Can pilots choose the nationality of air-born children?
Ian Holmes
I know it may be a variant on the Captains-can-stage-weddings myth in the
FAQ, and apologies for the pun in the subject line, but:
Can the pilot of an aircraft dictate the nationality of a baby which is
born during transit? [optional qualifier: while over neutral waters?]
cheers,
Ian Holmes
i...@sanger.ac.uk
Ian Holmes
On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, Philo wrote:
> >Can the pilot of an aircraft dictate the nationality of a baby which is
> >born during transit? [optional qualifier: while over neutral waters?]
>
> Why wouldn't it follow the traditional "where you were born OR the
> nationality of your parents"? IOW, I was born in Germany, but I'm an
> American citizen; my daughter was born in Japan, but *she* is an
> American citizen...
Because the "where you were born" is ill-defined, I suppose - planes are
neutral international territory aren't they? or something.
> Incidentally, why an aircraft? Seems a ship would have the same issue
> while between ports.
My history teacher at school told me this regarding planes, so I just
thought I'd check its veracity. Maybe ships and planes have different
status under international law?
Ian Holmes
Philo
On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 05:06:57 +0000, Ian Holmes <i...@sanger.ac.uk>
wrote:
>Can the pilot of an aircraft dictate the nationality of a baby which is
>born during transit? [optional qualifier: while over neutral waters?]
>
Why wouldn't it follow the traditional "where you were born OR the
nationality of your parents"? IOW, I was born in Germany, but I'm an
American citizen; my daughter was born in Japan, but *she* is an
American citizen...
Incidentally, why an aircraft? Seems a ship would have the same issue
while between ports.
Philo "unless it's over neutral waters; different concerns then" NLN
ph...@radix.net
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
It is an opinion.
-Lazarus Long
Philo
On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:05:54 +0000, Ian Holmes <i...@sanger.ac.uk>
wrote:
>> Why wouldn't it follow the traditional "where you were born OR the
>> nationality of your parents"? IOW, I was born in Germany, but I'm an
>> American citizen; my daughter was born in Japan, but *she* is an
>> American citizen...
>
>Because the "where you were born" is ill-defined, I suppose - planes are
>neutral international territory aren't they? or something.
True, but if you take one side of an OR out, you still have the other:
the child has the nationality of the parents (which I'd wager is what
a majority of children choose anyway)
>> Incidentally, why an aircraft? Seems a ship would have the same issue
>> while between ports.
>
>My history teacher at school told me this regarding planes, so I just
>thought I'd check its veracity. Maybe ships and planes have different
>status under international law?
I just think it'd be more likely on a ship. I don't even think they
let women over 7 months pregnancy fly, do they?
Philo "unless they have their own wings" NLN
ph...@radix.net
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Standing close to the work you've been painting,
shades and lines diffuse when so near.
Standing back does it all fall together;
from far away will it all become clear...
-Quarterflash
Barbara Mikkelson
Ian Holmes <i...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote:
> planes are neutral international territory aren't they? or something.
Phone an airline. Ask them.
> My history teacher at school told me this regarding planes, so I just
> thought I'd check its veracity.
By posting to the first newsgroup you thought of? Again, phone an
airline; ask them.
Barbara "yes, the phone can be operated even when the modem is
disengaged" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | I'd dearly love to know what parts of the world
bha...@fas.harvard.edu | consider getting stuck in a cat door and having
| your bum painted blue a form of sex. - snopes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
View a random urban legend --> http://www.best.com/~snopes/randomul.cgi
Dave Wilton
Ian Holmes wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, Philo wrote:
>
> > >Can the pilot of an aircraft dictate the nationality of a baby which is
> > >born during transit? [optional qualifier: while over neutral waters?]
>
> status under international law?
The status of the child would solely depend on the laws of the
country of claimed citizenship. There is no "international law"
regarding citizenship. Whether or not you are a citizen is
determined by the national law of the country in question. I
do not have the foggiest notion of what US citizenship laws
say about children born on or over the high seas.
Ships and planes are generally considered the same under
international law. They are both "flagged" under the shield
of one nation or another. While on board a ship or plane in/over
international waters you are subject to the laws of the
country of registry of the ship or airline. Hence the FAA
anti-smoking rules and penalties apply on international flights
by US airlines.
--
Dave Wilton
dwi...@sprynet.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dwilton/homepage.htm
Simon Slavin
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.961222050410.7606B-100000@gigha>,
Ian Holmes <i...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote:
> I know it may be a variant on the Captains-can-stage-weddings myth in the
> FAQ, and apologies for the pun in the subject line, but:
>
> Can the pilot of an aircraft dictate the nationality of a baby which is
> born during transit? [optional qualifier: while over neutral waters?]
While a vessel is travelling through international waters, people
on the vessel are still in a nation: whichever nation the vessel
is registered in. Thus people travelling on a Panamanian vessel
are subject to Panamanian maritime law. So suppose an child was
born of an Israeli man and a Slovakian woman. The child might
have one, two or three nationalities depending on what the laws
of the three nations concerned said about such a situation. Also
it's possible that any random nations might offer the child their
own nationality.
Collory: a child might have no nationality. Possible ?
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin. Junk email not welcome here. Please don't email me copies.
I administer ISO 9000 and year 2000 certification tests for food.
"With the possible exception of the author's need to make a living,
there is no justification for this book being written." -- Hank Stine
Bob Hiebert
>Collory: a child might have no nationality. Possible ?
It depends on whether the parents wish to go through the green line or not.
Bob "well, I declare!" Hiebert
RGanz
>I just think it'd be more likely on a ship. I don't even think they
>let women over 7 months pregnancy fly, do they?
They're occasionally allowed in air ambulances.
--
Ulo Melton
bha...@fas.harvard.edu (Barbara Mikkelson) wrote:
>Philo <ph...@radix.net> wrote:
>> I don't even think they let women over 7 months pregnancy fly, do they?
>Yes, they do. Babies are even born on planes with surprising regularity.
Which only goes to prove that they don't eat the airline's food.
Ulo "coffee, tea or milk?" Melton
melt...@sprynet.com
DaveHatunen
In article <59urv4$o...@nntp1.best.com>, snopes <sno...@best.com> wrote:
> This brings to mind a legend I haven't seen on this group in a while:
> After Prohibition was repealed, <state> opted to remain dry, and so
> commercial airlines had to stop serving alcoholic beverages while their
> flights were crossing the airspace above <state>.
>
> I think the <state> most often mentioned was Kansas.
In fact, as I recall from my law school days, a Kansas county sheriff
boarded a plane in Tennessee and proceeded to arrest the stewardi for
serving alchoholic beverages when they got over his county in Kansas.
Also -- freeform recollecting again -- this lead to a ruling by the
Supremes that it was a matter of interstate commerce and the state
liquor laws didn't apply.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
danny burstein
This was a real concern for airlines during the early 1970s when the
drinking age was dropped in some, but not all, States to 18. So there was
a valid concern over whether they could serve booze to people 18-20.9999.
This did get to the courts, which used the below-referenced rationales.
Alas, my brain is too sodden to come up with cites.
danny 'free skies' burstein
In <hatunenE...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
>In article <59urv4$o...@nntp1.best.com>, snopes <sno...@best.com> wrote:
>> This brings to mind a legend I haven't seen on this group in a while:
>> After Prohibition was repealed, <state> opted to remain dry, and so
>> commercial airlines had to stop serving alcoholic beverages while their
>> flights were crossing the airspace above <state>.
>In fact, as I recall from my law school days, a Kansas county sheriff
>boarded a plane in Tennessee and proceeded to arrest the stewardi for
>serving alchoholic beverages when they got over his county in Kansas.
>Also -- freeform recollecting again -- this lead to a ruling by the
>Supremes that it was a matter of interstate commerce and the state
>liquor laws didn't apply.
