| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
 Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 10:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Krel wrote: | | When you are in the U. S. Military, you become government property until you are discharged. The military decides what your rights are. |
That's interesting, David. If we follow that line of reasoning, wouldn't that mean the babies are government property, too?
I mean, it's sort of like the way babies born in America are automatically American citizens!
If the mom is property of the U.S. Navy, then the baby is automatically a sailor until the kid gets old enough to legally sign their own discharge papers!
My God, this is a sticky situation! 
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Krel
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bud Brewster wrote: | That's interesting, David. If we follow that line of reasoning, wouldn't that mean the babies are government property, too?
I mean, it's sort of like the way babies born in America are automatically American citizens! |
I believe that Uncle Sam draws the line at slavery. It caused a bit of a kerfuffle a while back. 
The second one is tricky and misunderstood. Only babies born to citizens, OR immigrants and visitors that are here legally with permission of the U. S. government, with U. S. government documentation. If you are here illegally and have a child, then the child is a citizen of the parent's country, NOT a U.S. citizen.
David. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Krel wrote: | | If you are here illegally and have a child, then the child is a citizen of the parent's country, NOT a U.S. citizen. |
I think you're mistaken. I Googled the question and found this answer in several places. The Wikipedia article states it clearly.
________________________
The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that approximately 7.5% of all births in the U.S. (about 300,000 births per year) are to illegal immigrants. The Pew Hispanic Center also estimates that there are 4.5 million children who were born to illegal immigrants that received citizenship via birth in the United States; while the Migration Policy Institute estimates that there are 4.1 million children. Both estimates exclude anyone eighteen and older who might have benefited.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Custer
Space Sector Commander
Joined: 22 Aug 2015
Posts: 929
Location: Earth
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2017 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Meanwhile, back in 1959...
Some suitably bulky spacesuits there, courtesy of Ed Emshwiller! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Krel
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 21, 2017 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bud Brewster wrote: | | I think you're mistaken. I Googled the question and found this answer in several places. |
There is often a difference between what is legal, and what is allowed. Just as there is a difference between what you are untitled to by the law, and what the government allows you to have, even though it violates the law.
The law I speak of is from the early 20th century when the U. S. was having it's big immigration wave, and was originally to insure that the children of LEGAL immigrants were American citizens. It has become twisted to mean anyone that is born on U.S. territory, because it would be 'cruel' in their view to do otherwise.
But maybe I'm wrong. After all, we all know that the U. S. government would, NEVER, EVER twist the law to fit a point of view or action it wishes to take, even it it violates said law. 
I think that I'm going to stop this now, because it seems to me that it is getting a bit to close to politics, which I didn't intend. And it is most definitely off topic. My apologies if I have derailed the discussion.
David. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Sun May 21, 2017 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
________________________________
Your comments are welcome as always, David.
I have a somewhat different attitude towards posts that are "off topic" than most message board folks. I don't think any thread on All Sci-Fi has to stay strictly on the subject of the initial thread-starting post.
A discussion between intelligent people just naturally veers into semi-related tangents, simple because that's how the mind works. We started talking about Starship Troopers, which is about spaceships and soldiers and alien bugs . . . and politics.
So, any discussion about politics that arises during a discussion of Starship Troopers is not "off topic". 
Concerning your reply to the "citizenship by birth" subject, I didn't know that bit of history concerning the law. Thanks.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotpens
Space Sector Commander
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 919
Location: The Left Coast
|
| Posted: Sun May 21, 2017 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Krel wrote: | | . . . The law I speak of is from the early 20th century when the U. S. was having it's big immigration wave, and was originally to insure that the children of LEGAL immigrants were American citizens. It has become twisted to mean anyone that is born on U.S. territory, because it would be 'cruel' in their view to do otherwise. |
Do you have a citation for this "early 20th century" law? Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adopted on July 9, 1868. The original intent was to guarantee citizenship to former slaves.
