Talk:Panama Canal Zone

Zonians

What about mentioning something about the unique culture of the 30,000 (or more?) people who lived in the Canal Zone, including generations born and raised there? They retained their US citizenship but were culturally distinct. Any Zonians out there? Mediterraneo 18:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Mediterraneo

Do you mean 1979 not 1999 "From 1977 to 1999 the canal itself was under joint U.S.-Panamanian control"

Anon, In a way, you are correct. The Canal was under US/Panama control until 1999; the Zone was under US control until 1979. Is isn't just you, the BBC got confused as well. - Thanks, Hoshie | 04:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence of the article lacks a finite verb. Can someone who knows more about the Panama Canal Zone than I do insert an appropriate verb? 71.7.174.107 (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be glad to, if you could explain a little more and help me through it - my education is primarily technical, and while I consider myself a reasonably good writer I'm not sure what you mean by a "finite verb." Mark Shaw (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Township links

Its mostly my fault (I added the list to the article some time ago), but almost all the links to townships point to other things with the same name.

(Not my fault) This is true for the case of the township, Rousseau. The link currently points to Jean Jacques Rousseau, the philosopher and author. I believe the township was actually named for Henry H. Rousseau, a civil engineer who helped lead the construction of the Canal as a member of the Panama Canal Commission and eventually a Rear Admiral in the U.S. Navy. See http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/abstract/button_viewfull.gif See also: http://www.archive.org/stream/officialregister25unit/officialregister25unit_djvu.txt Nkennington (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

US Military Presence

The Canal Zone was US Southern Command HQ & had many forts, bases, and personnel...yet this is barely mentioned.--24.196.175.110 10:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• It should be, I agree. Perhaps you could write about it.--Wehwalt 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Too much stamps

I feel there is too much information about stamps...if you want to write about stamps, please split this article.

• Actually I think the issue isn't that there's too much about stamps, but just not enough about everything else. So get cracking. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 17:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Claim

The claim that "Panamanians were not allowed to freely enter the Zone" is absolutely false, except for some short periods of unrest (most recently in the mid-to-late 1970s). There were, by the terms of the 1903 treaty, restrictions on who could and who could not shop in Canal Zone retail stores, but this was protectionism for Panamanian businesses and had nothing to do with anyone's freedom of movement. Mark Shaw 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Information about the 1964 riots

Mark Shaw posted the following to my user page, but it belongs here:

"If you want to put something in about the 1964 riots, that's fine - it's an interesting story out of history. Unfortunately, not much is known about it as both the US and Panama tried very hard to keep as many details from their respective populations at the time.

As far as the rest of what I've just removed from the page, it's non-factual (e.g. most Zonians I grew up with had quite a sufficient command of the spanish language) and of a tone not suitable for an encyclopedia."

The text referred to an article from Time Magazine. Your claim that the assertion of Zonians being complacent about the Spanish language is original research, while the article is verifiable research. (As an aside, I can testify that most US military & dependents in the Zone were indeed complacent about speaking Spanish, but that is also original research.)

The same article is the source for information about the riots, limited and US-centric as it may be. We are faced now with a Wikipedia entry which doesn't mention the riots at all. I fail to see how this article is improved by removing the cited information.

I didn't author the twice-deleted section, but I did try to clean it up a bit. Hiram Mark, please try to be clear about what makes the tone of the section inappropriate, because I intend to restore it--after some discussion here (not my user page, please...other contributing editors are unlikely to visit it).--Son of Somebody 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems here, I think, is that there is some confusion about who qualifies as a Zonian. This is a topic of fierce debate within that community. Some hold that only civilian Panama Canal Company workers and their dependents qualify, while at the other end of the spectrum others state that everyone who ever lived in the Zone, including military personnel stationed there, however briefly, are Zonians. The moderate consensus agreement seems now to be that if you spent enough time there to think of it with a sense of homesickness, you qualify. (Yes, this is original research, but there's nothing else available unless one wishes to pore over something like the archives of the Zonelink Yahoogroup.)

Anyone who will have spent enough time in the Zone to qualify as a Zonian will, of necessity, have learned at least enough Spanish to get around. I personally know of only two Zonians whom I would say are unilingual, but of course I have also known many others, passing through the Zone, for whom we would have to translate. I can't speak to the Time article itself, but if it makes a claim inconsistent with what I've written here, my response is that it is incorrect in this regard.

At any rate, even assuming that that factoid is correct, it's not germane to the topic itself. I could write a long and passionate passage about how hated Jimmy Carter is in the Zonian community, and while it would be factually accurate, it would be similarly inappropriate.

