Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply puritysourcelabs US-PHARMACIES
UGL OZ Raptor Labs UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAKUS-PHARMACIESRaptor Labs

Stefka -- Immigration question...

mrplunkey

mrplunkey

New member
And yes I'm genuinely curious, not just trying to stir stuff up.

If a pregnant woman hijacked an airplane and induced herself as she passed over US airspace, would the child be considered a US citizen?
 
mrplunkey said:
And yes I'm genuinely curious, not just trying to stir stuff up.

If a pregnant woman hijacked an airplane and induced herself as she passed over US airspace, would the child be considered a US citizen?
Click to expand...

believe his naturalization status would be determined by where he was hatched

nevertheless, if she "induced herself" he'd be a bastard

just sayin'
 
bakemeacookie said:
No. You're not considered "on us soil" until you get past us customs. Hence why they can turn you back.

So the kid would be from the last port of entry. If she went into labor, she'd be taken to a hospital but it would be treated as the kid was born out of the country - so it would get no birth certificate.

c
Click to expand...

Not true - US airspace counts as "subject to the jurisdiction of the US," which is what is required for jus soli citizenship.
Seriously dude, just stop trying.
 
No. You're not considered "on us soil" until you get past us customs. Hence why they can turn you back.

So the kid would be from the last port of entry. If she went into labor, she'd be taken to a hospital but it would be treated as the kid was born out of the country - so it would get no birth certificate.

c
 
mrplunkey said:
And yes I'm genuinely curious, not just trying to stir stuff up.

If a pregnant woman hijacked an airplane and induced herself as she passed over US airspace, would the child be considered a US citizen?
Click to expand...

couldn't she just take a flight to the US and have a baby in the airport?
 
No offense guys, but I'm going to go with the lawyer's opinion.

:)

Stefka obviously recognized the circumstances I was setting up (but the rest of you missed it, neener neener) where someone was in the act of committing a crime (hijacking) with a clear intent to enter the US illegally for the purpose of having a child (inducing herself).

I figured if that was illegal, then really all we're arguing between that and anchor babies is how many passengers you forcefully take with you on the trip and your mode of transportation.
 
Stefka said:
Not true - US airspace counts as "subject to the jurisdiction of the US," which is what is required for jus soli citizenship.
Seriously dude, just stop trying.
Click to expand...

post a govt link please. it's not as simple as "born over us, boom, us citizen". depends on many factors including citizenship of the parents and where the plane was headed.

c
 
bakemeacookie said:
post a govt link please. it's not as simple as "born over us, boom, us citizen". depends on many factors including citizenship of the parents and where the plane was headed.

c
Click to expand...

God, you are so wrong. I can't imagine making shit up and then spouting it off on the internet as if it were truth.

All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire US citizenship at birth, even if the parents were in the US illegally. See U.S. v. Wong Kim, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). According to the Wong Kim court, “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign
sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States."

Airspace above the land territory, internal waters, and territorial sea is considered to be part of the United States (Presidential Proclamation 5928, signed December 27, 1988, published at 54 Federal Register 777, January 9, 1989).

Persons born on ships located within U.S. internal waters are considered to have been born in the United States. Such persons will acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Internal waters include the ports, harbors, bays, and other enclosed areas of the sea along the U.S. coast. A child born on a foreign merchant ship or privately owned vessel in U.S. internal waters is considered as having been born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. See Wong Kim, 169 US 649.

“The rules applicable to vessels obviously apply equally to airplanes. Thus a child born on a [private or commercial] plane in the United States or flying over its territory would acquire United States citizenship at birth.” Gordon, Immigration Law and Procedure, Part 8, Nationality and Citizenship, Chapter 92, 92.03 (New York: Matthew Bender, 2007).


The airspace question isn't even the difficult/interesting part of Plunkey's hypo. He's trying to get at the " enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory" exception. Although the birth-inducing terrorist is an enemy of the US, her actions are not sufficient to "occupy" the territory - she's just attacking, not technically occupying - and, thus, the child is still born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
 
this would rarely happen since most airlines refuse and/or discourage women to fly after the 2nd trimester
 
What I really want to know is if said hi-jacked plane crashed on the US-Canadian border, where would you bury the survivors?
 
mrplunkey said:
No offense guys, but I'm going to go with the lawyer's opinion.

