Posted on 08/31/2011 9:07:49 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
Messed up a bit on my first attempt. :)
Legal question for all you jus soli types. Suppose a foreign woman was orbiting the earth. Does the child become an American only if they happen to be over the United States when he pokes his head out?
This is why your argument is so stupid. Ponder that for a bit.
This is why your argument is so stupid. Ponder that for a bit.
BIG IBTZ!!!
No. As stated, your question is stupid.
You said “in space”. As per treaty (which the US has ratified), no country has any soveriegnity over space (which is generally defined as anything from 100 kms to 100 miles)
That is why the Soviets could orbit a satellite above us and we could not even complain, leave alone shoot it out of orbit.
So, if there is a prego foriegn chick (hopefully she looks like Catherine Zeta Jones) in space and she pops a baby out, the baby will not have been born on US “soil”.
So, even if you are jus soli.
So, use a better example, maybe an airplane
I took a international class once and they stated on open seas there are two thing that happens if a baby is born aboard. One - citizenship is determined by what country the captain is from and Two - what flag the ship flies.
If they are not the same the baby could have dual citizenship as both counties will claim the child, as well as the citizenship of the paretns.
Now those may have been changed but it was like then.
Generally space is referred as open sea.
common law ad coelum doctrine: Yes
SCOTU: No
Marvin the martian: ZOT
So all the DU people about to get zotted were born over Russia, China, and North Korea?
Sounds like one of those 50’s or 60’s science fiction movies.
Schlock extraordinaire!
Hey, I was in before the ZOT the first time he posted this, do I get credit under a grandfather clause or do I have to be in before the ZOT in both threads?
Logically, the spaceship would be considered to be sovereign soil, and treated just like an embassy. The child of foreign parents born on a U.S. spaceship MIGHT have a claim on U.S. citizenship, but not a strong claim.
Suggest you think up an analogy question that will present an actual analogous issue.
Without a landing, births on those flights are legally outside the U.S.. "Jus soli" ("right of soil") means what it means. Space craft and their passengers outside the earth's atmosphere fail even more to meet "jus soli."
A better question is which way in orbit do mudslimes face to pray to satanallah ?
No doubt you are aware, if establishing eligibility for holding the office of President of the U.S.A. is the basis of the little fable you have posited, that it is also required that both parents of a prospective candidate for said office be citizens of the U.S.A. at the time of his/her birth, no matter where birth occurred.
If a tree falls in the forest...
Will WND generate webhits from it?
Over an hour and no ZOT wow.
The Diogenes of old walked the streets of Athens with a lantern, looking for an honest man.
This Diogenes should spend some time looking for his common sense. For that he needs a lamp less than he needs a colonscope.
No, the question is not stupid, the focus on the trivial technicalities of it is stupid. They are irrelevant to the point.
So, use a better example, maybe an airplane
See there! You did understand after all. :)
Anyway, if prior experience is any indication, using a plane for the thought experiment would result in people asking what color it was or some other equally trivial point.
Can you not do this without my help for the purposes of answering the question? Use a hot air balloon for all I care, dodging the point by invoking irrelevant technicalities is not the behavior of someone who has an actual rebuttal.
They would be a “space cadet.”
Probably Martian au jus.
“It’s a cookbook!”
Without a landing, births on those flights are legally outside the U.S.. "Jus soli" ("right of soil") means what it means. Space craft and their passengers outside the earth's atmosphere fail even more to meet "jus soli."
For the purpose of the thought experiment, technicalities are irrelevant. The entire point of this mental exercise is to demonstrate how silly it is to regard birth above our soil as a conveyance of citizenship. Anchor babies ought to be as clear of a case of this as anything else, but somehow people don't seem to be able to see the absurdity in something unless the absurdity is raised to ridiculous levels.
(Argumentum ad absurdum.)
So if a hot air balloon is orbiting the Earth and a baby is born....