As far as the 1964 riots, I believe a short and dispassionate mention somewhere in the entry would be appropriate, along with a link to the WP entry. Mark Shaw 14:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Within the context of the article and riots, Panamanians didnt care who qualified as a Zonian. Thats for snobbish Zonian-Americans to debate. There were lots of Americans there, and most were temporary, and didn't care and/or didn't need to learn Espanol. Becuase there was lots of Americans. To the Panamaninans, they were all "Americans". The riots played an important role in changing US policy, and the facts mentioned in the Time article are germane to understanding the cultural shape of the former Canals Zone.--24.196.168.68 22:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're simply not correct, at least as far as the slur on Zonians. There was a good deal of culture clash, but mostly limited to individuals predisposed to racism and xenophobia - such as exist in any society. Similarly, there were no more "snobs" among us than in the larger population. And the claim about "most" Zonians being "temporary" or not bothering to learn Spanish is quite simply false - unless you're speaking of military personnel on short rotation, in which case you're really not talking about Zonians at all (and, yes, the definition is important in this case).

If the "Time" article claims any of the above about Zonians, I think it can be pretty well ignored where its slant and tone is concerned. The raw facts about the riots and how they shaped future US policy towards Panama would be more appropriate, and in keeping with the NPOV policy - but let's remember that there's already a Wikipedia entry on the riots, so any treatment here should really be abbreviated and referential. Mark Shaw 17:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Zonian" needs its own entry. It's a matter of pride for longterm american zone residents and as such, a sidebar issue blocking progress on this page, which is not nor should be ABOUT "zonians". To the US mainstream media ("Time") and Panamanians, any American who lived in the zone was a Zonian. The notion that we should ignore a "Time" article (which described/shaped opinions) in favor of the above original research is a stretch, to say the least.--24.196.168.68 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Zonian" has its own entry. It needs to be expanded, but it's there. Take a look.

I'm not arguing for ignoring the "Time" article. I'm saying that the slanted content and outright lies which appear in it have no place here. I have no problem with the idea of using it for a reference provided that we stick to the facts and avoid parrotting controversial commentary. Mark Shaw 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional material added about the townsite of Cocoli and other stuff about the Zone in general

The following was added by the user IJSam yesterday. There's a lot of valuable material here, but it really needs to be cleaned up and formatted properly before being added to the page. I've cut-and-pasted it here to preserve it until this can be done. Mark Shaw 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cocoli was a town on the west side of the Panama Canal in the Panama Canal Zone near Miraflores locks. Its location was atypical as most people lived in communities on the east side of the Canal Zone. Access was by bridge over the Canal. It was built in the 1930's as housing for personnel constructing the never finished third locks. It subsequently housed military personnel and then civilian employees. Most of the population were white U.S. citzens and black English speaking decendents of West Indians imported to construct the canal in 1903 to 1914. Spanish speaking Panamanians were not permitted to live in Cocoli or in the Canal Zone. .The white residents were on the "Gold" payroll and the black employees were on the "Silver" payroll. The Gold payroll employes and the Silver payroll employees shopped in different stores. This was enforced because each was issued different colored script when they were paid. This script was in the form of coupon books that were required to shop in the stores. The medical clinic and public restrooms and the schools were also segregated. The black employees lived in a separate part of town called "Silver Town". This separation was justified on the basis of citizenship but race was the subtext. The only exception to this separation was that the children of black U.S. citizens could attend the white school but had to sit in the back row. There was only one such family in Cocoli. This all ended, except for housing, when President Truman desegregated the U.S. Armed Forces. Cocoli consisted of residential housing for Panama Canal Company employees and their families. It had a clubhouse, commissary, medical clinic, churches and an elementary school. The middle school, high school and hospital were in Balboa. The housing consisted of the typical Canal Zone two bedroom, two story, fourplexes elevated one story above ground. The town of Cocoli has mostly been razed. The remaining seventy year old wooden buildings are in disrepair and are surrounded by a chain link fence to prevent unauthorized habitation.

