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.
Hit the abuse button then, and see if you hit the PC jackpot.
Quisling.
Yes, illegal immigration is a problem. But the poster was suggesting that any American citizen with a vaguely Hispanic name is on the side of illegal immigrants, which is not only erroneous, but racist as all hell.
Oh believe me, I did. Go find another forum for your un-American racist filth.
achor babies were legally abolished in the 1990's with the immigration reforms signed by clinton under the republican congress.
This article is 100% BS.
This concept is old.
Same as with babies being born on ships.
Folks watch out for this type of sympathy BS article.
The parents can "apply" but they will be sent back and the child with them. It can return without the parents at 18.
One hour out of Chicago is clearly in US airspace. Baby was born in the US.
My post did not smack, sir. I come from a long line of unsmacked individuals.
If these air mexico travelers did not have their proper visas, the airline can be fined REGARDLESS OF THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME OF THE APPLICANTS.
===begin snip====
In re Air India Airlines Flight No. AI 101
File NYC 932639 - New York
Interim Decision #3388
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals
Decided May 4, 1999
A carrier is subject to fine under section 273(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1323(a) (Supp. V 1993), for bringing an alien passenger without proper documents to the United States even though the alien passenger is a lawful permanent resident who was subsequently granted a waiver under 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(b)(3) (1994).
Jonathan A. Fuchs, Esquire, Brooklyn, New York, for carrier
Karl D. Klauck, Acting Appellate Counsel, for the Immigration and Naturalization Service
Before: Board Panel: HOLMES, HURWITZ, and VILLAGELIU, Board Members.
HURWITZ, Board Member:
In a decision dated November 5, 1993, the acting director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service National Fines Office ("director") imposed an administrative fine in the amount of $3000 on the carrier for one violation of section 273(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1323(a) (Supp. V 1993). The carrier appealed from that decision. In a decision dated April 2, 1997, the Board sustained the appeal and remanded the record for further proceedings. In a decision dated September 5, 1997, the director denied the carrier's request for remission. In an order dated March 1, 1999, the Board accepted jurisdiction of the
Page 2
appeal by certification pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(c) (1999). On March 8, 1999, the carrier requested oral argument. The appeal will be dismissed and the request for oral argument is denied.1
I. BACKGROUND
The carrier brought the above-named alien passenger to the United States from India on August 17, 1993. Although the alien passenger was a lawful permanent resident of the United States, she did not have an Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form I-551) or reentry permit in her possession when she was presented for inspection. The passenger was determined by the Service to be a national and citizen of India and a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Subsequent to her arrival, she was granted a visa waiver on Form I-193 (Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa) pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(b)(3) (1994). On August 24, 1993, the district director issued a Notice of Intention to Fine under Immigration and Nationality Act (Form I-79), in which he alleged that the carrier was liable for a $3000 fine under section 273 of the Act for bringing an alien to the United States from India without an unexpired visa or reentry permit.
In correspondence dated August 16, 1993, the carrier disputed that fine liability existed because the alien passenger was granted a waiver under 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(b)(3). In its submission the carrier admitted that when the alien passenger boarded the plane in Bombay, India, on August 17, 1993, its agents permitted the alien passenger to board the flight in question after having processed the alien as a native and citizen of India and a lawful permanent resident of the United States who was in possession of a valid passport but not in possession of an immigrant visa or documents in lieu thereof pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 211.1. The carrier claims, however, that because the alien passenger was subsequently granted a waiver under 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(b)(3), no fine liability exists, as the alien was not required to possess a visa as a result of the waiver. The carrier cites Matter of Plane CCA CUT 532, 6 I&N Dec. 262 (BIA 1954), and Matter of Plane "CUT-604", 7 I&N Dec. 701 (BIA 1958). In those cases it was held that a carrier is relieved of fine liability under section 273 of the Act for bringing an immigrant to the United States without a proper visa where such person is admitted under the authority of a published regulation and
Page 3
the regulation provides in express terms that a visa is not required when a waiver is granted.
After consideration of the carrier's arguments, the director found that fine liability did exist and imposed a $3000 fine on the carrier on November 5, 1993. On appeal, the carrier renews its arguments that it is not liable for a fine when a waiver has been granted to the alien under 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(b)(3).
===end-snip===
Well this is just silly.
What exactly is dangerous about flying while pregnant and close to childbirth?? Or is it only because it is a Mexican woman who was flying while pregnant?
Read your post all the way, found you reduced to name calling. The question is when are you going to answer the argument pointed out in post 59?? Are is the fact is that you are full of hot air and no proof?
I question the timing ....
Aircraft and ships are sovereign territory of the country in which they are registered. The interior of the aircraft is "Mexican soil". The mother and child are Mexican citizens. A U.S. citizen mother would have a U.S. citizen child, but it would not be considered "native born" and would not be eligible to run for President.
What does post 59 have to do either with me or with this crazy racist we're dealing with?
It didn't? You must have a different copy of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898) than I have sitting on my desk in front of me because not only did it "touch" on birthright citizenship, birthright citizenship was the only issue at hand in the case. It specifically addresses birthright citizenship, and, as the majority held,
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect of the submission of this case... were to present for determination the single question [emphasis mine]... namely, whether a child born in the United Sates, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. [T]his court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
In other words, the Supreme Court has recognized birthright citizenship since 1898. This is settled law, and no court has EVER ruled otherwise. Your argument is a nice one -- just like the pseudo-legalist arguments that Texas was never admitted to the Union or that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, but like those, here again the emperor has no clothes. You need more than a good story to overturn long settled constitutional law.
So there were wars between England and the USA? Who knew? The things one learns here at FR.
That's what makes it the best forum in the Anglosphere.
Sure most doctors would recommend against it, but most would also admit that there isn't much risk to flying while pregnant. You might not make it to a hospital, but many women give birth outside of hospitals.
Airlines recommend against it because a woman in childbirth can make the other passengers uncomfortable, and in the case of complications, they might have to alter their landing destination, to seek medical help, not because of risk to the baby.
Saying the woman should be prosecuted for child endangerment is ridiculous. Pregnant women fly every day without incident. Determining the date a baby will be born is not an exact science, they come early and late. I'm sure the doctors told your wife this as well. The woman may have planned to have the child while in the US, but I doubt seriously that she wanted to have the baby in flight.
The child should not be seperated from it's parent. It's parent is not a citizen of the US and may not remain in the US illegally. Now, the parent can give up the child for adoption, or take the child back to Mexico to be raised until it is capable of providing for itself.
Totally agree that the parent and child should not be separated and both should be sent back to Mexico upon the expiration of the parents' visas. However, that doesn't change the fact that the kid has a right to a US passport.
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.