Post by: lupinus on December 08, 2006, 12:26:13 PM
I can't find any online links to the story so I'll sumerize. A pregnant Mexican woman was on a flight from Mexico into the United States (forget the exact departure and destination cities) While on the flight she gave birth and some are calling for the baby to be an American citizen since its supposed to be if you are born in the US you are a US citizen. Ok thats it in short.
The question really isn't to the specific baby, its just what got the question in my mind.
The question is should a baby born on US soil be considered an American citizen if its parents are not themselves Americans?
Post by: wingnutx on December 08, 2006, 12:28:55 PM
New Zealand recent got rid of "anchor babies"
Post by: lupinus on December 08, 2006, 12:29:42 PM
If you yourself are not an American citizen and give birth in the US for your baby to be a US citizen you should have to be here legally, intend to stay, and show proof you were yourself seeking US membership either by having activly tried or showing proof you were preparing to apply to it (learning the various things and working up to the requierments etc)
If you are here illegaly, just visiting with no intention of staying, etc your baby should not IMO be a US citizen.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 08, 2006, 12:39:02 PM
Post by: Vodka7 on December 08, 2006, 12:40:26 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 08, 2006, 01:42:47 PM
Quote
I don't know what more of a claim you need to be an American than actually being born in America.
What is so profoundly American about being born in America? Big deal. If two American citizens have a child while visiting Germany, is the child automatically German? Should he be?
Post by: crt360 on December 08, 2006, 02:10:16 PM
Say mom takes off from her home country of Albagonia, flies over Salmonelia (a country which grants citizenship by birth) where she pops out a kid, on the way to her vacation destination of Castlevania (a country with no visa/passport requirements or immigration policy). After a brief, but nice, vacation with new kid in Castlevania, mom returns to Albagonia (a country with strict immigration control and papers required for entry/re-entry) now with another person in tow. Since the kid is technically a citizen of Salmonelia (according to Salmonelian law), what will Albagonia's position be? Will they accept him and permit his dual citizenship? Can they make him (or his mother) renounce his right of Salmonelian citizenship? Will they turn him away at the border?
What is the benefit to a country like the U.S. to have a policy of granting automatic citizenship to all who are born on (or above) it's soil?
Post by: Fly320s on December 08, 2006, 03:45:03 PM
Post by: gunsmith on December 08, 2006, 06:22:49 PM
was over there was the fact that being born here means we accept you as an American.
Your parents can be illegal poor criminals and you can be President.
No Turk or Pakistani born in Germany or Belgium can make that claim.
They are always foreigners.
I say secure the borders, kick out the illegals. I generally agree with the minute men groups,
but if you're born here you're one of us.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 08, 2006, 07:29:44 PM
One of the best things about my arguments with Euro folks when I
was over there was the fact that being born here means we accept you as an American.
Your parents can be illegal poor criminals and you can be President.
And that's a good thing?
was over there was the fact that being born here means we accept you as an American.
Your parents can be illegal poor criminals and you can be President.
Post by: gunsmith on December 08, 2006, 11:18:16 PM
like Lincoln born in a log cabin.
I don't hold it against an infant if his dad is a criminal.
we have to fix the border problem now. Fence the border and deport illegals.
but if they are born here then they are Americans.
yup, a good thing for sure.
Post by: BryanP on December 09, 2006, 02:48:34 AM
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
It doesn't say anything about the status of your parents. Under the current constitution the only question is whether you were born in the US. Your mother could have hit the shores and given birth 5 minutes later.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 09, 2006, 04:32:02 AM
I don't hold it against an infant if his dad is a criminal.
Neither do I. I don't hold it against his parents if they were Salvadoran, it just means that the child is also Salvadoran, or should be. Most humble of beginnings, blah, blah, blah. We have procedures for gaining citizenship and emerging from a birth canal shouldn't be one of them.
Post by: Ron on December 09, 2006, 05:29:52 AM
An exemption stating that if the parents have broken our laws and are here illegally then the child is not a citizen would work also. If one parent is a citizen then the child would be a citizen.
Post by: Desertdog on December 09, 2006, 11:53:59 AM
Quote
If two American citizens have a child while visiting Germany, is the child automatically German?
Yes. My first grand daughter was born in an Americn military hospital in Germany, to an American husband and wife.My son said she would be a duel American/German citizen, and at 18 she can elect which country shw wants to be a citizen of.
If she does not legally choose one country over the other, I do not know what her status will/would be; maybe duel citizenship?
Post by: gunsmith on December 09, 2006, 01:29:38 PM
Quote
I have no problem with the current arrangement IF the borders are secured.
An exemption stating that if the parents have broken our laws and are here illegally then the child is not a citizen would work also. If one parent is a citizen then the child would be a citizen
An exemption stating that if the parents have broken our laws and are here illegally then the child is not a citizen would work also. If one parent is a citizen then the child would be a citizen
I would probably agree with that...I just wish they would do something besides ammnesty etc
Post by: Ezekiel on December 09, 2006, 01:52:52 PM
Quote
The question is should a baby born on US soil be considered an American citizen if its parents are not themselves Americans?
I believe that's the way it has worked since the Mayflower. (Metaphorically: the system wasn't codified until 1776.)
Any ancestrally non-native citizen who opposes such "birth policy" is just like the guy who shows up unannounced at a party, drinks all the beer, and then reports that "too many were invited."
Post by: doczinn on December 09, 2006, 02:53:44 PM
Nonetheless, she was not on US soil. She was not in the US.
Post by: doczinn on December 09, 2006, 02:55:24 PM
Quote
Any ancestrally non-native citizen who opposes such "birth policy" is just like the guy who shows up unannounced at a party, drinks all the beer, and then reports that "too many were invited."
Wrong again. It's like a guy who has an invitation to the party who tells someone who walked in the back door that they don't belong there, and to please leave.
Post by: Cosmoline on December 09, 2006, 03:00:58 PM
Post by: Vodka7 on December 09, 2006, 03:46:38 PM
Quote
Any ancestrally non-native citizen who opposes such "birth policy" is just like the guy who shows up unannounced at a party, drinks all the beer, and then reports that "too many were invited."
Wrong again. It's like a guy who has an invitation to the party who tells someone who walked in the back door that they don't belong there, and to please leave.Native American, are you? Or, able to provide papers showing each of your ancestors entered the country legally?
Thought so.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 09, 2006, 06:47:45 PM
Quote
The question is should a baby born on US soil be considered an American citizen if its parents are not themselves Americans?
I believe that's the way it has worked since the Mayflower. (Metaphorically: the system wasn't codified until 1776.)
I believe it was codified according to an interpretation of the fourteenth amendment, about one hundred years later. In any case, the Mayflower was certainly not the first boatload of British to settle in the present-day U.S. Remember Jamestown? But you cannot compare white settlement to modern-day illegal immigration. Did the various tribes or nations have immigration laws or well-defined borders? If Europeans had wished to enter legally or become citizens, how would they have done so? Our current immigration policy is far more welcoming than the "policies" of the native tribes in colonial days. They could only lay claim to the land because they had fought for it.* The Europeans did the same. Having said that, neither side has a clean record in terms of warfare, enslavement, deceit, etc.
*Sure, there were treaties and leagues among some tribes, but hadn't they come to that point after untold centuries of warfare?
Quote
Any ancestrally non-native citizen who opposes such "birth policy" is just like the guy who shows up unannounced at a party, drinks all the beer, and then reports that
Firstly, I'm not opposed to those kids becoming citizens - I'm not saying that "too many were invited." I just think they need to do it like everyone else did: either your parents were citizens, or you go through the citizenship process yourself, as other citizens do. The accident of birthplace is an absurd reason for citizenship. Secondly, let's not pretend that those already here have nothing to do with the prosperity we enjoy. We didn't bring all the beer, but many of us have made our share. Besides, there was no party before whites settled here. Before "us" there was some freedom - there was also a great deal of warfare, slavery and general oppression. There were vast natural resources - and an equal amount of poverty and poor living conditions. There were beautiful forests and streams - there were also deserts and barren wastelands. And how can I be less "native" than you? My grandparents were born here, this is the only place I know. Your ancestors pushed other people off of land they wanted, just the same as mine did. What's the difference?
Post by: Dannyboy on December 09, 2006, 08:38:32 PM
The accident of birthplace is an absurd reason for citizenship.
I really don't think I could say it any better.
Post by: Ezekiel on December 10, 2006, 10:50:03 AM
Quote
It's like a guy who has an invitation to the party who tells someone who walked in the back door that they don't belong there, and to please leave.
I don't recall invitations being issued.
Quote
Besides, there was no party before whites settled here.
Wow. Paging Mr. Gibson, Mr. Mel Gibson...
Quote
Your ancestors pushed other people off of land they wanted, just the same as mine did.
Cannot deny such. I believe the comparison should involve scale, however. (And, perhaps intent/result, over ~500 years.)
Going back to the initial thread query, at what point does the plane come under the jurisdiction of the United States? Given birth policy as it stands, isn't that important?
Post by: doczinn on December 10, 2006, 11:51:31 AM
Quote
Wow. Paging Mr. Gibson, Mr. Mel Gibson...
