Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 February 6

= February 6 =

Jus solis vs. jus sanguinis principles in running for president in the U.S
I know that a person who is a U.S citizen by the principle of jus solis is eligible to run for president of the U.S, but what about a person who is U.S citizen by the principle of jus sanguinis? Is he or she eligible to run for president as well as if he or she would have been born in American soil or does the Natural Born Citizen clause of the U.S Constitution only applies to jus solis Americans? Could Ted Cruz for example, who seems to have presidential ambitions and is trying to renounce his Canadian citizenship, be eligible to run for president by the principle of jus sanguinis given that his mother was born an American citizen, or again, does the Natural Born Citizen clause's application is narrow enough to exclude him from running for president? Another example....A minority of people have made the false claim that President Obama was born in Kenya when he was actually born in Hawaii, but let's say that he was born in Kenya for the sake of the question. Again, would Barack Obama still have been eligible to run for president by the principle of jus sanguinis given that his mother was born an American citizen by the principle of jus solis like Ted Cruz's mother, or would the Natural Born Citizen clause's purpose and definition have been narrow enough to exclude him from running for president? Again, I know that he was born in Hawaii. I'm just making up a scenario for the sake of the question. Willminator (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The answer is that we won't know until a case comes up before the Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution is a short document relative to those of other countries. Much is left open to interpretation. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why then does Ted Cruz and others believe that he is 100% qualified to run for president of the U.S even though he was born in Canada? Why would the birthers, on the other hand, say that Obama being born in Kenya according to them is not qualified to run for president even though his mother is American-born like Ted Cruz's mother? If a person was born an American national by means of jus sanguinis, how would it violate or not violate the Natural Born Citizen Constitutional requirement to run for president or vice president? If so, would that mean or not that a person can be born in another country and still be able to run for president or vice president of the U.S? Willminator (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The answer is we don't know because the issue has never been tested. Ultimately, the U.S. is a country with a common law legal system, where the interpretation of law by courts through the means of precedence is supreme.  A statute means nothing until a court interprets it, and where there is no precedence, there is no means to adjudge it.  It's ambiguous, and until there is a test case, it will remain ambiguous.  There are of course unambiguous cases (i.e. we're sure that someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger could never be president).  But with the "edge cases", the question is unanswerable until the courts decide, or until a more explicit, unambiguous law is written.  Since we don't have the latter, and we don't have the former, we don't have a way to answer for those edge cases. -- Jayron  32  18:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I also read that children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory would not be natural born citizens even if born in the U.S. What if a foreign diplomat was married to an American-born citizen and gives birth to a child? Would the child, because of the American-born parent, be a natural-born citizen and if so, would the child be eligible to run for president? Willminator (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As Jayron says, we don't know for sure until it happens. But the general sense among those in the know seems to be that if you're entitled to US citizenship from birth, you're a natural-born citizen, no matter why you're entitled to it.
 * By the way, it's not clear that it would be settled in the courts. It might be a political question and therefore not justiciable.  The Constitution provides for Congress to do the actual counting of electoral votes and presumably Congress is the court of last resort for all these questions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What about the product of the rape of an American woman by a member of a hostile invading foreign force? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can't tell if that's serious or not, but if it is, Trovatore's comment stands: "But the general sense among those in the know seems to be that if you're entitled to US citizenship from birth, you're a natural-born citizen, no matter why you're entitled to it." Mingmingla (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly serious. I was just responding to Willminator's ...children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory would not be natural born citizens even if born in the U.S.  That seems to be in stark contrast to what you and Trovatore are saying. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if both parents were hostile occupiers, I think that might apply. Or just the mother, who came over to engage in hostile occupation while pregnant by a non-American man.  Or two foreign diplomats, or a pregnant foreign diplomat, or ... I think you get the picture.
 * The key phrase is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". --Trovatore (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I was considering the case of a male foreign occupier who rapes an American woman. She goes full term and gives birth in the US.  Is the child an American citizen?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so &mdash; born in the US, and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by virtue of his mother, I suppose. The phrase is mainly about diplomats, I believe &mdash; they didn't want the child of some ambassador and his wife being automatically burdened with US citizenship. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * precedents ≠ precedence. —Tamfang (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * By the by, Ted Cruz is not very good at renouncing his Canadian citizenship. It's not a difficult process. Mingmingla (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is an amusing argument to be made that the problem relates to the documentation supporting Cruz's claim to U.S. citizenship. Canada has an obligation to ensure that Cruz is not rendered stateless; in principle, a significant amount of documentary evidence could be required to ensure that Cruz actually does meet U.S. requirements for citizenship.  Specifically, if the Canadian government were particularly sticky, Cruz could be required to prove that his mother lived in the United States for at least ten years prior to his birth (including at least five years after she turned 14)&mdash;something that might actually be relatively difficult to establish, given that the relevant period was more than forty years ago.  (Curiously, the birther movement seems remarkably quiet on this issue.)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They're too busy creating fake Democratic Party websites. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That five-year rule, by the way, is (I'm told) why Obama would be disqualified if he were born abroad: his mother had not lived in the US for five years after age 14, as she wasn't yet 19 when he was born. From the Immigration and Nationality Act (1952):
 * §301(a): "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ...(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph."