>--
> ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
> * Daly City California *
> * Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
> *******************************************************
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
Bruce Tindall
In article <59urv4$o...@nntp1.best.com>, snopes <sno...@best.com> wrote:
> This brings to mind a legend I haven't seen on this group in a while:
> After Prohibition was repealed, <state> opted to remain dry, and so
> commercial airlines had to stop serving alcoholic beverages while their
> flights were crossing the airspace above <state>.
>
Which brings to mind the much older joke, "What did the Governor of
Virginia say to the Governor of South Carolina? 'It's a long time
between drinks.'"
B "posting from the vale of humility between two mountains of
conceit" T
P.S.: ObTWIAVBP: BYOB.
--
Bruce Tindall tin...@panix.com
Don Erickson
In article <59urv4$o...@nntp1.best.com>, snopes <sno...@best.com> wrote:
> This brings to mind a legend I haven't seen on this group in a while:
> After Prohibition was repealed, <state> opted to remain dry, and so
> commercial airlines had to stop serving alcoholic beverages while their
> flights were crossing the airspace above <state>.
>
> I think the <state> most often mentioned was Kansas.
During the early seventies, Kansas' attorney general (Vern Miller) make
some bleating noises concerning airlines serving drinks in Kansas' airspace,
and thus violating Kansas liquor laws. At that time, hard liquor could
only be served in 'private clubs' and patrons couldn't buy 'liquor by
the drink', but supposedly were forced to purchase a whole bottle at
a time. The lawmakers in their infinite weasdom came up with this
brilliant scheme in order to cut down on drinking. (???)
Add in the logistical nightmare of flying over 'dry' counties, and you get
a recipe for near total stupidity. To my knowledge, nothing much came of it.
On the ground, the 'no liquor by the drink' law was normally circumvented
by simply running a tab.
-Don 'is that weaselly enough?' Erickson
--
.sig, demonstrating his understanding of the theory of relativity, always
buys more alcohol so that he can drink less
snopes
This brings to mind a legend I haven't seen on this group in a while:
After Prohibition was repealed, <state> opted to remain dry, and so
commercial airlines had to stop serving alcoholic beverages while their
flights were crossing the airspace above <state>.
I think the <state> most often mentioned was Kansas.
- snopes
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| snopes is a wholesome fun snack for the entire family. Remember, young |
| children should be upright and supervised while eating. snopes should |
| only be served to children who are accustomed to solid foods. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Thomas Gray
snopes (sno...@best.com) writes:
> This brings to mind a legend I haven't seen on this group in a while:
> After Prohibition was repealed, <state> opted to remain dry, and so
> commercial airlines had to stop serving alcoholic beverages while their
> flights were crossing the airspace above <state>.
>
> I think the <state> most often mentioned was Kansas.
>
A few years ago in Canada, the province of Sakatchewan attempted
to charge sales tax on the sale of beverages on airplanes
crossing over their territory.
--
What's the difference between DMS and SP1, they're both computers?
- software hacker (1974)
i.sinature
Bob Hiebert
>During the early seventies, Kansas' attorney general (Vern Miller) make
>some bleating noises concerning airlines serving drinks in Kansas' airspace,
>and thus violating Kansas liquor laws. At that time, hard liquor could
>only be served in 'private clubs' and patrons couldn't buy 'liquor by
>the drink', but supposedly were forced to purchase a whole bottle at
>a time. The lawmakers in their infinite weasdom came up with this
>brilliant scheme in order to cut down on drinking. (???)
WOW! Vern Miller is a name I had completely forgotten. Thanks for the
memories of Kansas' own Elliot Ness wannabe (including raiding casinos,
trashing slot machines, etc.).
Just a few additional facts (and one regional UL). The liquour by the drink
laws evolved every few years. It went from:
1. Bringing your own bottle and leaving it behind the bar
2. Buying your own bottle from the club and having it behind the bar
3. Buying a drink card and getting it "punched" after every drink (major
breakthrough for people that like more than one kind of alcohol).
4. Liquor by the drink in private clubs only
5. Liqour by the drink in public bars
The story I heard as I was growing up was that it didn't have anything to do
with cutting down on drinking. There was a preacher that didn't like
alcohol (I can't remember his name). He was a strong lobbiest with the
Kansas state legislature.
His primary backers (here's the UL) were the private club owners. They made
a lot of money off the liqour laws. As some poor tourists would spend the
night in some small Kansas town, they would want a drink. First they would
have to buy an annual membership card. Then they would have to buy a bottle
of liqour. Then they would have a few drinks and leave. The rest was pure
profit.
One of the tricks that happend in the latter years of this was that clubs
would usually recognize other clubs members without additional charges.
That way only the tourists got nailed.
Bob "Kansas is all better now, thanks" Hiebert
Edward Rice
> I know it may be a variant on the Captains-can-stage-weddings myth in
the
> FAQ, and apologies for the pun in the subject line, but:
>
> Can the pilot of an aircraft dictate the nationality of a baby which is
> born during transit? [optional qualifier: while over neutral waters?]
Yes, but what he dictates has no validity.
Alan Bostick
But where would the survivors be buried?
--
Alan Bostick | I'm not cheating; I'm *winning*!
mailto:abos...@netcom.com | Emma Michael Notkin
news:alt.grelb |
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
snopes
Alan Bostick <abos...@netcom.com> wrote:
> But where would the survivors be buried?
Duh. Air crash survivors are cremated -- if the crash doesn't do it,
the funeral home finishes the job.
- snopes
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| WARNING: Intentional misuse by deliberately concentrating, sniffing, |
| or inhaling this article can be harmful. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Rich Rubel
DaveHatunen (hat...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Also -- freeform recollecting again -- this lead to a ruling by the
: Supremes that it was a matter of interstate commerce and the state
: liquor laws didn't apply.
Last time I rode Amtrak, their liquor policies had to follow those of the
municipality through which they were travelling. THey had to close the
bar several times while running through the midwest, and several trains
could not serve alcohol at all on Sunrays, depending on the routes.
--
+--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Rich Rubel | Happiness is an AWD Subaru! |
| rru...@umbc.edu | Turn a SNOW problem into NO problem. |
| | http://alumni.umbc.edu/~rrubel1/outback.html |
+--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
Stephan Zielinski
rru...@umbc.edu (Rich Rubel) writes:
> Last time I rode Amtrak, their liquor policies had to follow those of the
> municipality through which they were travelling. THey had to close the
> bar several times while running through the midwest, and several trains
> could not serve alcohol at all on Sunrays, depending on the routes.
I checked the trainspotting FAQ and can't find any references to
Sunrays. Was it some obscure Pullman design?
--
Stephan "Somewhat tempted to bring the Ebonics thread into this, but
it passed quickly" Zielinski
Atlas Eclipticalis
Ian Holmes wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, Philo wrote:
>
> > >born during transit? [optional qualifier: while over neutral waters?]
> >
> > nationality of your parents"? IOW, I was born in Germany, but I'm an
> > American citizen; my daughter was born in Japan, but *she* is an
> > American citizen...
>
> neutral international territory aren't they? or something.
>
> > while between ports.
>
> thought I'd check its veracity. Maybe ships and planes have different
> status under international law?
I think it depends if you've gone through customs, you know, where they
stamp your passport, welcoming you to the country.
BobB
SHips and planes have different practical aspects: planes are often OVER
a country.
As a general rule, citizenship follows that of the female parent, but
each nation makes its own rules. If a child has two Irish grandparents,
it can claim Irish citizenship AND US citizenship.
The area between an aircraft and the customs line is extraterritorial -
you're not IN the US until you cross the line.
Charles Wm. Dimmick
Don Erickson wrote:
> and thus violating Kansas liquor laws. At that time, hard liquor could
> only be served in 'private clubs' and patrons couldn't buy 'liquor by
> the drink', but supposedly were forced to purchase a whole bottle at
> a time. The lawmakers in their infinite weasdom came up with this
> brilliant scheme in order to cut down on drinking.
And the liquor merchants came up with the "miniature" bottle
so that you could get around this law by buying a whole
unopened miniature bottle, containing enough for one drink.
