Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Women in Space.
DiogenesLamp

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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-72 last
To: Steel Wolf
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 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.

51 posted on 08/31/2011 5:25:49 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (1790 Congress: No children of a foreign father may be a citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

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.


52 posted on 08/31/2011 5:26:04 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
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.)

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.

53 posted on 08/31/2011 5:35:17 PM PDT by Steel Wolf ("Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master." - Gaius Sallustius Crispus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
As much as I detest the concept of anchor babies and citizenship by happenstance, there is a downside to eliminating birthright citizenship.

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 don’t 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.

54 posted on 08/31/2011 5:43:22 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (1790 Congress: No children of a foreign father may be a citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I don't think it's really a thought experiment because there must be answers already (though maybe multiple conflicting answers). Babies have been born on planes and in airports. Find out what citizenship they ended up with. This article outlines some of the possibilities, but I note that it doesn't take into account the citizenship of the parents or the nationality of the carrier.

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.

55 posted on 08/31/2011 5:46:45 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
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.

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.

56 posted on 08/31/2011 6:00:55 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (1790 Congress: No children of a foreign father may be a citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Your criteria for withholding citizenship applies to 40% of the population.


57 posted on 08/31/2011 6:04:40 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I doubt there is enough space up your @ss for both our heads.

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.

58 posted on 08/31/2011 7:11:33 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"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.)"

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.

59 posted on 09/01/2011 4:39:16 AM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Nor time enough for you to extricate yours from your own.

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.

60 posted on 09/01/2011 7:13:30 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (1790 Congress: No children of a foreign father may be a citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
I don't think it's really a thought experiment because there must be answers already (though maybe multiple conflicting answers). Babies have been born on planes and in airports. Find out what citizenship they ended up with. This article outlines some of the possibilities, but I note that it doesn't take into account the citizenship of the parents or the nationality of the carrier.

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.

You are missing the point of the topic. The point is to not find "workarounds" to deal with that specific instance, it is to demonstrate how foolish it is to tie Citizenship/Allegiance to a specific defined space. The jus soli argument condenses down to hairsplitting at some point, and that is the point I want people to focus on. My effort is to generate discussion on the most basic aspect of border defined citizenship to demonstrate that the concept breaks down when looked at with scrutiny.

So let us say everyone finds an argument that deals with this specific example. Fine, I will just proffer another example that gets around their technicality solution. How about this?

In the future, we have matter transmission rooms where people can walk in and be instantly transmitted to another country. A foreign pregnant woman walks into one, and something goes wrong. The System starts transmitting her from one nation to another in a random sequence. The Baby is born inside the room during a time period when it's current location is unknown. What nationality is the baby? What is it's citizenship?

(I can't wait to hear how people explain that this room violates this or that law or rule or treaty or whatever. Anything but addressing the point! :) )

61 posted on 09/01/2011 7:23:56 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (1790 Congress: No children of a foreign father may be a citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: drpix
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.

My recollection is that I did not compare myself to Einstein. I said of the critics, that they would complain that no elevator has cables that long if Einstein mentioned his elevator Gedankenexperiment. That Einstein even comes into the topic at all is because he made the concept of a Gedankenexperiment famous. You assumed a comparison, and for that I am flattered.

Next point: I am not seeking "answers", I'm seeking to push those who argue jus soli citizenship to confront the dichotomies of the theory by the use of a thought experiment. The purpose of the topic is not to thwart the paradox with other legal technicalities, but to confront it head on and recognize it as a paradox.

Since you didn't like the orbiting mother argument, Let me use instead a multinational matter transmission system of the future. :) (as excerpted from my previous post.)

In the future, we have matter transmission rooms where people can walk in and be instantly transmitted to another country. A foreign pregnant woman walks into one, and something goes wrong. The System starts transmitting her from one nation to another in a random sequence. The Baby is born inside the room during a time period when it's current location is unknown. What nationality is the baby? What is it's citizenship?

