advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: space-time
Date: January 10, 2019 06:43PM
If it get's moved to the other side, so be it. But my intent is not political at all.

I am just curious where they build the wall. I think I read long time ago that the wall would be built on US soil, a few tens of feet inside the US-Mexico border. You can't build the wall exactly on the border apparently.

If that is the case, what happens is a pregnant women comes, crosses the virtual border (which is now presumably unguarded, since most US border patrol officers would be inside the wall I assume). So she is between the official (virtual) border and the wall. So she has a baby there. Is that baby a US Citizen?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: Michael
Date: January 10, 2019 07:11PM
Yep.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: bobinmurphy
Date: January 10, 2019 07:15PM
I'm not a lawyer (thank God), but in many places like here in Texas, a fence establishes the property line. So if I put up a fence that's over the surveyed property line and encroaches on my neighbor's property and he doesn't object within some period of time, I've acquired some new property. Don't know how long one has to go with the violation before it becomes the new property line though.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: rz
Date: January 10, 2019 08:00PM
technically, yes. But legally? There would have to be some sort of birth certificate issued. No American doctor would presumably witness said birth, and wouldn't issue a birth certificate. Assuming of course he/she is an ethical practitioner.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: MrNoBody
Date: January 10, 2019 08:08PM
My understanding is a border barrier is set just inside the survey line and a 'wire' with signage is on the line. Another method is for the bordering territory to consent (via treaty) to the barrier being built on top of the border line. Not hard to do if you're using their citizens in the labor force.

From my own knowledge, most of the Berlin Wall was built just inside of East Berlin. It was the US & its allies that strung the warning wire on the west side. The Soviet trained Grenztruppen der DDR would get very antsy with anyone getting near
either side of their wall. On the East side if you crossed their wire, you were dead.



N39° 39.7234', W075° 33.9788'
...word salad is not a disorder, it is a symptom...

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
-Albert Einstein

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: michaelb
Date: January 10, 2019 09:06PM
I don't know and my guess is that this is not really resolved. But in addition to being born "in" the US, you have to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and my guess is that if you are in the border area you are still "crossing" and have not fully or completely entered the US; so that would be the argument against. My other guess though is you killed a border guard in that DMZ area, you could be picked and charged under the jurisdiction of the US, so children born there should be citizens.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: Michael
Date: January 10, 2019 09:45PM
The jurisdiction issue was addressed in the 1898 US v. Wong Kim Ark by the Supreme Court and they concluded that if you're born here you're subject to the jurisdiction of the US with several exceptions: 1. the child of a foreign sovereign (wouldn't that be interesting!), 2. the child of a diplomat of a foreign sovereign, 3. the child of an enemy who is inhabiting part of the US during hostilities, 4. a baby born on a foreign public ship, and 5. babies born to members of Indian tribes who owe allegiance to their tribes (this was later changed by the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act).

Here's a quote from the decision:

"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth 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 all 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. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides"

Here's the whole decision: [www.law.cornell.edu]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: January 11, 2019 03:07AM
Don't you just love it when somebody actually knows what they're talking about?

I do (love it, that is).




When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men
except by believing all possible evil
of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

Perfection is the enemy of progress. -Winston Churchill

-An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

Mister, that's a ten-gallon hat on a twenty-gallon head.

I *love* Sigs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: Mr645
Date: January 11, 2019 05:49AM
Quote
bobinmurphy
I'm not a lawyer (thank God), but in many places like here in Texas, a fence establishes the property line. So if I put up a fence that's over the surveyed property line and encroaches on my neighbor's property and he doesn't object within some period of time, I've acquired some new property. Don't know how long one has to go with the violation before it becomes the new property line though.

Not sure about the laws in Texas, but earlier this year I realized that someone erected a fence to surround their backyard, but encroached 10 feet into land I own. My parcel is vacant and when the other home was built on someone else land, there was not a fence. Seems the other owner got a permit and installed a fence 10 years ago. Earlier this year I went to the land to deal with a dead tree and noticed that his fence extended out beyond other fences along the same row of homes.

Bottom line is after going to court, we were sent to arbitration by the judge and the outcome was that I had to pay for a fresh survey and the other owner had to move his fence at his expense and I would not be able to collect any rent for him using my land. The judge did explain that he had no right to take my land but the arbitration I learned that my legal expenses would be more than the survey.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: space-time
Date: January 11, 2019 06:05AM
So why didn't the judge order the other guy to reimburse you for the survey and legal expense, if he caused all this?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: michaelb
Date: January 11, 2019 06:54AM
Quote
Michael
The jurisdiction issue was addressed in the 1898 US v. Wong Kim Ark by the Supreme Court and they concluded that if you're born here you're subject to the jurisdiction of the US with several exceptions: 1. the child of a foreign sovereign (wouldn't that be interesting!), 2. the child of a diplomat of a foreign sovereign, 3. the child of an enemy who is inhabiting part of the US during hostilities, 4. a baby born on a foreign public ship, and 5. babies born to members of Indian tribes who owe allegiance to their tribes (this was later changed by the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act).

