Are extradited prisoners residents of the receiving country? I'm interested in answers for various jurisdictions. If a person of country A is extradited to country B, are they considered to be residents of country B while they are serving their sentence? Notice that I'm asking about residence, not citizenship. Of course you don't get to become a citizen of a different country by being imprisoned in it. In practical terms: Does the prisoner need to get a passport from country A to leave their country? (Do they get an exit stamp?) Does the prisoner need a long term resident &quot;prisoner&quot; visa, or something like that? Does the prisoner need to register as a resident when they arrive? Presumably with the prison address as their residential address? Does the prisoner need to pay taxes, get social security, etc. of country B? Does the time served count, for example, when applying for permanent residence or naturalization, when applicable? In other words, for immigration purposes, what is the status of a person who got into the country via extradition?
germany Does the prisoner need a long term resident &quot;prisoner&quot; visa, or something like that? No, during detention a residence permit is not required. Does the prisoner need to register as a resident when they arrive? Presumably with the prison address as their residential address? When the expected period of detention exceeds 3 months and no residence exists in Germany, then the prisoner will be reported to the registration authority. Does the time served count, for example, when applying for permanent residence or naturalization, when applicable? If no residence permit existed, then the time does not count. In other words, for immigration purposes, what is the status of a person who got into the country via extradition? If they had no immigration status when the detention started, they will have no status when it ends. Ausländerrechtliches Stichwortverzeichnis - Freiabonnements für Gefangene e.V. Aufenthaltstitel in Haft Ausländische Gefangene benötigen für die Zeit der Haft keinen Aufenthaltstitel. Läuft aber zum Beispiel die Aufenthaltserlaubnis während der (Untersuchungs-)Haft ab, muss unbedingt fristgerecht ein neuer Antrag gestellt werden. Residence permit in detention Foreign prisoners do not need a residence permit for the period of detention. However, if, for example, the residence permit expires during (pre-trial) detention, a new application must be submitted in good time. ... Ausländerrechtliche Folgen einer Verurteilung ... Besteht kein Aufenthaltstitel, ist der Ausländer nach Beendigung der Untersuchungs- bzw. Strafhaft von Gesetzes wegen zur Ausreise verpflichtet. Immigration law consequences of a conviction ... If there is no residence permit, the foreigner is legally obliged to leave the country after the end of the pre-trial or criminal detention. Vollzugsgeschäftsordnung Vom 21. Dezember 2018 JustVA (Berlin) (PDF) Page 22 of PDF 24 Mitteilung der Aufnahme an die Meldebehörde (1) Die Aufnahme von Gefangenen zum Vollzug einer Freiheitsentziehung ist innerhalb von zwei Wochen der Meldebehörde mitzuteilen, wenn die Gefangenen nach ihren Angaben nicht für eine Wohnung im Inland gemeldet sind und der Aufenthalt in der Anstalt drei Monate übersteigt. Übersteigt der Aufenthalt in der Anstalt bei der Aufnahme zunächst nicht drei Monate oder ist die Dauer der Freiheitsentziehung bei Aufnahme, wie beispielsweise beim Vollzug der Untersuchungshaft, nicht bekannt, tritt eine Mitteilungspflicht erst dann ein, wenn durch sich anschließende oder fortdauernde Freiheitsentziehung die Dauer von drei Monaten überschritten wird; die Mitteilung hat sodann innerhalb von zwei Wochen zu erfolgen. 24 Notification of admission to the registration authority (1) The admission of prisoners for the execution of a deprivation of liberty shall be reported to the registration authority within two weeks if the prisoners say they are not registered for an apartment in Germany and the stay in the institution exceeds three months. If the stay in the institution does not initially exceed three months at the time of admission or if the duration of the deprivation of liberty is not known at the time of admission, e.g. in the case of remand detention, a notification obligation only arises if subsequent or ongoing deprivation of liberty exceeds the period of three months months is exceeded; the notification must then be made within two weeks.