And so some states came up with the idea of requiring state
liquor taxes on miniatures which were as high as those on
larger bottles. But this didn't fly.
Charles Wm. "not on the airlines at least" Dimmick
Press <CTRL-<ALT-<DEL to continue ...
Nick Spalding
.BobB <bblo...@3rddoor.com> wrote:
> each nation makes its own rules. If a child has two Irish grandparents,
> it can claim Irish citizenship
One will do.
--
Nick Spalding
Edward Rice
> This brings to mind a legend I haven't seen on this group in a while:
> After Prohibition was repealed, <state> opted to remain dry, and so
> commercial airlines had to stop serving alcoholic beverages while
their
> flights were crossing the airspace above <state>.
>
> I think the <state> most often mentioned was Kansas.
Not a legend. This was true well into the 1970's. Personal experience of
the cutting off of serving alcoholic beverages for a brief period in
flight, with that explanation. I flew American Airlines between
Washington, DC, and Phoenix, AZ, repeatedly in the early-to-mid '70's (an
average of once a month, maybe more), and this was the case frequently. I
attributed the exceptions to the plane taking a route not over Kansas.
I believe this airline restriction was tossed out because it was a state
interfering with interstate commerce, eventually.
Edward Rice
In article <59vrbe$e...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Bob.H...@worldnet.att.net (Bob Hiebert) wrote:
> Just a few additional facts (and one regional UL). The liquour by the
drink
> laws evolved every few years. It went from:
> 1. Bringing your own bottle and leaving it behind the bar
> 2. Buying your own bottle from the club and having it behind the bar
> 3. Buying a drink card and getting it "punched" after every drink (major
> breakthrough for people that like more than one kind of alcohol).
> 4. Liquor by the drink in private clubs only
> 5. Liqour by the drink in public bars
Fairfax County, Virginia, had restrictions like that, also. And it's a
suburb of Washington, DC, which used to have fairly relaxed liquor laws.
I know that in 1971, "bottle clubs" existed because you couldn't serve hard
liquor by the drink or in a public facility. I think there was also a law
in Virginia, or maybe it was in DC, that you couldn't be seated while
drinking, so stand-up bars existed for a while. The bottle clubs went away
when the laws were brought up to 20th century standards.
Ian Holmes
On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, Philo wrote:
> >> Why wouldn't it follow the traditional "where you were born OR the
> >> nationality of your parents"?
> >
> >Because the "where you were born" is ill-defined, I suppose -
>
> True, but if you take one side of an OR out, you still have the other:
> the child has the nationality of the parents (which I'd wager is what
> a majority of children choose anyway)
Thinking back, the context of this story was that the pilot could really
stitch the kid up by giving him e.g. Argentinian citizenship, thus
rendering him eligible for military service.
> I just think it'd be more likely on a ship. I don't even think they
> let women over 7 months pregnancy fly, do they?
>
> Philo "unless they have their own wings" NLN
Yes, but it's hard to tell sometimes. Seen that Madonna video?
Ian "don't fly with me Argentina" Holmes
Cindy Kandolf
Ian Holmes <i...@sanger.ac.uk> writes:
| I know it may be a variant on the Captains-can-stage-weddings myth in the
| FAQ, and apologies for the pun in the subject line, but:
|
| born during transit? [optional qualifier: while over neutral waters?]
Okay, i'm catching up, so i'm a week late, but i have to ask a
rhetorical question. WHY would the pilot be allowed to decide that?
I can actually see the logic behind the idea of a captain being able
to stage a wedding, even though i know it's a myth: in the old days, a
ship could be at sea for years at a time, and a wedding performed by
the local religious official on some distant South Sea island would be
unlikely to impress the authorities back in the home port. So the
captain, as absolute master of everything else that goes on aboard the
ship, would be a likely choice for the right person to perform the
wedding. But this only works because one person typically officiates
at a wedding. When a child is born, generally neither the parents nor
anyone else gets much choice in what citizenship(s) is/are granted to
that child. It depends on where the mother is physically located when
the babe makes its appearance, and on the citizenships of the parents
- and most importantly on the laws of all countries concerned. The
laws of the parents' country or countries (almost?) always apply even
if the child is born in another country, or over neutral waters.
Not only is this belief false, i don't even understand where it
originated.
- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
flodmail: ci...@nvg.unit.no flodhome: Trondheim, Norway
flodweb: http://www.nethelp.no/cindy/
Barbara Mikkelson
Cindy Kandolf <ci...@nvg.unit.no> wrote:
> ...but i have to ask a rhetorical question. WHY would the pilot be
> allowed to decide that? I can actually see the logic behind the idea of
> a captain being able to stage a wedding, even though i know it's a myth:
I t hink you've answered your own question. A pilot is seen as being
"in charge" of the airplane the same way a captain is seen as being "in
charge" of a ship.
Barbara "in charge of is a VISA card" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | Look Harry, why don't you just say that you're
bha...@fas.harvard.edu | gonna go round to his house, fuck his dog, set
| fire to his hi fi and eat his last TV dinner?
| - Ewan Kirk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
View a random urban legend --> http://www.best.com/~snopes/randomul.cgi
Barbara Mikkelson
Cindy Kandolf <ci...@nvg.unit.no> wrote:
> ...but i have to ask a rhetorical question. WHY would the pilot be
> allowed to decide that? I can actually see the logic behind the idea of
> a captain being able> to stage a wedding, even though i know it's a myth:
I think you've answered your own question. A pilot is seen as being
"in charge" of the airplane the same way a captain is seen as being "in
charge" of a ship.
Barbara "in charge of a VISA card" Mikkelson
Drew Lawson
In article <5a8elb$l...@verdi.nethelp.no>, ci...@nvg.unit.no (Cindy
Kandolf) wrote:
> Ian Holmes <i...@sanger.ac.uk> writes:
> | I know it may be a variant on the Captains-can-stage-weddings myth in the
> | FAQ, and apologies for the pun in the subject line, but:
> |
> | Can the pilot of an aircraft dictate the nationality of a baby which is
> | born during transit? [optional qualifier: while over neutral waters?]
> But this only works because one person typically officiates
> at a wedding. When a child is born, generally neither the parents nor
> anyone else gets much choice in what citizenship(s) is/are granted to
> that child. It depends on where the mother is physically located when
> the babe makes its appearance, and on the citizenships of the parents
> - and most importantly on the laws of all countries concerned. The
> laws of the parents' country or countries (almost?) always apply even
> if the child is born in another country, or over neutral waters.
While I agree that it is mainly an attempted updating of the sea captain
marriage myth, I can sort of understand where this *could* come from.
That is the distinction between "right to citizinship" and "citizenship
of record" (to coin some terms). While there isn't an officiating person
to a birth, there *is* an officiating person (or organization) in
recording the birth, and that is what *documents* right to citizenship.
In this day of "if the computer says you're dead then you're dead"
stories, people could easily believe that the "official involved"
could have some excessive impact.
For example, I have a "right to a Scotish passport" (is citizenship
to Scotland or the UK?), but it is not clearly documented, so I can't
just walk up to customs and assert my right to enter.
> Not only is this belief false, i don't even understand where it
> originated.
It's a stretch, but it makes warped sense to me.
Drew "coach, first class or maternity?" Lawson
--
Drew Lawson | If you're not part of the solution,
dla...@aimnet.com | you're part of the precipitate
wal...@donovan.com
In article <5a91ud$8...@nntp1.best.com>, bha...@fas.harvard.edu (Barbara
Mikkelson) wrote:
> Cindy Kandolf <ci...@nvg.unit.no> wrote:
>
> > ...but i have to ask a rhetorical question. WHY would the pilot be
> > allowed to decide that? I can actually see the logic behind the idea of
> > a captain being able to stage a wedding, even though i know it's a myth:
>
> I t hink you've answered your own question. A pilot is seen as being
> "in charge" of the airplane the same way a captain is seen as being "in
> charge" of a ship.