Now if you don't like the scenario, you can just walk away. I've noticed that people who are confronted with an conundrum they don't like tend to do that. It won't hurt my feelings. In any case, both examples remind me of Schrödinger's cat. The answer isn't known until the box is opened. :)

Schrödinger devised his Gedankenexperiment to illustrate the absurdity of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle under which the cat was supposedly both dead and alive at the same time. So in the example of our matter transmitting mother, is the child both a "natural born" American citizen while at the same time a "natural born" citizen of some other nation? I suppose we can't tell until we figure out where the box was when he was born. :)

62 posted on 09/01/2011 7:40:11 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (1790 Congress: No children of a foreign father may be a citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I will not join you in your "rabbit hole," but here's my LAST attempt to guide you out:

Unlike the laws of physics, national and international laws are creations of man, that exist only when and for as long as men agree to them. Man uses experiments to discover preexisting laws of physics. Einstein "thought experiments" were/are used to explore and discover laws of physics.

Posing a question on national & international laws using an orbiting spacecraft (or "matter transmission") does not make it material for "thought experiments" appropriate to physics nor make the poser an Einstein. Legal questions are answered by looking to (and not ignoring) how mortal men have created and implemented the relevant laws.

Rummaging for absurd (or fanciful) instances that you believe exist (or will exist) in a gray area not covered by the distinctions of the relevant laws does not abrogate the existing laws or their usefulness today. Unlike laws of physics, new and/or finer distinctions in the laws of man will be created by men, if and when fancy becomes reality - and not before.

Right now, in the real world - when easily understood laws on borders and migration/"immigration" meant to protect America's sovereignty are being flaunted, ignored and misrepresented by too many - there is no time to waste on pointless "thought experiments" or those so deluded to think they have a point.

63 posted on 09/01/2011 8:11:29 AM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
CORRECTION:

being flaunted,ingly ignored

64 posted on 09/01/2011 8:18:20 AM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: drpix
Unlike the laws of physics, national and international laws are creations of man, that exist only when and for as long as men agree to them. Man uses experiments to discover preexisting laws of physics. Einstein "thought experiments" were/are used to explore and discover laws of physics.

They can be used to explore anything. They are a virtual world of the mind. They only require an ability to visualize.

Posing a question on national & international laws using an orbiting spacecraft (or "matter transmission") does not make it material for "thought experiments" appropriate to physics nor make the poser an Einstein. Legal questions are answered by looking to (and not ignoring) how mortal men have created and implemented the relevant laws.

Another non-solicited comparison to Einstein. Thank you. :) Legal answers are usually the result of a series of quasi-logical arguments which have been canonized into sainthood by the Robed priests of the Judicial system who pronounce them "precedent." (Precedent is nothing but a marriage of the fallacy of authority combined with the fallacy of tu quoque.) How they implemented the law of jus soli was a combination of post hoc ergo propter hoc mixed with a desire by the King for more servants. It is a left over from feudal rule, and is incompatible with the needs of a free society. That the evidence for this abounds is incontestable.

Rummaging for absurd (or fanciful) instances that you believe exist (or will exist) in a gray area not covered by the distinctions of the relevant laws does not abrogate the existing laws or their usefulness today. Unlike laws of physics, new and/or finer distinctions in the laws of man will be created by men, if and when fancy becomes reality - and not before.

And how useful are "Anchor babies"? Square that circle and I will start taking you seriously.

Right now, in the real world - when easily understood laws on borders and migration/"immigration" meant to protect America's sovereignty are being flaunted, ignored and misrepresented by too many - there is no time to waste on pointless "thought experiments" or those so deluded to think they have a point.

No doubt you have better things to do. Obviously you shouldn't be spending time on a discussion forum. What were you thinking? You may leave, but I am not done.

It has become apparent to me that the base principle of jus soli is the exact same argument that Liberals use for abortion. A Child doesn't exist... Then Ouala! It Does! A Citizen doesn't exist.... Then Ouala! It Does! The Liberal Argument is that a person doesn't exist till born. The jus soli argument is that a citizen doesn't exist till born.

The Pro-Life argument is that both citizenship and personhood is an inherent characteristic of the child from the moment of conception. If you are pro-abortion-choice, I can see why arbitrary definitions created for the sake of convenience might appeal to you, but natural law follows nature, not the artificial creations of man.

