7 ms·

> tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a di

> tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a different side This ‘jurisdiction’ claim essentially only applied to people who had a diplomatic status while in the US. A traveler from Canada has no special right against being prosecuted (just like you would not were you to go to, say Britain). A governmental figure from Canada would have protections - we would need to interact with another sovereign to hold them accountable. This really has nothing to do with tourism, outside deceitful assertions on television. Regarding Britain, here’s an example of someone not being subject to the jurisdiction of a country after committing a serious crime: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/harry-dunn-uk-anne-sacoolas-suspended-prison-sentence/ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/harry-dunn-uk-anne-sacoolas... I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding about the meaning of jurisdiction.

cellis 1y ago
IANAL but this argument doesn't seem to be on firm footing due to the extradition laws on the books. Technically I can violate a UK law while in the US and indeed be subject to their jurisdiction.
- kelnos 1y ago
  That's not really relevant though. Being a UK citizen and breaking a UK law while on US soil (where the US doesn't have a similar law), and then seeing consequences for it when you return to the UK doesn't change anything. If a UK person is on US soil and breaks a US law, they will be prosecuted by the US. The US can choose to extradite to the UK, but that's not really relevant.
  - cellis 1y ago
    If you care to read some cases, this link is informative https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-01-23/debates/B8A31ACD-FF42-42F5-9F94-D5D53ACC946C/UK-USExtraditionAgreement https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-01-23/debates/B8A.... You don’t have to be on “soil” to break these laws. The US certainly extradites loads of people from other countries who still reside there and only broke laws either “online” or through transactions involving the US
    - ejstronge 1y ago
      > The US certainly extradites loads of people from other countries who still reside there and only broke laws either “online” or through transactions involving the US This further weakens the dishonest posture that tourists are not subject to US law

cellis 1y ago

IANAL but this argument doesn't seem to be on firm footing due to the extradition laws on the books. Technically I can violate a UK law while in the US and indeed be subject to their jurisdiction.

kelnos 1y ago
That's not really relevant though. Being a UK citizen and breaking a UK law while on US soil (where the US doesn't have a similar law), and then seeing consequences for it when you return to the UK doesn't change anything. If a UK person is on US soil and breaks a US law, they will be prosecuted by the US. The US can choose to extradite to the UK, but that's not really relevant.
- cellis 1y ago
  If you care to read some cases, this link is informative https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-01-23/debates/B8A31ACD-FF42-42F5-9F94-D5D53ACC946C/UK-USExtraditionAgreement https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-01-23/debates/B8A.... You don’t have to be on “soil” to break these laws. The US certainly extradites loads of people from other countries who still reside there and only broke laws either “online” or through transactions involving the US
  - ejstronge 1y ago
    > The US certainly extradites loads of people from other countries who still reside there and only broke laws either “online” or through transactions involving the US This further weakens the dishonest posture that tourists are not subject to US law