SPANISH LANGUAGE

When I entered 7th grade in Balboa Jr High School, my introduction to the Spanish language began. I learned the Panamanian National Anthum (Panamania Panamania Panamania vida mia) and instruction in the Spanish language was initiated. Prior to that time we spoke only English. There were Spanish speaking Panamanians. They zipped by in their buses called Chivas. English speakers rode in differant buses or drove cars. Some people had maids at $1.00/day plus lunch (usually arroz con pollo). They either spoke or learned English rather quickly. Of course, you would meet Spanish speaking people at work but they uniformly also spoke English. This is based on my personal experiance living in the Zone. By the way, our sense of Zonians was that they were the permanent resident U.S. citizens. Military, West Indians, Panamanians not included. There were times when you needed to know Spanish such as when you crossed Fourth of July Avenue into Panama City to buy a lottery ticket. The daily newspaper was printed in English on one side and was printed in Spanish on the other side. I read the English side. However, even if you did not learn Spanish in school. you often picked it up as the citizen of a small English speaking country surrounded by a much larger Spanish speaking country. But, the bottom line is that you could live your entire life in the Paname Canal Zone and never speak Spanish.IJSam

Added IJSam's signature - IJSam, it helps to sign your contributions to the talk page. Use four tildes (~~~~)

I'm curious - when were you in the Zone, and on which side? (I assume Pacific as you mention Fourth of July Avenue, now called "Avenida de los Martires.") My recollections of prices and the level of Spanish expected of Zonians is somewhat different than yours; but I do know the culture changed somewhat over the years. For the record, I was there from 1959-1978; Pacific Side. Mark Shaw 00:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Growing Up in the Zone

We arrived in the Zone in 1944. My father was a civilian employee of the Panama Canal Company. We lived in Gatun, Gamboa and later in Cocoli and Balboa. During the war, things were in short supply. When the war ended we received our first shipments of canned tomatoes, milk and toys. Canned tomatoes were important because we needed canned toimatoes to make tomato sauce. We tried tomato juice but it did not work. But the Japanese never attacted the canal and that was our major concern. I remember standing on the edge of the track used by the mules (elecric tractors) to pull the ships through the locks and watching the battle damaged ships pass by. The sailors tossed their hats and I grabbed a blue hat and a white hat. When we sent them to the Laundry to be washed, they never came back. The climate was pleasant, 85 degrees, humid, rain each afternoon in the rainy season and no rain in the dry season. It was so humid that we had a small elecric heater in each of our closets to reduce the moisture in our clothes and control the ever present mold. We rented our apartment and the furniture was government issued brown metal furniture. The beds were flat spring with cotten mattresses. The residences were elevated on posts with metal guards around each post to prevent termites and other insects from climbing up. The windows were all screened. Some could not be closed but a large roof over hang kept out the rain. But the insects still got in. Cockroaches laid eggs in the furnature and scorpions were in your clothes( This happened once to me in my bedroom). People had pets. One family had a parrot while another had a sloth. One family had horses which they kept in the brush. My father worked for the Marine Division. He eas responsible for the small boats that ferried pilots to and from the ships that transited the canal. After the war we were able to go to the States and purchase an automoble. This allowed us to travel all around Panama. We went to Fort San Lonrenzo on the Atlantic side guarding the Chagres River. At that time, it was still in old, overgrown and rusted but still unpilfered condition. The cannon, stacked cannon balls and the walls were still present, ready to repel a seventeenth century attack. IJSam 17:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A question - I have or had an old AAA member road service directory, and it did list the Canal Zone. AAA-affiliated service stations there had four-digit phone numbers with the city name. Do you happen to remember how the phone service worked in the Canal Zone? Could you dial all zone locations directly or did you have to go through the operator for connections between exchanges (e.g. Colon to the Pacific side)? Could you dial directly to the US and could they direct dial the Zone, or was that operator-handled as well? I imagine, if the zone still existed today, it might have a special area code within Panama country code 507. GBC (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Balboa VLF transmitter

There was a VLF-tansmitter near Balboa, Panama. Has someone more information on it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.246.225 (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

When was this? Mark Shaw (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

John McCain

There has been some credible debate recently about whether or not John McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone may count as being born in the United States. So the discussion here after should concern two questions: 1) If one were to be born in the Panama Canal Zone, are they considered to be a "natural born citizen" of the United States? and 2) Are only "natural born citizens" eligible for becoming president of the United States? Answering these questions sufficiently will greatly impact the current US elections, because if McCain is not a "natural born citizen" and if you need to be one to be president, then he must drop out of the race.

McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Hospital to US parents. He is a natural-born US citizen. He is eligible for the Presidency. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It counts. There was similar discussion in 1980 about Lowell Weicker who was considering running for president and had been born in Paris to two US citizens, as I recall his father was an embassy official. And don't forget, the first few US presidents were born in British colonies . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the {{npov}} template to the 'citizenship' section. The section still focuses entirely on the John McCain issue, occupying two paragraphs of a very short three paragraph section. The most important part, dealing with the US statute itself, is also uncited. The issue dealing with McCain really doesn't need to be here, and should be mentioned in his article, or maybe the article about the election, but has very little to do with the Canal Zone itself. I attribute this mostly to recentism,... Dr. Cash (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the point about recentism, and I tend to side with the idea that the McCain/citizenship thing might be better noted elsewhere, I don't see how it offends neutrality. As long as the text doesn't advocate for or against McCain, or for or against any sort of creative reading of the law(s) in question in the pursuit of that advocacy, I think it reads reasonably neutral. Mark Shaw (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I see this as the stub for a more general discussion about the status of residents of the Canal Zone, citizenship of their children, etc. We have too little in this article about the differentiation that was made regarding Americans vs. Panamanians in the Zone. I can easily add a cite to the proper page of the US code, but listing the title and section number should have been adequate.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so; in which case some of the history of such issues in the CZ might be explored as well - the difference between the Silver and Gold rolls, and housing segregation (US citizens in e.g. Los Rios and Balboa, non-US in e.g. Paraiso and Pedro Miguel).... Mark Shaw (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is where I was going to start, since the silver and gold rolls is mentioned. Perhaps title the section "Citizenship and residency; discrimination".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd stay away from the discrimination angle. Housing segregation in the CZ was on the basis of citizenship, and while there were certainly racial overtones it really wasn't the same as segregation in the US, either officially or in terms of interpersonal and intercultural relationships. Delving too deeply into the matter would be to court NPOV violations, to no good and encyclopedic end. But, yes, something about the demographics and cultural variations certainly belongs here. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. I'm still not sure why the neutrality tag is there.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware, Sections 1401 and 1403 of Title 8 of the United States Code grant citizenship at birth, 1401(c) to children of two U.S. citizens, 1401(g) to children of one alien [noncitzen]and U.S. citizen who has lived in the United States, served in the United States Armed Forces, or been an employee of the United States Government or an international organization for 5 years, 2 of them being after the age of 14. Finally, Section 1403(a) specifically states that children born in the Panama Canal Zone with one or two parents being United States citizens on or after February 26, 1904 are citizens. Thus, Senator John McCain, as well as other people born in the Panama Canal Zone, are citizens at birth. Thus, one can assume that they are "natural-born citizens," but that term has never been defined, to my knowledge, in law or Supreme Court holding still in force [the Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that, "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens," but the Act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795. 24.167.162.21 (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read that section of the article twice now and I don't see any reason to have the POV tag there. The section doesn't argue the issue one way or the other. The POV tag needs to be removed. Dr. Morbius (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the tag. The McCain-specific stuff is still in this article, and doesn't belong. It's a gross example of recentism, and has ZERO to do with the actual content of this article. Either the McCain stuff comes out, or the NPOV tag stays. Period. End of statement. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've found a better tag ({{recentism}}). Perhaps it's not so much a violation of NPOV, but it's still seriously slanted towards the New York Times article, which is really so much of a non-issue that I don't even think it belongs here. Maybe include a sentence or two in the John McCain article. But here. Please, give me a break. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. I intend to add more stuff, none of it having to do with McCain. I already added that bit from 1904. I'm going to go back and poke through "The Path Between the Seas" and see what there is in there. McCain was the start of this section, but he is not the be all and end all. Everyone else should feel free to add stuff too.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This stuff has no place in an article about the Canal Zone. It is ridiculous. The US Code is cited above and clearly applies to McCain. It seems to be a thinly-veiled attempt at "payback" or "retribution" by someone who is bitter and who has an ax to grind over the Obama birth certificate stupidity. It was a territory of the United States. Are Puerto Ricans and Virgin Islanders not US citizens? --160.133.1.228 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

First, I really don't see any connection to the Birther mess, since the claims about McCain's citizenship predate it, but whatever. Second, the Canal Zone was not officially a US territory. By the terms of the 1903 treaty, the US ruled "as though sovereign" but there was never legal territorial status. (Not that that matters to the question of McCain's citizenship status.) Mark Shaw (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