Link: http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Any unintended consequences of that particular clause (or its misinterpretation) are a topic for another discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 3001
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
| Posted: Sun May 21, 2017 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As to the constitutional legality of a law, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine that.
It may be suggested that the ambiguity of the wording could allow for various outcomes due to the opinions of the diverse Justices.
As stated, the original intent was to guarantee the citizenship of enslaved peoples. It was later used to justify "anchor babies" of illegal aliens for humanitarian reasons.
There really is no "right" or "wrong" interperatation legally, only the decision of the most current incarnation of the Court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Krel
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 21, 2017 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scotpens wrote: | | Do you have a citation for this "early 20th century" law? Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adopted on July 9, 1868. The original intent was to guarantee citizenship to former slaves. |
I'm sorry, I can't. I got this from a discussion I watched on TV around 2005/6. It was a discussion between Constitutional lawyers. I can't remember what he cited to make his point, but I do remember it was either a law or act to cover the immigrants. He made a point that only children of legal immigrants and visitors are covered. If they are not here legally, then their children are not legal.
David.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 3001
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
| Posted: Sun May 21, 2017 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't think it's a citable law, just reference to the decisions in several lower court decisions. The current Supreme Court has refused to render decisions in regard as yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Krel wrote: | As I recall, in the novel, the Pilots were all female because they were suppose to withstand acceleration better.
Neutral gender doesn't really work out in the real world. Look at the pregnancy rates in mixed sex military units, during the Gulf War, the U.S. Navy had to recall a ship because of the pregnancies of the female crew. |
I always chuckle at the ridiculous shower scene in which the attractive young men and women are soaping up their perfect bodies while they laugh and chat like nobody has the slightest interest in all the fleshy scenery around them! 
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 466
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I recall an interview with Tom Clancy where he gave the most logical argument against the mixing of the sexes on the front lines of combat. His assertion:
Men are historically hard-wired to protect women...from generations of both evolution and social conditioning.
Combat requires that hard decisions be made and soldiers may be required to fend for themselves when limited resources are being used to engage the enemy or protect the greater number of friendly forces. It would be extremely difficult for a male soldier to abandon a wounded female soldier even if his services were critically required elsewhere. "Protect the women" is a reflexive reaction which could really hamper small unit combat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
________________________________
Brent, that is a masterful way of expressing this problem, and I totally agree with it!
To your fine description of what causes men to be incapable of regarding any female soldier as being no different than a male soldier is the simple fact that every female above the age of puberty is either a mother now or might someday be one!
And every man feels a powerful need to protect his own mother . . . along with anyone else's!
Therefore, the idea of putting any mother — either present or future — in harm's way violates the male nature on the most basic level.
This has nothing to do with "political correctness". It's biology as basic as maternal instincts. And I defy any woman with children to deny that a maternal instincts don't exist!
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert (Butch) Day
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1377
Location: Arlington, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey fellow citizens! I had A wicked idea about fighting this Bug War. Lets capture THEM!, train them and let them fight to protect Earth. After all, it's their home also!
So what if the ants "go wild"? More bugs are killed and we just get new ones or breed our own spiders to control the ants. (WE have our own social spiders [which Mr. Heinlein based the inhabitants of Klendathu on] the Anelosimus genus of spiders primarily Anelosimus crassipes, Anelosimus exiguus, Anelosimus baeza, Anelosimus studiosus, Anelosimus épigastriques and Anelosimus vittatus. These six (out of the 30 known) are extremely inteligent and clever. Even the army ants don't mess with them!
_________________
Common Sense ISN'T Common |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1865
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There was an old woman who swallowed a fly;
Oh, my! She swallowed a fly?
Poor old woman; you think she'll die?
There was an old woman who swallowed a spider;
Deep down inside her, she swallowed a spider;
She swallowed the spider to kill the fly;
Oh, my! She swallowed a fly?
Poor old woman; you think she'll die?
There was an old woman who swallowed a bird;
How absurd to swallow a bird;
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider...
etc.
etc.
_________________
...or not...
WayneO
----------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
