Message from @DrYuriMom
Discord ID: 508680847411642398
but they don't want that, they want men to continue to die for them
if i owe the feds 50k in back taxes and scupper off to thailand, they aren't going to say i'm no longer subject to US law because i am not physically present.
with respect to selective service, i expect that lots and lots of erstwhile feminists would suddenly feel a traditionalist twinge if they were handed draft cards
Atkins, you can be subject to the laws of multiple nations at the same time
the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was a reference to indian tribes that hadn't yet been subjugated at the time of ratification.
At least three nations easily. A Japanese born in Canada visiting the US would be under three different jurisdictions at the same time
of course they would, they aren't chanting for equality in selective service
i disagree that you can be subject to the laws of multiple nations
or many of the other things that favor them
i certainly disagree that you can be expected to pay income taxes to multiple nations
If I am the example you give, if i visit Thailand I am still under US law related to things like taxes and raping a minor but if i deal drugs Thailand will still execute me.
if i am a legal pakistani immigrant to the United States and say "fuck mohammed", i am not subject to execution for blasphemy
But people ARE expected to pay income taxes to multiple nations
If as a US expatriate I live in the EU and make enough money, I pay taxes to both the US *and* the country I work in
if i'm in thailand and the US wants back taxes they can suck a dick. they ain't getting them. they do not have jurisdiction.
Actually, they do
if you ever came back to US you'd prolly have to pay your taxes
in practical terms, no.
but if you stayed out the country you'd get away with it
I almost took a job internationally and the US absolutely does claim taxes on foreign income
if you ever came back. then you would be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. the jurisdiction of the US does not extend to thailand.
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