Can an extra-terrestrial be legally adopted?

Question

Background: My client has disclosed to me that he is an extra-terrestrial entity who arrived from another planet some time after 1900. He was sent to Earth in a rocket by his (now dead) parents, then placed up for adoption and legally adopted by two US citizens from the state of Kansas.

We are trying to determine whether this adoption was legally valid, specifically whether there is anything in US Citizenship law, US Adoption law (or US law in general) that states that a "person" or "citizen" specifically needs to be human.

Answer 1

There is longstanding and well-established legal non-uniformity in defining ‘person’, and in stating laws in terms of ‘persons’. The RICO statutes (18 USC 1961 (3)) states that a person ‘includes any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property’. A corporation is a person for the purposes of access to the federal courts, for purposes of forming contracts, and enjoyment of First and Fourth Amendment rights, but not for purposes of voting or 5th Amendment immunity. 1 USC 8(a) states that

the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development

which states a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one.

In Washington state, RCW 1.16.080 says that

The term “person” may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation or limited liability company, as well as an individual.

Washington does not define ‘individual’, but we can call on Black’s Law Dictionary to learn that

this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.

And finally, Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, 157 holds that an unborn instance of homo sapiens is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. In short, there is no clear and settled answer to the question.

Courts do not always refuse to hear ground-breaking cases, and in case this issue is ever realized, I am confident that cert. will be granted. The point of law is, after all, to state general principles regarding what is forbidden or allowed in a society, thus it must be capable of addressing novel situations. We will have to await that case, but the prospects for your client are good. It is obvious that “persons” have a special position under the law, it is recognised that they have both rights and responsibilities that other things do not have. Summarizing over millenia of jurisprudential thinking, we can see that the special status of persons (when not reduced to divine gift: not applicable under current US law) derives from the fact that persons have a capacity to reason, and to choose actions based on their reasoning. In the context of our current knowledge, this is mostly coextensive with being an instance of homo sapiens, though in case of severe or complete limitation of those faculties, an instance of homo sapiens may not be legally accorded the full set of rights and responsibilities of homo sapiens.

In fact, the law does not have a definition of homo sapiens. Before objecting that science teaches us that only earthlings can be homo sapiens, we should be remember that courts do not always hold that terms as defined in a scientific discipline are to be interpreted that way under the law, which is how SCOTUS in Nix v. Hedden 149 U.S. 304 was able to hold that a tomato is not a legal fruit. The plain meaning of homo sapiens is completely consistent with extending legal coverage to Kryptonians.

Thus it will be the finding of the court that petitioner, not a member of the species homo sapiens but endowed with the faculty of reason and free will, has all of the rights and responsibilities of a ‘person’ under Kansas law, and has the right to be adopted.

Answer 2

There is a part of the Immigration and Nationality Law that specifically applies to toddlers found wandering around in the United States without parents present whose place of birth is unknown. These individuals are automatically U.S. citizens and remain so unless the U.S. government specifically brings an action to establish that the person is a citizen of another country before the person turns twenty-one.

Specifically, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(f) (Immigration and Nationality Act § 301(f)) provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: . . . (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;. . .

This was inspired by situations very similar to those of the person in question (and indeed, given that the law was enacted in 1952, could have been specifically included with reference to this individual's case).

Modern adoption laws were just starting to be widely passed with application to parentless children without family at the time that this individual was adopted, before which orphanages were the norm. So, even if modern U.S. adoption laws have specificity about citizenship or species, this would almost certainly have been absent from the laws in force at the time.

But, in any case, this particular individual is human, i.e. species homo sapiens, even if he belongs to a different sub-species of human, because it is know that members of his species are capable of reproducing with ordinary humans on Earth which fits one of the most common definitions of a biological species. The conclusion that this particular individual is human is also supported by his visible appearance, his ability to speak the English language, and the fact the myriad teachers, neighbors, co-workers, employers, and romantic partners treat him as human without question.

Answer 3

An issue might be that a human being has the benefit of the law for protection and equally, submits to it for others protection. Its a 2 way deal.

Now, our kryptonian might want the benefit of the law, like a human. But can he be made to submit to it like one?

We cannot (says the court) imprison him or forcibly remove his liberty with any ease (assuming kryptonite's effects are not easily obtained, used, or scientifically recognised by multiple research- and how to prove he isn't faking the appearance of more weakness than he has?). So how exactly is he capable of submission to the law, except as a purely voluntary goodwill unilateral offer that may or may not get respected?

For example - how can an ordinary persons rights against voyeurism be protected from Xray vision? What laws can protect aircraft and airspace, or privacy? How will immigration/customs/police be able to be sure he complies with all laws concerning entry and departure from the country, and doesn't (deliberately or accidentally) bring in or put anything those laws are intended to control?

If he undertakes a crime, how will police prove it when he can move objects (no need for keys), detect security or people/alarms, see inside sealed objects and mechanisms and read their contents, and can delete records with his owners? Can a court remove his liberties if it was against hi wishes?

Then there's health. Is he dangerous by virtue of his different origin - pathogens, radiation, or whatever else? Can we prove it? Biology that seems compatible but it might be found not to be in some way? What happens to the rights of citizens not to be harmed (or reasonably fear possible harm) as they go about their day, from the unrestricted and not-provably-safe alien who can go wherever they go, if granted that right?

Many many issues, and no practical reasonably accessible means of enforcement. How can a person who has no need to submit to the law and no way to be brought under it, be granted all its benefits without its leash applying as well?

I see this as the real concern a court case would come to if he wasn't already rejected because of non-national citizenship or illegal entry/residence from childhood.

Answer 4

The current state of the law is that, yes, a natural person needs to be human. See http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/07/habeas_corpus_and_personhood_for_chimps_judge_barbara_jaffe_gives_liberty.html, specifically, the common law position is that only human beings are natural persons and the Constitutional law position is that the Constitution is a document specifically by and for humans.

Answer 5

My friendly neighborhood game warden tells me if it isn't on the list of endangered or threatened species, and the fish and game laws don't specify any particular hunting season, I can shoot it. Of course, our discussion was about ground hogs.