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.
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.