Not Just in Outer Space: ‘Aliens’ in Immigration and Nationality Law

The monopoly on human spaceflight has been held by a handful of governments and their space programs for over the last fifty years. With the successful launch of Scaled Composite’s SpaceShipOne , c orporations may soon be able to take advantage of new launch vehicle technologies and end governmental monopoly of human spaceflight. Private human spaceflight will enable corpora tions to expand their reach beyond E arth , enter ing a new economic era with as much uncertainty as ever in the expanding commercial frontier of outer space . However, legal challenges will present the major obstacle to corporations operating in outer space. Outer space is a high risk environment and given the dangerousness of such economic activity corporations will not be allowed to operate without some rules or regulation . Moreover , without the ability to profit, corporations will lose their incentive to en gage in outer space commerce. Therefore, outer space law must balance corporate and public interests to ensure safety, equity and market efficiency. In turn, the shape of future civilization in outer space will depend on how national and international law develop s over time in response to the pressures of corporate expansion. This paper thus seeks to perform two tasks: first, to critically review the major legal challenges facing corp orate expansion into outer space, particularly United States and internati onal space law ; and second, provide an evaluation of “laissez -faire ” proposals for human expansion into outer space and their impact on future space society. I. Introduction he monopoly on human spaceflight has been held by a handful of governments and thei r space programs for over the last fifty years. With the successful launch of Scaled Composite’s SpaceShipOne , corporations may soon be able to take advantage of new launch vehicle technologies and end governmental monopoly of human spaceflight. Private hu man spaceflight will enable corporations to expand their reach beyond Earth, entering a new economic era with as much uncertainty as ever in the expanding commercial frontier of outer space. Corporations are well established in outer space. Many private s pace firms develop, build and launch vehicles and payloads , while working closely with governments. Nevertheless, many corporations are confined to specialized sectors of space commerce due to the economically prohibitive nature of human spaceflight. Howev er, legal challenges will present the major obstacle to corporations operating in outer space. Outer space is a high risk environment and given the dangerousness of such economic activity corporations will not be allowed to operate without some rules or re gulation. Moreover, without the ability to profit, corporations will lose their incentive to engage in outer space commerce. Therefore, outer space law must balance corporate and public interests to ensure safety, equity and market efficiency. In turn, the shape of future civilization in outer space will depend on how national and international law develops over time in response to the pressures of corporate expansion. This paper thus seeks to perform two tasks: first, to critically review the major legal c hallenges facing corporate expansion into outer space, particularly United States and international space law; and second, provide an evaluation of “laissez -faire” proposals for human expansion into outer space and their impact on future space society.

With the development of deep space exploration in China, the application of space nuclear power source (NPS) is becoming increasingly intense when solar energy cannot meet the mission requirements. Because of the particularity of its nuclear operation and use, the safety of the whole process has become a matter that must be paid attention to and guaranteed. Establishing a scientific and efficient safety mechanism is an important means to ensure the safety of the whole process. The Safety Framework for Nuclear Power Source Applications in Outer Space ( Safety Framework ) was developed jointly by United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), providing safety standards and technical guidelines for all countries. The Safety Framework is a consensus reached by the member states of COPUOS on the safety of space NPS, and it can be applied to all space NPS applications. Countries can flexibly adjust the guide according to their own actual situation to adapt to the organizational structure of their space NPS applications. According to the practical application needs of space NPS, the United States has developed and implemented its own domestic safety mechanisms. The comprehensive safety mechanism for space NPS applications in the United States is closely consistent with the requirements of the Safety Framework , and its relevant national laws are consistent with the three categories of guidance contained in the Safety Framework , namely, the guidance of government, management and technology. Even within the system of the federal law of the United States, stricter standards and assessment procedures for the safe use of space NPS have been adopted. The space NPS application program of the United States requires specific legal action measures and necessary procedures. If the relevant measures and procedures are not followed, the application of space NPS cannot be approved and started by the government departments. The guidelines of the three aspects of the Safety Framework have been strictly implemented in the comprehensive security mechanism of the United States. China’s space NPS application is still in its infancy. Although the relevant provisions of the Safety Framework have been tried to implement in China’s Chang’E-3 and -4 missions, there is still no long-term national space NPS safety mechanism. Based on the Safety Framework and the experience of the United States, combined with the safety practice of space NPS in China, this article puts forward some suggestions for further improving the comprehensive safety management mechanism in China: (1) Establish or improve the national laws and regulations system to ensure that all responsibilities and procedures for the safety of space NPS applications are effectively fulfilled; (2) establish or improve the safety mechanism of space NPS application at the government level, so as to ensure the whole elements and process of space NPS application safety; (3) strengthen the safety technology reserve of space NPS application, so that relevant departments have and maintain the technical capacity of safety application. In the context of the drafting of China’s national space law, the decision makers of relevant departments of space NPS application should draw on the international rules such as the Safety Framework and the safety management mechanism of space NPS in major space countries, and formulate the safety management mechanism applicable to China’s space NPS application, which will be conducive to the early realization of China’s space NPS application safety system and meticulous management to ensure the smooth implementation of the space exploration mission.

