There is, or WAS, a presumption that a young child is a citizen of the country where he is found. I am not at ALL sure that the burden is on the man to prove that he IS a citizen; since he can show that he was here as a young child, it should be up to Homeland Security to show that he is NOT a citizen. Apparently he is of "mixed" racial background. I wonder if he would've been subjected to such scrutiny if he were obviously "pure" white (whatever THAT means). The usual way to test one's American citizenship is to apply for a passport, whether you need one or not. When his application was refused, he should have appealed the refusal.
Born in New Jersey = jus soli American Mother = jus sanguinis Puerto Rican Father = American Father = jus sanguinis Why the "upside down 7734" is there any question here? Better yet, why can't we take abusive government agents who falsely challenge other people's citizenship, strip said abusive agents of their own citizenship, and deport them, making sure that the boat we put them on is utterly unseaworthy?
The book , A Man Without A Country is quite good. Written by Edward Everett Hale, it is the story of Philp Nolan who was tried for treason with Aarron Burr and had stated he never wanted to hear the name United States again. "D*** the United States! I wish that I may never hear of the United States again!" The court grants Nolan his wish. He is placed in permanent detention aboard a naval vessel, never allowed ashore and barred from receiving mail or reading matter with references to the United States. His shipboard contacts could never mention the United States to him. Nolan's floating prison roams the world, and death provides a blessed release for the man who had named his fate." (Excerpted from the book, A Man Without A Country) He got his wish and was forced to live on warships for the rest of his life. Although a novel, it was quite good and is recommended reading to this day. It was written in 1863 in Atlantic Monthly ( at first anonymously) to strengthen the Union cause in the North. If you have not read it, I would highly recommend it.
The Customs and Border Protection inspector's role is to question, and if necessary, challenge an individual's right to enter the U.S. If the traveler had secured the proper documentation (a U.S. passport) prior to departing the U.S., much of this could have been avoided. Had Mr. Murry made inquiries BEFORE he left the U.S., he would have known that there was a possible problem that might arise when he reentered. Apparently it is a problem that has no simple solution but at least Murry would have had satisfactory documentation with him when he traveled. (or he wouldn't have gone) BTW Nosborne, the law regarding individuals entering the U.S. from a foreign port of embarkation places the burden of proof on the traveler to show that they are admissible into the U.S. [see Titles 8 and 18, U.S. Code] The law functions quite differently on the border and at areas designated the "functional equivalent of the border" (generally international airports and seaports) for matters such as admission, searches, etc.
Have you ever travelled out of the country -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by nosborne48 I wonder if he would've been subjected to such scrutiny if he were obviously "pure" white (whatever THAT means). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you guys for real. This guy is, apparently, born of a Puerto Rican and a caucasian so he is probably as "white" as the rest of "white" America. You basically accuse the Customs agent of being a racist and totally disregard the fact that he let the guy back in the country without a passport, a clear violation of the law. He gave the guy a break and you call him a racist!? Ted's argument sounds good but it isn't based on any facts since none of what the guy said is proven beyond heresy. If you want to quote the law get it right. Then he accuses the guy of falsely challenging the guys citizenship when he (admittedly) didn't have any proof of it. Wake Up, he let the guy in the country without a passport , birth certificate or anything to prove citizenship. Where's Abner, I am sure he has some inanity to add. Man it must be a sad world you all live in.....
Re: Have you ever travelled out of the country Now, wait a minute! Did I quote the law? Or did I merely give my radically ticked-off opinion of what the law ought to be (if only the people who make the laws were as smart as I am)?
Re: Re: Have you ever travelled out of the country Ted: I am going to respond to you, you gave an intelligent opinion, yes, let's repeat it, OPINION. I came home from work with a high fever, so I am just not in the mood to fully read this article and intelligently comment on it. DTECHBA chose to invoke my name, he claims we live in a sad world, I guess by that he means, me, you, Nosborne, Carl, I don't now. I wonder what is at the root of this statement? Are we sad because we care about equal rights for all, or is this a forgotten ideal in this country? The way I feel right now, I won't even go down that road. (getting sleepy). Take care Ted, Abner Abner
I say people live in a sad world Because they immediately jumped to the conclusion that this guy was a racist. They immediately expected the worst of this guy despite the fact they know nothing of him beyond what was in this article. An article, which by the way, indicated the customs agent actually treated the guy with extreme consideration by letting him back in the country without a passport. This guy could be fired for what he did for goodness sake but he gave the guy a break. He knew he didn't have a passport and instead of doing what he should have done, which was take care of his identification issue, he went out of the country voluntarily knowing he may have a problem getting back in. He was treated more than fairly. However, it was probably unfair to accuse you of the same without giving you a chance to express an opinion. However, if without reading the article, you assume this guy has not received equal rights, the comment may actually apply to you as well....
Tom H. Yes, the burden IS on the person seeking entry. Quite correct. But I have been waived into the U.S. from Mexico and Canada without question on NUMEROUS occasions. The brown complected folks I work with tell a very different story. I just sorta wondered, that's all. As to "cutting the guy a break"; well, now wait a minute. The government really CAN'T exclude a citizen just because he has no passport. I've heard that we're going to criminalize exit without a passport, but committing a crime is not the same thing as waiving your citizenship. Exile is unconstitutional, you see.
Yes, they can... At a border they can in fact detain you until you prove citizenship. That is what border points are for. Otherwise, why bother. And it isn't just our country. I was detained in Germany at the Frankfurt airport custom checkpoint when I lost my ID card in Heathrow airport. I had to wait until the Army representative showed up to claim me.....
