Kathy M. wrote:

    >
    > Of course. Maybe it was a Freudian slip thinking about some of these
    > newsgroup people. ;)
    > My dad's parents were US citizens but he was born in Canada. The US told
    > him to go in the army or go to Canada and never come back. He chose the
    > army. I guess it really is that bad.
    >
    >

Well, I assume that before he got drafted he could have chosen his
branch of service.

x-no-archive: yes

"mrtravel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] m...
    > Kathy M. wrote:
    >> Of course. Maybe it was a Freudian slip thinking about some of these
    >> newsgroup people. ;)
    >> My dad's parents were US citizens but he was born in Canada. The US told
    >> him to go in the army or go to Canada and never come back. He chose the
    >> army. I guess it really is that bad.
    > Well, I assume that before he got drafted he could have chosen his branch
    > of service.

No. He did request to be a medic and he got that.

"Antun Paulin" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]...
    > On 25 Sep 2006 22:58:50 GMT, Brandy Alexandre
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Paranoid little Terry can see a conspiracy in a toad fart. Somehow I
    >>doubt any parent from UK would think US citizen would be a greater
    >>advantage to their child. Indeed, it would not.
    > Regardless of that, Baby have right to citizenship in a country where
    > aircraft is registred. This is international law!
--------
There's no such "international law",
furthermore so called "international law" doesn't exist at all.
Only national laws exist.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 02:10:28 GMT, George Max
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:28:37 -0700, Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:17:08 -0500, George Max <[email protected]>
    >>wrote:
    >>>On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:04:15 -0400, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>BTW, if the baby was born in mid-air, does this mean that the pilots put
    >>>>the whole aircraft into a parabolic trajectory to give the mother a
    >>>>period of 0G when she pushed the baby out while floating in the cabin ?
    >>>>:-)
    >>>That'd be fun! The trajectory, not the birthing.
    >>There's a reason the NASA plane is called "the vomit comet".
    >>
    >Of course. Think rollercoaster. Fun.

I think there's a qualitative difference from a rollercoaster,
given that even trained astronauts upchuck in zero gravity.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Lennart Petersen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Antun Paulin" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > On 25 Sep 2006 22:58:50 GMT, Brandy Alexandre
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Paranoid little Terry can see a conspiracy in a toad fart. Somehow I
    > >>doubt any parent from UK would think US citizen would be a greater
    > >>advantage to their child. Indeed, it would not.
    > >
    > > Regardless of that, Baby have right to citizenship in a country where
    > > aircraft is registred. This is international law!
    > --------
    > There's no such "international law",
    > furthermore so called "international law" doesn't exist at all.
    > Only national laws exist.

No matter what the World Court says.

Kathy M. wrote:

    > x-no-archive: yes
    >
    > "mrtravel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected] m...
    >
    >>Kathy M. wrote:
    >>>Of course. Maybe it was a Freudian slip thinking about some of these
    >>>newsgroup people. ;)
    >>>My dad's parents were US citizens but he was born in Canada. The US told
    >>>him to go in the army or go to Canada and never come back. He chose the
    >>>army. I guess it really is that bad.
    >>Well, I assume that before he got drafted he could have chosen his branch
    >>of service.
    >
    >
    > No. He did request to be a medic and he got that.

I assume that the US told him to join the army because he had been
drafted, not because just because he wanted to live in the US.
If this is correct, then he could have avoided the army by volunteering
for another branch BEFORE he was "selected"

x-no-archive: yes

"mrtravel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] om...
    > Kathy M. wrote:
    >> x-no-archive: yes
    >> "mrtravel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected] m...
    >>>Kathy M. wrote:
    >>>>Of course. Maybe it was a Freudian slip thinking about some of these
    >>>>newsgroup people. ;)
    >>>>My dad's parents were US citizens but he was born in Canada. The US
    >>>>told
    >>>>him to go in the army or go to Canada and never come back. He chose the
    >>>>army. I guess it really is that bad.
    >>>Well, I assume that before he got drafted he could have chosen his branch
    >>>of service.
    >> No. He did request to be a medic and he got that.
    > I assume that the US told him to join the army because he had been
    > drafted, not because just because he wanted to live in the US.
    > If this is correct, then he could have avoided the army by volunteering
    > for another branch BEFORE he was "selected"

Yes, he was drafted. I do not know the details of it and whether he could
select which branch. Maybe the army is the one who offered the position to
be a medic. I don't know. I will ask him about it.

"Sancho Panza" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]...
    > "Lennart Petersen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> "Antun Paulin" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >> > On 25 Sep 2006 22:58:50 GMT, Brandy Alexandre
    >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >>Paranoid little Terry can see a conspiracy in a toad fart. Somehow I
    >> >>doubt any parent from UK would think US citizen would be a greater
    >> >>advantage to their child. Indeed, it would not.
    >> >
    >> > Regardless of that, Baby have right to citizenship in a country where
    >> > aircraft is registred. This is international law!
    >> --------
    >> There's no such "international law",
    >> furthermore so called "international law" doesn't exist at all.
    >> Only national laws exist.
    > No matter what the World Court says.
------------------
World court ??
Possibly you are talking about the International Court of Justice in The
Hague.
But that court deals with international treaties and conventions.
There are treaties and conventions between countries, valid if the
respectively countries have signed them only. But there's no such thing
as international law.

On 9/26/06 9:35 AM, in article [email protected],
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> spake thusly:

(snip)

    > (And how did her giving birth unexpectedly "ruin
    > everyone else's flight"?)

If you have to *ask*...

