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.
So tell me again, what's the problem with Maria Elena Garcia-Upson's name?
In which court has it been proven wrong? Just because some guy on the net (like maybe you) says it proven wrong, doesn't make it so. Show me where it's been proven wrong where it matters.
Completely incorrect.
No. It's a fairly common myth that sailing ships are in essence floating native soil as well, and while it's slightly more complicated, it's likewise not true.
Sweetie, I didn't say it. I merely said that was how I took the poster's comments. You chose to take them as 'racist'. Just pointing out they could be taken differently.
You can untwist your panties now.
Puzzle solved, she's a friggin ILLEGAL and so is the anchor baby.
It would depend on where the crime was committed. If in U.S. airspace, the USA would have jurisdiction, if the crime were committed over Canada, Canada would have jurisdiction. Airliners roll up the drink trays over dry countries too.
Since she was on a plane, I have $50 that says she had a passport, and is therefore not illegal. You guys are getting so rabid you don't even know what illegal means anymore.
The jurisdiction would be the United States, if the crime was committed while in United States airpsace.
Puzzle solved, she's a friggin ILLEGAL and so is the anchor baby.
What makes you think she's an illegal alien? Nothing in the article suggests anything of the sort.
I don't see how that isn't racist, sorry. Again, I've been awaiting an explanation. But the poster appears to be saying that Hispanics are disloyal and that therefore jobs in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship Services should be whites only.
Illegals don't travel by plane to visit their inlaws in Milwaukee.
Perhaps not. But as I've shown, others may have a different take on what was said.
Again, I've been awaiting an explanation.
The explanation you seek is in post 111.
Nothing at all.....until it beomes the hyphenated, a deliniting term for the United Staes.
I think it's pretty safe to conclude she was visiting her "in-laws" with one single purpose, to drop her anchor baby..
And yes, when Hispanics fly into our country..it's actually the easiest, safest and most preferred way they can become "illegal". They simply "overstay" their visas..
sw
What the hell are you talking about? This is some random spokesperson for the ICE, about whom you know absolutely nothing other than she has a US Citizen with a Hispanic name. Yet you are objecting to her for some reason.
Who are we to decide someone's motivation based on a few paragraphs in a newspaper? We know nothing about her, or her husband, or her inlaws. We also don't know how far along she was. Perhaps the baby was on time, perhaps it was premature.
If she has inlaws in Milwaukee, then she has family here who could sponsor her if she chose to move here. She doesn't need to risk her baby's health by getting on an airplane.
This time of year it's perfectly normal for people to fly to visit family. I'm not going to assume she has an ulterior motive just because she's Mexican. I also take issue with some of the comments accusing her of being illegal. I think it's apparent that she's not.
You are absolutely wrong. Mexicana is a "flag carrier" for Mexico. It is every bit as soveriegn as a private flagged ship.
Under International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) regulations, of which Mexico and the US are signatories of course, the aircraft was Mexican "territory" even if it had already landed.
This woman was just 20 minutes shy of dropping her anchor baby where she wanted to.
Since the US has no fortitude, the mother and child will stay and soon be collecting thousands of dollars of your property tax money.
Think about it. What is this story truly about, then? Paleo, I know you keep the aviation ping list. Are you a pilot? From a pilot's perspective, a pilot of a U.S. flag carrier is most likely expected to enforce his or her version of U.S. law onboard (one couldn't expect otherwise). But in the eyes of the law, that does not make the carrier sovereign territory.
Think about it. If this woman murders someone (Let's make him a U.S. citizen) while the aircraft is on final approach to Dallas, and is taken into custody at the gate, did she commit murder in the U.S. or Mexico? Does the Dallas D.A. simply say, "Can't do anything about it. Let's get coffee?"
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.