by Allan Wall, US Incorporated, ©2022
(Jan. 27, 2022) — Marina del Pilar Avila Olmeda is the governor of the Mexican state of Baja California.
Avila and Olmeda are her two last names, as per the Spanish surname custom, but I’ve seen her referred to in Mexican media as Marina del Pilar.
Governor Marina del Pilar gave birth on January 14th to her second child. And she gave birth on U.S. soil.
According to our current automatic birthright citizenship policy, that makes her child a U.S. citizen. (See my previous article on the topic).
According to Mexican law, the Governor’s child, though born in the U.S., is also recognized as a citizen of Mexico.
This case exemplifies the fact that it’s not just illegal aliens who avail themselves of birthright citizenship. Well-off Mexicans and other foreigners also take advantage of it. Turkish and Chinese women, for example, fly here to give birth.
Or consider the case of Yaser Hamdi, captured in Afghanistan along with Taliban fighters. Hamdi was a U.S. citizen as he had been born to Saudi parents in the United States.
The state of Baja California, sometimes called Baja California Norte, is the northern half of the Baja California peninsula.
Baja California state has the highest standard of living in Mexico after Mexico City.
Its capital is Mexicali, which is on the border across from California.
Rather than giving birth to her baby in Mexicali, Governor del Pilar went to Brawley, California, 34 miles from Mexicali. There she gave birth to her son Diego Jose Torres Avila, who weighed 8.81 pounds and was 20 inches long.
Little Diego arrived two weeks earlier than expected. Governor del Pilar was still carrying on a regular public schedule until the day she gave birth. She still had time to get to Brawley in the U.S.A. and have the baby.
The father, in case you were curious, is the Governor’s husband Carlos Torres Torres. They were married in 2019.
This is not her first child born in Brawley. She gave birth to a daughter there six years ago.
There was some criticism in Mexico over her choice for Baby Diego’s birthplace.
It was called “elitist” and “hypocritical.”
The Mexican magazine/website Proceso ran an article entitled, “Gobernadora de Baja California da a luz en Brawley, Estados Unidos” (Governor of Baja California Gives Birth in Brawley, United States).
The comments section had plenty of opinions.
Read the rest here.
Hobart, Diego is NOT a Natural Born US Citizen.
Hobart, YOU get an “F-Minus” also. As far back as 1795 the law did NOT recognize those born overseas even to US Parents as NBCs. They were recognized as NBCs in 1790 BUT that law was REPEALED by the aforementioned Nationality Act of 1795. YOU and Muggs FAIL miserably.
In Minor v. Happersett, US Supreme Court, (1874) there WAS “Unanimous consensus”. However, it was NOT to say that “all those born in the US are Natural Born Citizens”. On the contrary that “unanimous” opinion stated that an NBC is “One born IN the United States to parents who are BOTH U.S. Citizens themselves”.
You have a lot to learn.
Baby Diego was not born overseas; as the article explains, Baby Diego was born in the United States. The since repealed Nationality Act of 1790 is irrelevant to his natural-born citizenship.
Literally no one doubts that someone born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents is a natural-born citizen. But Minor did not say that was the only definition, and courts have specifically rejected your claim about Minor.
On the other hand, every court that heard an eligibility challenge on the merits ruled, minor exceptions aside, everyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen.
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
From the article: “According to our current automatic birthright citizenship policy, that makes her child a U.S. citizen.”
Aside from the misinterpreted 14th Amendment, just which US immigration/citizenship law grants US citizenship to a person born in the USA of two non-US citizens? I need facts of law, not faded-in acceptable practices that only add democrat votes and subsequent financial burden on the US citizens.
The U.S. courts have consistently ruled that those born in the United States are U.S. citizens.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark explained that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excluded children of diplomats and invading armies.
Those born to non-citizens on US Soil have been granted basic US Citizenship. However, these types of Citizens are NOT eligible to BE President or VP. since these types of citizens are NOT “Natural Born” citizens.
That’s not what I determine from reading dozens of court decisions on that issue. Anyone born a US citizen is a natural born citizen, period.
Fred Muggs, You get an “F-MINUS”. All citizens are NOT NBCs.
Why does Fred Muggs get an “F-MINUS”?
Muggs correctly summarized the unanimous consensus of the courts that have considered the eligibility issue on the merits: minor exceptions aside, all those born in the United States are natural-born citizens.
No doubt one day Diego will try to run for OUR Presidency and not many will care. However, if I am still around 35 years from now, (at age 105), I may have to file Quo Warranto charges against Diego.
If am still around 35 years from now (at age 114), I would have to do something a bit more drastic and less time consuming than filing Quo Warranto charges, against Diego.
I hope the United States of America is “still around” (35) years from now. The left’s campaign to dismantle and “fundamentally change” the USA must be stifled. It is a moral imperative.
If we don’t want to vote Democrat we have to stay alive as long as possible…….
Bob68(78)
Hopefully Laity won’t file this suit in the District for D.C. Because then the D.C. Circuit will sanction him once he appeals.
Theirs was an impuissant attempt to discourage me from appealing to SCOTUS. Although the court made the threat, my case was NOT frivolous. They couldn’t sanction me the last time, they won’t be able to do so in the future.
There is a difference between “couldn’t” and “chose not to at this time”. Courts have very broad powers to impose sanctions.
The D.C. CIrcuit Court of Appeals ruled your appeal was frivolous.
Although the D.C. Circuit did not impose sanctions, it said it would impose sanctions if another frivolous appeal was filed.
Fred Muggs, The Courts must follow the constitution. I have the RIGHT to “petition the government for redress of grievances”.
Although there is a First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances, the courts also have the authority to sanction those who file frivolous lawsuits. Because there are ways to petition the government that don’t include frivolous lawsuits.
Diego del Pilar Avila Olmeda will not be eligible until the 2060 election.
He will never be eligible.,unless the NBC requirement is repealed. Diego is NOT a Natural Born U.S. Citizen.
He would also have to meet the 14 year US residency requirement.
Diego will never BE the bona-fide POTUS! He is NOT an NBC.
There’s no indication that Baby Diego intends to run the presidency.
But, according to the courts, he will be eligible in 35 years, provided he also meets the residency requirements.
You misrepresent the truth. NO court ruled that my case was frivolous. I was NOT deterred from appealing my case to SCOTUS by the Appeal’s court vacuous, arbitrary and capricious empty threats which they maliciously proffered to NO avail.
The D.C. Circuit ruled your appeal was frivolous when it wrote, “He has therefore failed to demonstrate that his appeal is not frivolous.”
You did file a cert. petition, which was denied.
Harris continues to serve in the office to which she was duly elected.