Talk:Birth aboard aircraft and ships

British ships

It is, for example, possible for a person born in a British ship, anchored at a United States port, with a Chinese father and a Turkish mother, to have quadruple nationality.

I don't have access to the cited work, but could someone explain the part about British ships? It seems to me that it would only make sense if being born aboard a British ship conferred British nationality. But even being born actually in the UK doesn't necessarily confer British nationality (since 1983). I suppose the mother could hold dual British and Turkish citizenship or something, but what does the book say? Marnanel (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• You do have access to it. And it's the very example that is given in the source. If you want clarification, ask the source. Uncle G (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think the example is misleading at best. I don't know about Turkish nationality law, but both British and Chinese nationality laws are extremely complex. It is not a simple matter of where you are born or what are the nationalities of your parents. While what is listed in the example could be possible under certain circumstances, I think it would be inappropriate without listing the details. 75.57.138.242 (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to my comment above, Chinese nationality law strongly discourages multiple nationalities. Although it is possible if all the circumstances are right, but it is unlikely that Chinese nationality will be inherited by the child if he/she would already have other nationalities at birth. Also, as mentioned above, merely being born in British territory doesn't confer any kind of British nationality at all. 75.57.138.242 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Take it up with the source. A professor at Georgetown University writing in xyr field of expertise says one thing. A person writing under a pseudonym on a wiki says another. Our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies dictate that Wikipedia goes with the former. Uncle G (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that WP has no method for evaluating the credibility of a single uncorroborated source, it doesn't matter at all whether it is a professor at Georgetown. This is, in fact, a dubious claim, and it has been challenged. I am removing it until someone can find a source to corroborate it, since it is not notable if only a single source claims it. --70.131.114.241 (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't dispute that the example given is entirely false. It could be possible. What I do have an issue with is the way the example is worded may give the reader the impression that the only factors that may affect the nationalities of a newborn are the place of birth and the nationalities of the parents. That is not true. At the very least, the country of residence of the parents, not merely their nationalities, is an extremely important factor. According to the Border and Immigration Agency of the United Kingdom, a person born in the UK today will only be a British Citizen if at least one of the parents is a British Citizen or has legally settled in the UK at the time of birth. Also, in accordance with Article 5 of the Chinese Nationality Law, Chinese nationality cannot be inherited in a foreign birth if the Chinese parent has already settled abroad and the child has already acquired another nationality at birth. Article 3 of the Chinese Nationality Law also clearly states that dual nationality is not recognised by China. I believe that, at the very least, the importance of the residence status of the parents should be mentioned somewhere in the example. 75.57.125.7 (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking further, in accordance with British Nationality Act 1981, section 50 "Interpretation", (7), a person born outside the UK aboard a British ship is deemed to have been born in the UK *only* if at least one of the parents is a British Citizen at the time of birth, or the child would otherwise be stateless. None of the parents in this example is a British Citizen, and the child is not stateless at birth (he or she would at least have been an American, due to birth at an American port). Therefore, this example would not be considered a birth in the UK. According to the BIA, unless at least one of the parents is a British Citizen at the time of birth, a person born outside the UK today cannot be a British Citizen. Therefore, the example could not have happened under current British laws. It could have been possible if it happened earlier. In any event, it is inappropriate to not mention such caveats in the article. 75.57.125.7 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Travel-born

Are nonstatic and require different accommodation other than free travel. From 'one' experience as one. Words alone are practically "a" death sentence. Thinking of Nonstatic_born is forbidden by static_born. Apparently 'ones' are intrusive. Hence, 'a' reason 'a' thing needs changed. And not by 'a' Nonstatic_born first. Nonstatic_born were taught wrong because there hasn't been enough complaints to change things. Yet what does one "think" is going to happen when the next hybrid is born, Space_born. 174.247.241.90 (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)