Do people born in unincorporated US territories have a constitutional right to non-citizen nationality? In Downes v. Bidwell, the Supreme Court concluded that the Citizenship Clause does not apply to people born in unincorporated territories of the United States. Instead, if they had no other claim to US citizenship, they were considered non-citizen nationals of the United States. However, Congress later extended citizenship to such individuals if born in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands. Currently, non-citizen nationality at birth is provided to people born in American Samoa or Swains Island by 8 USC §1408. The Foreign Affairs Manual gives historical background on non-citizen nationality and contains the following curious note: The United States exercises sovereignty over a few territories besides those mentioned above. Under international law and Supreme Court dicta, inhabitants of those territories, (Midway, Wake, Johnston, and other islands) would be considered non-citizen U.S. nationals. However, because the INA defines "outlying possessions of the United States" as only American Samoa and Swains Island, there is no current law relating to the nationality of the inhabitants of those territories or persons born there who have not acquired U.S. nationality by other means. Did the Supreme Court state in dicta that individuals born in unincorporated territories of the United States are constitutionally guaranteed US nationality, or was the Court simply making a remark about what they thought was the intent of Congress regarding the nationality of hypothetical individuals born in unincorporated territories not otherwise provided for in the Immigration and Nationality Act?
There is arguably a legal right to non-citizen nationality either by statute or under customary international law, but the U.S. Constitution does not afford such a right and Article I, Section 8 grants Congress broad authority over the governance of such territories and over immigration and naturalization (i.e. to define citizenship beyond the minimum established in the 14th Amendment).
Under US immigration law, any person who at any point after February 27, 2001 meets all of the following conditions automatically receives citizenship the moment they meet the conditions: Under 18 Lawful permanent resident (i.e. has a green card) At least one biological parent is a US citizen (adoptive parents also count of some other requirements are met; stepparents don't count unless they have adopted the child) Lives in the US in both the physical and legal custody of said US citizen parent As far as USCIS is concerned, if a biological child lives with both biological parents, then the US citizen parent has legal custody. If the child was born out of wedlock, they must have been legitimated before they turned 16 to count as their father's child; the applicable law for that depends on where exactly you live. Source
18 U.S. Code § 700 was held to be unconstitutional in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) and United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990). If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. (Texas v Johnson) Mere flag burning is not illegal and is protected by the First Amendment. You may still be prosecuted for other crimes that happen while flag burning. For example, the flag may be somebody else's property. The Seattle appellees were also charged with causing willful injury to federal property in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1361 and 1362. This charge remains pending before the District Court, and nothing in today's decision affects the constitutionality of this prosecution. (US v Eichman)
The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens of the US. It's my understanding that this means from the Federal Government, and doesn't exactly apply when it's a &quot;states' rights&quot; kind of issue. Your understanding is incorrect. The primary original purpose of the 14th amendment was to prevent states from passing laws that treated former slaves differently from other citizens, and indeed to clearly declare that they were in fact citizens, thus reversing the decision in Dred Scot v Sandford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857). That decision held that black people could not be US citizens and had no rights granted to citizens under the US Federal Constitution. Of course the amendment is applied in a much wider scope than merely granting citizenship to the former slaves freed by the 13th amendment. The Equal Protection Clause** generally requires that laws not make arbitrary and unjustified distinctions between people, nor treat different people in the same legal situation differently. The clause does not, however, prevent laws from treating who are in some significant legal sense in different positions differently. What is and is not a violation of the clause has been the subject of many legal cases and much debate. The clause requires &quot;state action&quot; to be invoked. and is generally only applies to state and local governments, and those in their employ or acting on their behalf. However, the US Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) that the 5th amendment imposes a similar requirement of equal protection on the Federal government. The amendment, and the equal protection clause, do not guarantee any particular outcome in judicial cases. It is not clear from the question what equal protection issue, if any, might be at issue in the particular matter described. If the issue is one of treatment under the laws of a country other than the US, even though the people involved are US citizens, the US constitution, including the amendment will not apply.
The US has jurisdiction because you committed a crime in the US. Canada has jurisdiction because you committed a crime in Canada. As added complications, if you are a Mexican citizen then Mexico has jurisdiction and if your victim is Chinese then China has jurisdiction. If you get arrested on an Interpol warrant in Spain then Spain has jurisdiction. And so on ... Your implicit assumption is that jurisdiction is exclusive, it isn't. Any country (or sub-national jurisdiction) that claims jurisdiction has jurisdiction, at least to the extent of testing that claim. Whether any given polity has jurisdiction depends on the particular law involved, some laws are only applicable within that countries borders others are extra-territorial, some are applicable to citizens but not non-citizens or vice-versa, etc.