>
ANd why would 'being in charge' of an airplane confer on someone the
right to determine someone else's nationality? It is idiotic.
k
Mike Holmans
dla...@aimnet.com (Drew Lawson) put on a kilt and said:
>For example, I have a "right to a Scotish passport" (is citizenship
>to Scotland or the UK?), but it is not clearly documented, so I can't
>just walk up to customs and assert my right to enter.
For passport purposes, that's UKoGBaNI citizenship. No such thing as a
Scottish passport. Yet.
Admittedly, if you could just walk up to customs, they wouldn't have a
problem with you entering, unless you were carrying something naughty,
or the Immigration people you've just dodged come running after you.
Mike "press Enter to enter" Holmans
At least El Sig knows which way to pass the port
David Lesher
When I was in ground school, the first day the instructor said:
NO!
The pilot can not marry folks. This is not a ship.
After all, ship captains were stuck out there for months.
And if a blessed event was coming soon, there was a reason
to get the couple married before it became a ...crisis...
Now, I suspect IF the pilot had a certificate from the Universal Life
Church, and the couple in question had a license......
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
danny burstein
How soon everyone forgets that touching scene where the Nazi shipcaptain,
at the request of Humphrey Bogart, performs the wedding ceremony for Bogie
and Katherine Hepburn.
danny 'now let's hang them' burstein
Nick Spalding
.dan...@panix.com (danny burstein) wrote:
> How soon everyone forgets that touching scene where the Nazi shipcaptain,
> at the request of Humphrey Bogart, performs the wedding ceremony for Bogie
> and Katherine Hepburn.
German yes, Nazi no - this was a film about WWI.
--
Nick Spalding
Drew Lawson
Allow me to rephrase your question, and the belief may seem less idiotic:
And why would being in a position of authority confer on someone
the authority to act?
While the belief is incorrect (mainly because we tend to grant narrowly
focused authority), the form is not without precident.
Drew "when I fight authority,
authority always wins" Lawson
--
Drew Lawson | Broke my mind
dla...@aimnet.com | Had no spare
joll...@mc.net
On 31 Dec 1996 wal...@donovan.com wrote:
> In article <5a91ud$8...@nntp1.best.com>, bha...@fas.harvard.edu (Barbara
> Mikkelson) wrote:
>
> > Cindy Kandolf <ci...@nvg.unit.no> wrote:
> >
> > > ...but i have to ask a rhetorical question. WHY would the pilot be
> > > allowed to decide that? I can actually see the logic behind the idea of
> > > a captain being able to stage a wedding, even though i know it's a myth:
> >
> > I t hink you've answered your own question. A pilot is seen as being
> > "in charge" of the airplane the same way a captain is seen as being "in
> > charge" of a ship.
> >
>
> ANd why would 'being in charge' of an airplane confer on someone the
> right to determine someone else's nationality? It is idiotic.
I am a pilot. In all of my flight training I've never heard of such a
thing from any instructor or airline pilot. At least children of US
citizens are Americans. I would assume that the same holds true for other
countries. As far as non US citizens giving birth on US airliners over
international waters?????
Ben Clifford
Mike Holmans wrote:
> For passport purposes, that's UKoGBaNI citizenship. No such thing as a
> Scottish passport. Yet.
My passport lists me as Nationality: British Citizen.
Nothing to do with Northern Ireland in that, just Britain. Also, I have
heard that one can be a British Citizen but with no right to abode in
the UK.
--
ben
--
NOTE: If you reply to this message via mail, change brenc to benc for
higher
priority (this is junkmail protection).
Barbara Mikkelson
I think you're both misunderstanding a key point -- no one in this
folklore group believes this crazy factoid is at all true. Instead,
we're trying to figure out *how* such a wild notion came into being.
Hence, the speculation on the perceived link between captains of ships
and captains of airlines.
Barbara "square one dance" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | Like puns, trolls are despised the most by those
bha...@fas.harvard.edu | most unable to make them. - Dave Hatunen
Andy Walton
In article <32C58D...@3rddoor.com>, bblo...@3rddoor.com wrote:
:As a general rule, citizenship follows that of the female parent, but
:each nation makes its own rules. If a child has two Irish grandparents,
:it can claim Irish citizenship AND US citizenship.
So the vast majority of the population of Dublin can claim U.S.
citizenship? Cripes. Wait until the anti-immigration folks get a hold of
this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We were once so close to heaven, Peter came out and gave us medals
declaring us the nicest of the damned." --They Might Be Giants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://www.mindspring.com/~atticus
Jeff Lanam
Barbara Mikkelson (bha...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
: I think you're both misunderstanding a key point -- no one in this
: we're trying to figure out *how* such a wild notion came into being.
: Hence, the speculation on the perceived link between captains of ships
: and captains of airlines.
I can take a wild-assed guess at this, and forgive me if it's already
appeared. Suppose a baby is born in the air while the plane is flying
near an international border. Laws of the countries in question are
such that the child will have dual citizenship with one or another
of the countries and the parents's own country. If it's advantageous
to have citizenship (e.g. USA), the captain may be called upon to
certify the location of the plane at the moment of birth. This is
one hypothetical case where the captain could "choose" the nationality
of a child born enflight.
--
Jeff Lanam lanam...@tandem.com
Tandem Computers, Inc. http://www.netgate.net/~jlanam
"All answers are replies. However, not all replies are answers."
-- Ta'Lon of the Narn, _Babylon 5_
Of course, these are my views.
Andy Walton
In article <32c56cea....@news.iol.ie>, spal...@iol.ie wrote:
:.BobB <bblo...@3rddoor.com> wrote:
:> each nation makes its own rules. If a child has two Irish grandparents,
:> it can claim Irish citizenship
:
:One will do.
I don't have an Irish grandparent, but my grandfather had an Irish
grandmother. Can I posthumously claim citizenship on his behalf, and thence
claim it for myself?
On a more serious note, what's the deal with this? What's the actual
policy? And was it an attempt by the Irish to reclaim the Irish Diaspora
post-potato-famine, once they realized that Irish-Americans outnumber
Irish-Irish[1]?
Andy "what happens when 1/8 Irish eyes are smiling?" Walton
[1] Insert the standard "New York was more Irish than Dublin, more Jews than
Tel Aviv, more Italians than Milan..." canard here. [2]
[2] Anyone know the voracity of this one? It's a great melting-pot kind of
statement, but is it numerically sound?
Alistair
bha...@fas.harvard.edu (Barbara Mikkelson) wrote:
::>joll...@mc.net wrote:
::>> On 31 Dec 1996 wal...@donovan.com wrote:
::>>> ANd why would 'being in charge' of an airplane confer on someone the
::>>> right to determine someone else's nationality? It is idiotic.
::>>
::>> I am a pilot. In all of my flight training I've never heard of such a
::>> thing from any instructor or airline pilot. At least children of US
::>> citizens are Americans. I would assume that the same holds true for other
::>> countries. As far as non US citizens giving birth on US airliners over
::>> international waters?????
::>I think you're both misunderstanding a key point -- no one in this
::>folklore group believes this crazy factoid is at all true. Instead,
::>we're trying to figure out *how* such a wild notion came into being.
::>Hence, the speculation on the perceived link between captains of ships
::>and captains of airlines.
ummm... if I may throw in my 0.02c worth here; I believe that the
registration of the aircraft in which a birth took place, might technically
serve as a basis for establishing the country of birth. (I mean, how would
it look on your birth certificate - "Place of birth: aisle seat, row 17" ?)
Thus, a child born upon a British-registered aircraft over US airspace,
would, I would surmise, have a claim to have been born on British
territory.
As far as the pilot's involvement was concerned, I would imagine that the
incident would need to be reported to the local aviation authorities, the
authorities in the country of registration, and the Immigration officials
at the port of entry, which would doubtless add to the wearisome tasks that
he would have to delegate to his first officer.