To technically answer you question, jus soli is "right of the soil". Being born of foreign parents within territorial waters, within an American embassy compound, or in the airspace of the United States would not entitle a person to de facto citizenship, unless a court so ruled that it did. In the past, they have not been so inclined. Babies born in the air are generally assigned a birthplace according to where the plane lands, but it does not follow that jus soli would also apply. In any event, there is a near zero chance that a foreign baby born in U.S. airspace, but not landing in the U.S. would be given jus soli citizenship.
That is the technically correct answer.
That question is what actually caused me to think of the birth in orbit thing. Apparently the Religious authorities of Malaysia have granted indulgences for Astronauts praying towards Mecca. :)
I agree. That is the basis for pushing jus soli to it's ridiculous conclusions.
And why would there be a zot anyway? Apart from that, it is amazing that so many of my admirers feel that the best way to handle an inconvenient truth is by forcing silence on an opinion which they disagree with. Are your principles worth so little then?
I welcome debate.
It's been awhile since I've flown but I recall the flight attendants pulling the drink cart when we passed over a dry state. It would seem that at least that airline considered States Rights when passing through sovereign territory.
As to the hypothetical pregnant astronaut, I would think that a 5g liftoff would be enough to insure a birth while still in sight of the launch site.
Regards,
GtG
Debate on what a comment that has no basis in fact or law. You are full of it.
This Diogenes should spend some time looking for his common sense. For that he needs a lamp less than he needs a colonscope.
If I have a failure in common sense it is my persistence in attempting discussion and debate with those who prefer to snark. Perhaps you are accustomed to finding common sense in your rectum, but to the rest of us what you produce looks more like crap than wisdom.
That is the technically correct answer.
So does touching upon land make one an American? Also wouldn't that occur AFTER birth? What nationality is a baby BEFORE it touches land, and if it is not already American (due to jus sanguinius) then wouldn't it be born into a foreign allegiance first?
And you are not. Apparently the "it" to which we are referring is the ability to comprehend a thought experiment. I would suggest that if your mental facilities are not up to the task, you might want to leave discussion and debate to others.
Gandalf,
Interesting legal question. Actually, this has come up in Case Law before.
Dry states (and states that extract excises) have tried to ban/tax airliners flying over their states and serving alcohol. I believe the most recent example was New Mexico
Another famous case law pertains a fugitive from Texas (where he had warrants pending). He was on a domestic flight transiting Texas airspace (just transit). The plane was forced down and he was arrested
The courts have said no. I covered that.
Also wouldn't that occur AFTER birth?
Yes, which is why the courts have tended to say no concerning ship and plane births.
What nationality is a baby BEFORE it touches land, and if it is not already American (due to jus sanguinius) then wouldn't it be born into a foreign allegiance first?
Citizenship depends upon the laws of the parent's country. It is conceivable that a child would have no citizenship. This is the standard case in in most European countries where babies are born of non-citizen parents and no right of birth exists.
You are presuming that a baby must be born a citizen of some country, that is not the case.
Most countries would claim a child born to their citizens as a citizen, regardless of place of birth.
Suits me. If it is not born of a country, then it isn't born of the American country.
Most countries would claim a child born to their citizens as a citizen, regardless of place of birth.
Not quite. I am claiming that a child of indeterminate birth is not a "natural born citizen", and cannot become one after the fact of birth.
Women on trampolines!
A thought experiment with no basis in fact. Space is not in a country; your whole experiment is BS. Obviously so is your brain.
Now your thinking! Might even get an acceleration assist on pushing! :)
Do try and keep up. Focus on the salient point and do not worry about trivial details. I have put forth an argumentum ad absurdum, and though silly comments such as yours add to the comic relief component, they are just noise in every other respect.
I’m wondering where “the rest of us” are. All I see is you.
Perhaps your lamp is low on fuel. Or your vision is obstructed by matters more fecal than philosophical.
In any event, as common sense — and any number of respondents — would indicate, since space is (by treaty) the sovereign claim of no nation, the laws regarding citizenship of babies born therein would be similar, if not identical, to those regarding similar births on the high seas.
You are over matched with just me, so you shouldn't concern yourself with anyone else.
Perhaps your lamp is low on fuel.
Perhaps I shouldn't have thrown a rock into a pack of dogs. The caterwauling of the injured whelp is distracting.
