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

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: 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 ]

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