Posted on 08/31/2011 9:07:49 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
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
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.