Overseas-born doctor migration 1962-66.

The monopoly on human spaceflight has been held by a handful of governments and their space programs for over the last fifty years. With the successful launch of Scaled Composite’s SpaceShipOne, corporations may soon be able to take advantage of new launch vehicle technologies and end governmental monopoly of human spaceflight. Private human spaceflight will enable corporations to expand their reach beyond Earth, entering a new economic era with as much uncertainty as ever in the expanding commercial frontier of outer space. However, legal challenges will present the major obstacle to corporations operating in outer space. Outer space is a high risk environment and given the dangerousness of such economic activity corporations will not be allowed to operate without some rules or regulation. Moreover, without the ability to profit, corporations will lose their incentive to engage in outer space commerce. Therefore, outer space law must balance corporate and public interests to ensure safety, equity and market efficiency. In turn, the shape of future civilization in outer space will depend on how national and international law develops over time in response to the pressures of corporate expansion. This paper thus seeks to perform two tasks: first, to critically review the major legal challenges facing corporate expansion into outer space, particularly United States and international space law; and second, provide an evaluation of “laissez-faire” proposals for human expansion into outer space and their impact on future space society.

Outer Space, an Area Recognised as Res Communis Omnium: Limits of National Space Mining Law

United States immigration law and policy is one the most controversial issues of our day, and perhaps no location has come under more scrutiny for the way it has attempted to deal with the problem of undocumented immigration than the State of Arizona. Though Arizona recently became notorious for its “papers please” law, SB 1070, the American Southwest has long been a bastion of discriminatory race-based law and policy – immigration and otherwise – directed toward Latinos, American Indians, African-Americans, and other non-White racial and ethnic minorities. While largely ignored by both legal and American historians, the so-called “Jim Crow Southwest” nonetheless persisted throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century in both the Arizona Territory and the State of Arizona, forming the basis for, and giving shape to, laws meant to exclude and limit the participation of non-White persons in Southwestern society.The State of Arizona, the last of the forty-eight contiguous States to be admitted to the Union, marked its 100th year of statehood on February 14, 2012. A few months later, on June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. Arizona, striking down the majority of Arizona’s aggressive state immigration enforcement law, S.B. 1070, as preempted by federal law. This Article discusses recent developments in Arizona immigration law and policy. By providing an overview of the history of race-based exclusion laws and policies in the Arizona Territory and the State of Arizona, it argues that Arizona’s modern anti-immigrant laws and policies are merely the newest incarnation of the State’s long history of discriminatory laws against racial and ethnic minorities, particularly Latinos and American Indians. In attempting to trace the genesis of racial animus toward non-Whites in the Southwest, Part I provides a historical overview of the Arizona Territory in the nineteenth century, including the development of the New Mexico Territory, the Confederate Territory of Arizona, and the impact of slavery and other race-based discrimination and exclusion laws in the Southwest. Part II discusses twentieth century race and immigration based policies in the Jim Crow Southwest that restricted and segregated the civil rights of non-Whites in the areas of marriage, education, and voting. Part III discusses the continuing legacy of the Jim Crow Southwest on the development of modern immigration law and policy in Arizona, and in particular, the aftermath of S.B. 1070’s passage in April 2010, Arizona’s subsequent rise as “ground zero” for state and local enforcement of immigration law in the United States, and the Supreme Court’s decisions in United States v. Arizona in 2012 and Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona in 2013. Finally, the article concludes by summarizing how the historical evidence presented in this paper rebuts the claim that only in recent years has Arizona begun to “drown[] in a sea of extremism” and become “the mecca for prejudice and bigotry,” and argues that Arizona has a long history of race-based exclusion laws and intolerance toward racial and ethnic minorities that has only now begun to garner attention on the national stage.

