Stefka -- Immigration question...

[Stefka]

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

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.

 

[lartinos]

Really interesting question plunkey!

 

[nangiggles]

this would rarely happen since most airlines refuse and/or discourage women to fly after the 2nd trimester

 

[BlueBird]

What I really want to know is if said hi-jacked plane crashed on the US-Canadian border, where would you bury the survivors?

 

[-SD-]

What I really want to know is if said hi-jacked plane crashed on the US-Canadian border, where would you bury the survivors?

mexico for the tie breaker

 

[nangiggles]

What I really want to know is if said hi-jacked plane crashed on the US-Canadian border, where would you bury the survivors?

You dont bury survivors unless ur a psycho... that's cool too...

 

[BlueBird]

You dont bury survivors unless ur a psycho... that's cool too...

Yah, it's an old joke.

 

[nimbus]

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.

why would she hijack the plane if she could legally just board a plane headed to the u.s.

 

[PICK3]

why would she hijack the plane if she could legally just board a plane headed to the u.s.

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

 

[mrplunkey]

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).

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

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.

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.