:)

Stefka obviously recognized the circumstances I was setting up (but the rest of you missed it, neener neener) where someone was in the act of committing a crime (hijacking) with a clear intent to enter the US illegally for the purpose of having a child (inducing herself).

I figured if that was illegal, then really all we're arguing between that and anchor babies is how many passengers you forcefully take with you on the trip and your mode of transportation.
Click to expand...

why would she hijack the plane if she could legally just board a plane headed to the u.s. :freak:
 
nimbus said:
why would she hijack the plane if she could legally just board a plane headed to the u.s. :freak:
Click to expand...

because she would certainly be detained >9 months allowing her to hatch teh bastard on U.S. soil ensuring naturalization

playing along with the hypothetical
 
Stefka said:
God, you are so wrong. I can't imagine making shit up and then spouting it off on the internet as if it were truth.

All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire US citizenship at birth, even if the parents were in the US illegally. See U.S. v. Wong Kim, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). According to the Wong Kim court, “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign
sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States."

Airspace above the land territory, internal waters, and territorial sea is considered to be part of the United States (Presidential Proclamation 5928, signed December 27, 1988, published at 54 Federal Register 777, January 9, 1989).

Persons born on ships located within U.S. internal waters are considered to have been born in the United States. Such persons will acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Internal waters include the ports, harbors, bays, and other enclosed areas of the sea along the U.S. coast. A child born on a foreign merchant ship or privately owned vessel in U.S. internal waters is considered as having been born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. See Wong Kim, 169 US 649.

“The rules applicable to vessels obviously apply equally to airplanes. Thus a child born on a [private or commercial] plane in the United States or flying over its territory would acquire United States citizenship at birth.” Gordon, Immigration Law and Procedure, Part 8, Nationality and Citizenship, Chapter 92, 92.03 (New York: Matthew Bender, 2007).
Click to expand...

Killer research. Nice! (as if my opinion mattered :p)

Stefka said:
The airspace question isn't even the difficult/interesting part of Plunkey's hypo. He's trying to get at the " enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory" exception. Although the birth-inducing terrorist is an enemy of the US, her actions are not sufficient to "occupy" the territory - she's just attacking, not technically occupying - and, thus, the child is still born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Click to expand...

Damn. You already cut into my backup argument.

I'd argue that 13M people crossing our border and apparently beyond our capability to remove would constitute an occupying force.
 
Stefka said:
God, you are so wrong. I can't imagine making shit up and then spouting it off on the internet as if it were truth.

All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire US citizenship at birth, even if the parents were in the US illegally. See U.S. v. Wong Kim, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). According to the Wong Kim court, “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign
sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States."

Airspace above the land territory, internal waters, and territorial sea is considered to be part of the United States (Presidential Proclamation 5928, signed December 27, 1988, published at 54 Federal Register 777, January 9, 1989).

Persons born on ships located within U.S. internal waters are considered to have been born in the United States. Such persons will acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Internal waters include the ports, harbors, bays, and other enclosed areas of the sea along the U.S. coast. A child born on a foreign merchant ship or privately owned vessel in U.S. internal waters is considered as having been born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. See Wong Kim, 169 US 649.

“The rules applicable to vessels obviously apply equally to airplanes. Thus a child born on a [private or commercial] plane in the United States or flying over its territory would acquire United States citizenship at birth.” Gordon, Immigration Law and Procedure, Part 8, Nationality and Citizenship, Chapter 92, 92.03 (New York: Matthew Bender, 2007).


The airspace question isn't even the difficult/interesting part of Plunkey's hypo. He's trying to get at the " enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory" exception. Although the birth-inducing terrorist is an enemy of the US, her actions are not sufficient to "occupy" the territory - she's just attacking, not technically occupying - and, thus, the child is still born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Click to expand...

Nice try. The word "jurisdiction" is the tricky part. Even the United Nations disagrees with you on this. It depends on many factors including citizenship of parents, etc.

here, good reading:
HowStuffWorks "If a child is born on an airplane, what's his citizenship?"

c
 
Stefka said:
Not true - US airspace counts as "subject to the jurisdiction of the US," which is what is required for jus soli citizenship.
Seriously dude, just stop trying.
Click to expand...

"subject to the jurisdiction of the US" not equal to "automatic citizenship"

stilleto said:
and the match goes to...
bakemeacookie
Click to expand...

agreed


but, not due to any pretense of understanding international law ... primarily just for general principles of disagreeing with Plunkey
 
PICK3 said:
"subject to the jurisdiction of the US" not equal to "automatic citizenship"
Click to expand...