 * §301(b): "Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following such coming be continuously physically present in the United States for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years."
 * That's from the back of a Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America, issued by a consulate in January 1961, shortly before Obama's birth. —Tamfang (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * For some interesting reading: . There was a Senate resolution in 2008 declaring the opinion that John McCain was eligible for the presidency despite having been born in the Panama Canal Zone.  Additional complications come into it in this case, because the Canal Zone was under US administration but not part of the US for most constitutional purposes.  People born within the Canal Zone at that time did not automatically receive US citizenship.  Laws were later passed extending US citizenship to those who had been born in the Canal Zone, but since legislation was required it was not clear whether this qualified as "natural born".  The article mentions several other candidates who could have tested the "natural born" requirement for various reasons had they won.  --Amble (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I understand there is some debate about whether he was born in the CZ at all, as opposed to in a nearby hospital in Panama proper. I don't know whether there's any credibility to that or whether it's at the "Obama born in Kenya" level of "debate". --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's relevant or parallel to the supposed Obama case, since both of McCain's parents were American citizens. I have never heard it said the child of citizen parents overseas due to muilitary service is of dubious citizenship. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's certainly not relevant to whether he's a citizen. It might be relevant to whether he's a natural-born citizen.  As I said earlier, the smart money seems to be on the proposition that if you're entitled to citizenship from birth, then you're a natural-born citizen, but there's not exactly unanimous agreement on that. --Trovatore (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I read that a person born who was born in Puerto Rico is not allowed to run for president or vice president of the U.S even though the person was born an American citizen. Puerto Ricans are citizens by statute. Congress "naturalized" them. So, Puerto Ricans can't run for president or vice president. If so, and if people born outside of the U.S can run for president by means of jus sanguinis, what if a person was born in Puerto Rico to at least one parent who was born in the states? Should the parent contact the proper authorities that way the child would be a natural born citizen as if he or she were born in the states that way the child would be eligible to run for president or vice president of the U.S when he or she grows up even though the child was born in Puerto Rico and if the parent met all the criteria necessary for the child to have been born in Puerto Rico as a natural born citizen by means of jus sanguinis? Willminator (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did you read that? I don't think it's true.  I have never heard of anyone born in Puerto Rico running for president, but I don't believe there would be any bar to eligibility (though the question would certainly come up if such a person appeared to have a genuine chance of winning). --Trovatore (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said that there was a Puerto Rican-born who has tried to run for president of the U.S. Willminator (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but you said you had read they weren't eligible. You may have read that, but if so, whoever wrote it was wrong.  Well, as best as we can currently tell, until it happens. --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is where I read that Puerto Rican-born Americans aren’t elligeable to run for president or vice-president: “One might think that while all citizens at birth may not be natural born citizens, all natural born citizens are also citizens at birth. However, it is possible for someone to be natural born without being a citizen at birth, or even being a citizen. Being a child of foreign diplomats or invaders is one way, but it is also possible that someone might be natural born on territory not incorporated into the United States at the time. For example, natural born citizens of Puerto Rico are not natural born citizens of the United States, eligible to be president, while it remains a protectorate or dependency. However, citizens of Puerto Rico have been naturalized by statute to be citizens of the United States at birth. Now if Puerto Rico were admitted as a state, its natural born citizens would then become natural born citizens of the United States, eligible to be president, if otherwise qualified. If it later seceded (with the consent of Congress) its natural born citizens would cease to be natural born citizens of the U.S.” However, it seems that some Supreme Court justices are opened to discussing the idea of whether just being born in Puerto Rico is itself enough for a person to be able to run for the presidency or vice presidency of the U.S. So, the question remains about whether or jus sanguinis can apply to someone born in Puerto Rico were one or both parents was born in the States and thus, whether or not that Puerto Rican-born child can run for president. Willminator (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Took a glance at your first link. That page seems to have a very strong point of view, one which is probably "wrong" at least in the sense that, if it were ever tested, the decision would go the other way.  That's about everything, not just Puerto Rico.  I don't think you can rely on that page on the issue in question.  Its citations may well be accurate, though, and you are certainly entitled to consider its arguments in forming your own view on how the issue should be decided.  --Trovatore (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * From the second link, it seems that the Supreme Court justices want a case to land on the Supreme Court to decide about whether being born in Puerto Rico jus soli disqualifies a person or not in running for president, and from what I can see at least some of the justices seem to be in favor of letting jus soli Puerto Ricans to be able to run for president or vice president of the U.S. Willminator (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My guess is that, as in other respects, the eligibility rule will always be read broadly for anyone nominated by a Major Party and narrowly for a third-party candidate who looks likely to disrupt the orderly anointment. —Tamfang (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm generally well-disposed to this sort of cynicism, especially as a third-party supporter myself, but I don't see much evidence for it in recent history.  The last two seriously disruptive candidates were Ross Perot in 1992 and George Wallace in 1968 (you could make a case for Ralph Nader in 2000, but that's only because of the extreme closeness of that election, which was hardly predictable so I'm not sure it counts).  I don't recall any serious effort to disqualify any of them.  Not that there was much to go on, to be sure. --Trovatore (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Final question about the matter....why is one parent necessary instead of two for a child to obtain citizenship by means of half sanguinis? Why does the child have to be half something like Ted Cruz instead of full blooded whatever for the child to get citizenship by birth? Willminator (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC) P.S: Having asked my final question about the matter, I want to say thanks for your very helpful answers to my questions that I've received and that I might receive after the time of this writing. Willminator (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Citing and Reference
If I am using Wikepedia as reference for geographical names, do I have to create reference as to where I got the names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.142.58 (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Only if the geographical names are not well-known to most people and if the names are hard to find. Willminator (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

2 notes played at the same time question.
What happens when i play a note with the frequency of X hz and Y hz at the same time. The "resulting note" will be a note with a frequency of (x +y)/2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.127.74 (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's known as a "chord", and you get resonances, not frequency averaging... AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * See chord for the music-theory description. Beat (acoustics) has some nice graphs of how the waves combine for nearby frequencies to produce a wave that has two major audible components - the average frequency, but also half of the difference in frequency. K ati e R  (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ads
Are ads on Youtube just random or based on searches you've done? Pass a Method  talk  13:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly they are related to your searches and browsing, unless you've opted out of interest-based ads (which it's possible to do). More here . --Viennese Waltz 13:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is done through the use of "cookies", right? I've noticed that youtube and google images and such not infrequently post things that have nothing to do with what I'm searching for at that moment, but have searched for in the past. For example, looking for an old sports clip and seeing stuff about the Marx Brothers popping in there randomly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's cookies so much as they keep a record of your browsing history. --Viennese Waltz 14:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I went to that link you posted above. It appears the database is at Google's end and the cookies just retain the opt-out checkmarks. So I'll see if that makes a difference. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Slightly relevant: You can see your search history at Google.com/history Dismas |(talk) 18:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Requires an account. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Receiving immunity
All of this talk about Governor Chris Christie and the Fort Lee lane closure scandal made me think of this question. Several people are seeking immunity from prosecution; the idea, of course, being that (in return for immunity) they will reveal information that the prosecuting authorities want and/or need to enable the prosecution of some other (usually higher-ranking) individual. So, here is my question. Let's call the person seeking immunity "Person X". The basic idea is this: Prosecutor says, "If you give up the information, I will grant you immunity from prosecution" and Person X says "OK". So, at this point, removing the prospect of prosecution is entirely contingent upon Person X revealing their information. Now, before he is assured immunity, Person X does not want to "spill the beans" on what information he knows. He will not want to disclose his vital information until and unless he is guaranteed immunity. (He does not want to forfeit the "big" bargaining chip that he holds in this negotiation process.) So, how exactly does this play out? In other words, the Prosecutor will not know what "juicy information" Person X holds until Person X tells him what that information is, exactly. But, Person X will not reveal that information until he is assured immunity. The prosecutor, presumably, is not going to guarantee immunity unless the information is good, helpful, and significant. In other words, the prosecutor will not grant immunity only to have Person X subsequently offer up some non-important, trivial, and insignificant information. So, my question is: how do the two parties get over this seeming "impasse"? The prosecutor wants to find out what information Person X has, and the prosecutor will not guarantee immunity until he feels that the obtained information will be "worth it". Meanwhile, Person X holds this information close to the vest; he will not reveal the information until and unless he is promised immunity. It seems like a standstill. It seems both parties are at an impasse. How is this typically worked out and resolved ... so that both parties obtain what they want and do not "screw over" the other party? Another way to ask this question is: who makes the first move, without putting himself at a disadvantage and at the mercy of the other party? If the prosecutor offers immunity first (without hearing the information first), then the prosecutor runs the risk of having offered immunity for worthless and unhelpful information. If Person X reveals the information first, Person X runs the risk that the prosecutor will now have that information and (now that he has it), he will not offer the immunity. Thanks for any insight. