only if the host country has an extradition treaty. i.e., in their jurisdiction.

That is true. But you are still subject to US law. The US has been *very* clear about that.

until these people have gone through the legal process of submitting to US jurisdiction through the visa process, i submit that they are still subject to the laws of their home country. we have no legal or material responsibility to them. simply eject them.

Again, you can commit crimes in a country that are not a crime there but you are still subject to US law and the US can prosecute you for it. the current archtypical example is child rape.

if the US can claim jurisdiction over someone in thailand, then honduras can claim jurisdiction over someone in el paso.

Atkins, so you claim if an illegal commits murder we have no ability to punish them, only to deport them?

give them the boot, let honduras deal with them.

That is not the current standard

the current standard is demonstrably shit

Nor does the Constitution prevent us from exacting justice ourselves

send them back to honduras. they have more appropriate jails for murderers.

As long as we can, the Constitution holds them under our laws

NOW, there would be an option outside the Amendment process

Treaties become constitutional level when ratified by the Senate

If we had a treaty with Honduras that essentially gave ALL their citizens immunity from our laws and not just diplomats, THEN you have a case

rofl

But is that *really* what you want

how about no. how about we just build a fucking wall and put illegals on the other side of it.

Now THAT is perfectly legal

so riddle me this... why do we have immigration laws if immigrants aren't subject to them

either enforce them, or open the borders...

I'm not going to try and defend that. I have always maintained we should go after employers who hire those not legally able to work. But employers don't get punished, only the worker. If we actually held employers accountable with large fines or even the dissolution of their business for repeat offenders, we'd solve the problem almost instantly.

As long as there is a demand, they *will* be a supply

And as with the drug war, all trying to stem supply when there is a big demand will do is waste billions for little to show for it

I agree with that

the war on drugs is as useless as prohibition was

and statistics confirm it

Because trying to control supply when there is a big demand is nonsense

How about do like we have done with corporate fraud. Make every corporation identify a Chief Human Resource Officer and that person is responsible under criminal law for immigration law compliance. In other words, in addition to fines for the corporation, that person could go to jail for it.

and the hypocrisy of denigrating certain drugs, whilst protecting and elevating the pharmaceutical drug empire... most notably the slacklers and Purdue pharmaceuticals

I have an idea on how to get corporations to pay taxes, by executive order, corporations found stashing funds offshore, have 72 hours to bring it home and pay taxes on it, otherwise, all of their intellectual property becomes public domain and are no longer subject to enforcement and protection from the United States

That would require a law

how fast would apple pay their taxes?

The executive can't just do something without legal basis

The President is subject to the law

To permit otherwise would be tyranny

doesn't congress have to pass a new law to override an executive order?

And anyway, "stashing funds" isn't illegal, at least not always

No, the Executive needs to provide evidence any order has legal basis. That's why the White House has lawyers.

Just as the Congress needs to provide evidence in every law regarding the Constitutional basis for it. Because even the Congress is subject to the Constitution.

hiding your profits offshore to evade paying your proper share of taxes erodes our economy, especially when they enjoy so many benefits of doing business in the USA