ferminbrif From Venezuela, joined Dec 2010, 102 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5030 times:
I am a little bit curious about this news. Although the woman gave birth over international airspace (I guess), I would like to know where is going the baby be considered to be from?
I mean, will it be considered to be a citizen from The Philippines or from the U.S.A.?
Besides, how in the world the local authorities at the airport diddn´t realized that woman was pregnant?
Has it happend before?
Thanks a lot.
OH-LGA From Denmark, joined Oct 1999, 1436 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4983 times:
If I recall correctly, if the aircraft is in international airspace when a child is born then I think it reverts to the country the aircraft is registered in...? This is most likely an RP- registered aircraft, so the child would be considered a Filipino citizen.
Onboard births have occurred on rare occasion. Most airlines don't permit pregnant women to fly within the last 4-6 weeks of pregnancy, and before that they require a doctor's note for a certain period that the pregnancy is a normal one and no complications/premature birth is expected. When I worked check-in we would ask how long she had been pregnant and asked for documentation, if necessary.
I mean, on here we all love planes but I really doubt we'd want to be born in one
Head in the clouds... yet feet planted firmly on the ground.
Grid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4398 times:
Yes, she was nine months pregnant so it's not like the baby was premature. Perhaps her father is seriously ill, but a trip to visit him seems awfully risky for the child. Of course, maybe she also wanted her baby to be a U.S. citizen.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6764 posts, RR: 32
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 day ago) and read 3824 times:
Quoting apodino (Reply 5): That is exactly it, she wanted the baby to be a US citizen
The not-so-politically-correct term is "anchor baby." I saw an interview last night on the local news with her sister, who lives in a Boston suburb; the sister openly stated that she was "emigrating" to the U.S. so that her baby could be a U.S. citizen (and she would be allowed to stay as his mother).
Quoting ferminbrif (Thread starter): Besides, how in the world the local authorities at the airport diddn´t realized that woman was pregnant?
I'm wondering how in the world was she granted a visa to travel to the U.S. to have an anchor baby.
jfidler From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 23 hours ago) and read 3732 times:
Quoting ScottB (Reply 6): The not-so-politically-correct term is "anchor baby." I saw an interview last night on the local news with her sister, who lives in a Boston suburb; the sister openly stated that she was "emigrating" to the U.S. so that her baby could be a U.S. citizen (and she would be allowed to stay as his mother).
From my understanding, she can't stay past her current visa (likely a tourist visa) and would have to go back to her home country. When the child (being a US citizen) is 21 years old, the child can apply for their mother and father to come to the US legally. So that's a lot of work and waiting.
Getting this back a bit on topic, how much scrutiny is given to noticeably pregnant women at the airport? Is it something the check-in desk or gate agent is supposed to consider?
kl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5141 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (3 years 23 hours ago) and read 3690 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 8): I guess the TSA had some extra checking and patting down work when the woman landed with the newborn and her other child. I hope they did not make them go through the airport naked scanners!
Lol, no difference for the baby, dont think it was wearing anything anyway.
EDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (3 years 21 hours ago) and read 3116 times:
Quoting OH-LGA (Reply 1):
If I recall correctly, if the aircraft is in international airspace when a child is born then I think it reverts to the country the aircraft is registered in...?
While I believe this to be correct, last time I was in the Phils I noticed that many of PR's fleet have registrations in countries other than the Philippines (probably due to leasing arrangements). The two I recall were French and Irish registration. So what happens then if this is case if it was an F or EI registered aircraft?
PITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1145 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (3 years 21 hours ago) and read 2814 times:
Quoting ScottB (Reply 6): how much scrutiny is given to noticeably pregnant women at the airport?
I've no clue what the "rules" are, but any such scrutiny is doomed to failure IMHO. Women carry fetuses differently, and even the presence of Braxton-Hicks contractions is no reliable indicator of delivery date. With our 3rd, my wife looked hugely pregnant at 7 months while our neighbor looked like maybe she had gained a pound. She delivered (normally) a month before us!
I'm sure that if anyone had uncovered any clue as to when babies were coming, the Ob-Gyn community would be on it. The worst hours, the greatest rewards...
YYZRWY23 From Canada, joined Aug 2009, 561 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 21 hours ago) and read 2814 times:
Quoting CODCAIAH (Reply 11): What does the mom do when she arrives at the immigration checkpoint with a new baby and no passport for this newly-born airline passenger?
I don't think she goes to the checkpoint. I get the feeling that the aircraft is met by ICE and paramedics. ICE would check her documents, know full well the baby won't have any documents, and then paramedics would transport her to the nearest medical facility.
If you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them.