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe the prosecutor can offer immunity "contingent upon the defendant providing material information which leads to a conviction". So, if the info provided is useless, the immunity is withdrawn. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that is my whole point. Person X says "OK, this is the info that I have to offer ... (provides details) ...".  After getting the information, the prosecutor can then say "Oh, that info is really not material or helpful to me, so I don't think I will offer immunity after all."  But, now, the prosecutor has the info (that he didn't have a minute ago).  How does Person X protect himself against this?  Side note:  you stated that the material must lead to a conviction.  I cannot imagine that to be true.  Person X can offer up tons of info (that he has), but he clearly has no control over whether the jury ultimately decides to convict or not.  I can't imagine this (a successful conviction) being a part of the deal.  What Person X would ever take that risk?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The process, formally called a "proffer", and informally "queen for a day", is described here. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The key point, as Wisenberg observes, is that you don't proffer unless you really have to. But there are so often more than just X and the prosecutor - the prosecutor wouldn't be talking immunity if there were only one possible defendant. Say there's there's not just accused person X, but their alleged co-conspirators Y and Z too.  The prosecutor needs a conviction, but he'd rather convict two people than none; he'd like three convictions (and so rather than immunity he might only offer a reduced charge to whoever cooperates).  The whole thing is a high-stakes prisoner's dilemma - X,Y, and Z each have their own lawyers, and each is saying that the others are the prime movers and that they're just a pawn.  If Y or Z cuts a deal with the prosecutor, X is SOL, so there's pressure on X (and thus in turn on Y and Z too) to cut a deal, even if that involves the risks of proffering.  In a case like that, the prosecutor is in the catbird seat, as he can play each off against the other and bargain each to give more and accept a crappier deal in exchange. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To: Finlay McWalter – Thanks for the information. That was very interesting.  The link you provided (Wisenberg's website) was very helpful.  Also, in my original post above, it was implicit that there are other defendants (or, at least one) besides Person X.  Otherwise, there would be no issue at all.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It isn't just up to the prosecutor. Ultimately a judge is going to make a decision about whether the agreement applies. Looie496 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you sure about that? The decision of whether or not to prosecute lies in the sole discretion of the prosecutor.  If he decides not to prosecute, there is no legal proceeding whatsoever; hence, no judge ever enters the picture.  Right?  (Or no?)  If, on the other hand, we are talking about a plea agreement, then, yes, the judge will enter the picture.  And he will accept/approve that agreement (or not).   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Our relevant articles (although neither really has a lot of content) are Turn state's evidence and Immunity from prosecution. Tevildo (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. Very helpful! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone ever actually been found and rescued thanks to their Breitling Emergency watch?
I ask this in the humanities section instead of the science or computing because I am interested in any news references (if any) telling of people being found and rescued because they used their Breitling Emergency watch (a high-end wristwatch that puts out a radio signal when activated). It seems like the odds are against you if, say, your aircraft goes down in a very remote region. First, search crews would have to be in range of the little watch's propagating signal, and second, they'd have to have equipment tuned into whatever frequency that thing puts out on, and all of this within the time period the watch's power reserves last (hopefully, they notice you're gone and come looking for you close enough to where you are in that window). 75.75.42.89 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like that watch has a Cospas-Sarsat beacon in it. Those certainly work, and are widely deployed in aviation, maritime (e.g. on lifeboats), and sometimes land use by people on foot in the wilderness or in ski/avalanche emergency beacons. You can find  pocket-size ones (about the size of a packet of cigarettes) for a few hundred quid online (e.g. Amazon) - much less than the $16,000 Breitling.  Given they can reduce it to that size, there's no reason to suppose the Breitling would be worse, although it doesn't have as much space for batteries. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * For example, this PDB (which someone on Amazon Marketplace will sell me for £246) has GPS (your location is encoded in the distress signal) and a bright emergency flashing light. As far as I can tell, the Breitling has neither. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the average LUT station is equipped and able to notice and decode that embedded GPS message. 75.75.42.89 (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see. So the signal gets to a satellite and operators are listening in those LUT stations.75.75.42.89 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Breitling has sold about 40,000 previous versions of the emergency watch, which has helped to save more than 20 people, Girardin [VP, Breitling] said." source 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, a friend of mine fell through a snow cornice on a ridge, during a whiteout in the Scottish Highlands last week. After a long fall, he came to rest with a badly dislocated knee. It would have taken the rest of the party several hours to reach him, even if they could see where he had gone, but he was able to alert his emergency contact using a similar device and he was taken to hospital by helicopter. I'm not sure exactly which gizmo he used - I'll ask when he gets home. Alansplodge (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)