Posted on 12/08/2006 3:20:30 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Baby Girl Was Born On Flight From Mexico To Chicago
(CBS) CHICAGO -- Immigration officials say it remains to be seen whether a baby girl born aboard a plane just before it landed in Chicago will be a U.S. or Mexican citizen.
Maria Elena Garcia-Upson is a spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. She says a child born in airspace over U.S. territory is eligible for citizenship.
But the parents have to file an application, and then officials have to investigate whether the child was born in Mexican airspace or international waters, Garcia-Upson said.
A 42-year-old woman gave birth to the 7-pound, 8-ounce girl late Wednesday night on a Mexicana Airlines flight from Guadalajara, Mexico.
An obstetrician traveling on the plane helped with the birth about an hour before the plane touched down.
That I'm not going to get into. I think that is something that will have to be addressed by congress and perhaps by the USSC. Any law that encourages people to break a law can not be tolerated. If our country is based on the rule of law, then anything that encourages people to break the law is an abomination.
>In other words, the Supreme Court has recognized birthright citizenship since 1898.
Uh, NO. What Wong Kim Ark court ruled is *domiciled* persons should be considered under the jurisdiction of the U.S. National law after Kim Ark continued to treat children born to aliens as aliens.
United States never recognized birthright to anyone other than citizens.
Wong Kim Ark declared unambiguously that all persons in the United States, who are not (1) Indians (2) Diplomats or (3) Foreign Belligerents are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Don't believe me? Go to the library and look up a copy of the Supreme Court's decision yourself:
The real object of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States,' by the addition, 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in particular relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state -- both of which... from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
In all honesty, this was settled law long before the 14th Amendment. In fact, John Marshall recognized birthright citizenship as a fundamental right under the Constitution as early as 1804 in Murray v. The Charming Betsy. All the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment did was to clarify that birthright citizenship, which had long applied to the children of aliens who traveled to the United States voluntarily (regardless of status), also applied to blacks.
If you think the Court made a mistake in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in recognizing automatic birthright citizenship, then I'd encourage you to attempt to get the present court to overturn that 109 year old decision. Failing that, amend the United States Constitution.
I agree that anything that encourages people to break the law is wrong. But what law was broken in this case? Presumably it isn't illegal to give birth on an airplane, and I've heard no reports that the child's parents were entering the United States without the requisite visas.
Why not? Brits are one of the largest immigrant groups to the United States
I am going to be in SO much trouble for this post. Perhaps this would be a good time to finish putting up the Christmas decorations.
That just means you spoke the truth.
Oh good. Truth is better than simply being inflammatory. ;-)
That said, it is the truth.
Well, it would appear that me and my post and intact.....you see, on Free Republic, political correctness means nothing. Try your luck at Democrat Underground.
Hmmm. . .could be. I took it to be suggesting that you don't hire a fox to guard the hen house. :::shrug:::
That was precisely the point; and I'll say that I don't belong to any group that places a hyphen before the word "American" when describing myself.
To state it plainly, I don't separate myself from other Americans through the use of racial identifiers. So tell me who is more preoccupied with race?
So some ICS spokesperson named "Maria" is a fox guarding a hen house? You know this... how?
So to clear up this unfortunate confusion, maybe you could state plainly for us exactly what your objection is to Maria Elena Garcia-Upson?
Free Republic is replete with examples of Hispanics in INS not doing what is necessarily best for America. You'll find them in the archives. Do some research.
Quoting "Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law" such clear operation of the clause is well spelled out by the guy who wrote it:
"To make matters even worst for the court, Howard goes on to say in May of 1868 that the 'Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the limits of the country.'"
You're saying that Hispanics aren't loyal United States citizens?
That's a totally reasonable position that we can argue -- all you need to do is find a court that agrees with your interpretation and agrees to overturn the supposedly erroneous 109-year old precedent created in Wong Kim Ark.
implied no such thing; however I dont choose a hyphenatedname as everybody else seems to want to.
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.