Alistair "The stork brought it" Fall
Phil Edwards
In message <32CC1CB2...@dass.prestel.co.uk>
Ben Clifford <br...@dass.prestel.co.uk> writes:
> Mike Holmans wrote:
> > For passport purposes, that's UKoGBaNI citizenship. No such thing as a
> > Scottish passport. Yet.
> My passport lists me as Nationality: British Citizen.
> Nothing to do with Northern Ireland in that, just Britain. Also, I have
> heard that one can be a British Citizen but with no right to abode in
> the UK.
If memory serves the legal status of "British Citizen" dates back to
1984, when the status of "British Subject" was abolished. (Unnoticed
by many constitutional reformers, who carried merrily on writing
about how "legally we're subjects not citizens, ooh, what does that
tell you?") Foggy recollection says that there were (and presumably
still are) seven categories of "British Citizen", though that does
sound like rather a lot. Those in the bottom category are entitled
to... well... to, er, call themselves British Citizens. No right of
abode, no right to a passport, no nothing. (There are a lot of rather
peeved British Citizens in Hong Kong at the moment). Denizens of that
other colonial relic, the Falkland Islands, were also designated as
the lowest possible form of British Citizen, until someone noticed &
thought this wasn't quite the thing.
Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act you can also be excluded from
parts of the UK - this is generally used to confine people to the NI bit.
Phil "I just live here" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards amr...@zetnet.co.uk
"In reality, methane from decomposing manure is very
unlikely to have been a hazard on the Ark" - John Woodmoroppe
Chris Green/Jane Murray
> Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> My passport lists me as Nationality: British Citizen.
>
> Nothing to do with Northern Ireland in that, just Britain. Also, I have
> heard that one can be a British Citizen but with no right to abode in
> the UK.
I think you may have gotten that backwards.I was born in Canada, but me
mum was born in Serbiton, UK. I am NOt a British citizen, but I have
right of abode in the UK, because my mother was born in England. If I
had the foresight to apply for British citizenship before the age of 18,
I would be a full British citizen. Because I was not aware of this law,
I obtained my Canadian passport at 19, and waws only eligible for "right
of abode"- which means I can live and work in the United Kingdom, but I
cannot claim any pension or dole or likewise thing. IF, however, I was
born of a British father, and a Canadian mother, I would be a British
citizen. Which proves the british don't know much about the idea of
conception- namely, that you can be danm sure a womans child is her own.
but there will always be a doubt if the man's child is his own. I have
heards hthat the Canadian natives based their society on a matrilineal
one because of this, but that could be a UL too.
jane
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, Chris Green/Jane Murray <gree...@interlog.com> said:
>> Mike Holmans wrote:
>> My passport lists me as Nationality: British Citizen.
Funny, so does one of mine. The other one says "Nationality: Canadian
Citizen".
>I think you may have gotten that backwards.I was born in Canada, but me
>mum was born in Serbiton, UK. I am NOt a British citizen, but I have
>right of abode in the UK, because my mother was born in England. If I
>had the foresight to apply for British citizenship before the age of 18,
>I would be a full British citizen. Because I was not aware of this law,
>I obtained my Canadian passport at 19, and waws only eligible for "right
>of abode"- which means I can live and work in the United Kingdom, but I
>cannot claim any pension or dole or likewise thing. IF, however, I was
>born of a British father, and a Canadian mother, I would be a British
>citizen. Which proves the british don't know much about the idea of
The British have changed several of these conditions. I applied for my
British citizenship when I went to work there in 1991, as far as I remember,
the following rules are different from what you post above:
- If you were born prior to 1973, you are only born a British Citizen if your
father was British, but if you were born after 1973, you can become a
British Citizen if either parent was born there.
- AFAIK, There is such a thing as a "British Citizen with no right of abode".
I can't remember how it was phrased on the passport application, but I seem
to remember it was something intended for people living in the Falkland
Islands and Hong Kong.
- There is no "you have to apply by your 18th birthday" provision - I got my
British Citizenship and British Passport when I was 30 years old, and
travelling in Britain on a Canadian Passport.
I have almost as many passports as David Lesher, but mine are all from
different countries.
--
Paul Tomblin, PP-ASEL _|_ Rochester Flying Club web page:
____/___\____ http://www.servtech.com/public/
___________[o0o]___________ ptomblin/rfc.html
ptom...@xcski.com O O O
Sylvain Louboutin
Chris Green/Jane Murray <gree...@interlog.com> writes:
>> My passport lists me as Nationality: British Citizen.
>> Nothing to do with Northern Ireland in that, just Britain. Also, I have
>> heard that one can be a British Citizen but with no right to abode in
>> the UK.
>I think you may have gotten that backwards.I was born in Canada, but me
>mum was born in Serbiton, UK. I am NOt a British citizen, but I have
>right of abode in the UK, because my mother was born in England. If I
I believe that Mike was actually refering to `British Subjects' or
something like that; who do not necessarily have right of abode in
Britain; isn't it the status of people from Hong Kong?
--
%% Sylvain....@dsg.cs.tcd.ie http://www.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/~sloubtin/
%% Distributed Systems Group, (O'Reilly Institute, room F.35)
%% Department of Computer Science, phone: (+353-88) 527790
%% Trinity College, Dublin 2, -Ireland- fax: (+353-1) 6772204
Simon Slavin
In article <32CC1CB2...@dass.prestel.co.uk>,
Ben Clifford <br...@dass.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> > For passport purposes, that's UKoGBaNI citizenship. No such thing as a
> > Scottish passport. Yet.
>
> My passport lists me as Nationality: British Citizen.
>
> Nothing to do with Northern Ireland in that, just Britain. Also, I have
> heard that one can be a British Citizen but with no right to abode in
> the UK.
The three words 'country', 'nation' and 'citizen' don't have a simple
relationship.
There is no such nation as Ireland, nor is Northern Ireland a nation.
Britain is a nation, but it's not a country. Scotland is a country,
but not a nation. One can be both a British citizen and a citizen
of Northern Ireland. One can be of both British and Australian
nationality and can be a citizen of both Britain and Australia, but
one doesn't imply the other.
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin -- Computer Contractor. | "... sneaking in the news
Junk email not welcome at this site. | between bleeding babies the way
Web site (as if you cared): | Shakespeare bracketed poetry
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | with swordfights." -- Teller
Philo
lan...@sheridan.org (Hazard Class Mage) wrote:
>
>Try to get an airline to board a woman who looks to be more than
>six months pregnant....
>
Not all women who are in their third trimester look so. My wife
carried "in", so even right before birth her "maternity clothes" were
sweats two sizes larger than usual.
Philo "you learn this stuff being married" NLN
--
======================================================================
Philo ||
ph...@radix.net || Due to a system error,
2E GULC <*> || Eudora cannot display a .sig
http://www.radix.net/~philo ||
======================================================================
Bob Cradock
In article <atticus-ya0235800...@nntp2.mindspring.com>,
att...@mindspring.com (Andy Walton) wrote:
> In article <32c56cea....@news.iol.ie>, spal...@iol.ie wrote:
> :.BobB <bblo...@3rddoor.com> wrote:
> :> each nation makes its own rules. If a child has two Irish grandparents,
> :> it can claim Irish citizenship
> :One will do.
> I don't have an Irish grandparent, but my grandfather had an Irish
> grandmother. Can I posthumously claim citizenship on his behalf, and thence
> claim it for myself?
>
> On a more serious note, what's the deal with this? What's the actual
> policy? And was it an attempt by the Irish to reclaim the Irish Diaspora
> post-potato-famine, once they realized that Irish-Americans outnumber
> Irish-Irish[1]?
Andy,
I'm no help on the why, but I do recall the former (and maybe current)
what of the deal. Before 198(7?), anyone whose grandparent [1] was eligible
for Irish citizenship was also eligible for Irish citizenship. Didn't
matter if your grandparent actually *was* an I.C.[2], you could "grandfather"
yourself into a green passport.