A question like that is impossible to answer in general, but your question includes some incorrect assumptions. Many countries try to prevent visitors to become de-facto residents through repeated visits. For instance, the Schengen area limits visitors on short-stay visa to 90 days out of every 180-day rolling window, and the UK seems to give their immigration officials more discretion on every re-entry. Many countries give political asylum to people who are persecuted in their home country. A pandemic, or generally bad living conditions, do not count as persecution. Many countries give refugee status to people who have to flee war or disaster in their home country. The default case for these rules is a person who is in danger and wants to travel to a safe country. Then there are rules for force majeure when a person in the country is forced to overstay through no fault of their own. How that is handled usually depends on how cooperative the visitor was at securing a timely return or a visa extension. During the early days of the pandemic, there have been blanket extensions in some countries. As travel re-opened, these have run out. One of the differences between the last three bullet points is how long the stay is permitted. Political asylum tends to be for the long term, refugee status lasts until the end of the disaster, and a force majeure exception might just last a few days. So if this is not just a hypothetical question, contact a lawyer or the immigration authorities where you are now. Generic answers on Stackexchange cannot replace specific, professional advice.
The decision will be made by whichever country arrests him first (although a minority of countries allow for the trial of people who break their criminal laws in absentia). Needless to say, if nobody manages to arrest him ever, he will not face any criminal consequences except the issuance of an arrest warrant possibly accompanied by a pre-existing conviction in absentia if arrested in countries that allow for such a proceeding. Normally, in these circumstances, either country would have jurisdiction under its own laws to prosecute and punish the criminal, and many extradition treaties would not require the extradition of someone who committed a crime punished domestically in the state in whose custody the criminal is as part of the same course of events. Many countries will not extradite someone if they could face the death penalty in the receiving country. But, sometimes law enforcement in a country with a less serious penalty will intentionally defer to law enforcement in a country with a more serious penalty that is simultaneously trying to arrest him. Ordinarily, law enforcement is not authorized to use deadly force to arrest someone who is simultaneously being arrested by law enforcement from another country against either the arrestee or the law enforcement from the other country. Indeed, using deadly force against another country's law enforcement officers who are carrying out a lawful arrest in their own country would ordinarily be considered an act of war. U.S. double jeopardy provisions of the constitution do not prohibit a second prosecution of an offender in these circumstances because of a first prosecution by another sovereign, but many prosecutors in many countries would decline to prosecute someone a second time for the offense that they have already been convicted of in exercise of their discretion, and many judges would consider time served in another country for the same offense as a factor in setting their own sentence.
The private organizations, in difference to international organizations (the organizations, members thereof are the countries) or the countries are not subjects of international law. They are also not a subject of criminal laws, so they technically can't break the law. The people can. If the actions of such organizations will break some laws, the people staying behind that organization will be made responsible. Either it will be single individuals, or the whole organization might be declared criminal (such as mafia or a gang) and there everyone, including stakeholders or casual employees/contractors might be subjects to interrogation, arrest and sentence. As for the problem you describe, when the organization made something illegal under one jurisdiction, and the stakeholders are sitting in other country, where such actions are not illegal, they might only partially be safe. They might be arrested not only in the country where the legal actions are taken, but also in third countries, that have extradition agreements with that country.
