Skip to comments.
Baby born on jet just before O'Hare landing (anchor baby or not?)
chi sun-times ^
| December 8, 2006
| ESTHER J. CEPEDA Staff Reporter
Posted on 12/08/2006 7:28:47 PM PST by dennisw
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121 next last
To: FreedomCalls
So some person named Mathew bender writes an opinion, not tested by law, nor written by a dually elected legal body and not tested by any court, and it is the law of the land. That is what you are saying isn't it. and he also thought that the 14th amendment was applicable. If this is the Case may I write a law next week and then why don't we just let one freeper a day write a new law of the day.
61
posted on
12/08/2006 8:51:29 PM PST
by
org.whodat
(Never let the facts get in the way of a good assumption.)
To: Verginius Rufus
Law is Law
she will be proclaimed a US citizen..
62
posted on
12/08/2006 8:58:50 PM PST
by
doc1019
To: dennisw
"Anchor Baby"? No. "Chock Baby"
63
posted on
12/08/2006 8:59:35 PM PST
by
Eddie01
(please let me know if I missed anything)
To: cajungirl
And in your case, without any mercy. Put the baby in foster care/prosecute her. YOu are a piece of work.Before you get too mad, let me ask this:
Since the mother was apparently attempting to give birth to her daughter in America, and Freeper outdriving mentioned that the baby should be in foster care, the difference between your positions is that 1) outdriving thinks the baby should stay (apparently that she's American), but not with the mother and 2) cajungirl thinks they both should stay, or at least that the baby is American whether the mother stays or not.
It appears that the only difference in your opinions is whether the baby or both should stay. If you say the mother shouldn't stay, because she was reckless obviously trying to "anchor" herself in America, then why should the baby stay? Shouldn't she be with a foster home in Mexico?
If you say the baby is a U.S. citizen by coincidence and the mother wasn't attempting to anchor herself to the U.S., what do you say if she goes home? Did the baby "luck out" and receive U.S. citizenship as well as Mexican citizenship? Does the mother get to jump ahead of all other legal immigrants waiting in line overseas because of the timing of her delivery?
Just askin'.
64
posted on
12/08/2006 9:10:12 PM PST
by
Squeako
(ACLU: "Only Christians, Boy Scouts and War Memorials are too vile to defend.")
To: montag813
"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."
---
Your interpretation is incorrect.
"People born in the United States but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to the children of diplomats and their families. Since diplomats have diplomatic immunity they are not subject to the our laws, nor are their children, and therefore they do not get American citizenship just because they are born here.
This is what the people who drafted the amendment intended it to mean. They did not intend it to exclude any child born within the United States except for children of people with diplomatic immunity. Since the day the amendment went into effect it has never been interpreted to exclude any other children born in the United States.
You may feel that children born in the United States to illegal immigrants should not be given citizenship. In order for that to result there will have to be an amendment to the Constitution.
65
posted on
12/08/2006 9:11:07 PM PST
by
Cheburashka
(World's only Spatula City certified spatula repair and maintenance specialist!!!)
To: FreedomCalls
If I am not mistaken until the wheels touched down, the aircraft would be consider the soverign territory of Mexico as it was a Mexican Airline.
Any international pilots on the thread know for sure?
66
posted on
12/08/2006 9:13:40 PM PST
by
cpdiii
(Oil Field Trash and proud of it, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist, Iconoclast)
To: outdriving
Post #64 was for you, too.
67
posted on
12/08/2006 9:18:23 PM PST
by
Squeako
(ACLU: "Only Christians, Boy Scouts and War Memorials are too vile to defend.")
To: Squeako; cajungirl
For sure this woman was trying to get her baby born on US soil. Koreans and a few others like to do this. Wealthy people like to fly here, have their baby born here so he is a US citizen for their future plans. Then they fly back home.
No one flys this pregnant except a scam artist. Scamming the stupid gringos on the 14th Amendment
68
posted on
12/08/2006 9:18:51 PM PST
by
dennisw
To: Zack Nguyen
"There is nothing to be concerned about, by the way, we are out of coffee."
