Pregnant woman wants re-entry to U.S., arguing fetus is citizen
Jul. 27, 2004 01:20 PM
LOS ANGELES - A deported Mexican woman who is eight months pregnant is seeking to return to the United States to protect the unborn baby's health, arguing that under federal law the fetus is a viable human being and thus may be eligible for citizenship.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Rojo From Spain, joined Sep 2000, 2505 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2820 times:
It is amazing that the attorney is claiming that she needs to be in the US because the baby is at risk:
Carrillo said Rubio, who was hospitalized with complications in her fifth month and has suffered severe stomach pains throughout her pregnancy, needs to be back in the United States because the baby is at risk.
As far as I know, we have very good hospitals in Mexico. The problem is that she would have to pay for them...
I can picture the future lawsuits in the US to get citizenship for babies:
I am a foreign national who conceived a baby on my honeymoon in Florida. Since it was conceived in the US, then you have to give him US citizenship...
Unfortunately, this is the reality of plenty of Mexicans who want to give birth in the USA. On our last flight from the USA to Mexico, my brother was talking to a pregnant girl who was deported because she was pregnant. When she got to immigration, she claimed to be a US citizen, but she only had a birth certificate. She claimed it was hers, but the immigration officer said that unless she had a drivers license, there is not way to prove it... She was angry but it was obvious that someone lent her the birth certificate. Obviously, AM had to pay for her flight and a penalty was imposed to AM.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2803 times:
There is a certain twisted logic at work here. If as many people believe, an unborn foetus is a viable human being distinct from its mother, with rights that must be protected in law, this could be seen to imply that the foetus is in fact a citizen or whatever the latin legalese is for an individual with human rights, since human rights only accrue to a legally defined individual. If the foetus is a legally defined individual (let us use the term "citizen"), of which country is it a citizen, and to which country can it look for the protection of its rights ? Since it has not yet been born, it can't be it's country of birth. Is it a citizen of the country in which is was conceived ?
This raises interesting questions about the stage at which a foetus becomes biologically and legally distinct from its mother. If the foetus has rights, could the father of an unborn child insist that his unborn child not be taken out of the country, for instance, as is the case for children after they are born ?
NUAir From Malaysia, joined Jun 2000, 1181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2791 times:
I totally agree with JGPH,
I think this could be a large loophole if the US decides to ban abortions by treating the foetus as a citizen (which in a sense is what they would have to do to make a legal arguement for banning abortions and what they already did with late term abortions). So this will bring up the question of when is the foetus considered an individual.
So I think she is 100% right by US law. If the foetus was past the legal stage of abortion then the child has essentially become a US citizen. I'm glad to see Mexicans understand US laws better than most US policy makers
President Gonzalez 2056!!! I guess he would probably be a republican since they passed the bill that helped him become an American, so a good chance I wouldnt vote for him.
"How Many Assholes we got on this ship?" - Lord Helmet
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2730 times:
"So I think she is 100% right by US law. If the foetus was past the legal stage of abortion then the child has essentially become a US citizen."
Interesting concept, but not necessarily true. For one the Courts can simply say that the protection of life concept in Roe v Wade is separate from citizenship rights, rights which only kick in upon birth, not conception.
N6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2700 times:
EA CO AS -
That may be true but I never see MattD insinuating that all white american girls are sluts and might wonder who the father of their unborn children are.
Matt's a racist, pure and simple. If the A.net store sold a logo'd white hood, we know who would be first in line. The only question would be whether he'd buy it or secretly crave it but not be man enough to come out of the closet (so to speak) and admit that he's one of them.
[this is where KROC usually rushes to MattD's defense]
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2688 times:
But the whole point of the argument is that since the law recognises the foetus as being biologically and legally distinct from the mother, in terms of protection from late-term abortion, should this distinction not be recognised by other laws ?