Introduction. Thе Russian Federation and the USA, being parties to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, in their national legal acts refer to this source. Each of these states recognizes that the 1967 Outer Space regime is to be perfected, while having different legal outer space policy. The USA is a leader of the military outer space infrastructure and of creation national outer space legislation and separate international agreements (“The Artemis Accords”), thus imposing its own track to develop the 1967 Treaty.Materials and methods. This research addresses relevant international documents on international space law as well as acts of national legislation pertaining to the topic. Research results. In modern political conditions the quality of a state defense and its economic development is linked to the efficiency of the outer space infrastructure, including communication and reconnaissance satellites. While the U.S. intends to achieve military supremacy in the outer space, the 1967 Treaty seems to be a barrier to such intention although the U.S. provides its own interpretation of the Treaty. Another significant area of competition between Russia and USA in the outer space legal policy is the observance of the natural resources treaty provisions. According to the USA, a state is entitled unilaterally exploit the space resources, and its persons are entitled to commercial use of such resources based on national law. This position of the United States resulted in creation of its national legislation opportunities for natural resources activities in outer space. The Russian Federation continues to defend multilateral approach to the exploitation of space resources and to call upon strictly observance of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. There are also competitive legal positions of the USA and Russia relating to the notion of “common province of mankind” provided by the 1967 Treaty.The main results. In this context, the paper after providing prolegomena to the competitive principle in international law, suggests some theoretical ideas for perfecting of the legal position of the Russian Federation as a response to the modern outer space legal policy of the USA.Discussion and conclusions. In the legal literature on this issue different views are assessed – from a radical rejection of the US model of behavior and continuation of efforts to strengthen the 1967 Treaty regime, to proposals to adopt a new national Russian legislation providing rights of persons to exploit the natural resources of celestial bodies, thus provid-ing incentives for private investors. This track leads to more competition with the USA, observing at the same time the 1967 Treaty as the “corpus juris specialis”.

In discussing the subject of Japanese-American relations it is well to remember that two friends cannot clear up a misunderstanding by interchange of meaningless compliments, meanwhile ignoring obvious conditions and deceiving each other as to facts and opinions. Facts, and opinions too, may be handled with mutual toleration and courtesy, but above all there must be entire frankness. Responsibility for peace on the Pacific rests, it is said, on the shoulders of Japan and the United States. Peace may be maintained for a time between two nations, even in the presence of ill will, through a desire to maintain valuable trade interests or to avoid war, so disastrous even to the conqueror. But the best guarantee for peace lies in that. mutual confidence, that cordial relation, which prevents or removes misunderstanding. That is the spirit which, it is hoped, will always actuate the people of Japan and, the United States in their intercourse with each other. While that spirit lives, misunderstandings may occur, but will disappear. The traditional friendship of the two countries was threatened for a time by differences growing out of our immigration problems; and while the major differences have been resolved, at least temporarily, it is still felt by many that the question involved could have been settled in some way equally effective from our point of view and more satisfactory to Japan. It is fair, however, to say that this belief is held usually by those who lack intimate knowledge of the three months' consideration given to the matter by Congress in the spring of 1924. During that period every other plan suggested before or since, including quota, received full consideration, and each was rejected in turn for clearly defined reasons. The plan chosen seemed to be the one which should cause least reasonable protest. It is not discriminatory in itself, for it permits the entrance as immigrant of anyone eligible to American citizenship. If our naturalization law, which declares certain colored races ineligible to citizenship, were modified in favor of the Japanese, they would have the right to enter as immigrants under the present immigration act. It is therefore the naturalization law, and not the immigration law, against which the charge of discrimination should be made. Some other plan may yet be suggested which will meet Japan's views without violating basic laws or principles adopted by this nation; but until then (as was said by President Coolidge, the earnest friend of Japan) We must seek by some means besides immigration to demonstrate the friendship and respect we feel for the Japanese nation. Japan, however, has declared frankly through various official sources that she expects that friendship to be shown ultimately by such modification of the present law as will place her nationals on the same plane as white Europeans. OUR POLICY AS ORIGINALLY OUTLIN]ED Curiously enough the present misunderstanding in the matter of immigration has grown out of our desire and determination to so regulate our immigration policy that through it no rift would be created in the traditional friendship between Japan and this country; and it was President Roosevelt himself who clearly defined the issue in the interest of both nations.