History section

Do we really need the "History of Governance" section? It is very summary, most of it is 19th century, and Colombia never gave up sovereignty during that time. There's a comprehensive History of the Panama Canal article. The Canal Zone's history started in 1903.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree here; it surprised me to see so much added so quickly, but I didn't want to just delete it without discussion. I simply could not stand to look at all of those all-caps section titles, though.... Mark Shaw (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I say we axe the section.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree. Personally, I'd prefer to wait a little while; say 24 hours, in case there's any more discussion to be had. If I see it still here at this time tomorrow and no further discussion, I'll delete it - but if you want to go ahead and remove it sooner, I certainly won't object. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to do it immediately. It will wait until tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain (from a non-American's perspective)

Before I start, I should say that yes, I have read the discussion above. However, I do think that a short specific explanation of McCain's eligibility to be President would be a good thing. The "natural born citizen" requirements are not at all well understood in many places, certainly including the UK; many (most?) people here would assume that a President would have to be born in the 50 states or DC.

Actually, I came here from the United States presidential election, 2008 article, which mentions near the start that McCain was born in the PCZ. "That's interesting," I thought, "I'll go over there to see how eligibility was decided." Some of my questions are answered by the current section, but by no means all of them. For example, we're told that Congress passed legislation in 1953, but that is well after McCain's birth, and nowhere is it explicitly stated that the law applies to people born before then; for all I know as a non-American the law might have had a "from this point on" clause. (Well, I know it didn't as I know McCain is eligible, but the general point stands.) Loganberry (Talk) 23:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the Consitution defines natural born citizen. However, this was looked at when Lowell Weicker ran, who was born in Paris while his father was at the embassy there, and legal scholars said he was eligible.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Joint control

So what happened in 1999? Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the scope of the article; the Zone ended in 1979. Maybe under the Panama Canal article?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The treaty to end the Zone was signed in 1977. The actual handover was phased, starting from that year and ending in 1999. There was a ceremony at that time as the last pieces were officially handed over. During the interim the "Canal Zone Commission" became known as the "Panama Canal Commission". This is why a lot of Zonians focus on the word "Zone", even in their own description of themselves. It was the sign of change, as things were handed over anything that was "Canal Zone" became "Panama Canal". Aapold (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal System

"The Canal Zone had its own police force (Canal Zone Police), courts, and judges (the United States District Court for the Canal Zone). Civil and criminal jurisdictions were assumed by the Republic of Panama." This sentence is at best murky and at worst contradictory. It needs clarification. 168.137.100.22 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; not sure how the second sentence got in there. I've taken it out. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

8 USC §1403 after the year 1979: valid or without effect?

In 1979 Panama received sovereignty over the Canal Zone. Since then the Zone has ceased to be an unincorporated US territory, right? So I wonder if the PCZ-specific 8 USC 1403 still applies. 1403.a should not be applicable anymore, because it only applies to the PCZ, and the US have no jurisdiction anymore. The same argument could be made for 1403.b, because it refers to Panama as a whole. Can anyone answer, if 1403 is still legally valid? Since the Canal Zone is now Panamanian territory, I assume that 8 USC 1401 now applies, specifically (c), (d) and (g), i.e. the paragraphs on persons born outside of the US, and that 1403 is now without effect. Is there any way to verify that? I'm asking because the citizenship paragraph only covers the Canal Zone situation until 1979. —85.178.69.139 (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

ANSWER: The definition of the "natural born citizen" can't be decided by legal actions taken AFTER the Constitution was ratified. The term has to be examined in the context of the times because that is what the people thought they were ratifying. "Natural Born Citizen" can't be redefined to include a Rhode Island Red. The clear intent of the words can be found in Vattel's The Law of Nations, which was the widely accepted authority on international law at the time the Constitution was passed. It means that following the natural process of the law, at the moment he was born, the president must be a citizen of one and only one country with no conflicting duties or obligations to any other country. Citizenship is the legal relationship between a person and a sovereign state. Only two sources of citizenship by birth are recognized. Citizenship by blood and citizenship by location. No matter where a person goes in the world, their home country claims jurisdiction over them. Because the country claims and is recognized to have jurisdiction over the parent, their jurisdiction over the parent's offspring is also recognized. Thus, a person is equally a citizen of his/her father's country as well as his mother's country since the parent's native countries recognize the other's claim. The other source is citizenship by location of birth. Every state claims jurisdiction over everyone and everything within its borders and every other state recognizes the legitimacy of that claim. So, if a Mexican Citizen and a German Citizen marry and have a child in Russia, the child has 1) Mexican Citizenship from one parent, German citizenship from the other and Russian citizenship by virtue of the birth in Russia. That child has legal ropes connecting it to all three countries. So, the issue of McCain's citizenship hinges on one thing. Did US law recognize a Panamanian claim on him at the moment of his birth? Answer that question, and there's room to argue it on both sides, and you have your answer. I think that the answer is no. If his parents had died, the US Navy would have stepped in and taken him back to the US to his relatives there and he had no other relatives in Panama. As for Obama, he states in his biography that he was indeed born a dual citizen, no matter where he was born. His mother was American, but his father was from Kenya, a protectorate of the United Kingdom. He had to renounce his UK/Kenyan citizenship when he achieved adulthood. His final citizenship did not occur at the moment of his birth. His citizenship was not yet finalized until adulthood. The US Supreme Court has never addressed this issue because they chose to block the birther lawsuits on the legal ground called "standing." To acheive their purpose, they claimed that the plaintiffs asked for legal relief that they never asked for. The USSC claimed, falsely, that what the birthers were doing was asking for the USSC to nullify Obama's presidency, which they claimed was beyond their power. But they never asked for that. They asked for the records and for the ruling on citizenship so that they could bring their complaint to Congress and have them act. In short, they lied their collective asses off to protect Obama and ignored the Constitution. JPReturns (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Huh?