Yes it does. The exact holding of U.S. v. Wong Kim, 169 U.S. 649 is that all children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire US citizenship at birth. Read the friggin case before arguing about crap you don't understand.
 
Stefka said:
Um, nice try, but even with google, you're still wrong. Plunkey's hypo is when the child is born over US airspace. US airspace is under the jurisdiction of the US. For US citizenship, the citizenship of the child's parents only matters if the child is not born on land/sea/air that is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The birth in your article does not occur over US airspace.
Click to expand...

did u even read the article? jurisdiction != us citizenship. One day you'll get it. I hope.

c
 
bakemeacookie said:
Nice try. The word "jurisdiction" is the tricky part. Even the United Nations disagrees with you on this. It depends on many factors including citizenship of parents, etc.

here, good reading:
HowStuffWorks "If a child is born on an airplane, what's his citizenship?"

c
Click to expand...

Um, nice try, but even with google, you're still wrong. Plunkey's hypo is when the child is born over US airspace. US airspace is under the jurisdiction of the US. For US citizenship, the citizenship of the child's parents only matters if the child is not born on land/sea/air that is subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The birth in your article does not occur over US airspace.

Further, the US is not a party to the U.N. Convention on Reduction of Statelessness (1961) (which your article also references). Article 3 of the Convention does not apply to the United States. Article 3 provides “For the purpose of determining the obligations of Contracting States under this Convention, birth on a ship or in an aircraft shall be deemed to have taken place in the territory of the State whose flag the ship flies or in the territory of the State in which the aircraft is registered, as the case may be.”

So please, just go back to your celebrity gossip. You still suck at law.
 
Last edited:
bakemeacookie said:
did u even read the article? jurisdiction != us citizenship. One day you'll get it. I hope.

c
Click to expand...

Did you even read the case I cited? Pretty sure the US Supreme Court is a higher authority than howstuffworks.com.

And yes, I did read the article. The child was not born over US airspace, so that leaves all sorts of variables. If the child were born over US airspace (aboard a commercial or private plane), it would have US citizenship - no question.
 
I'm still gonna side with the lawyer on this one.

Cited cases > Google search
 
PICK3 said:
So, I'm guessing the final consensus is Bake took this one

right :confused:
Click to expand...
I read the entire thread and came to the opposite conclusion.

A) Stefka is a lawyer
B) Bakeme is not
C) Stefka referenced the Supreme Court
D) Bake referenced howstuffworks.com

E) LOL
F) lololololol
 
redshirt27se said:
I read the entire thread and came to the opposite conclusion.

A) Stefka is a lawyer
B) Bakeme is not
C) Stefka referenced the Supreme Court
D) Bake referenced howstuffworks.com

E) LOL
F) lololololol
Click to expand...


It's like trying to argue physics with people quoting yahoo answers.



:cow:
 
Yep, going with Stefka for Law, and BakeMe for Oscars and guitars...no, MM69 for guitars. I have knowledge on puppets in case there's a Punch and Judy emergency.
 
redshirt27se said:
I read the entire thread and came to the opposite conclusion.

A) Stefka is a lawyer
B) Bakeme is not
C) Stefka referenced the Supreme Court
D) Bake referenced howstuffworks.com

E) LOL
F) lololololol
Click to expand...

G) Pick3 logic also concludes that he is str8. So you have to take that into consideration as well.
 
Why does Mr. Plunkey have six blue stars?

Edit: er, I figured it out, Lifetime Plat?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

4
FAKE Pfizer Genotropin Napsgear
Replies
16
Views
2K
jasonhill800
jasonhill800
H
Wife has extreme menstrual cramps/pain, haven’t been able to get pregnant
Replies
13
Views
2K
RoySimpson
RoySimpson
GetToDaChoppa!
Approved Log Pre-Gear Training Log, Cardarine then Testosterone
2
Replies
169
Views
22K
Noah Wixx
Noah Wixx
FishyAnchovy
Approved Log My Orals-Only Pre-Cycle LOG
Replies
21
Views
4K
MUSTANG_18
MUSTANG_18
R
  • Locked
Basicstero.ws - The Direct from Pharmacom Labs Store!
Replies
89
Views
53K
the_alcatraz
the_alcatraz
Top Bottom