This paper presents a concept recognition system for European and national legislation. Current named entity recognition (NER) systems do not focus on identifying concepts which are essential for interpretation and harmonization of European and national law. We utilized the IATE (Inter-Active Terminology for Europe) vocabulary, a state-of-the-art named entity recognition system and Wikipedia to generate an annotated corpus for concept recognition. We applied conditional random fields (CRF) to identify concepts on a corpus of European directives and Statutory Instruments (SIs) of the United Kingdom. The CRF-based concept recognition system achieved an F1 score of 0.71 over the combined corpus of directives and SIs. Our results indicate the usability of a CRF-based learning system over dictionary tagging and state-of-the-art methods.

Preparation of granulocyte concentrates by apheresis: collection modalities in the USA

In her sensitive introduction to this new and most interesting publishing initiative, Joy Fisher of the Centre for International Legal Studies in Salzburg writes: ‘Immigration law is as dynamic as the people it affects, and is constantly in flux. As a result only a looseleaf publication is equal to an ongoing, accurate treatment of the subject’. The idea behind this publication is to provide an up to date and accurate description of the immigration laws of a large number of countries where immigration is a common feature of the transfer of population. These countries are primarily in Europe, Australasia and the Americas. The writing has been done by practising lawyers in the countries concerned who, on the whole, have followed a common pattern. Thus there are passages on general Government attitudes towards immigration and naturalisation, visitors, settlers, visa requirements, asylum seekers, deportation, the appellate system, employment and work permits, taxation...

Reviewed by: Perfecting the Union: National and State Authority in the U.S. Constitution by Max M. Edling Craig Green Perfecting the Union: National and State Authority in the U.S. Constitution. By Max M. Edling. New York: Oxford University Press, 2021. 206 pages. Cloth, ebook. Having already written two outstanding books about the early American republic, Max M. Edling revisits this period in Perfecting the Union: National and State Authority in the U.S. Constitution, which examines American states and federalism.1 The book promotes what Edling calls a "Unionist interpretation" (15) of the Constitution, claiming that sharp limits on interstate government meant the Constitution was more important for creating union and statehood than for producing democracy, individual liberty, or market economics. Edling's thesis challenges widespread assumptions that the American Revolution and the Constitution directly transformed social, economic, and civic life, demanding instead that scholars should focus on state-law authorities "that actually regulated civic rights" (15).2 Perfecting the Union uses three categories of evidence—international law, American history, and European philosophy—to define the federal government's constraints and the American states' autonomy. Mirroring the book's organizational structure, this review considers those categories in sequence. Edling's first category of evidence to identify original limits on the federal government (chapter 1) comes from international law, but the full scope of his argument is not clear. For example, Edling's Unionist theory claims that national solidarity was an enduring problem for the United States, comparing America to loose-knit confederacies under the European law of nations. But how prescriptive were international analogies for the creation of American statehood and union? Edling cites David C. Hendrickson, who described the Constitution as a peace pact among independent sovereigns, and other scholars have likewise suggested that the Articles of Confederation were a treaty among American states as autonomous international entities.3 Some of those authors have argued not only that the United [End Page 403] States was influenced by international law but also that the United States and the American states were formal creatures of international law. The assumption that American states such as Georgia and Pennsylvania were comparable to international sovereigns such as Spain or France is hard to defend, but perhaps Edling can avoid such exaggerations insofar as he combines international law with other legal sources.4 For example, Edling cites British colonialism as an example of his Unionist thesis, yet prerevolutionary colonists disputed the power of Parliament and the crown exclusively based on British law, not the law of nations.5 When Edling labels prerevolutionary British history as "Unionist," that implicitly suggests at least a possibility that postrevolutionary relationships among states and the United States also were not derived solely from international law. Edling demonstrates that international law was one reference point for the early American republic—alongside British colonial law, Native governance, and colonists' own innovations—but it was not uniquely authoritative for the development of constitutional federalism and American states. Edling's reliance on international law seems more troublesome in his argument that "the federal government was never created to regulate domestic affairs" (14) as opposed to "international affairs" (12). Edling's words "international" and "domestic" are not how most people distinguish the constitutional authority of the federal government and the American states. The conventional adjectives are interstate and intrastate. Congress has always had constitutional power over policies that are "domestic" rather than "international," including interstate commerce, bankruptcy, taxing and spending, intellectual property, counterfeiting, the post office, and more. Each of those powers has had broad practical effects over time, including the production of "a stronger federal union … to stand up to European powers and to conquer the North American continent" (8), but such geopolitical implications do not mean that the federal powers were themselves international.6 The law of nations' distinction between "international" and [End Page 404] "domestic" affairs did not solve the constitutional problems of defining federal power and constitutional statehood.7 In chapter 2, Edling's second effort to specify the federal government's limitations highlights continuities between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. For example, under both regimes, the United States tried to limit threats from European...

