Posted on 12/08/2006 3:20:30 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
this shouldn't even be a question to be seriously considered. The travesty which is the anchor-baby problem is unconstitional but does pass the extra-judicial test and is therefore a parasite on our founding documents. What other place in the world does the physical location of your birth change your citizenship? And why would we want to be like any of those places? I'm sure the Guatemalans would love to be given Mexican citizenship for having their babies in Oaxaca but you don't see Mexico running around passing out papers to any illegal in THEIR country.
snip...
then officials have to investigate whether the child was born in Mexican airspace or international waters
Was this person on a F-18 going the Mach 3 from Mexico to Chicago.
Actually, we wouldn't have this discussion because the parents would probably just assume UK citizenship. We don't have millions of UK illegal aliens streaming across our Atlantic border.
I think you are crying racism when it is unwarranted. I could care less if illegals are Mexican, Swedish, African, Russian, Latvian. Just do it the right way. Why, why, why is that too much to ask.
It is a Mexican airliner, if this plane fell out of the sky over Chicago, the people would be suing MEXICO, not the US.
hmmmm wonder why Italians born to immigrants in NY in 1930 were not citizens till their parents were naturalized?
Your funny. That's a real knee slapper.
They would blame Bush of course, and global warming for the inexplicable microburst that brought it down. And everyone knows global warming is humanity fault, but especially the US citizens fault (not illegal aliens, historically oppressed minority, you know).
Reminds me of the old joke "If a plane crashed on the US / Canadian border, where would they bury the survivors?"
But you'd be sued in an American court, because actions committed within the territory of the United States are subject to United States law. That the plane in question is the property of a corporation based outside of the United States is immaterial -- its owners are still subject to US law.
Entered the country without any sort of identification or visa.
"It is permissible to infer that this woman was legally traveling to the U.S."
She probably was but her whole reason to do it was likely to have an anchor baby. Women that pregnant don't take international flights very often.
I don't know. The Constitution seems pretty clear: 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.
.
Color me sceptical.
See:
http://federalistblog.us/2005/12/birthright_citizenship_fable.html
"subject to the jurisdiction" means much more then simply being subject to laws because you happen to under a certain legal jurisdiction for application of local laws.
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
This was written to deal with native americans. Not Mexican nationals.
When the anchor baby block starts to vote out tax dollars to reward madre and padre for their years of sufference at the hands of America this country will end.
The only way out of that scenario is for us to take a stand now. We must stop the George Bush's of the world who won't lift a finger to stop this invasion. God help us.
Dang beat me by 40 seconds.
Sooooo...are you implying that it is only bigotry that motivates the concern that those on this forum have about illegal immigration in general and this lady in particular?
If you are going to accuse your fellow freepers of being bigots, state it plainly, not with cute insinuations.
Actually it was written to deal with native americans. The "subject to the jurisdiction of" clause was intended (and congressional debate proves this) to exempt: Indians subject to tribal law, diplomats (protected by diplomatic immunity), and persons of other countries under American military control. But since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, all children born in the United States to immigrants have been citizens. You don't have to like that from a policy standpoint, but it's settled law.
She wasn't "in" the United States until she cleared customs. Much like Cubans who have no claim to asylum until their feet actually touch US soil. Just being enroute either in the US territorial waters or US airspace doesn't count. And she was not "residing" in any state.
She has no claim to American citizenship.
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.