Wikipedia talk:Minors and persons judged incompetent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's impact scale.
 

Domicile and other points[edit]

"A person who is a national (like or more comprehensive than being a citizen)"

Nick, I do not think that makes sense. What does national mean (because in the context of the UK it is to put it mildly confusing (See for example English people, Welsh people, etc). AFAICT what you man is the nation/state under which a person is domiciled which is not the same as the nation to which they belong. Many people are a citizen of more than one country (they can hold dual citizenship and they may consider themselves members of several nations. But under law they can only hold one domicileity.

See "[http:www.offutt.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-081001-054.pdf Changing you state of Domicile]" which is a US military document and seems aimed at Americans moving within the US.

A search of the UK government domain name returns lots of stuff on domicile and treaties.

There is a more comprehensive description here: Annex FM 1.5 - Domicile (74KB opens in a new window. It describes were a child is domiciled under UK law.

It states "Generally a person can only have a domicile within a territory subject to a single system of law. This means that normally a person cannot, for example, be domiciled in the United Kingdom, but would be domiciled within England and Wales or in Scotland."

Which is why I used the term federal in the edit I made (because I did not want to go into the details of the odd UK system which in this respect is more like a federal system) and given the above, if the jurisdiction is the same, I do not see how "Within a single nation, similar differences can govern a person who has a permanent residence at one address but is temporarily at another". -- PBS (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The point of the section is to address conflicts of laws between jurisdictions and the essay should be global insofar as practicable.
A national is a person who, in international law, is the responsibility of a nation or is protectable by that nation. Citizen is, I think, more commonly used in intranational law, thus the differences between U.S. and U.K. law. In the U.S., nationals and citizens are almost the same people but, the last time I read up on this, Swains Islanders and people from one other place were nationals but not citizens of the U.S. Since the meaning of national is the more comprehensive one, I preferred it to citizen for the section. I can probably clarify the section by simply referring separately to nationals and to citizens. I can also add about dual citizenship or dual nationality.
A person who is domiciled somewhere being (according to Wikipedia) a permanent resident there and given that in the U.S. many immigrants are by law permitted to be permanent residents of the U.S., we should ensure the essay's applicability to, for exasmple, an immigrant who is a permanent resident in the U.S. but who might temporarily go back to their nation of origin. Thus, including both the domiciliary and nationality sentences avoids confusion and helps applicability.
Probably, virtually every nation except perhaps the very tiniest has local differences in law. Either virtually all nations are thus federal or federalism is a narrower concept. If virtually all are federal, adding federalism to this essay is useless. If many with local variations are not federal, federalism in this essay is too limiting to the essay's purpose.
Historically, there have been two approaches for travelers: the law attaches to the land so anyone on it is subject to it or the law attaches to the person so a person is subject to it wherever they are and is somewhat immune from local law during their travels. The latter still applies to diplomats. In modern times, this generally has gotten more complicated. The U.S. applies both principles, depending on circumstances. In the essay, I want to maintain the point that a person may be sbject to two sets of laws and we should apply the more protective set. But saying only that will be confusing to many readers because the concept of being subject to two sets of laws is unclear. I don't want people to think that, because this is the Internet, laws that apply to print don't apply to Wikipedia, and that's been a common view about websites. I didn't mean to apply that (alleged) conflict of laws to this essay. Thus, the various common ways that dual applicability can occur and that have relevance to this essay should be outlined. If the list of ways gets too long, the paragraph may need reorganizing so the point isn't missed, but we can deal with that when needed.
Nick Levinson (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)