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.

Yes, actually it does. The US could have you extradited to face US law.

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