- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:07 pm to Timeoday
99.9% sure that isn't true, but not enough time to find the cite right now. Will say that the metering case last week makes this assertion dubious at best since "in the US" means physically in the US. There's an old case about a Greek national in a similar situation that they ruled wasn't a citizen.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:07 pm to Powerman
quote:
Approximately 320,000 babies are born annually in the U.S. to mothers who are unauthorized immigrants or temporary legal residents. According to demographic data from the Pew Research Center, these births represent roughly 9% of all U.S. births each year, with the vast majority (about 245,000 to 297,000) born to parents without legal status.
PEW
Its just a few fringe cases!!!!!!
-Powermullah
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:28 pm to D500MAG
quote:
Depends what flag the ship is flying
I was hoping that OP would provide something other than emotional appeal so that we could actually have something reality based to resolve his contention. But since OP is too lazy, and none of the other emotional right wingers will (ever) look for an authoritative source of good information, I looked up the US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual to see what Trump and Rubio's own State Department says on the issue. here it is:
quote:
8 FAM 301.1 AQUISITION BY BIRTH IN U.S. INTERNAL WATERS AND TERRITORIAL SEA
a. Persons born on ships located within U.S. internal waters (except as provided in 8 FAM 301.1-3) 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. As noted above, 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 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.)
b. Twelve Nautical Mile Limit: The territorial sea of the United States was formerly three nautical miles. (See, e.g., Cunard S.S. Co. v Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 122, 43 S. Ct. 504, 67 L. Ed. 894 (1923).) However, the three-mile rule was changed by a Presidential Proclamation in 1988, implementing the territorial-sea provision of the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. (Presidential Proclamation 5928, signed December 27, 1988, published at 54 Federal Register 777, January 9, 1989.) As decreed by that Proclamation, the territorial sea of the United States henceforth extends to 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law. (The Proclamation also stated that the jurisdiction of the United States extends to the airspace over the territorial sea.) (See Gordon, Immigration Law and Procedure, Part 8 Nationality and Citizenship, 92.03(2)(b) territorial limits.)
c. FAM guidance up until 1995 (7 FAM 1116.1-2 In U.S. Waters TL:CON-64; 11-30-95) advised that persons born within the 3-mile limit of the U.S. territorial sea were born “within the United States” and could be documented as U.S. citizens if they were also born subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Some commentators took this view as well, such as Gordon. Analysis of this issue undertaken in 1994-1995 revealed, however, that there is a substantial legal question whether persons born outside the internal waters of the United States but within the territorial sea are in fact born “within the United States” for purposes of the 14th Amendment and the INA.
d. Cases involving persons born outside the internal waters but within the U.S. territorial sea, must be referred to AskPPTAdjudication@state.gov for coordination with L/CA, L/OES, and other appropriate offices within the United States government.
This was and remains the law according to the Trump/Rubio State Department. Nothing changed this week.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:33 pm to TBoy
The State Department also provides guidance for proving that a child was born on a vessel in the internal waters of the United States. Here is that provision:
quote:
8 FAM 301.1-6 DOCUMENTING BIRTH IN U.S. WATERS AND U.S. AIRSPACE
a. Proof of birth in U.S. internal waters or U.S. airspace consists of a U.S. birth certificate certified by the issuing authority in the U.S. jurisdiction.
b. There is no U.S. Federal law governing the report of such births.
c. Generally speaking, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would require some documentation of the birth, generally an excerpt of the ship’s/aircraft’s medical log or master/captain’s log, reflecting the time, latitude, and longitude when the birth occurred.
d. For ships/aircraft in-bound for the United States, the parents would then be responsible for reporting the birth to the civil authorities in the U.S. jurisdiction where the vessel put into port. (See the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publication “Where to Write for Birth Certificates.”)
(1) The parents will have to contact the state vital records office to determine the exact procedures for report such a birth;
(2) Parents should obtain a certified copy of the ship’s medical log, airplane’s log, or other statement from the attending physician or other attendant and attempt to obtain information on how to contact attendants in the future should further questions arise;
(3) If the mother and child were immediately taken to a U.S. hospital, authorities there may be of assistance in facilitating contact with the appropriate state authorities; and
(4) It is unlikely that the vital records office in the parents’ state of residence will issue such a birth certificate. Parents may be redirected to the vital records office in the state where the ship first put into port after the birth of the child.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:34 pm to TBoy
quote:
Prove it.
Get your head out of your arse.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:35 pm to TBoy
quote:
Prove it.
This dude will be the first one crying when the third world hordes come for him.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:38 pm to TBoy
And in the event anyone would like actual information as to what constitutes birth "in the United States," the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual defines the term more narrowly than many emotional right wingers contend. the provision is:
quote:
8 FAM 301.1-2 WHAT IS BIRTH "IN THE UNITED STATES”?
a. INA 101(a)(38) (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(38)) provides that “the term ‘United States,’ when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.”
b. On November 3, 1986, Public Law 94-241, “approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America”, (Section 506(c)),took effect. From that point on, the Northern Mariana Islands have been treated as part of the United States for the purposes of INA 301 (8 U.S.C. 1401) and INA 308 (8 U.S.C. 1408) (see 8 FAM 302.1)
c. The Nationality Act of 1940 (NA), Section 101(d) (54 Statutes at Large 1172) (effective January 13, 1941 until December 23, 1952) provided that “the term ‘United States’ when used in a geographical sense means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.” The 1940 Act did not include Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands as coming within the definition of “United States.”
d. Prior to January 13, 1941, there was no statutory definition of “the United States” for citizenship purposes. The phrase “in the United States” as used in Section 1993 of the Revised Statues of 1878 clearly includes states that have been admitted to the Union (see 8 FAM 102.2).
e. INA 304 (8 U.S.C. 1404) and INA 305 (8 U.S.C. 1405) provide a basis for citizenship of persons born in Alaska and Hawaii, respectively, while they were territories of the United States.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:41 pm to TBoy
quote:
I was hoping that OP would provide something other than emotional appeal so that we could actually have something reality based to resolve his contention. But since OP is too lazy, and none of the other emotional right wingers will (ever) look for an authoritative source of good information, I looked up the US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual to see what Trump and Rubio's own State Department says on the issue. here it is:
You mean they’re following the law (the way it’s currently interpreted)?
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:45 pm to AUTigerking
quote:
You mean they’re following the law (the way it’s currently interpreted)?
As it has been for the last 100 years. Nothing changed this week.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:46 pm to TBoy
quote:
As it has been for the last 100 years. Nothing changed this week.
How very conservative of you
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:48 pm to AUTigerking
I prefer living in reality.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:49 pm to TBoy
Sure you do
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:53 pm to Jbird
quote:
Sure you do
I wondered how long it would take for an Enforcer to get here.
Perhaps if you would look at some primary or even secondary sources of authority on things, you might have more to offer than idiotic quips.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:55 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Its just a few fringe cases!!!!!!
Jeez. 10% every year.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:57 pm to Timeoday
Is Elia'n Gonzalez now eligible to run for political office? President ?
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:57 pm to TBoy
quote:
As it has been for the last 100 years. Nothing changed this week.
Yep. Sadly, nothing has changed. We are still seeing nearly 10% of all births in this country come from foreign nationals every single year, with the vast majority being illegals let in by democrats. Hell, we might see even more now that the SCOTUS has clarified.
So I guess its not a problem, right?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News