When Robert McFarland did his Iran-Contra shuttling, he traveled on
his Irish passport. In the early-to-mid-80s, there was some rush for
foreign-bound Merkins to get Irish passports so they could show those
in the event of being hijacked and conceal their US-ness. Paranoid, yes,
but I knew a couple of people who got them for that reason.
I was eligible, since all my great-grandparents were born in Ireland.
So even though my GPs and parents never applied to be I.C.s, their
eligiblity passed on to me. I actually intended to get an Irish passport,
just 'cause it'd be cool. However, I put it off and by the time I
looked back into it, Ireland had tightened the rules. Now the grandparent
had to actually have been an I.C., and a real one who wasn't grandfathered
in. So I'm outta luck, but my dad might still be able to get an Irish
passport. This is all from memory, and once I found out I'd missed the
boat (no pun intended) I pretty much ignored the rules, so I could be wrong.
Robert "no Irish jokes, now, if I'm wrong" O'Hara Michael Cradock
[1] could have required multiple GPs
[2] Irish Citizen
Barbara Mikkelson
Hazard Class Mage <lan...@sheridan.org> wrote:
> Try to get an airline to board a woman who looks to be more than
> six months pregnant....
Different airlines have different rules. If you're trying to book a
flight for someone who is pregnant, contact each of the airlines you
might possibly use and ask what their policies are before buying a
ticket from any of them.
You might also request a bulkhead seat for the passenger in that they're
a lot easier to get in and out of than the regular, "damn but the fella
in the next row has his seat tipped back" kind.
Barbara "flighty" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | When responding to this post please allow for
bha...@fas.harvard.edu | the fact that I am posting from ix.netcom.com
| and set the level of your usually brilliant
| replies to "dim." - Nancy Gill
Michael Straight
On 26 Dec 1996, snopes wrote:
> This brings to mind a legend I haven't seen on this group in a while:
> After Prohibition was repealed, <state> opted to remain dry, and so
> commercial airlines had to stop serving alcoholic beverages while their
> flights were crossing the airspace above <state>.
>
> I think the <state> most often mentioned was Kansas.
So, if I'm flying from Seattle to Chicago and get really fed up with the
eleven-year-old brat behind me when we're over Denver, will I be
prosecuted for assult in Washington, Denver, or Illinois?
And if Michael Straight is a resident of Louisiana...just forget it.
FLEOEVDETYHOEUPROEONREWMEILECSOFMOERSGTIRVAENRGEEARDSTVHIESBIITBTLHEEPSRIACYK
Ethical Mirth Gas/"I'm chaste alright."/Magic Hitler Hats/"Hath grace limits?"
"Irate Clam Thighs!"/Chili Hamster Tag/The Gilt Charisma/"I gather this calm."
Chris Grace
: In article <32CC1CB2...@dass.prestel.co.uk>,
: Ben Clifford <br...@dass.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
: > Nothing to do with Northern Ireland in that, just Britain. Also, I have
: > heard that one can be a British Citizen but with no right to abode in
: > the UK.
I think the story is this:
There were (pre EEC passports) two types of citizenship. One, British
Citizenship, carried the right of abode in the UK. The other "Citizen of
the United Kingdom and Colonies" did not. I seem to recall that the
distinction was made when Kenya threw out all their Indians who, naturally
enough, thought that the posession of a British Passport enabled them to
go to the UK instead of being sent back to India. After many thousand
Indians arrived in the UK, the second category was introduced, just in
time for Idi Amin's efforts in Uganda.
In the old days of the blue passports with white inset panels, the
passports were distinguished by the 'real' ones having a white band across
the top of each page and the words 'The holder has the right of abode in
the United Kingdom'.
These days I understand that the bearer of a *blue* British passport (the
type with a plastic cover) does *not* have the right of abode in the UK,
this being given by the maroon EEC British Passport.
I also understand that the privilege of British Citizenship is the Crown's
prerogative and cannot be surrendered. SO, if, for example, a Brit applies
for and receives US citizenship, under US Law they have to surender all
other citizenship, but they never lose the British citizenship whether
they surrendered it or not.
--
Chris 'fufas' Grace Thinnker, Philosopher, Sensualist, Bon Vivant
Skydiver, Mensa USA (186* since you asked), MasterOfTheUnixVerse!!!
[*]only seven points lower than Bob OBob's & 185 higher than George
Dave Wilton
Chris Grace wrote:
>
> I also understand that the privilege of British Citizenship is the Crown's
> prerogative and cannot be surrendered. SO, if, for example, a Brit applies
> for and receives US citizenship, under US Law they have to surender all
> other citizenship, but they never lose the British citizenship whether
> they surrendered it or not.
Renouncing US citizenship is not easy either (or more accurately, it's
easy
to renounce, and just as easy to get back). The most famous case being
Lee
Harvey Oswald, who renounced his citizenship when he "defected" to the
USSR,
but later returned. Numerous court decisions have made it extremely
difficult
for the government to strip anyone of US citizenship. About the only
time this
happens is with ex-Nazis who entered the country and obtained
citizenship
under false pretenses.
--
Dave Wilton
dwi...@sprynet.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dwilton/homepage.htm
Dave Blake
Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> treats us to the following...
>
>So, if I'm flying from Seattle to Chicago and get really fed up with the
>eleven-year-old brat behind me when we're over Denver, will I be
>prosecuted for assult in Washington, Denver, or Illinois?
>
If it was my child the question would be academic, because there
wouldn't be much left of you to arrest.
--
Dave Blake
London Mitcham Southminster
"I was having a conversation about Stockhausen with someone
and it got out of hand" - Simon Slavin Oct 1996
Phil Edwards
In message <E3nzt...@transdata.co.nz>
ch...@transdata.co.nz (Chris Grace) writes:
> I think the story is this:
> There were (pre EEC passports) two types of citizenship. One, British
> Citizenship, carried the right of abode in the UK. The other "Citizen of
> the United Kingdom and Colonies" did not.
I think not. Legally, the status(es) of "British citizen" dates from
the Nationality Act of, I think, 1984 (prior to that we were all
subjects). There are many gradations of "citizenship" (I said 7 in an
earlier post; I'm sticking to >3), at least one of which doesn't even
confer the right to a British passport.
> In the old days of the blue passports with white inset panels, the
> passports were distinguished by the 'real' ones having a white band across
> the top of each page and the words 'The holder has the right of abode in
> the United Kingdom'.
Sounds UL-y to me: I don't recall anything like this on my old navy
passport. (That's navy the colour, incidentally).
"EEC passports" - actually it became the EC some time ago and is now
the EU - don't have any bearing on this question. The passports do
look different these days, but it's the passports that have been
standardised rather than the law. EU law does overlay certain
reciprocal rights and obligations on the pre-existing framework of
nationality law (hope all those polysyllables will drown out the
sound of frantic hand-waving) but the basics remain as were.
Phil "just noticed 'air-born' in the Subject: line. Mmm. Nice." Edwards
--
Phil Edwards amr...@zetnet.co.uk
"This has the personality of a sackful of crushed macaroons"
- Jilly Goolden
Ian Holmes
This woman irks me:
On 2 Jan 1997, Barbara Mikkelson wrote:
> joll...@mc.net wrote:
> > On 31 Dec 1996 wal...@donovan.com wrote:
>
> >> ANd why would 'being in charge' of an airplane confer on someone the
> >> right to determine someone else's nationality? It is idiotic.
[International law is, in the above sentence, presumed to be 100% rational]
> > I am a pilot. In all of my flight training I've never heard of such a
> > thing from any instructor or airline pilot.
hmmmmm
> > At least children of US citizens are Americans.
and thank Sweet Bejaysus for that, eh.
> > I would assume that the same holds true for other
> > countries. As far as non US citizens giving birth on US airliners over
> > international waters?????
Er, yes. Please listen. This is the pertinent question: "Are children of
Argentinian citizens (who are mandatorily eligible for national service
if ever they enter Argentina) themselves Argentinian citizens?"