Most Americans and lawyers would probably be shocked to learn that in the early 1930s Nazi Germany’s scholars, lawyers, and party officials were carefully studying United States race laws and Federal law. As part of comparative system, Germans were accustomed to researching the laws and legal systems of other countries to find insights and models. In the 1930s, they were researching how to legally discriminate against Jews and they found their models in United States law. This article expands on preexisting research into how Adolf Hitler, Nazi party officials, and Nazi scholars studied in the process of drafting the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. This article adds to this subject by closely examining how the Nazis also studied and relied on Federal Law. Hitler and many Germans were relatively well-informed about issues and history, and U.S. anti-miscegenation laws, involuntary sterilization laws, citizenship practices, and the Jim Crow laws in general. In fact, in Mein Kampf, Hitler mentioned U.S. laws and policies and noted that the United States was racial model for Europe and that it was “the one state” in the world that was creating the kind of racist society the Nazi regime wanted to establish. Obviously, Nazi scholars followed his lead and they researched and wrote numerous articles and books on race laws. This article also addresses how Germans and Nazis analogized the American Frontier and Manifest Destiny, and the treatment of nations and peoples, to the Nazi plans to invade the East to serve the longstanding German policy of Lebensraum and colonization of the East. In regards Federal Law, Heinrich Krieger and other German/Nazi scholars undertook serious and prolonged studies of the subject. They considered Indian to be a racial law and to be unique extra-constitutional situation. They concluded that Indians had been discriminated against for centuries in North America based on race and blood. Consequently, Nazi Germany would be well justified doing the same to Jews and other minorities. In September 1935, Adolf Hitler announced the culmination of the Third Reich’s research into laws and Federal Law in its efforts to racially discriminate against the Jews. The Nuremberg Laws stripped German Jews of their citizenship and their rights and started Germany on the road to the Holocaust. The Laws criminalized marriage and sexual relations between Jews and Germans. There was only one country in the world the Nazis could find that criminalized inter-racial marriage - the United States. In fact, forty-one of the states had anti-miscegenation statutes. The Nazis also studied the numerous state Jim Crow laws and the United States immigration and naturalization laws and policies from 1790-1924. In addition, the United States conquest of nations, ethnic cleansing, and colonization of the Frontier West provided fodder and analogies for the Nazi invasion and colonization of the German East. This article perhaps raises more questions than it answers about Federal Law and its impact on Hitler and Nazi Germany. In the end though, how intriguing, yet at the same time how profoundly disturbing, that and Federal Law played some role, or any role, in the Nazi formulation of Jewish policies and laws.

Writing and Democracy in the Early United States

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 marked the birth of the United States as a nation and as a subject of the law of nations. As Chief Justice John Jay later wrote, “[T]he United States had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the laws of nations; and it was their interest as well as their duty to provide, that those laws should be respected and obeyed.” Complying with the law of nations was important for a small, weak country trying to avoid trouble, but the law of nations was also a tool that the United States would use to protect its trade and commercial interests. National honor was at stake as well, an idea the Revolutionary generation took quite seriously. Interest and duty – as Jay put it – compelled the Founders to pay close attention to the law of nations.