What are the legal requirements in the United States for being recognized under federal law as &quot;white&quot; or a &quot;white&quot; person? Primary resource: [Hefny v. _ (1997) (citation needed, appears to have been dismissed by the U.S. District Court)] Secondary sources: Egyptian Immigrant Wants to be Reclassified as Black Race, Nationality, and Reality, Part 3 Can a person simply choose to self-identify as "white" to satisfy the legal requirements for being recognized as "white" under both state and federal law? Does state or federal law specifically not provide for a legal process to be "classified" or "re-classified" as "white" or "black or African American"? What are the legal requirements in the United States for being recognized under federal law as "white" or a "white" person?
The classificational scheme "White; black or African American; American Indian and Alaska Native; Asian; and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander" was instituted on May 12, 1977 through Office of Management and Budget Directive 15, which articulates "standard classifications for record keeping, collection, and presentation of data on race and ethnicity in Federal program administrative reporting and statistical activities". In the case of Mostafa Hefny, his classification as white would be a consequence of being from North Africa (Egypt), and the fact that "white" is defined as "A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East". A possible point of contention is that he is not from North Africa: the directive does not say where North Africa (as opposed to unmodified Africa) is. Discussion was published in the Federal Register, August 28, 1995, about these standards, and to make a really long story short, there's a problem, and no solution. The October 30, 1997 decision states the current law. This is what you should consult for the current situation: a propos the case of Nubians, the conflict still remains regarding the definition of "white" as "A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa", and "black" as "person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa" (Nubians fall into both categories: a black racial group of Northern Africa). In non-immigration cases, racial and ethnic data are based on self-reporting. There is no strict rule, but "self-identification is the preferred means of obtaining information about an individual's race and ethnicity" (not possible in some instances, such as birth and death records). The set of categories which the census makes available is somewhat changeable. They currently report that they comply with the 1997 standards, but this report indicates that they had intended to drop "some other race" for 2010, but did not because of a Congressional mandate. The government does not "recognize" individuals racially, instead they "report" them in a particular manner, so that counts can be made for whatever purposes (usually Civil Rights Act compliance). The rules apply to new and revised records, and not to existing records. One would have to look at the record of Hefny's suit, but it is likely that lack of standing and failure to state a legal claim figured prominently in the dismissal, if the case was dismissed.
There is no public place to “file” that. When privilege is claimed and the other side challenges it then the person claiming privilege needs to establish somehow that the attorney client relationship exists and is pertinent to the question. In the normal course of things there would be an engagement agreement in the attorneys files. And not everything communicated between a client and attorney is protected by the privilege. It only covers legal advice and specifically does not cover discussions planning criminal activity.
New York has no law prohibiting genocide, though it does have a law against murder. Since you specifically ask about genocide, at the state level, the answer is &quot;no&quot;. At the federal level, 18 USC 1091 does criminalize genocide. But the action fails to meet the definition of genocide. (a) Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such... Mutants fail to satisfy the ordinary conditions for matching people to &quot;national&quot;, &quot;ethnic&quot; and &quot;racial&quot; groups (and &quot;religious&quot; is statutorily defined). This is not to say that an aggressive prosecutor could not construct a line of reasoning that people with a certain (undefinable) genetic property fall within the ordinary meaning of &quot;race&quot; or &quot;ethnicity&quot;. But, to consider an analogous case, the courts do not consider left-handed people to be a separate &quot;ethnicity&quot;, likewise blind, deaf, nor those with Downs syndrome. Specific legislation is (was) necessary to make individuals with genetic conditions be a protected class – it does not flow from a general prohibition against racial discrimination. It is also unclear from your scenario whether defendant has &quot;the specific intent to destroy&quot;. In reality, uttering a phrase does not make it so.
No, it means the following are eligible: Natural born citizens Citizens of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the constitution The second part was to allow people that were citizens of the US in 1788 (but were obviously not "natural born citizens", since the US didn't exist when they were born) to be eligible for the Presidency. Check out Alexander Hamilton's draft of this clause: No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
From the Texas Department of Public Safety brochure listing the types of documents that indicate how to demonstrate "Proof of US Citizenship or Lawful Presence:" Birth certificate or birth record issued by the appropriate State Bureau of Vital Statistics or equivalent agency from a US state or local government, a US territory, or the District of Columbia A birth certificate issued by a county in the State of California would qualify. Note that most government agencies require a certified copy of the birth certificate be used. A certified copy will generally have an endorsement via a stamp indicating that it is a certified copy and, for California, would be available from the county vital records department. A "U.S. Certificate of Citizenship" is for U.S. citizens born abroad. A "Certificate of Naturalization" is for people who became citizens through the naturalization process. Neither of these documents would apply to someone who was born in the United States.
You sue the legal person One of the things that distinguishes legal personhood from other structures is the ability to sue and be sued. You can't sue a business name or a trust for example but you can sue a company. I have in fact been required to make adjudication decisions that I know will be unenforceable in court because the applicant named a trust rather than the trustee.
At least one such person was naturalized, according to Wikipedia, in 1868, a time at which I believe naturalization was conferred by district court judges. Although this doesn't perhaps constitute a court case, as asked by the question, it does show that formerly enslaved people who has been born outside the United States were not automatically granted US citizenship. Wikipedia says: Although native-born American former slaves became citizens upon the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in July 1868, this change in status did not apply to the members of the Clotilda group, who were foreign-born. Cudjo Kazoola Lewis became a naturalized American citizen on October 24, 1868. The passage cites Dreams of Africa in Alabama: The Slave Ship Clotilda and the Story of the Last Africans Brought to America by Sylviane A. Diouf
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regulates employers and employees. The prohibition on employer practices says it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. You are not an employer, which is a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person For completeness, an employee is an individual employed by an employer, except that the term “employee” shall not include any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be on such officer’s personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making level or an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional or legal powers of the office. The exemption set forth in the preceding sentence shall not include employees subject to the civil service laws of a State government, governmental agency or political subdivision. With respect to employment in a foreign country, such term includes an individual who is a citizen of the United States. The federal law prohibits refusing to hire any individual (i.e. they don't have to be an employee), so you can't use the argument "a barber is not an employee". However, in case some law is stated in terms of "employees", a barber is not generally an employee under the law. The literal words of the law state that if a person happens to employ 15 or more people in a business that affects commerce (whatever that might be), then because of that aspect of their life, they can never discriminate in the selecting a barber, etc. That is, the law does say "an employer cannot discriminate in that very business whereby they are legally deemed to be an employer". However, so far the federal government far has not gone after an employer hiring 15+ people for discrimination in barber selection. State laws are also relevant and may have lower thresholds. The Washington threshold is 8.