This reminds me of something I brought up here some time ago. I was
arguing that some boundary markers are actually walls, like the
Berlin wall. I think it was Michael who put me straight by saying
that it isn't the wall here that was the border, because the wall
would be on the territory of the power that had built it. In the
Berlin case this is right, of course. It also seems to be right for
the US-Mexican boundary fence, at least most of the time. It looks
like this case is one of "the border was first here, and then the
wall/fence was erected".
But looking at a map of China, I can see that at least part of the
Chinese Wall forms the boundary of some Chinese provinces. Offa's
Dyke seems to form, for very small stretches, to be sure, boundaries,
too. Maybe the boundary is not really formed by the wall, but the
wall is merely an indicator as to where the boundary is. But it could
equally well be that the boundary is the centre line of the
wall/dike/whatever.
Also, the case of Vatican City springs to mind. It looks like the
outside face (outside, that is, from the papal perspective) is the
international border here. This is the case when the wall is that of
a building. In the case of the old fortifications, the wall might
well have an outside face that is not vertical but tilted slightly
inward (as these old fortification walls often are). I would think
the boundary is at the spot the outside face reaches the horizontal,
i.e. the street or pavement.
Does anyone else have anything on "walled" and similar boundaries?
Peter S.
(by the way: great pictures, Dallen! (as usual, I can say by now))
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., Dallen Timothy <dtimothy@a...> wrote:
> These pictures remind me of a recent discussion I had with a US
Immigration
> supervisor about citizenship. In theory, given the fact that the
fence is
> three feet inside the United States at most places (and about five
or six
> feet in some places) and US citizenship is automatically granted to
anyone
> born on US soil, a pregnant Mexican woman could have her baby lying
down
> between the actual border and the fence and the baby would be a US
citizen!
> This was the question/situation I posed to the immigration boss.
His
> response was as follows: Yes, in theory this might be so; however,
a few
> things would have to be established in order for this to be the
case.
> First, there would have to be physical proof, and basically the
only proof
> they would accept would be video footage together with eyewitnesses.
> Second, the law actually has two parts. If a person is born on US
soil AND
> within the jurisdiction of the United States he/she can have US
citizenship.
> According to the US Immigration and Naturalization Service, the
jurisdiction
> of US control ends at the fence, not at the actual borderline. I
argued
> that this may be so for everyday functions, but US sovereign control
> technically goes up to the actual border. He agreed, but said that
this
> would be a case not to be determined by an immigration officer, but
rather
> in a federal court.
>
> So, I left his office with the understanding that a Mexican woman
who gives
> birth to a baby within the narrow strip of US land north of the
borderline
> would have a pretty good court case for claiming that her baby is a
US
> citizen. I don't believe it would take much to argue that, while
the fence
> is an administrative barrier, sovereign JURISDICTION still extends
to the
> borderline. The immigration officer asked me not to spread this
word
> extensively in Mexico!
>
> Can any of you US immigration law experts add any clarification to
this
> situation?
>
> Cheers,
> Dallen
>
> Dr. Dallen J. Timothy
> PO Box 874905
> Arizona State University
> Tempe, AZ 85287-4905
> USA
>
> Tel: (480) 965-7291
> Fax: (480) 965-5664
> Email: dtimothy@a...
> Web: http://www.asu.edu/copp/recreation