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.
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.
Ah, but that wouldn't illustrate the absurdity of the legal theory! That is the entire point! :)
By putting our expectant mother zipping around above the clouds, we see how easy it is for a child to be a citizen of here.... or there..... or somewhere else! That the child's citizenship is so heavily dependent on the arbitrary notion of a defined area and timing is what demonstrates the legal concept to be ridiculous if reduced to it's salient aspect. (birth within a boundary.)
Argumentum ad absurdum. (Or Reductio ad absurdum if you prefer) Proving that something is wrong because it leads to a ridiculous conclusion.
As much as I detect the concept of anchor babies and citizenship by happenstance, there is a downside to eliminating birthright citizenship.
Take a look at Europe where you have stateless people of the fourth and fifth generation and beyond.
Would you be comfortable with deporting families that have been here for 100 years? Not I.
Truly, this is only a problem because we don’t enforce our borders.
If you can show that you AND your mother were born in the USA, then automatic citizenship. Otherwise, due process to assertain citizenship.
How is that absurd? I deal in real estate, so the idea of locations and boundaries being irrelevant is a bit foreign to me. Any number of things could happen in one place legally and be unquestionably illegal twenty feet away.
Especially when you're talking about membership to a geographically defined entity like a nation, the idea of physical location is quite a salient factor. Probably the most important one. Certainly not something to dismiss as irrelevant or absurd, I would hazard to guess.
No one is suggesting that birthright citizenship be eliminated, I am suggesting that it should only occur through inheritance from the parents. Using a defined area of land as the standard for citizenship is silly as my orbiting mother thought experiment demonstrates.
Take a look at Europe where you have stateless people of the fourth and fifth generation and beyond.
Europe is screwed up in more ways than that. Certainly the problem could be addressed by naturalization.
Would you be comfortable with deporting families that have been here for 100 years? Not I.
No I wouldn't, but I don't see how the one thing will result in the other. If it is a sufficiently large population of such people, congress could naturalize them en masse. (Or through inaction like they are doing with illegal immigrants now.)
Truly, this is only a problem because we dont enforce our borders.
Or our eligibility requirements. :)
If you can show that you AND your mother were born in the USA, then automatic citizenship. Otherwise, due process to assertain citizenship.
Why should we give the most highly prized citizenship away to a child of dubious loyalty? There are people now living in this country flying the Mexican Flag, and wanting to reclaim the Southwest and California for Mexico. These are not the actions that we should expect from loyal citizens, but the actions of people with a claim on citizenship but with loyalty to a different nature and culture. This sort of thing is what ruined the Romans.
So the question of what citizenship a baby born on an airplane has, has a real-world answer, if you care to research it. If the answer is that a baby born on an airplane is (in some cases) an American citizen, then you're back to the argument over whether "born an American citizen" means the same thing as "natural born American citizen" or not. And we know the arguments on both sides of that, so I don't think your thought experiment gets us anywhere.
Especially when you're talking about membership to a geographically defined entity like a nation, the idea of physical location is quite a salient factor. Probably the most important one. Certainly not something to dismiss as irrelevant or absurd, I would hazard to guess.
That the nationality of a child may be determined by whatever piece of ground he happens to be flying over when born is an absurd idea, but that is the reduction of the idea down to it's logical conclusion. Boundaries may be fine for property, but they cannot impart loyalty and allegiance. That can only be done by Parents and Community. My previous comments are not a derogatory slap against the concept of a boundary, but at the notion that nothing more than a physical presence within one should grant someone a claim on our nation. I wouldn't think the distinction should be difficult to see.
Your criteria for withholding citizenship applies to 40% of the population.
Nor time enough for you to extricate yours from your own.
To simpleminded folk, much is obscure. That is an inherent characteristic of the condition.
To undeserving egotists, their kindred to genius is obvious, even if only to them. That is an inherent characteristic of the condition.
To you, the real world distinctions between ground (soil) air (airspace) and outer-space are "technicalities."
To you, answers to your question with the concepts of law and national military airspace used in the real world are "irrelevant." So, you ignore the fact offered that foreign aircraft and their passengers flying through US airspace, w/o landing, are considered to have entered US controlled airspace for military purposes BUT are NOT considered to have entered the US for legal purposes.
Your preference for seeking answers in the rabbit hole "absurdity" of your "silly" and endless "mental experiments" rather than in facts and reality, together with your equating the nonsense you've posted on this thread with the genius of Einstein, makes a mere mortal like me wonder how in hell you're not a dellusional liberal.
You presume that what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. You are once again mistaken.
To undeserving egotists, their kindred to genius is obvious, even if only to them. That is an inherent characteristic of the condition.
I wouldn't know. I don't suffer from it. Seems a logical fallacy though. "Genius" and "deserve" are not interdependent, and for you, neither is Logic and Wisdom.
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.