Corollary: "In the case of any ambiguity, who has the right to decide?
And do you still believe that the idea that the pilot has discretion
should be denied sympathy?"
> I think you're both misunderstanding a key point
[do tell, guru]
> -- no one in this
> folklore group believes this crazy factoid is at all true. Instead,
> we're trying to figure out *how* such a wild notion came into being.
> Hence, the speculation on the perceived link between captains of ships
> and captains of airlines.
Glad to see that, after having initially slagged me off for even raising
this "crazy" question on this newsgroup, you now (after having witnessed a
few interested responses to the original post) recognise that there may be
some cred/mileage in it for you, and hence acknowledge it as a potential UL.
Ian "bitter? me? only if you're buying" Holmes
Alan Barclay
In article <32d0fe12...@news1.radix.net>, Philo <ph...@radix.net> wrote:
>lan...@sheridan.org (Hazard Class Mage) wrote:
>
>>
>>Try to get an airline to board a woman who looks to be more than
>>six months pregnant....
>>
>
>carried "in", so even right before birth her "maternity clothes" were
>sweats two sizes larger than usual.
Quite reguarly women either hide their pregnancy, or are unware they are
pregnant until labour. This seems to be more common with women who are,
shall we say, heavier?
As it happens, my sister didn't tell anyone she was pregnant until
after labour started, and no-one suspected she was, so she could have
flown up to that point.
Phil Edwards
In message <Pine.SUN.3.91.970112025916.4849B-100000@gigha>
Ian Holmes <i...@sanger.ac.uk> writes:
< moan snipped >
> This is the pertinent question: "Are children of
> Argentinian citizens (who are mandatorily eligible for national service
> if ever they enter Argentina) themselves Argentinian citizens?"
Not the foggiest, but I assume this isn't really a question about
Argentina. I suspect very strongly that there is wide variation
between countries in this respect. Children of British citizens, per
ejemplo, are not necessarily British citizens; come to that, children
born on British soil are not necessarily British citizens. It depends
on what nationality law is in force in the given country at the given
time. (It would do, wouldn't it?).
> Corollary: "In the case of any ambiguity, who has the right to decide?
> And do you still believe that the idea that the pilot has discretion
> should be denied sympathy?"
But no "ambiguity" will arise *at birth*. The child in question's
citizenship will only be put to the test when they - or their
parent/guardian - claim citizenship of whatever country it may be.
And the ambiguity will be decided by whichever government agency
rules on these things, in the given country, at the given time.
The Solomonic role of the pilot is like the stolen kidney - a
moment's thought reveals that it *can't* happen like that.
Still, I think Barbara's
> > -- no one in this
> > folklore group believes this crazy factoid is at all true.
may have been an overstatement. Perhaps it should have been 'no one
with any sense in this folklore group'.
Phil "just twisted" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards amr...@zetnet.co.uk
"This has got the personality of a sackful of crushed macaroons"
- Jilly Goolden
Cindy Kandolf
Alan Barclay (gor...@elaine.drink.com) writes:
| Quite reguarly women either hide their pregnancy, or are unware they are
| pregnant until labour. This seems to be more common with women who are,
| shall we say, heavier?
Urban legend. A few women might be able to hide their pregnancy, and
once in a great while a woman (or more likely a teenager) doesn't
realize she's pregnant. But "quite regularly"? Pregnancy isn't just
a matter of gaining a coupla pounds. Signs and symptoms like missing
menstrual periods, nausea, fatigue, loss of appetite alternating with
the urge to eat everything in sight, sore, swollen breasts... these
are not exactly things that are easy to mistake for a bad cold, you
know, even in the absence of any significant weight gain... (It's a
bit easier for a teenager, since teenage girls may have very irregular
periods and have hormone swings that make them feel lousy, gain
weight, etc. as a normal part of life.)
| As it happens, my sister didn't tell anyone she was pregnant until
| after labour started, and no-one suspected she was, so she could have
| flown up to that point.
No one even suspected? Your whole family is that clueless? Wow.
- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
flodmail: ci...@nvg.unit.no flodhome: Trondheim, Norway
flodweb: http://www.nethelp.no/cindy/
Barbara Mikkelson
Ian Holmes <i...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote:
> Glad to see that, after having initially slagged me off for even raising
> this "crazy" question on this newsgroup, you now (after having witnessed
> a few interested responses to the original post) recognise that there
> may be some cred/mileage in it for you, and hence acknowledge it as a
> potential UL.
There was a decent discussion to be had about why people are predisposed
to believe certain specious things, and that very credulity lies at the
heart of this newsgroup's area of interest, the study of contemporary
lore. Whatever kicked things in that direction didn't magically transform
itself into an urban legend any more than Mickey Spillane's _Erection Set_
would morph itself into literature if a passing mention of it sparked a
discussion on inheritance rights of illegitimate children.
Barbara "I, The Jury" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | A number of weasels were spotted on the
bha...@fas.harvard.edu | sidewalk after they had walked under a
| painter's ladder. - Don Erickson
Philo
gor...@elaine.drink.com (Alan Barclay) wrote:
>>
>>Not all women who are in their third trimester look so. My wife
>>carried "in", so even right before birth her "maternity clothes" were
>>sweats two sizes larger than usual.
>
>
>Quite reguarly women either hide their pregnancy, or are unware they are
>pregnant until labour. This seems to be more common with women who are,
>shall we say, heavier?
>
I'm telling my wife you said that. (She's 5'8, 135 lbs; thinks she's
fat)
Philo "not _my_ fault - I keep telling her she's gorgeous" NLN
Cindy Kandolf
Philo (ph...@radix.net) writes:
| lan...@sheridan.org (Hazard Class Mage) wrote:
| >Try to get an airline to board a woman who looks to be more than
| >six months pregnant....
|
| carried "in", so even right before birth her "maternity clothes" were
| sweats two sizes larger than usual.
Heh. I went for maternity pants, because i can't stand sweatpants,
but i was wearing my husband's T-shirts and such until the very end.
So i went into the hospital looking only about six months pregnant,
and came out with a 10-pounder. No wonder i couldn't breathe the last
two months or so.
Airlines _say_ they don't allow women who are more than X months
pregnant fly without their doctors' approval, but the simple fact is
that you can't tell how far along a woman is by looking. And i really
doubt any airline would want to confront a woman who looked ready to
pop, only to find out she was only six months along. Embarrassing
customers is bad for business, especially if they then decide to make
a fuss in the local media and/or sue the airline. More likely they
are hoping pregnant women will use a little common sense after hearing
the warning and avoid flying at the end of pregnancy.
- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
flodmail: ci...@nvg.ntnu.no flodhome: Trondheim, Norway
flodweb: http://www.nethelp.no/cindy/
David Gerstl
Barbara Mikkelson (bha...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
: I think you're both misunderstanding a key point -- no one in this
: folklore group believes this crazy factoid is at all true. Instead,
: we're trying to figure out *how* such a wild notion came into being.
: Hence, the speculation on the perceived link between captains of ships
: and captains of airlines.
Perhaps (although I doubt it) some countries recognize children born in
their airspace as citizens. In this case the captain of a plane
*might* (pre-good Air traffic control) have been able to "decide"
the citizenship for the child b/c he was the only one who knew what
country the child was born over.
I can see that as a possible origin to the UL.
--
---------------
David S. Gerstl
ger...@cs.sunysb.edu
[a loose conglomeration of cellular entities united towards a common
(if obscure) purpose ]
Mike Holmans
ger...@cs.sunysb.edu (David Gerstl) treated us to:
>Perhaps (although I doubt it) some countries recognize children born in
>their airspace as citizens. In this case the captain of a plane
>*might* (pre-good Air traffic control) have been able to "decide"
>the citizenship for the child b/c he was the only one who knew what
>country the child was born over.
The pilot would be expected to use such discretion by the airline,
since if the airline had no office in that country, it would make it
much harder for the child to make much use of its free lifetime pass,
thus saving a lot of money.
