[107108] in Cypherpunks
RE: Norway - go to jail for naming baby illegal [CNN]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Reeza!)
Fri Jan 1 16:59:46 1999
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 07:46:56 +1000
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>, cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com
From: Reeza! <howree@cable.navy.mil>
In-Reply-To: <v03130300b2b1f5a4bc07@[209.66.101.226]>
Reply-To: Reeza! <howree@cable.navy.mil>
At 07:57 PM 12/31/98 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>At 5:59 PM -0800 12/31/98, Reeza! wrote:
>
>>THAT is _almost_ understandable. You say that Iceland requires immigrants
>>to change their names to Norse ones, you didn't say to Norse ones on the
>>approved list. or Norse ones avoiding those on the disapproved list. Does
>>Iceland have the same "children who are born here are Icelandic citizens,
>>regardless of the nationality of the parents" provision of the US
>>constitution?
>
>Is that written into the Constitution? I wasn't aware of that. If so, I
>will have learned something new tonight, perhaps the last major new thing I
>learn in 1998.
Amendment XIV section 1 addresses who is a citizen, though it does not
specifically call out anything about parental nationality. The phrase
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in that section raises a question.
Are authorized visitors subject to the same regulations as subjects, not to
be confused with diplomats with "diplomatic immunity"??? And where in the
above do illegal aliens get categorized? They are subject to the
jurisdiction, insofar as they are apprehended whenever possible, and
deported. Should the timing of their border crossing have a bearing on the
citizenship of their child, which you mention below? While not specified
above, I was referencing nationals of other countries legitimately present
with visas, not the midnight border crossers with notions of vicarious
citizenship via their children.
>There is talk of changing this law (or, I suppose, item in the C.) which
>allows and even encourages pregnant Mexicans and Salvadorans and
>Guatemalans to sneak into the U.S. just in time to have their babies in an
>American hospital, thus making the children American citizens (and mustn't
>separate mother from child, right?).
>
>Israel of course has laws allowing anyone born of a Jewish mother to
>"return" to Israel...never mind that they may have essentially no genetic
>content of any ancestor who ever lived in Palestine, even the Palestine of
>3500 years ago.
>
>Ireland has a fairly new law which allows anyone with any Irish born
>grandparents or parents to get Irish citizenship.
>
>(Both Israel and Ireland, and presumably other places, would like to
>encourage wealthy Americans to relocate.)
Heh. why am I not surprised.
>>About the only place I can think of where prohibiting certain names might-
>>might be justifiable, is in countries where the names of certain criminals
>>are associated with crimes of such heinous magnitude that it would create
>>an emotional burden the viable tissue mass would never be able to overcome.
>>'Adolf Hitler' Xxxxxx, 'Charles Manson' Yyyyyy, or 'Hannibal Lector' Zzzzz,
>>(heh) for example. It's just another case of jingoism (maintaining their
>>culture re: populace naming conventions) and religious persecution (the
>>babies name is hebrew, the mother of 10 claims christianity for her own),,,
>
>It is not the function of a legitimate government to pass laws to stop
>"emotional burdens" on children. If it were, then various religions which
>expose the children of practicitioners to ridicule would be candidates for
>banning.
True, in the US. "Legitimate Government" has one meaning on the US side of
the Toe-ing line, another meaning on the other side. Note that I did say
"might". "Might" be justifiable, _not_ that I thought it _was_ justifiable.
>As with so many things, Reeza!!, you need to carefully think about these
>political issues. Frankly, from the views you often express, I wonder why
>you support freely available unbreakable and untraceable communications.
To formulate a view, vocalize it, and later discover that it conflicts with
a lesser known element of the principal document one is championing in the
first place, necessitates that one, myself you imply, demonstrate a degree
of hubris, retraction and apology. I see nothing in the above that requires
this. I did remember incorrectly the phrasing of an article of the C., but
not the result of its meaning.
To assert that I am politically naive and that I should give additional
thought prior to sounding off, I'll accept as sound advice. ;)
I support the 1st amendment right to free speech, because I am a us citizen
and that right is specifically enumerated in the us constitution. The right
to speak privately I count as part of my right to speak freely, it is not
yet prohibited. See the 10th amendment. I interpret my right to speak
freely to mean that I can say something to one person only. Encryption
supports this, key escrow and et cetera subverts it. Big Brother or whoever
may attempt to intercept this communication, neither I nor you are under
any adjunct to speak clearly, loudly, in english, into the microphone. We
can use navajo, sign language, or encryption, within or without the limits
imposed by Big Brother. It is our ass (each of us individually) if we get
caught using better encryption than the USG has authorized.
I support the use of anonymous remailers, but not for the use I see them
put to with extreme frequency on cpunks. If someone wants to reveal
something, add comment, even in riposte, hey, what can I say. To see use of
anon remailers for snide and assinine comments, phlames, other bullshit
that is an abuse of the service, I disagree with. Alas, I cannot fix the
juvenile mentality of such lusers, nor should I try, though I often find
myself cursing them in exasperation.
Perhaps we have a fundamental disagreement because of definitions. Should
we care to clarify, a more clear undertanding would surely result.
Reeza!
============================================================================
The affairs of Men rarely rely on the dictates of logic, or even common sense.
"Yeah, they mostly rely on something below the belt."
-- my older sister