Or your vision is obstructed by matters more fecal than philosophical.
To your level of perception, one is much the same as the other.
In any event, as common sense — and any number of respondents — would indicate, since space is (by treaty) the sovereign claim of no nation, the laws regarding citizenship of babies born therein would be similar, if not identical, to those regarding similar births on the high seas.
Yes, and if Einstein were explaining his famous "Elevator" Gedankenexperiment , you and your ilk wouldn't be able to get past the "There are no elevators with cables that long" stage. (infantile miscomprehension)
http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/physics/30442/STRICH-Strict-Analyses-of-the-Einstein-Elevator-Gedanken
IBTZ.
Also it doesn’t look like anyone will be going into space after September.
That depends on the definition of "indeterminate" and "natural born". If it means recognized as a citizen from birth without a naturalization process, then that applies regardless of place of birth or timing of recognition, e.g. American parents on the moon.
If there is a legal clarification of the term "natural born" to be restrictive to geographical birth, then the term is more restrictive.
No doubt your underlying premise is the use of "natural born" in the Constitution. Interestingly, none of the Founders were born within a United States of America, but their birth rite was grandfathered in.
What exactly is your point of contention; the Obama birth right? If he was foreign born with a foreign parent and declared foreign citizenship before U.S. citizenship, he has some clear challenges concerning meeting the qualification of "natural born".
I'm not particularly concerned with you. You are narcissistic enough not to need it.
Perhaps I shouldn't have thrown a rock into a pack of dogs. The caterwauling of the injured whelp is distracting.
I'm wondering how the rest of the posters on this thread react to being called "a pack of dogs." Especially by a cur of your breed.
To your level of perception, one is much the same as the other.
Or in your lexicon, one is much the same as the other.
Yes, and if Einstein were explaining his famous "Elevator" Gedankenexperiment , you and your ilk wouldn't be able to get past the "There are no elevators with cables that long" stage. (infantile miscomprehension)
Einstein's genius is obvious. Yours is somewhat ... more obscure.
airspace ends with the atmosphere..
It's a thought experiment. Work around silly technicalities.
Then the result would be the same if she gave birth on an operating table four feet off the ground, wouldn't it?
Ah, but we are speaking of foreign parents, and restricting the argument for citizenship to be that of being born over American territory. The jus soli (or 14th amendment misreaders) argue that the only thing necessary for a person to be a "natural born citizen" is birth within the borders. My example is put forth to demonstrate how silly of a standard is this.
If there is a legal clarification of the term "natural born" to be restrictive to geographical birth, then the term is more restrictive.
There are those that argue that parents are irrelevant to the citizenship of a child born within the borders of the United States. They claim that anyone born within it's borders are "natural born citizens" just BECAUSE they were born within the borders.
No doubt your underlying premise is the use of "natural born" in the Constitution. Interestingly, none of the Founders were born within a United States of America, but their birth rite was grandfathered in.
As there could be no "natural born citizens" until the nation existed, they had no other choice.
What exactly is your point of contention; the Obama birth right? If he was foreign born with a foreign parent and declared foreign citizenship before U.S. citizenship, he has some clear challenges concerning meeting the qualification of "natural born".
I like to break things down into small clearly defined pieces and go from there. I am trying to demonstrate that birth within the borders of a nation is a foolish standard for declaring someone a citizen. It was used under English Common law because it gave the King an excuse to claim more servants. It was used under the 14th amendment (with qualifications which everyone seems to ignore) because former slaves had no jus sanguinus claim on citizenship.
And yet, here you are. :)
I'm wondering how the rest of the posters on this thread react to being called "a pack of dogs." Especially by a cur of your breed.
It only applies if someone identifies with it, as you seemingly have. It's not what people call you, it's what you answer to.
Or in your lexicon, one is much the same as the other.
I would like to see things from your perspective, but I doubt there is enough space up your @ss for both our heads.
Einstein's genius is obvious. Yours is somewhat ... more obscure.
To simpleminded folk, much is obscure. That is an inherent characteristic of the condition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.