Hi.
About the matter of other uninhabited islands not under the Guano Act,
the US had about 30 other such islands it gave up, some of which were
uninhabited.
I don't have time to go look up other cases relating to these other
places and how cases were prosecuted under circumstances where
disputed sovereignty existed, or that were empty and anarchistic,
I'll bet that the US still has possession over some islets somewhere
where there are no people; but they probably all belong to some larger
entity. For instance, American Samoa. I've not looked at a map, but
I'll get a dime to a dollar that it's not made up of only one island.
I'll bet, too, that some little uninhabited offshore rock exists
that is a part of that that entity.
Here's the history of the other oddballs the US has/had (this is from
materials I had from the Department of the Interior, here in D.C.)
"In the twentieth century the United States has disputed with other
nations the status of certain islands or atolls. Five (5) were in the
Caribbean; twenty-five (25), in the Pacific. For purposes of
discussion, one may divide these thirty (30) islands or atolls into
seven groups.
(1) The status of the islands of Canton (Kanton), Enderbury, Hull
(Orona), Birnie, Gardner (Nikumaroro), Phoenix (Rawaki), Sydney
(Manra), McKean, Christmas (Kiritimati), Caroline, Starbuck, Malden,
Flint and Vostok:
On September 20, 1979, representatives of the United States and
Kiribati met in Tarawa Atoll in the northern district of the Gilbert
Islands. There they signed a treaty of friendship on behalf of their
two nations, an agreement which many refer to as the Treaty of Tarawa
of 1979. Under that treaty the United States recognized Kiribati's
sovereignty over these fourteen islands. This treaty entered into
force on September 23, 1983.
(2) The status of the United States' claim to certain atolls in the
northern Cook Islands, Danger (Pukapuka), Manahiki, Penrhyn and Rakahanga:
On June 11, 1980, the United States and the Cook Islands signed in
Rarotonga a treaty of friendship to delimit maritime boundaries. By
the terms of this treaty the United States renounced its claim to
these four atolls and acknowledged the sovereignty of the Cook Islands
over them. This treaty entered into force on September 8, 1983.
Since August 4, 1965, the Cook Islands have been a state in free
association with New Zealand. This relationship resembles very closely
that which the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia
have enjoyed with the United States since October 21, 1986, and
November 3, 1986, respectively.
(3) The status of the United States' claim to certain atolls in the
Union (Tokelau) Islands, Atafu, Fafaofu and Nukunono:
On December 2, 1980, the United States and New Zealand signed in Atafu
Atoll itself a treaty to delimit the maritime boundary between the
United States and Tokelau, a New Zealand territory. As a result of
this treaty, the United States relinquished its claim to these three
atolls and acknowledged New Zealand's sovereignty over them on
Tokelau's behalf. This treaty entered into force on September 3, 1983.
(4) The status of the United States' claim to certain atolls in the
Ellice Islands, Funafuti, Nukefetau, Nukulaelae and Nurakita (Niulakita):
On February 7, 1979, diplomats representing the United States and
Tuvalu met in Funafuti Atoll itself and signed a treaty of friendship.
By this treaty the United States ended its claim to these four atolls.
This treaty entered into force on September 23, 1983.
(5) The United States' claim to Quita Sueno Bank, Roncador Cay and
Serrana Bank:
To the north of Panama and east of Nicaragua, this cluster of islands
was the subject of a treaty which the United States and Colombia
signed in Bogota on September 8, 1972. Under its terms the United
States has recognized Colombia's sovereignty over these islands. This
treaty entered into force on September 17, 1981.
(6) The United States' former sovereignty over the Swan Islands:
In relative isolation, the Swan Islands lie in the western Caribbean,
ninety-five miles north of the coast of Honduras and three hundred
twenty miles west of Jamaica. They consist of Great Swan and Little
Swan Islands, of which neither has any dimension of more than about
two miles. In 1863 the area was certified as islands appertaining to
the United States under the Guano Islands Act of August 18, 1856
(Title 48, U.S. Code, sections 1411-19), and guano operations were
carried on there for many years.
The United States' later interests in the Swan Islands involved
agricultural production in coconut plantations and aids to navigation
and communications, resulting in continued United States occupation
and use of the islands. In San Pedro Sula, Honduras, on November 22,
1971, American and Honduran representatives signed a treaty by which
the United States recognized Honduras' long-standing claim to
sovereignty over the Swan Islands. The treaty entered into force on
September 1, 1972.
(7) The United States' former administration of the Corn Islands:
Made up of Great Corn and Little Corn Islands, the Corn Islands lie
about thirty miles off the coast of Nicaragua. They never were a U.S.
insular area, that is, under the sovereignty of the United States, but
were leased from Nicaragua for a period of ninety-nine years under the
Convention of Washington, D.C., of August 5, 1914.
The terms of the lease made the Corn Islands subject exclusively to
American laws and administration. However, with the United States'
acquiescence, the Government of Nicaragua directed the islands' local
administration. The United States' right to the actual or potential
use of the islands remained unimpaired until April 25, 1971, when the
lease was officially terminated and the Convention of Managua of July
14, 1970, entered into force.
OTHER ISLANDS STILL UNDER DISPUTED UNITED STATES' SOVEREIGNTY
The United States' claim to Serranilla Bank:
About two hundred ten miles north north-east of Nicaragua lies the
Serranilla Bank. Some consider that the United States acquired the
bank under the Guano Islands Act of August 18, 1856 (Title 48, U.S.
Code, sections 1411-19). Several very small cays emerge above the
water to form the bank's islands.
Colombia has not directly claimed Serranilla Bank but is on record as
considering the bank a part of the Providence Archipelago in the
intendancy of San Andres y Providencia. Honduras may have asserted its
own claim over Serranilla as well.
The United States' claim to Bajo Nuevo Bank:
Called also the Petrel Islands, Bajo Nuevo Bank is situated in the
Caribbean. U.S. claims to this bank derive from the Guano Islands Act,
too. Bajo Nuevo is claimed by Jamaica."
Re: The race card. It did escape me until you brought it up.
Re: Federal law against murder. Ooh, the goalpost changed. First it
was "no law" existed, now I have to find one that aplies to "normal"
people. The laws I cited apply to the normal people around my hours,
by virtue of my having been a federal government official, and I'll
bet they cover 30-40% of the U.S. population, in that they include the
families of anyone who was ever working for the government, and that
includes former military people. I'll find you some more, if you
really want them, but is it worth the time? I heard the myth often,
too, that there was no federal law agianst murder, but it isn't true.
There's law on the books relating to murder committed during
terrorist acts, and all sorts of other cases. Normal people murdered
by other normal people on government property, domestic and foreign
military bases, etc. can all be prosecuted. The compilation of the
laws would result, I think, in just about everyone being covered by
the Feds in some way or another. Naturally, there won't be a federal
law against murder that impinges upon states' rights to pass such laws
and prosecute, but you can bet the Feds haven't left their
jurisdiction uncovered, no matter who it is that commits the crime.
Re: Change in the law in 2000 stopping tourist babies from
automatically being citizens. I'll locate that and will get back to
you.
Regards
LN
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Karolis B." <kbajoraz@y...> wrote:
> 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.