[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Norway - go to jail for naming baby illegal [CNN]
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
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.
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.)
>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
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.
We would go to their homes, and we'd kill their wives and
their children. We would kill their families
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.