I thought the Canal Zone was given to Panama on New Year's day 2000? What's with this article saying it was given to them in 1979?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.221.85 (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, it was a phased transition, starting in 1977 and ending at the end of 1999. Some things like the Canal Zone Police were phased out quickly. The school system remained under the Department of Defense Dependent Schools until the end... Aapold (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The status of the Canal Zone after 1979 is unstated.

I cannot find any reference to the post-1979 status of the Canal Zone. Although there is an obvious guess, this is not something that should be left to the reader's imagination.

It should be stated explicitly how the former Canal Zone is governed today. To do otherwise is ludicrous for any encyclopedia worthy of the name.Daqu (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Mislabeled Image

The picture captioned "U.S. fleet off of coast of Panama in 1906" cannot be what it purports to be; the ships are all clearly WWI or early post-WWI designs. In particular, the closest ship is DD-284 USS Isherwood in commission 1919-1930. Tricericon (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears you have discovered an error at the Library of Congress. The image in this article is can be found on the LOC's website here, where it is clearly labeled as ca. 1906. It's also stated that the title of the photograph was created by the cataloger, not the author. However, they also have this image, clearly taken at about the same time, using the same technology, and is of the same fleet. The photo is labeled on the catalog and on the digital image itself as being taken March 1, 1923. The catalog entry also includes the copyright holder's name and states that there is no evidence the copyright was renewed, while the photograph names each ship in the image. I'll go change the image caption now and remove the disputed tag. Gentgeen (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Was Panama City surrounded by the Canal Zone?

The map at http://www.americahurrah.com/CZmap/map1.jpg shows Panama City (as a part of Panama) being surrounded by Canal Zone territory and water, with no land access to the rest of Panama except by traveling through the Canal Zone. (This is simlar to the way that Colon was separate from Panama at the Atlantic end.) However, the map in this article shows Panama City as being outside the Canal Zone. Was there a time when Panama City was an exclave of the rest of Panama? Were the borders of the Canal Zone changed at one time to "re-connect" Panama City to Panama?

Jeff in CA 20:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Size of Panama on either Size of the Zone

My question is, if the canal zone is 5 miles wide on either side, what's the area of Panama on either side of the zone? I know Panama itself is about 75,000 km2, but how much is west/north and how much is south/east of the canal zone? That information is nowhere online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.4.4 (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Malaria and Yellow Fever

I am astonished to find no mention of malaria and yellow fever, and its incidence during the building of the Canal and the splendid achievements of those who e.g. virtually eradicated the mosquito population. Have I missed something, is it on a to-do list, or is there a separate page on this subject? References easily found.P0mbal (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC) I respond to my own comment, so please ignore the above - yes, it's all in the Panama Canal page! P0mbal (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Population never mentioned

There is no mention of how many people lived here at any time. Was it part of the U.S. census| Rmhermen (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Cristobal CZ in March 1933 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem with Introduction

The current status of the Canal Zone is the information of primary concern in an article like this. That should not wait until the end of the second paragraph to be revealed to the reader.

All the information about the history is, of course, important. But the very first thing that readers learn about the Canal Zone should be its current status. Its recent history can come immediately after that.50.205.142.35 (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@50.205.142.35: The current status of the Canal Zone is that it doesn't exist. What it was when it stopped existing is described in the first sentence. What is your specific suggestion for a re-write? —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 15:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)