65 posted on 09/01/2011 8:53:10 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Adam Smith and Edmund Burke; Synergistic philosophies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; drpix
In the future, we have matter transmission rooms where people can walk in and be instantly transmitted to another country. A foreign pregnant woman walks into one, and something goes wrong. The System starts transmitting her from one nation to another in a random sequence. The Baby is born inside the room during a time period when it's current location is unknown. What nationality is the baby? What is it's citizenship?

Oh wow, man. Let me have another hit before I try to answer that...

I'm sorry, I guess I thought you were trying to explore a real question here. What's the point of doing a thought experiment about something that's already got an answer, or for which the principles of an answer already exist? You might as well do a "thought experiment" about what would happen if you parked your car at an expired meter.

As drpix says, the only answer to a question like this is what people decide the answer is--there's no "right" or "wrong" answer out there in the universe to discover. You might not like the answer--you might think it's "wrong," yourself--but you don't need outer space or matter transmitters to explore it. Just take the established cases of how we determine the citizenship of someone born on a ship or a plane and say "I don't like that." But the answer you're likely to get is "So what?"

66 posted on 09/01/2011 10:53:33 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Oh wow, man. Let me have another hit before I try to answer that...

I'm sorry, I guess I thought you were trying to explore a real question here. What's the point of doing a thought experiment about something that's already got an answer, or for which the principles of an answer already exist? You might as well do a "thought experiment" about what would happen if you parked your car at an expired meter.

As drpix says, the only answer to a question like this is what people decide the answer is--there's no "right" or "wrong" answer out there in the universe to discover. You might not like the answer--you might think it's "wrong," yourself--but you don't need outer space or matter transmitters to explore it. Just take the established cases of how we determine the citizenship of someone born on a ship or a plane and say "I don't like that." But the answer you're likely to get is "So what?"

"Precedent" is your answer. That unholy union of the fallacy of authority and the fallacy of tu quoque. If you cannot argue a topic from first principles then you believe something without even knowing why.

67 posted on 09/01/2011 1:36:15 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Adam Smith and Edmund Burke; Synergistic philosophies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
If a tree falls in the forest...

Will WND generate webhits from it?

No, but it will be more profound than anything you have to say.

68 posted on 09/01/2011 1:50:40 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Adam Smith and Edmund Burke; Synergistic philosophies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
If you cannot argue a topic from first principles then you believe something without even knowing why.

If you believe there are "first principles" determining citizenship, then go ahead and lay them out. Explain why someone born in Hawaii is an American citizen (relying on "first principles," remember, not on authority or convention). Or why someone born in Point Roberts, Washington is, but someone born 4 blocks away in Tsawwassen, British Columbia is not. I know why I believe these people are citizens.

69 posted on 09/01/2011 2:30:52 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

First of all,why would a pregnant woman be in space? (I’m sure this is a hypothetical question but pregnant women would not be allowed to go up in a space shuttle). Is this meant to be serious? If so, something’s really off!


70 posted on 09/25/2011 8:28:07 PM PDT by POWERSBOOTHEFAN (Fear can hold you prisoner.Hope can set you free.(Shawshank Redemption))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: POWERSBOOTHEFAN
First of all,why would a pregnant woman be in space?

Because she singlemindedly wanted to prove how stupid it was to base a citizenship law on where a child was born. . She was a political activist bent on making a point. Does it really matter WHY she was in space?

(I’m sure this is a hypothetical question but pregnant women would not be allowed to go up in a space shuttle).

You mean for the here and now. Perhaps in the future people will vacation on the moon. Bigelow is already working to build an orbiting space hotel.

http://www.spacetourismnow.com/bigelow-sundancer.htm

Is this meant to be serious? If so, something’s really off!

It is meant to be absurd. It is a thought experiment designed to demonstrate how foolish it is to regard birth place as the determining factor for citizenship.

The child could be alternatively Russian or American depending on when it is born! :) Of course others have pointed out that we have treaties limiting the border to some specific height about the surface, but that is just an attempt to dodge the salient point. All I have to do to counter is inform them that it's a really low orbit, and within the national boundaries, etc.

71 posted on 09/26/2011 10:59:27 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

LOL.The words “au jus” came to mind,too.


72 posted on 09/26/2011 1:08:44 PM PDT by POWERSBOOTHEFAN (Fear can hold you prisoner.Hope can set you free.(Shawshank Redemption))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-72 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson