Fascinating reading. You, however, can't miss that this is a 1890 US
case of black man killing a white man. He coulda done it on the moon
for all they cared those days. But it seems, as you say, at least
back then, it is the same law as US vessels on high sea.
And talking about ships. I was wondering as I was on a cruise.
Bahamas flag. US ownership. Canadian internal waters. Citizens of
half of the world. Jurisdiction...?
I didn't see anything about pregnant women, but I only read the first
link and thanks for the summary on that.
Really, tourist's kids don't get US citizenship? Somehow I don't
believe that. A couple years ago there was a Mexican borderjumper
woman who gave birth 15 or so miles in AZ and her daughter became a
citizen...
And, Len, you have still to find a US federal law against murder
(those you gave are stiffened punishmnets provided by US code for
murder of federal agents, but nothing on ordinary people so far. I
wonder if there are unihabited US islands that are not guano islands.
If not then it's just theory.
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@c...>
wrote:
> It is interesting, because it addresses the issue of pregnant women
> being on the island to make their child a US citizen. That doesn't
> happen there. Firstly, I learned there was a 2000 revision in the
US
> immigration law where children of tourists no longer get citizenship
> automatically. Even if that change hadn't occurred, Navassa only
> "appertains" to the US under the law that placed it under US
> sovereignty, and isn't part and parcel of the US, partly because of
a
> lack of an "organic" law. Children born on Guam are automatically
> U.S. citizens, but as you can see from the text of the case, crimes
> committed on Navassa under the Guano Act is handled judicially by
the
> US the same way as crimes on U.S. ships on the high seas.
>
> Regards
>
> Len
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Karolis B." <kbajoraz@y...>
wrote:
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
<lnadybal@c...>
> > wrote:
> > > Wait a minute - that's not right.
> > > Navassa is US territory under the jurisdiction of the US
Department
> > of
> > > the Interior. US federal laws apply,
> >
> > and there is a federal law
> > > against murder.
> >
> > I am told there isn't!
> >
> > The US federal government can prosecute a murder
> > > there.
> >
> > The US federal government can prosecute anything, even if you did
it
> > in Denmark or Morocco. They one-sidedly came up that they have
the
> > divine right to prosecute a crime done anywhere as long as the
person
> > is physically present in US. Either that or I'm dead wrong.
> >
> > The Dept of the Interior would turn the case over to the
> > > Department of Justice. You wrote there is "no LOCAL law". In
a
> > place
> > > where there is no state, county or similar local legal
> > administration,
> > > the federal law is the local law, precisely because the area is
> > under
> > > federal jurisdiction.
> >
> > Exactly. And there are very many things federal law doesn't
cover.
> >
> > And back to Navassa. Haitian fishermen are allowed there and come
> > there sometimes. Why don't they ever bring pregnant women to make
US
> > citizens there, I wonder? Or do they?
> >
> >
> > I notice that in such weird justice situations treaties, or
> > nonexistence of such, are ignored, and the "sensible" thing is
done,
> > which annoys me, for if you neglect law to bring justice of law,
> > that's nonsense.