On 08/22/2021 01:19 PM, Byker wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nBtLJt6Vp8

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/asia/baby-born-afghanistan-evacuation-flight-intl-hnk-scli/index.html

  Interesting question. A US Military plane IS sort of
  a mobile US Military BASE - ie "US Territory" ....

  Kind of like being born in a US embassy.

  So yea, she MAY have a valid claim.

  But it depends on where she ends up. Claiming
  a US Citizen baby could get her KILLED in some
  countries.

On 23 Aug 2021, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con> posted some

On 8/23/2021 9:41 PM, SixOverFive wrote:

On 08/22/2021 01:19 PM, Byker wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nBtLJt6Vp8

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/asia/baby-born-afghanistan-

evacuation-flight-intl-hnk-scli/index.html

  Interesting question. A US Military plane IS sort of
  a mobile US Military BASE - ie "US Territory" ....

  Kind of like being born in a US embassy.

  So yea, she MAY have a valid claim.

  But it depends on where she ends up. Claiming
  a US Citizen baby could get her KILLED in some
  countries.

American citizen, under present understanding.

You're so fucking ignorant, Rudy.

"The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) states
that, "A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not
considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an
aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by
reason of the place of birth."

On 8/23/2021 9:41 PM, SixOverFive wrote:

On 08/22/2021 01:19 PM, Byker wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nBtLJt6Vp8

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/asia/baby-born-afghanistan- evacuation-flight-intl-hnk-scli/index.html

  Interesting question. A US Military plane IS sort of
  a mobile US Military BASE - ie "US Territory" ....

  Kind of like being born in a US embassy.

  So yea, she MAY have a valid claim.

  But it depends on where she ends up. Claiming
  a US Citizen baby could get her KILLED in some
  countries.

American citizen, under present understanding.

Biden Stupid <stupid@biden.me> wrote:

On 23 Aug 2021, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con> posted some

On 8/23/2021 9:41 PM, SixOverFive wrote:

On 08/22/2021 01:19 PM, Byker wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nBtLJt6Vp8

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/asia/baby-born-afghanistan-

evacuation-flight-intl-hnk-scli/index.html

  Interesting question. A US Military plane IS sort of
  a mobile US Military BASE - ie "US Territory" ....

  Kind of like being born in a US embassy.

  So yea, she MAY have a valid claim.

  But it depends on where she ends up. Claiming
  a US Citizen baby could get her KILLED in some
  countries.

American citizen, under present understanding.

You're so fucking ignorant, Rudy.

"The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) states
that, "A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not
considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an
aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by
reason of the place of birth."

I am sure it covers *civilian* aircraft. US armed forces aircraft *may*
be treated differently. I give the claim (very) low chances but it may
be worth to test in courts at some time even as PR exercise mainly.

On 8/24/21 3:45 AM, A. Filip wrote:

Biden Stupid <stupid@biden.me> wrote:

You're so fucking ignorant, Rudy.

"The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) states
that, "A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not
considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an
aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by
reason of the place of birth."

I am sure it covers *civilian* aircraft. US armed forces aircraft *may*
be treated differently. I give the claim (very) low chances but it may
be worth to test in courts at some time even as PR exercise mainly.

The Military are not ambassadors and a plane is not an embassy.

And jurisdiction in places like Antarctica and international airspace is
NOT national.

Belarus forces airliner to land and arrests opponent, sparking
U.S. and European outrage ; May 23, 2021, 3:41 PM

On 23 Aug 2021, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con> posted some

On 8/23/2021 9:41 PM, SixOverFive wrote:

On 08/22/2021 01:19 PM, Byker wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nBtLJt6Vp8

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/asia/baby-born-afghanistan- >evacuation-flight-intl-hnk-scli/index.html

  Interesting question. A US Military plane IS sort of
  a mobile US Military BASE - ie "US Territory" ....

  Kind of like being born in a US embassy.

  So yea, she MAY have a valid claim.

  But it depends on where she ends up. Claiming
  a US Citizen baby could get her KILLED in some
  countries.

American citizen, under present understanding.

You're so fucking ignorant, Rudy.

"The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) states
that, "A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not
considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an
aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by
reason of the place of birth."

On 8/22/21 1:19 PM, Byker wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nBtLJt6Vp8

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/asia/baby-born-afghanistan-evacuation-flight-intl-hnk-scli/index.html

An airplane is TRANSPORTATION and property but NOT a border and to be
born in America as a NATURAL BORN citizen would require they be within
actual U.S. sovereignty. The air base in Afghanistan was abandoned and
was never our sovereign territory/Jurisdiction within U.S. borders and >operates under international laws. We don't claim it as part of the
United States. It was/is Afghani property and the plane is flying in >international air space until it's within the U.S. Sovereignty when it >reaches the U.S. border and until then the plane was operating under >international treaty laws. Meaning that the Federal U.S. treaty laws
can't be superior to the Constitution as per the Constitutions own words
that tell us that a NATURAL BORN citizen has to be born within sovereign
U.S. borders. NOT a vehicle operating inside international borders under
a treaty law.

I don't think a Judge can legally allow the kid to claim citizenship any
more than the mother can who was also not born under actual U.S. >jurisdiction. Because they were NOT actually operating under the >Constitution but under international laws invoked by treaty and NOT by
U.S. constitutional sovereignty. The plane is not subject to U.S. >jurisdiction since it's actually operating under international
jurisdiction only the pre-existing U.S. citizens would be under U.S. >jurisdiction otherwise all peoples rights on the flight would have
become equal to U.S. citizens for the entire flight. And yet they are
NOT equal to persons who are legally living in the United states and are >issued temporary passport access to America.