Interesting question...

[Rudi]

There is an ancient doctrine, enshrined in English common law, that says Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos, which means, "Whoever owns the soil, it is theirs all the way up to heaven and down to hell." Cool....the plot I own is larger than I expected...

I just read this article that has no definitive conclusion. So how do sky babies get classified???

Any would be lawyers care to resolve?

BTW: The puns in the comments are classic

[HansV]

Cool....the plot I own is larger than I expected...

As the article explains, that rule is from before the advent of airplanes, and has since been amended. You're not the owner of any plane that happens to fly over your house!

And I don't know about the laws in your country, but unlike the Beverly Hillbillies, I wouldn't become a millionaire if oil was found under my house - the oil would be government property.

[IMNetUser]

.... I wouldn't become a millionaire if oil was found under my house - the oil would be government property.

A friend of the family thought they had struck oil in the 50's in Texas.

They were dismayed when presented a bill from the oil company after discovering the oil company's pipeline was punctured when an irrigation ditch was being dug.

On a high note, the family did not have to pay for the repair or clean up since the Oil company did not have the "Right of passage" on their land. Apparently the surveyors were off the mark.

When I had my house, the Title search for land and home resulted in my right tow3ater water under the property for purposes of a well. I did not own the mieral rights - that stayed with the developer of the subdivision. At the time I did not think to much of it.

Edited 20140825 ~117 CDT for spelling. Apologies - need to take more time previewing before posting.

[BobH]

In Texas, it is almost impossible to find land with all mineral rights intact in any precincts where oil discovery is even remotely possible. Most deeds cover this and I believe that law requires the status of mineral and water rights to be disclosed on sale.

The puns were hilarious. There are some very witty people in this world.

The following discussions about citizenship - esp. US citizenship - were less entertaining. One common misconception about citizenship in the US is that it is possible to hold dual citizenship. That is not true (unless the law has been changed without my knowing within the last 20 years). The US recognizes only US citizenship and grants no right to claiming dual citizenship. Other countries might recognize dual citizenship to include US citizenship but that in no way changes the US binary view: one is either a citizen of the US or is not and may not claim, under US law, citizenship in another country.

[PaulB]

Bob, I believe that dual citizenship in the US is permitted but not encouraged, at least according to the US Embassy's web site.

[IMNetUser]

Bob,

In Wikipedia United States nationality law - Dual Citizenship, Paragraph 3 it states:

Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other", (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952). In Schneider v. Rusk 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States.

Granted - this concerning United States Nationality Law.

Wikipedia Citizenship in the United States, Dual citizenship, Paragraph 2 states:

A person who is considered a citizen by more than one nation has dual citizenship. It is possible for a United States citizen to have dual citizenship; this can be achieved in various ways, such as by birth in the United States to a parent, or in certain circumstances even grandparent, who is a citizen of a foreign country, by birth in another country to a parent(s) who is/are a United States citizen/s, or by having parents who are citizens of different countries. Anyone who becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen is required to renounce any prior "allegiance" to other countries during the naturalization ceremony; however, this renunciation of allegiance is generally not considered renunciation of citizenship to those countries.

with a followup statement of:

A U.S. citizen may lose his dual citizenship by obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state, but only if it was performed with the intention of renouncing U.S. citizenship.

There are concerns with certain security classifications - but that becomes a decision of the person on whether to keep dual citizenship.

Wikipedia is not the end all - but a decent well of knowledge.

Case in point, a family friend had dual citizenship as a result of the parents emigrating to US. He was born on US soil before the parents became citizens. Even when he joined the service and had duties of a classified nature requiring a clearance, he retained his dual citizenship. The only sticking point was when he lived outside the US territories, he had to come back to the states every 7 years to retain his US Citizenship status (do not remember for how long).

[Rudi]

Some very informative replies. I am honestly enlightened and the US citizenship info is interesting for personal reasons.
Appreciate the input guys!

Hans: You could just grant me the pleasure of knowing that I own the plane for the second that it takes to pass through the airspace above my house. Please don't deny me that feeling...

It seems that there is still an outstanding question though (something about babies )

[BobH]

My wife used to be the naturalization clerk in a federal district court. I based my statement on her experiences and issues that she saw arise during the course of her employment.

The point that other nations might allow their citizens to retain all rights of citizenship after gaining US citizenship does not mean that the US reciprocates. It is my understanding that - under US law - no claim can legally be brought that citizenship in another country mitigates relevant US law. I'm not sure what the law is wrt, say, passports. Under the circumstances I stated, a person might hold a passport from another country and from the US. It is my understanding that in such cases the US passport is required to allow the person to return to residency in the US with full civil privileges. In legal matters, US law is applied to US citizens; therefore the claim that the US does not recognize dual citizenship.

I'm not a lawyer but I do have friends in marriages of mixed countries of origin who have been very careful in asserting claims to US citizenship when entitled lest they affect their rights in their country of origin. I based my statement on my wife's experience and that we've seen in our friends' situations.

[IMNetUser]

Point taken Bob.

[ChrisGreaves]

... how do sky babies get classified???

Funny you should mention it:-

Toronto Star
"Officials recommend Ottawa removing citizenship rights to babies born to non-citizens and non-residents even though costs outweigh benefits."

P.S. If very small babies are flown out of the country, do they give a micro-wave to their parents as they leave?

[Rudi]

[GeoffW]

... how do sky babies get classified???

Funny you should mention it:-

Toronto Star
"Officials recommend Ottawa removing citizenship rights to babies born to non-citizens and non-residents even though costs outweigh benefits."

England doesn't give citizenship to children born to non permanent residents. We know this because our daughter was born in England when we were living there on a temporary working visa. She has no rights to any English rights though that doesn't stop the Pommy jokes.

[Rudi]

Further up the thread was an entry that mentions if a child is born on a French ship for instance, the citizenship is easy to determine as simple being on the ship is seen as being on French soil. Is this because ships are named and "christened"? Obviously planes are not named so being on board a plane is not like standing on a countries soil, AFAIK.

[GeoffW]

Rudi- you are very fortunate that we're not neighbours.

I have an ancestor who was born in South Africa. The ship was shipwrecked on the way to Australia.

Perhaps that gives me rights to move in next door to you?

I wouldn't change who I supported in the rugby or cricket though. If that was a part of a citizenship criteria it would be too big a price to pay.

[Rudi]

Rudi- you are very fortunate that we're not neighbours.

Agreed, I'd think it would be a bit punny if we stayed next to each other.

[GeoffW]

O pun warfare?

[Rudi]

I'll shoot you with my pun.

[HansV]

The pun is mightier than the sword.

[Leif]

One man's fish is another man's poisson - assuming he was born on Rudi's French ship.

[Rudi]

...assuming he was born on Rudi's French ship.

Nice....can we make that a Super Yacht....