Mike "flying off next week, for which I paid a lot of money" Holmans
El Sig is practicing Waltzing Matilda, but Matilda doesn't seem to
want to play
Phil Smith
It is alleged that on or before 13 Jan 1997 14:56:50 GMT in alt.folklore.urban Cindy Kandolf uttered the following:
:
: Heh. I went for maternity pants, because i can't stand sweatpants,
: but i was wearing my husband's T-shirts and such until the very end.
: So i went into the hospital looking only about six months pregnant,
: and came out with a 10-pounder. No wonder i couldn't breathe the last
: two months or so.
:
: Airlines _say_ they don't allow women who are more than X months
: pregnant fly without their doctors' approval, but the simple fact is
: that you can't tell how far along a woman is by looking. And i really
: doubt any airline would want to confront a woman who looked ready to
: pop, only to find out she was only six months along. Embarrassing
: customers is bad for business, especially if they then decide to make
: a fuss in the local media and/or sue the airline. More likely they
: are hoping pregnant women will use a little common sense after hearing
: the warning and avoid flying at the end of pregnancy.
Well, actually if you have been around enough pregnant women you can
make a fairly accurate assessment by looking, having their stomachs
exposed makes it easier.. and of course women carrying small babies
look less pregnant than they should.
Somewhere on the bumf (it could even be on the ticket info) it states
you shouldnt fly after about 36 weeks, (International Air Transport
Association, Resolution 700) and it is the women's duty to inform the
airline for a couple of reasons:
1) you invalidate any insurance you might have
2) If the woman is anaemic (and a lot of women are) the reduced amount
of oxygen in the cabin will cause problems
3) Pregnant women are more likely to get Thrombosis (clots) in their
legs, and sitting around in airlines also increases the risk
4) if you go into labour and the airplane has to divert you are
probably open to being sued for the cost of the divertion
5) Babies don't do so well in the low pressures in airplane cabins
and the recommendation is that neonates shouldnt fly for a few
days after birth as their lungs havent fully expanded and they
are likely to be hypoxic (ie not getting enough oxygen)
I can give you the references for those if you want... email me.
Anyway those are plenty of reason to avoid flying while pregnant,
why run across the road when you can use the footbridge?
Phil
Maggie Newman
Phil Smith <squi...@ostkaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Well, actually if you have been around enough pregnant women you can
>make a fairly accurate assessment by looking, having their stomachs
>exposed makes it easier.. and of course women carrying small babies
>look less pregnant than they should.
>
know that you *can't* make an accurate assessment just by looking, since
women come in all shapes and sizes and so do their babies. I was asked
by an admitting nurse, an RN in a maternity ward, at a maternity
hospital, whether I was an OB patient. Eight hours later I was delivered
of a 7-1/2 lb. boy.
Maggie "I lose weight when I'm pregnant, go figure" Newman
Cindy Kandolf
Phil Smith <squi...@ostkaka.demon.co.uk> writes:
| It is alleged that on or before 13 Jan 1997 14:56:50 GMT in alt.folklore.urban Cindy Kandolf uttered the following:
| : Heh. I went for maternity pants, because i can't stand sweatpants,
| : but i was wearing my husband's T-shirts and such until the very end.
| : So i went into the hospital looking only about six months pregnant,
| : and came out with a 10-pounder. No wonder i couldn't breathe the last
| : two months or so.
|
| make a fairly accurate assessment by looking, having their stomachs
| exposed makes it easier.. and of course women carrying small babies
| look less pregnant than they should.
Erm. And exactly how many pregnant women have you been around, if you
think a newborn weighing over 10 pounds is "small"?
It is precisely the people who have been around lots of pregnant women
- doctors and midwives - who have told me that you absolutely can't
tell how far along a woman is just by looking. (And therefore i had
no reason to worry that such a small bump was a sign that the baby
wasn't thriving - oh boy was he thriving.) You _can_ tell within
certain limits by measuring fundal height, which is the distance from
the pubic bone to the top of the uterus, but it takes practice to find
where to measure and it's not something an airline is going to
instruct its employees to do.
| Anyway those are plenty of reason to avoid flying while pregnant,
| why run across the road when you can use the footbridge?
I know that there are reasons not to fly in late pregnancy, but i have
not yet seen a reason why a woman with a healthy uncomplicated
pregnancy should avoid flying for all forty weeks - the reasons you
gave (which i deleted) are no exception. Furthermore, not everyone
who is on an airplane at any given moment is there because they chose
to be. Pregnant women do sometimes have to travel on business,
because of a family emergency, etc., when flying may be the only
reasonable alternative.
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, ci...@nvg.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) said:
>It is precisely the people who have been around lots of pregnant women
>- doctors and midwives - who have told me that you absolutely can't
>tell how far along a woman is just by looking. (And therefore i had
At one of my short contract jobs I met up with a woman whom I'd used to work
with several years, a few years previously. We were talking and I suddenly
asked her if she was pregnant (something which struck me afterwards as
probably not a good thing to ask somebody until you're really sure). It turns
out that she was, but she didn't think it was showing yet and hadn't told
anybody yet. I think I just picked it up from the way she was walking.
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com), Rochester Flying Club
<a href="http://www.servtech.com/public/ptomblin/rfc.html">RFC Web Page</a>
RFC is selling one of our PA28-181 Piper Archer IIs. Contact me for details.
Stephan Zielinski
ptom...@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) writes:
> We were talking and I suddenly
> asked her if she was pregnant (something which struck me afterwards as
> probably not a good thing to ask somebody until you're really sure).
While living on the edge at a previous job, I entered an elevator with
a woman who appeared to be well into the third trimester.
"Are we expecting a blessed event?" I asked.
"Why, yes."
"Good. I thought you were pregnant."
--
Stephan "Recently, one of my old cow orkers reminded me that I once said
to a new mother, `Lovely child. Does he bite?'" Zielinski
Phil Smith
Someone wanted me to post my references - so here goes...
:Somewhere on the bumf (it could even be on the ticket info) it states
:you shouldnt fly after about 36 weeks
International Air Transport Association, Resolution 700
Acceptance and carriage of incapacitated passengers In
Passenger services conference resolutions manual 1994
:Well, actually if you have been around enough pregnant women you can
:make a fairly accurate assessment by looking
- Up to 36 weeks the distance in cm between the symphysis pubis
and the fundus (top) of the womb is equal to the gestation
After 36 weeks the fetus engages and sinks into the pelvis
and the woman can appear to be getting smaller
- ref: Obstetrics by 10 teachers - Prof Chamberlain et al.
cant remember the publisher.. sorry.
: 1) you invalidate any insurance you might have
Look at your travel insurance stuff
: 2) If the woman is anaemic (and a lot of women are) the reduced amount
: of oxygen in the cabin will cause problems
Any standard book of medical physiology will tell you this
Lecture notes in physiology - Bray - Blackwell Scientific Press
: 3) Pregnant women are more likely to get Thrombosis (clots) in their
: legs, and sitting around in airlines also increases the risk
Any Standard Medical text will do for looking up the risk
factors for DVTs - Try the latest edition of the Oxford Textbook
of Medicine, OUP, there is a new edition every 2-3 years
: 4) if you go into labour and the airplane has to divert you are
: probably open to being sued for the cost of the divertion
Oki, I dont have a reference for this one!
: 5) Babies don't do so well in the low pressures in airplane cabins
: and the recommendation is that neonates shouldnt fly for a few
: days after birth as their lungs havent fully expanded and they
: are likely to be hypoxic (ie not getting enough oxygen)
: Fitness to travel by air : in Aviation Medicine by Harding
and Mills, British Medical Journal 1988
Happy Now?
Phil
---
Real Doctors Play IgorMUD squi...@ostkaka.demon.co.uk
igor.algonet.se 1701 squ...@tao.btc.uwe.ac.uk
Speak Softly and Carry a Neonatal Cannula