While I was at Cato University last week the topic of abortion came up several times, and one of the more interesting points brought up by a pro-choice advocate was that US citizenship is based on where a person is born, not where he was conceived. There are all sorts of arguments for and against the relevance of this point, but it's certainly interesting to consider the ramifications and whatever implications there may be for when other rights become operative. However, the point itself may now be in dispute thanks to lawsuits over illegal immigration.
Bucking the trend, 30-year-old Mexican national Maria Christina Rubio (search) is trying to enter the U.S. the legal way. After one prior illegal entry, an ignored prior order of deportation and a residency application that was denied two years ago, Rubio was removed from the United States on July 16 and returned to her home country.The Fourteenth Amendment makes it pretty clear that birth is required (although it's doubtful that the phrasing was chosen to specifically exclude the unborn), but the judge apparently bought the argument, at least temporarily.But Rubio wants back into the United States. In the legal equivalent of using an unborn child as a human shield, she has commenced an action in the Federal District Court in Kansas City, Mo., arguing that her unborn fetus is a US citizen. This, she argues, means that her deportation has resulted in the deportation of a U.S. citizen. Her argument was based on the current custom of granting U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., even if that person’s parents happen to be in the U.S. in violation of its laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment (search), on which the custom of "birthright citizenship" (search) is allegedly based, reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
If unborn children ever are (rightfully) recognized as fully-fledged human beings, this will be an issue that requires some clarification. However, in other areas, the rights of the unborn are already fully protected -- for instance, unborn children can inherit property.
Can you give an example of a situation in which an unborn child could inherit property? I'd never heard of such a thing before and now I'm really curious.
WH: Specifics depend on the state, but generally they can inherit any time a born child can. So, if the mother and father aren't married, the unborn child can be considered the next-of-kin if there isn't any other family, or if he's specified in the father's will. Other contractual arrangements can also be made, such as trusts and so forth.