Statutes or legal articles on how the law would react to time travel.

[robert_columbia]

Mods: Feel free to move this to IMHO if necessary. I thought that GQ was appropriate since I’m asking about statutes and existing legal opinions rather than WAG’s about how a court would rule, or specific legal advice Obviously, you real time travelers should consult with a properly qualified and licensed attorney. In real life, what would happen would have to wait for a court to rule on it. This is not the baggage check mentioned in the Warsaw Convention.

Have there been any real looks as to how the law would react to time travelers? I’m interested in actual statutes that purport to consider this, or legal articles/research, or opinions from those who know a little about the law.

e.g.

1. Suppose a person appears this year, claiming that they are a time traveler born in the year 2100, and that they were born in Nova Scotia, which in 2100 is a US State (Canada having been dissolved in 2050), and is considered by the future United States of America to be a natural born citizen. He expresses interest in settling down permanently in 2011 because he is fascinated by the old fashioned life that died during the robot apocalypse. In 2011, is he: a: A US Citizen? b: A Canadian Citizen? c: stateless?

2. John was born in 2000. In 2050, at age 50, he travels back in time to the year 2011. While here in 2011, is he legally considered to be a child, since he was born in 2000 (2011-2000=11), and forced to live with his parents (echoes of South Park and/or Back to the Future here), or sent to foster care or an orphanage, and required to attend grade school again?

[Asympotically_fat]

California v. McFly is the relevant case law

[Northern_Piper]

Legislatures don’t waste their time on science fiction, and law reviews don’t publish science fiction.

[firstname]

1. Well I don’t think that Nations could be expected to recognise people not born yet as citizens so lets say stateless.

2. I’d say it entirely depends on the wording of the law. If it says something like “having lived for 18years” I’d say he’d have little problem, well apart from getting people to believe that a guy who looks like he’s 50 was born 11 years ago.

[Fear_Itself]

Time travel is illegal.

[mrpayday]

Time travel is illegal.

[Peter_Morris]

The precedent is a niche in time saves Stein.

[samclem]

Since there can be no factual answer, let’s go to IMHO.

samclem Moderator

[Oakminster]

@robert_columbia

1. Suppose a person appears this year, claiming that they are a time traveler born in the year 2100, and that they were born in Nova Scotia, which in 2100 is a US State (Canada having been dissolved in 2050), and is considered by the future United States of America to be a natural born citizen. He expresses interest in settling down permanently in 2011 because he is fascinated by the old fashioned life that died during the robot apocalypse. In 2011, is he: a: A US Citizen? b: A Canadian Citizen? c: stateless?

I strongly suspect such a person would be considered delusional, taken into some form of protective custody, and sent for a psychiatric evaluation.

[matt_mcl]

@Northern_Piper

Legislatures don’t waste their time on science fiction, and law reviews don’t publish science fiction.

You may say that, but there is actual Canadian case law that Martians do not have standing before our courts.

[…]there is a fundamental flaw in the position of Mr. Joly. Rule 1.03 defines plaintiff as “a person who commences an action”. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines *person *as “an individual human being”. Section 29 of the Interpretation Act provides that a person includes a corporation. It follows that if the plaintiff is not a person in that he is neither a human being nor a corporation, he cannot be a plaintiff as contemplated by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The entire basis of Mr. Joly’s actions is that he is a Martian, not a human being. There is certainly no suggestion that he is a corporation. I conclude therefore, that Mr. Joly, on his pleading as drafted, has no status before the Court.

[Keeve]

@matt_mcl

You may say that, but there is actual Canadian case law that Martians do not have standing before our courts.

Not to mention the existence of the Greater Green River Intergalactic Spaceport

[fuzzypickles]

How can time travel be illegal when time itself does not exist?

[ENugent]

I don’t know if they’ve addressed your exact question, but you might enjoy looking through Law and the Multiverse anyway. I think there may be some discussion on the issue in the comments on the post about Superman’s immigration status.