There you go again. Throwing that old race card when it's not even a little bit justified.Quote
I believe the comparison should involve scale, however.
Why? Invasion is invasion. Theft is theft.Both were practiced on a very large scale by most, if not all tribes in North America. The only real difference is that we were better at it. We had better technology, so we made it stick.Quote
Going back to the initial thread query, at what point does the plane come under the jurisdiction of the United States? Given birth policy as it stands, isn't that important?
Immensely important. Since the "Point of Entry" is the customs inspection point, I'd put the time of entry as the time the person clears inspection. My wife flew over the border somewhere in Texas or Arizona, but "entered" the United States in Los Angeles some three hours later.Of course, that raises the question of whether any illegal immigrant has "entered" the United States....
Post by: Cosmoline on December 10, 2006, 11:53:42 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 10, 2006, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: Ezekiel
Quote from: fistful
Besides, there was no party before whites settled here.
Wow. Paging Mr. Gibson, Mr. Mel Gibson...To get back to reality, though, my statement wasn't racial, it was cultural.
Post by: grislyatoms on December 10, 2006, 02:11:38 PM
therefore
Baby is not a citizen.
Additional thought, if they deem that the baby IS a citizen, what altitude limit will they set for future cases?
Stratosphere? Ionosphere? Space? The moon? Mars? Next solar system?
Gives new meaning to the term "Illegal alien".
Post by: Hawkmoon on December 10, 2006, 05:40:26 PM
So sparked on by a recent news story on FoxNews a question came to my mind, first the back story.
I can't find any online links to the story so I'll sumerize. A pregnant Mexican woman was on a flight from Mexico into the United States (forget the exact departure and destination cities) While on the flight she gave birth and some are calling for the baby to be an American citizen since its supposed to be if you are born in the US you are a US citizen. Ok thats it in short.
The question really isn't to the specific baby, its just what got the question in my mind.
The question is should a baby born on US soil be considered an American citizen if its parents are not themselves Americans?
I think not, but it will require a change in the laws to revise the status quo. In the case of the woman on the flight, she should not be considered to have been "in" the U.S. until the plane landed and she had cleared customs and immigration. If she gave birth in the air, she hadn't legally "entered" the U.S.
I can't find any online links to the story so I'll sumerize. A pregnant Mexican woman was on a flight from Mexico into the United States (forget the exact departure and destination cities) While on the flight she gave birth and some are calling for the baby to be an American citizen since its supposed to be if you are born in the US you are a US citizen. Ok thats it in short.
The question really isn't to the specific baby, its just what got the question in my mind.
The question is should a baby born on US soil be considered an American citizen if its parents are not themselves Americans?
Post by: Ezekiel on December 11, 2006, 04:25:14 AM
Quote from: doczinn
There you go again. Throwing that old race card when it's not even a little bit justified.
To get back to reality, though, my statement wasn't racial, it was cultural.
"Paging Mr. Gibson..."
I meant related to his latest flick, which readily points out that Natives were decidedly not cut from cloth better than any other human. (In sum, a validation of Fistful's point regarding actions prior to Anglo invasion, not a racial attack.)
I should have been more clear, which shows specifically how far our opinion of Mel has fallen: any mention of him becomes direct racial diatribe...
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 11, 2006, 04:30:40 AM
Post by: Ezekiel on December 11, 2006, 05:04:15 AM
I'm merely copping to such goings on being closer to reality than a Utopian land filled with honey...
OK. I'm still not sure what you were trying to say vis-a-vis Gibson. I don't know much about his latest movie.
Post by: Ezekiel on December 11, 2006, 05:34:26 AM
If there is no birthright citizenship, how do you know YOU'RE an American citizen?
Precisely.
It must remain intact, or all citizenship becomes questioned.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 11, 2006, 05:52:25 AM
Post by: doczinn on December 11, 2006, 06:14:50 AM
Quote
I meant related to his latest flick, which readily points out that Natives were decidedly not cut from cloth better than any other human.
Then I apologize.Quote
how far our opinion of Mel has fallen: any mention of him becomes direct racial diatribe...
It's not just that; I also considered the source. 
It's a point I frequently make, that all was not sweetness and light before our arrival.
Post by: Ezekiel on December 11, 2006, 07:54:31 AM
Quote
I meant related to his latest flick, which readily points out that Natives were decidedly not cut from cloth better than any other human.
Then I apologize.Quote
how far our opinion of Mel has fallen: any mention of him becomes direct racial diatribe...
It's not just that; I also considered the source. It's a point I frequently make, that all was not sweetness and light before our arrival.