Subject: Karolis, did you read the Navassa case?<br/>
Date: Apr 05, 2003 @ 03:01<br/>
Author: L. A. Nadybal (&quot;L. A. Nadybal&quot; &lt;lnadybal@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="9579.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="9591.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic9531.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="9589.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="9591.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-173790018">It is interesting, because it addresses the issue of pregnant women<br/>
being on the island to make their child a US citizen.  That doesn&#39;t<br/>
happen there.  Firstly, I learned there was a 2000 revision in the US<br/>
immigration law where children of tourists no longer get citizenship<br/>
automatically.  Even if that change hadn&#39;t occurred, Navassa only<br/>
&quot;appertains&quot; to the US under the law that placed it under US<br/>
sovereignty, and isn&#39;t part and parcel of the US, partly because of a<br/>
lack of an &quot;organic&quot; law.  Children born on Guam are automatically<br/>
U.S. citizens, but as you can see from the text of the case, crimes<br/>
committed on Navassa under the Guano Act is handled judicially by the<br/>
US the same way as crimes on U.S. ships on the high seas.  <br/>
<br/>
Regards<br/>
<br/>
Len <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> --- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;Karolis B.&quot; &lt;kbajoraz@y...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; --- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;L. A. Nadybal&quot; &lt;lnadybal@c...&gt; <br/>
&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; &gt; Wait a minute - that&#39;s not right.<br/>
&gt; &gt; Navassa is US territory under the jurisdiction of the US Department <br/>
&gt; of<br/>
&gt; &gt; the Interior.  US federal laws apply, <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; and there is a federal law<br/>
&gt; &gt; against murder.  <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; I am told there isn&#39;t!<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; The US federal government can prosecute a murder<br/>
&gt; &gt; there.  <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; The US federal government can prosecute anything, even if you did it <br/>
&gt; in Denmark or Morocco. They one-sidedly came up that they have the <br/>
&gt; divine right to prosecute a crime done anywhere as long as the person <br/>
&gt; is physically present in US. Either that or I&#39;m dead wrong.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; The Dept of the Interior would turn the case over to the<br/>
&gt; &gt; Department of Justice.  You wrote there is &quot;no LOCAL law&quot;.  In a <br/>
&gt; place<br/>
&gt; &gt; where there is no state, county or similar local legal <br/>
&gt; administration,<br/>
&gt; &gt; the federal law is the local law, precisely because the area is <br/>
&gt; under<br/>
&gt; &gt; federal jurisdiction.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Exactly. And there are very many things federal law doesn&#39;t cover. <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; And back to Navassa. Haitian fishermen are allowed there and come <br/>
&gt; there sometimes. Why don&#39;t they ever bring pregnant women to make US <br/>
&gt; citizens there, I wonder? Or do they?<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; I notice that in such weird justice situations treaties, or <br/>
&gt; nonexistence of such, are ignored, and the &quot;sensible&quot; thing is done, <br/>
&gt; which annoys me, for if you neglect law to bring justice of law, <br/>
&gt; that&#39;s nonsense. </span></blockquote></div>