69
posted on
12/08/2006 9:20:14 PM PST
by
Hawk1976
(And for my next trick I will use splel chuck.)
To: cajungirl
But nobody pauses to think, "how wonderful", the baby is fine.Why should I. This is a transparent attempt to get an anchor baby. It is not wonderful when people jam their way into my house uninvited.
70
posted on
12/08/2006 9:22:07 PM PST
by
dennisw
To: COEXERJ145
However, this is not a British woman on a British airways aircraft. This was a Mexican woman on a Mexican national flag aircraft, the past behavior of her countrymen tends to indicate that this woman was circumventing the law in any way she could.
71
posted on
12/08/2006 9:23:43 PM PST
by
Hawk1976
(And for my next trick I will use splel chuck.)
To: doc1019
If she was born on a Mexican flag carrier prior to that carrier arriving at it's port of call in the United States, the carrier is the sovereign territory of Mexico. Would you argue that a child born inside of three miles of the coast of the United States on a ship destined for a US port is a citizen?
72
posted on
12/08/2006 9:29:43 PM PST
by
Hawk1976
(And for my next trick I will use splel chuck.)
To: Hawk1976
The baby and mother are undoubtedly in a hospital at this very moment. Sponging off the US health care system. No one in FR would fly 8 monthspregnant into Mexico or Europe expecting to use (exploit) a foreign nations health care system
73
posted on
12/08/2006 9:41:27 PM PST
by
dennisw
To: COEXERJ145
As I said on the previous thread, if it was British Airways flight and the woman was a British citizen, no one on this forum would give a damn.Please put away your Race Card. You are embarrassing yourself by waving it around on this forum.
To: Cheburashka
Since the day the amendment went into effect it has never been interpreted to exclude any other children born in the United States. That's totally 100% false. Up until 1924 when the Indian Citizenship Act was passed, Native Americans born in the United States were not automatically citizens of the United States.
75
posted on
12/08/2006 9:58:52 PM PST
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: Cheburashka
You may feel that children born in the United States to illegal immigrants should not be given citizenship. In order for that to result there will have to be an amendment to the Constitution. That is not true. Just as Congress could grant citizenship to all Native American tribespeople born in the United States by simply passing a law, Congress can also remove birthright citizenship by simply passing a similar law.
76
posted on
12/08/2006 10:01:51 PM PST
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: MIchaelTArchangel
Not true. She was born on a Mexican aircraft which by both U.S. and International law is Mexican soil. Uh...not too sure about that. I know that merchant ships do not have extra-territorial rights. But on the other hand, warships do. I think you could apply the same logic to aircraft. But then who knows? You might be right.
77
posted on
12/08/2006 10:31:46 PM PST
by
navyblue
(Semper ubi sub ubi)
To: pinkpanther111
In accordance with international law, the aircraft is considered the soveriegn territory of the country of origin. In this instance the child was born in Mexico being on a Mexican airliner. It would be the same as if the child were born inside a foreign embassy.
78
posted on
12/08/2006 11:59:27 PM PST
by
Billyv
(It is our commonality (desire for liberty) NOT our diversity that makes America great.)
To: navyblue
"But on the other hand, warships do [have extra-territorial rights]."
So .... if a pregnant woman was rescued at sea by an American warship in, say, the western Pacific, and then gave birth on the ship - would that be an anchor baby?
To: FreedomCalls
Indians are a different case, and a limited one. They were treated as having sovereign status even though they did not have sovereign territories, i.e. they were here first, so they get special treatment.
The law you cite just put them on the same basis as everyone else, gave them the same rights that everyone else born here had, it didn't take anything away from them.
If you want to take anything away from people, you're going to need a Constitutional amendment.
80
posted on
12/09/2006 2:04:07 AM PST
by
Cheburashka
(World's only Spatula City certified spatula repair and maintenance specialist!!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson