Posted on 10/18/2014 1:06:04 AM PDT by blueplum
Ferouz Myuddin is an adorable 11-month-old boy who is about to get deported. Born to a Burman asylum seeker in Mater Hospital, on Australian soil, he was refused a visa because of his family's refugee status and designated an "unlawful maritime arrival." On Wednesday, a federal court upheld the decision to deny the child a visa, a ruling that could set the precedent for sending roughly 100 babies born in Australia to off-shore detention centers. :snip:
It's also important to note that just two weeks ago, Scott Morrison, Australia's immigration minister, introduced legislation that would automatically designate all babies born on the mainland to asylum-seekers as "unauthorised maritime arrivals," removing their opportunity to be represented in court. Ferouz's case might be the last of its kind.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Australia doesn’t have birthright citizenship. Why is this even an issue worthy of being the subject of an article?
Sanity reigns at last down under. America does not have birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, according to the proper interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s ‘jurisdiction’ clause.
Mebey he’s native ‘murican!
Because it is a comparison to the insanity of American laws
Good question. A baby born in Australia is born with his or her parents’ status. So if the parents are citizens, the child is a citizen; if the parents are illegal aliens, the child is an illegal alien; if the parents are legal permanent residents, the child is a legal permanent resident. Makes sense to me.
To give Americans ideas .. like .. maybe WE should stop anchoring babies.
Exactly. Thanks, ICC. The intent is to highlight there are correct ways of controlling immigration (Australia) as opposed to the current (insane) American model which encourages anchor-baby-vacations and illegal border entry.
America is the only nation on earth in which a foreigner can make his offspring a natural born citizen of another country. It is part of the Progressive idiocy that is killing our republic.
Thanks! I understand the point being made. I thought it was an internal argument for Australia.
BTW, can a president block birthright citizenship by “executive order?” It seems that Obama is doing everything by executive order, and Congress hasn’t said a word. Therefore, a precedent has already been made.
Common sense in action. “A baby born in Australia is born with his or her parents’ status.”
Not a little irony though in being “transported” from Oz. “Term” to be determined.
Heck, the US can make a child a natural born citizen of two countries at once! Dual citizen at birth, and natural born citizen of the US, simultaneously.
Nope. There are dozens and dozens of such countries, in fact almost all countries in the Americas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Unrestricted_jus_soli
The US and Canada are the only “advanced” such countries.
I don’t know about other countries, but every child born in Canada regardless of parent’s status is a Canadian citizen.
Do both parents need to be citizens?
Nothing new about that.
Winston Churchill’s mom was American. Under present law he would be a dual citizen of US and UK even if born in England, as long as his mother met the somewhat confusing residence requirements. I have no idea what the law was when he was born.
Had he been born in NYC rather than England, he would most certainly have been a natural-born citizen and eligible to be elected president, while at the same time being a British citizen through his father.
The US simply pays no attention to dual citizenship. It does not “recognize” it. Whatever other citizenships a person might hold makes no difference to his rights or duties as an American.
FWIW, both Washington and Madison were citizens of France.
This practice is not a result of SCOTUS decision. It is simply an executive department interpretation of the law that has never been directly ruled on by the Supremes either way.
Or at least that’s my impression.
It is, BTW, quite an old interpretation.
When 14A was ratified, there were no restrictions on immigration, so there simply were no “illegal immigrants” to be excluded from citizenship.
It isn’t the only country. Canada does the same thing.
Wow. I’m surprised only Canada and America are the only advanced countries that do this.
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.