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.
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.