    > >
    > > Would you care to try to justify why the baby would have citizenship
    > > rights because of birth on a British aircraft that it might not have if
    > > actually born in Britain. Hint -- not every baby born in Britain has a
    > > right to British citizenship. The US is not in accord with usual
    > > international usage with regard to this.
    > Their parents' citizenship and where they were born. They can choose which
    > way they will go when they have grown up. My dad had duel citizenship until
    > he was in his 20s.

Actually, neither the US, nor Britain, nor Canada would require that a
child with multiple citizenship choose only one citizenship when the
child reached a certain age. Each of these countries would have no
problem if the child retained any and all of these citizenships for
life.

[email protected] wrote:
    >>>Would you care to try to justify why the baby would have citizenship
    >>>rights because of birth on a British aircraft that it might not have if
    >>>actually born in Britain. Hint -- not every baby born in Britain has a
    >>>right to British citizenship. The US is not in accord with usual
    >>>international usage with regard to this.
    >>Their parents' citizenship and where they were born. They can choose which
    >>way they will go when they have grown up. My dad had duel citizenship until
    >>he was in his 20s.
    >
    >
    > Actually, neither the US, nor Britain, nor Canada would require that a
    > child with multiple citizenship choose only one citizenship when the
    > child reached a certain age. Each of these countries would have no
    > problem if the child retained any and all of these citizenships for
    > life.
    >

I know the US doesn't. I know at least one country would, but I don't
know if it is Britain. I don't feel like researching it now. Where did
you get your info?

"Lennart Petersen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Sancho Panza" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> "Lennart Petersen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>> "Antun Paulin" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    >>> news:[email protected]...
    >>> > On 25 Sep 2006 22:58:50 GMT, Brandy Alexandre
    >>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> >>Paranoid little Terry can see a conspiracy in a toad fart. Somehow I
    >>> >>doubt any parent from UK would think US citizen would be a greater
    >>> >>advantage to their child. Indeed, it would not.
    >>> >
    >>> > Regardless of that, Baby have right to citizenship in a country where
    >>> > aircraft is registred. This is international law!
    >>> --------
    >>> There's no such "international law",
    >>> furthermore so called "international law" doesn't exist at all.
    >>> Only national laws exist.
    >> No matter what the World Court says.
    > ------------------
    > World court ??
    > Possibly you are talking about the International Court of Justice in
    > The Hague.
    > But that court deals with international treaties and conventions.
    > There are treaties and conventions between countries, valid if the
    > respectively countries have signed them only. But there's no such
    > thing as international law.

Maybe you ought to tell that to the ICJ: "The Court has a dual role: to
settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted to
it by States. . . ."

Its top case case is indicative: "
Twelve cases are currently pending:

1. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide

(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)"

And then there are always the interesting cases like the prosecution of
Milosevic and colleagues and the holding of Augusto Pinochet.

    > >>>Would you care to try to justify why the baby would have citizenship
    > >>>rights because of birth on a British aircraft that it might not have if
    > >>>actually born in Britain. Hint -- not every baby born in Britain has a
    > >>>right to British citizenship. The US is not in accord with usual
    > >>>international usage with regard to this.
    > >>
    > >>Their parents' citizenship and where they were born. They can choose which
    > >>way they will go when they have grown up. My dad had duel citizenship until
    > >>he was in his 20s.
    > >
    > >
    > > Actually, neither the US, nor Britain, nor Canada would require that a
    > > child with multiple citizenship choose only one citizenship when the
    > > child reached a certain age. Each of these countries would have no
    > > problem if the child retained any and all of these citizenships for
    > > life.
    > >
    > I know the US doesn't. I know at least one country would, but I don't
    > know if it is Britain. I don't feel like researching it now. Where did
    > you get your info?

Personal experience, to begin with. I hold citizenship (and passports)
in all three of those countries. Other than that, I've also written to
the consulates of each country and asked them. Each country's
representatives have replied that they do not require a person with
dual citizenship to only choose one when they reach a certain age.

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:17:07 -0400, "Sancho Panza"
<[email protected]> wrote:


    >Maybe you ought to tell that to the ICJ: "The Court has a dual role: to
    >settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted to
    >it by States. . . ."
    >Its top case case is indicative: "
    >Twelve cases are currently pending:
    >1. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
    >Crime of Genocide
    >(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)"

Do note that this is a United Nations covention which can be
imposed unilaterally on nations. It was passed in 1951, a time
when none of the parties to that suit were nations or members of
the UN. Whether actions of the UN can be called "laws" is
arguable. Various antions, including the USA opt out f them
anytime it suits them.

    >And then there are always the interesting cases like the prosecution of
    >Milosevic and colleagues and the holding of Augusto Pinochet.

Pinochet was arrested and prosecuted under the laws of the United
Kingdom and Spain, not international law.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:17:07 -0400, "Sancho Panza"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Maybe you ought to tell that to the ICJ: "The Court has a dual role: to
    >>settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted
    >>to
    >>it by States. . . ."
    >>Its top case case is indicative: "
    >>Twelve cases are currently pending:
    >>1. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
    >>Crime of Genocide
    >>(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)"
    > Do note that this is a United Nations covention which can be
    > imposed unilaterally on nations. It was passed in 1951, a time
    > when none of the parties to that suit were nations or members of
    > the UN. Whether actions of the UN can be called "laws" is
    > arguable. Various antions, including the USA opt out f them
    > anytime it suits them.
    >>And then there are always the interesting cases like the prosecution of
    >>Milosevic and colleagues and the holding of Augusto Pinochet.
    > Pinochet was arrested and prosecuted under the laws of the United
    > Kingdom and Spain, not international law.

Yet international law governed his return to Chile.