Did the President have to commute or pardon the Russians in US prisons, or is there an existing statutory basis for releasing some prisoners? As far as American law is concerned, in this particular case, it was a &quot;simple&quot; deportation. The defendants pleaded guilty and were sentenced to time served, based on submissions from the prosecutors and the defendants, which are usually followed by the judge. Alternatively, if the judge had sentenced someone to real prison terms, a commutation may be required. If they want, the prosecutors can also withdraw the charges before sentencing. Obama commuted Iranian citizens in a spy swap deal. In another Iran-USA prisoners exchange, charges were dropped for Masoud Soleimani. Then as &quot;free&quot; men and women who are foreign nationals, they can still be inadmissible to the United States and be deportable aliens under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens, § 1227 - Deportable aliens). In this case, there are so many potential grounds to choose from: conviction of a crime of moral turpitude, misrepresentation, national security, foreign policy, etc. The Secretary of State can also revoke their visas at the Secretary's discretion and make their presence unlawful. They have the right to contest deportation if they are considered &quot;free&quot; as far as the criminal law is considered. But, they usually want to go home. The US may choose to prosecute them for other potential crimes if they contest. Then if they are deportable and there is no stay on the proceedings due to judicial or administrative intervention, they can be removed from the United States. Is there a formal agreement in international law between the US and UK? I do not believe the United Kingdom was involved directly to the exchange itself. The prisoner swap was done in Vienna. Agreement needs to be obtained from the Austrian government regarding entry conditions etc. UK revoked Anna Chapman's British citizenship. Igor Sutyagin and Sergei Skripal moved to UK. But those are not really international matters legally. The UK alone determines how its citizenship works and who can enter and stay in the UK.
Paying taxes need not have any legal connection to citizenship or potential citizenship. There is no constitutional provision, or law, which limits taxation to citizens or those on a path to citizenship. Legal immigrants, those on visas, and indeed tourists, must all pay various taxes, including hotel taxes and sales taxes. Lawful immigrants who work in the US must pay federal and (in most states) state income tax, and I believe some undocumented immigrants pay Federal income tax as well. Many countries tax people who are not citizens, nor immigrants in line for citizenship, and this has been true far back in history. Indeed the Romans taxed pretty much every inhabitant of and visitor to the Roman Empire, most of whom were not Roman Citizens. Things haven't changed that much since. It might be argued on philosophical grounds that such people should not be required to pay taxes, or should not be required to pay certain specific taxes. But that is not the law at this time, and this forum is not for debating what the law should be.
Question: Do I need a EU passport or EU ID card to legally work in the EU (or establish that I have the right to work in the EU)? Or is a certificate of citizenship sufficient? Legally, your right to work is not contingent on this and there is no Europe-wide rule that makes holding any document mandatory. Importantly, if you do start working anyway, you are not committing a crime and cannot possibly be banned or forced to leave the country. You do have the right to work from the day you became an EU citizen and if any doubt arises down the line, you should be able to clear it up later. In practice, employers are sometimes supposed to check you are allowed to work (and for that would require some proof of your citizenship) but they don't necessarily need a passport or ID. What's typical on the other hand is that you have to provide an official proof of address (in the countries where you have to register your address with the authorities) and the local social security, insurance, or national tax number. Both of these will require dealing with the authorities and will be considerably more difficult, if not downright impossible, without a national ID card or passport (in fact it can even be difficult with a passport). I worked in multiple EU countries and I don't recall always having to present my ID to employers. I recall at least one instance (in Germany) where I could start working without one (it had just been stolen) and another one (in the Netherlands) where I started on the day after I arrived, without official address nor tax number (BSN). In both cases, I was expected to solve these issues within the first month and you risk a fine if you don't register within a week or two but it was neither illegal nor impossible to start working before all the formalities were completed. None of this means I would be completely comfortable about being months without a passport. But the main issue for you will be entering the country and what your employer's HR department is prepared to tolerate, not any sort of legal obligation to hold a passport to work. Note that in one of the cases I described above I went to the local consulate to get an emergency passport. It wouldn't have been possible back in my country of citizenship but there are some special procedures when you reside abroad. These rules change all the time and depend on your country of citizenship but that could be worth a try.
Exact wording might matter here, so I looked up the law. It says "a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are physically present in Canada". Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 28(2)(a). If you visit the Canadian side of the park, you're "physically present in Canada". It would therefore appear that this would meet the requirement. I am by no means an expert in Canadian immigration law, though.