Here's a quote from the decision:

"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth 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 all 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. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides"

Here's the whole decision: [www.law.cornell.edu]

Yes, that is the case on birthright citizenship, but that child was born in san Francisco, so that really doesn't resolve the question about a child born in a border crossing area who has not yet crossed over a border station into the country?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: JoeH
Date: January 11, 2019 07:07AM
The legal precedence is there. There is no language in that or later rulings that would require crossing over a "border station", they all just refer to being present on US territory.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: January 11, 2019 08:24AM
I think the relevant wording here would be “including all children here born of resident aliens”; specifically “resident”.

Giving birth on a barren strip of land between the actual border and any wall or other barrier just inside that border would NOT meet that “resident” requirement.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: space-time
Date: January 11, 2019 08:27AM
I am really surprised this thread stayed focused on the legal aspect of this topic and didn't turn political and kicked to the other side.

Thank you. I learned a thing or two, but I can't say that I am really clear what the outcome would be. I also do not have a good understanding on what the border topography looks like. when I drive into Canada, there is a big check point on both sides, but I have no idea what the border looks like say a mile to the left or right. I have no idea if there is a fence at all... and having never been to Mexico, I know even less about that border.

I read a while ago that some farmers in TX own land all the way to the border and if we were to build a wall, we would have to build it on their private property. I also read there is a golf course that would be on the other side of the proposed wall. So for some reason they cannot build the wall close to the actual border but several hundred yards inside. So the gold course would be on the other side. How do you go to play golf then? what would happen to the owner of that golf course if they suddenly found their business on the other side of the wall.

Well I am afraid that I risk of turning this into a political discussion with all my rambling. I better stop now smiling smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: JoeH
Date: January 11, 2019 10:07AM
Quote
DeusxMac
I think the relevant wording here would be “including all children here born of resident aliens”; specifically “resident”.

Giving birth on a barren strip of land between the actual border and any wall or other barrier just inside that border would NOT meet that “resident” requirement.

Later rulings indicate that it might very well meet that requirement. "Resident" has a much broader meaning legally than what it has in everyday usage.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: srf1957
Date: January 11, 2019 10:08AM
Because the old surveys are not accurate in some places . Where I live part of them are off 30 feet . Land was sold by existing fence lines . Funniest example forest service was putting up fence . They started from both ends in different years . They only had funding for a few miles each year . when fences came together they were offset by about 60 feet
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: Michael
Date: January 11, 2019 11:23AM
Quote
JoeH
Quote
DeusxMac
I think the relevant wording here would be “including all children here born of resident aliens”; specifically “resident”.

Giving birth on a barren strip of land between the actual border and any wall or other barrier just inside that border would NOT meet that “resident” requirement.

Later rulings indicate that it might very well meet that requirement. "Resident" has a much broader meaning legally than what it has in everyday usage.

That seems to be the case. I don't know of any court cases, maybe because nobody's filed suit. But, there are reports that pregnant women are sometimes brought to the US immediately prior to birth because the local Canadian hospital can't deal with a particular medical issue but the US hospital can. The baby is born and then they all go home to Canada. Those babies are reported to have dual citizenship.

The notion of coming to the US to give birth and then taking your baby home doesn't meet the everyday notion of "resident" but seems to have met the legal definition. I suppose if somebody ever files a suit concerning that particular issue we'd ultimately find out what the Supremes would say about it.

Here's one news report that says it happened "scores" of times (as of 2007): [komonews.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: January 11, 2019 12:20PM
If a plane crashes on the US-Mexico border, where do they bury the survivors?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: space-time
Date: January 11, 2019 12:22PM
Quote
Lux Interior
If a plane crashes on the US-Mexico border, where do they bury the survivors?

you try to repatriate the survivors.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2019 12:23PM by space-time.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: This is a legal (not political) question
Posted by: Bill in NC
Date: January 12, 2019 08:06AM
Quote
Michael
Quote
JoeH
Quote
DeusxMac
I think the relevant wording here would be “including all children here born of resident aliens”; specifically “resident”.

Giving birth on a barren strip of land between the actual border and any wall or other barrier just inside that border would NOT meet that “resident” requirement.

Later rulings indicate that it might very well meet that requirement. "Resident" has a much broader meaning legally than what it has in everyday usage.

That seems to be the case. I don't know of any court cases, maybe because nobody's filed suit. But, there are reports that pregnant women are sometimes brought to the US immediately prior to birth because the local Canadian hospital can't deal with a particular medical issue but the US hospital can. The baby is born and then they all go home to Canada. Those babies are reported to have dual citizenship.

The notion of coming to the US to give birth and then taking your baby home doesn't meet the everyday notion of "resident" but seems to have met the legal definition. I suppose if somebody ever files a suit concerning that particular issue we'd ultimately find out what the Supremes would say about it.

Here's one news report that says it happened "scores" of times (as of 2007): [komonews.com]

It's often a PITA for the kid who was born here, but lived/worked all their life in Canada.

At one point the IRS was threatening to classify even RRSPs as "foreign bank accounts" and tax them accordingly (50% for every unreported account) for these accidental dual-nationals



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2019 08:06AM by Bill in NC.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 308
Record Number of Users: 52 on November 20, 2014
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018