I don’t think the KLM lavatory signs say you are now under Dutch law, rather they say something like, “NO smoking in the lavatories by order of Dutch law such-and-such.” Now if you MURDERED someone on a KLM jet, and you were flying over the USA… I have no idea who’s laws you be tried under. IANAL… this is a serious hijack (pardon) but, does anyone know the answer to this?
Yes. If you are born in US territory (which the airspace is part of), you are a US Citizen.
A friend of mine witnessed an interesting spectacle when he was visiting India: a US warship was in port and allowing tours on the ship. About half of the people in line for the tour were obviously pregnant (a US military base or warship is considered by the US to be US territory).
It is quite possible for children to be born with multiple citizenships. Mine have dual citizenship, but more is possible.
Now for a really strange example: http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/about_canadas/festivities/child_is_born_e.html
The delivery room still is “Dutch” territory. Kids born in that room automatically get Canadian and Dutch citizenship.
Blame George I.
What’s wrong about it? Just because something is arbitrary doesn’t make it wrong. Silly, on the other hand…
I think we know who I blame.
WTF? elfkin477’s post wasn’t there when I posted. Huh.
Anyways, it is wrong for the very reason you quoted. It’s undemocratic. And has been pointed out by others here, it is discriminatory.
Who do you blame?
The men who wrote that clause.
Yeah, but you have to ask, “Why did they write the clause?” They must have done it for a purpose, and I think a lot of that was due to George I.
I fail to see how the machinations of the Brits are pertinent. Sure they were seeking to undermine their former colonies but they had no say in the decision. It was the Framers who decided that natural born Americans were worthy enough to trust in charge of the Executive but those Americans born elsewhere were not unless they had been resident since Independence. I haven’t read a lot on this aspect of the federal convention but off the cuff I wouldn’t even attribute the decision to xenophobia. It seems likely that while setting up a government to be run by them and people like them it was a natural thing to do. None of them were disqualified of course though some had already demonstrated thier willingness to betray the duly appointed authorities.
The machinations of the Brits are pertinent because the framers saw, in recent history, the effect of a foreign born executive. George I had been born in Hannover, didn’t speak English, and was indifferent about governing Britain. This led to a massive increase in the legislative power at the expense of the executive So they put in citizenship and residency requirements to prevent that from happening here…to prevent the electors from picking some foreign king or notable as President.
Ah, George the First. Well, at least now I know what you are talking about. I’m not up on Hanoverian Britain and I didn’t see anything in the Oxford History of Britain concerning this. Got any cites referencing this George by the Founders? And if true I am hardly going to be convinced to change my mind. If the Framers were foolish enough to base the decision upon a single example, and of a different kind of head of state altogether than they were creating at that, then they not only still deserve the blame but a big heaping pile of scorn to boot.
In general, I’d refer you to John Yinger’s piece here:
http://www-cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/~jyinger/facfa/history.htm
Yinger is a professor at Syracuse University, and is a strong advocate of repealing the natural born citizenship requirement.
He makes the argument that the founders were concerned with foreign government infiltration in U.S. politics.