Here is everything that I learnt throughout this process: I was not born a U.S. citizen, and I did not naturalise. Instead, I inherited U.S. citizenship at the moment I became an LPR (Legal Permanent Resident), because I both had a parent with citizenship and I was under the age of 18. There is no paperwork to file to inherit citizenship this way, it is completely automatic and as a result there are people in the U.S. that do not know they are citizens. In order to assert that I was now a U.S. citizen, I just had to apply for either a U.S. passport, or a Certificate of Citizenship. There is no deadline to do this, because I was a fully-fledged citizen from the day of approval of my Permanent Residence application. When I applied for my U.S. passport, I simply had to prove that I was a child at the time of receiving my Green Card, and that one parent was a U.S. citizen. This is exactly what I had to provide the German consulate. I provided my own birth certificate, my I-485 form (with approval date) and my father's naturalisation certificate. Those were accepted without question. To obtain a copy of my Form I-485, I had to file a FOIA request--I used a Form G-639 to make it easier--and I emailed it to uscis.foia@uscis.dhs.gov. I did attempt to get a copy of my passport application, as I filed that while under 18, but I was told by the State Department that they did not have a copy of it (curiously, several months later a full copy of my original passport application arrived by post from the State Department...). The response was not a surprise as when I applied for a passport at the age of 17, I was told by the official that they do not keep a record of my application, so I should also have a Passport Card in case my passport goes missing and I must prove citizenship. Under German citizenship law, one loses citizenship when "voluntarily" obtaining another citizenship. The reason that I did not lose my citizenship when I became a U.S. citizen was because: I was a child, and it happened automatically. Therefore, it is not considered voluntary. Luckily, I did not have to explain this, since it was a consulate in the U.S. (Houston, TX) that I visited, they were well aware of the way in which I inherited U.S. citizenship. However, I had some trouble when dealing with the London embassy as they did not understand all of the U.S. citizenship qualifiers. I hope this helps anyone else that finds themselves in a similar situation! I was completely lost when I started this process, but three months later I have my German passport in my hand.
The most commonly used definition for statehood is the declaratory theory, codified by the Montevideo Convention. This says that statehood doesn't depend on recognition by other states; it merely requires four things: A defined territory A permanent population An effective government The capacity to enter into relations with other states. You immediately run into issues around the defined territory (you don't really have one) and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. But let's ignore those for a second. Meeting these requirements in some abstract world doesn't mean you get treated like a state. If no one else agrees with your claim to statehood and they act inconsistently with it, you have little recourse. You might get them not caring enough to do anything about it, but if they decide you're not a country you're out of luck. You have some misconceptions about statehood as well. A country is allowed to forbid trade with any foreign country, even ones it recognizes as sovereign states. See: US embargo on Cuba. It is also entitled to deny foreign ships access to its ports. Ships flying the flag of a sovereign state are entitled to innocent passage through territorial waters of another state, but not to the use of that state's ports. A country can certainly allow people to be killed and still be a country. See: the US, which has the death penalty for certain crimes. But if you're killing nationals of a foreign country, that foreign country is likely to take a keen interest in your activities. If the killings are judicially-ordered executions based on violations of your penal laws, that's one thing -- Australia might consider it awful that an Australian citizen was shot by Indonesia for drug smuggling, but they recognize that Indonesia is a real country with its own laws that it has a right to apply. If it's just lawless there, the keen interest might culminate in a travel warning. But in more extreme cases, or where the killings are of people who didn't willingly enter your territory, you're looking at potential military action.
If a nation's constitution does not allow a legal means of secession, then the only possibility would be to appeal to a multi-national judicial body, but such bodies have negligible power to enforce. While numerous organizations recognise a generalized right to self-determination (for example the UN has declared that "all peoples have the right to self-determination"), this does not automatically translate into an internationally-recognized right to illegal secession. The International Court of Justice deftly avoided any finding on whether Kosovo had a right to secede, and there is no generally recognised (or denied) "right to secede". There are certain conditions under which one would have support for a claim to legal secession, for example peoples subject to decolonization, the territory was invaded / annexed after 1945, or the state flagrantly violates the rights of those peoples concerned. The "decolonization" angle has been applied to Somaliland (the premise being that the merger of British and Italian colonies into the nation of Somalia was invalid). The use of "peoples" reflect the importance of some sort of ethic division, which becomes a matter of controversy. There is reading on the topic, for example: Secession: State Practice and International Law after the Dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia Secession (Bibliography by Theodore Christakis) The Remedial Right of Secession in International Law