win in the worst way, but instead of taking this route (how dim is the light in the hold you are digging now?), you MIGHT want him to try and beat McCain on the issues.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.