Can someone who does not consider himself a US citizen be extradited and punished for a US felony crime due to a US citizenship? based off of the answer to this question: If one leaves the US to commit an act illegal in the US but legal in the country they travel to are they guilty of a crime? My first bizarre loophole question has to do with situations when someone is a US citizen, but consider themselves to be citizens of a different country with different laws.. Lets say you have two Individuals Bob, age 17, and Alice, who just turned 18, who live in, and are citizens of, some non-US country X, who are dating and have a sexual relationship. Say country X considers the age of consent 16, recognizes dual citizenship, and has an extradition treaty with the US... However, Alice happened to have been born on a cruise while the cruise ship was sailing through US territorial waters, thus making her a US citizen. She has never done any of the things which can cause someone to officially lose their US citizenship. Federal law states it is illegal for a US citizen to have sex with an individual under the age of 18 in a 'foreign place' I'm wondering what, of any of these scenarios, would be illegal due to the above law and could theoretically lead to either extrication, or to arrest when/if they ever visited the US at some later date (and if one is possible but not the later). Alice never realizing she was born actually born in US waters and never thinking of herself as a US citizen, and she never visited the US or engaged in any of the activities that cause her to lose citizenship If the above would not be sufficient would any of the below situations potentially lead to prosecution: Knew she was also a US citizen and had once claimed some minor right or privileged due to being a US citizen. Occasionally visits a friend or relative within the US for brief periods, using her US citizenship to allow easier entry to the US, without going through the steps of the VWP. Once stayed in the US with said friend/relative for slightly more then 90 days (beyond the length a regular tourist can stay) many years ago Had just spent spent 91 day summer vacation with her family relative before returning to her home country and having sexual relations with Bob. Alice and Bob both live in and were citizens of X but originally met when both were on a vacation to the US, ultimately having a sexual relationship in their home country. Would Alice potentially face prosecution, if not would this change if: The couple had (legally) engaged in sexual activity in the US prior to traveling back home The couple originally met in a state where sexual intercourse would have been illegal and so waited until returning home before having a sexual relationship? Alice bought bob plan ticket home, so she is officially 'transporting' bob? (section a of the above law applies) Alice and bob did have a relationship prior to their visit to the US which continued during their US visit. I realize that prosecutor discretion would usually result in no one choosing to prosecutor most if not all of the above cases, despite any legal right, but I'm asking rather they could face charges if a prosecutor did choose to move forward for some reason. I don't know why they would, maybe they are angry at Alice for some other legal act and this is their way of bending the laws to punish Alice in some way, maybe someone is putting pressure on Alice as some political maneuver to pressure her important father into something, maybe some prosecutor is just really gung-ho in prosecuting crimes for some reason whatever... *Edit: Looking back at the law I linked I realized that the definition of illicit sexual encounter, when outside of US territories, is effectively defined as a commercial sexual act, which negates all my examples since no one was being payed. However, I'm not interested in the specific law so much as how any law making activities on foreign territory illegal would be applied to citizens, and only used this law because it was the only one I knew of to reliable reference. For now umm...just pretend that illicit sexual act part of the law was not limited only to commercial acts when answering this question? I think the heart of what I'm trying to understand wouldn't change if that law were slightly different and that's easier then my rewriting all of the above. ps. A US citizen can travel to Angola and have sex with a 12 year old without any repercussion so long as he doesn't pay anyone if I'm reading the law right? That's something I really didn't need to know about. I knew I shouldn't have used that particular law as my example for this... pps. Also the definition of "any person can be charged with a criminal offense" seems extremely vague since it doesn't specify what country/state laws would apply for deciding if the person could be charged with a criminal offense, and I'm sure if you look far enough countries have outlawed all kind of things as sexual offenses, like being in the presence of a women who isn't wearing a hijab.
Ignorantia juris non excusat You can say I didn't know: it won't keep you out of jail. Rather than delving into the specifics of your question, I will keep my answer general. If you break the law, you break the law. It doesn't matter if: you don't know what the law is, you didn't think the law applied to you, you thought what you were doing was in accordance with the law. "Break the law" is an objective fact - there is no subjectivity involved. The state of mind of the person is, in most jurisdictions, irrelevant; the common law doctrine of mens rea or "the guilty mind" has almost universally been done away with. Now specific offences have specific defences. Generally, in underage sex cases genuine ignorance of the age of the person is one such defence. A court may decide that ignorance that the person was underage under US law may qualify for this defence.
Immigration and naturalization is pretty far out of my comfort zone, but I'm confident that the answer is yes. Although people often believe that a foreign embassy is considered the territory of that country, I don't know of any law that supports that belief. Instead, through the Vienna Convention, the embassy grounds remain the territory of the host state but are provided a variety of protections and immunities because of their diplomatic status. With the embassy on U.S. soil, the child would therefore satisfy the "born ... in the United States" prong of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.* But that would not be the end of the analysis, as birthright citizenship also requires not just that the child is born in the United States, but also that the child be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." So if the child were born to an American citizen who had entered the Indian embassy to get a travel visa, the child would be both born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, making it eligible for birthright citizenship. But if the child were born to Indian ambassador or to diplomatic staff, who would generally be able to claim diplomatic immunity, that child would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and would not be able to claim birthright citizenship. Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73, (1872) ("The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."). * I haven't been able to find any cases saying this explicitly, but all the cases involving children born in foreign embassies sort of skip over the question as though they just assume that the child was born in the United States. See, e.g., Raya v. Clinton, 703 F. Supp. 2d 569 (W.D. Va. 2010); Nikoi v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 939 F.2d 1065 (D.C. Cir. 1991) These cases also go on to conclude that those children are not citizens of the United States, because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Collateral estoppel is inapplicable in both scenarios. The first scenario leaves no room for issues of collateral estoppel. Whether or not charges for "no-registration" proceed would strictly depend on whether the statute sanctions an offender's mere intent not to register his or her new address. If the elements of the claim require both (1) actual change of address, and (2) intent not to register it, the fact that the woman in your hypothetical scenario did not actually move precludes any claims about her failure to register what she [unavailingly] alleged to be her "new" address. In the alternative, where mere "intent not to register" meets all the prima facie elements for the new charges, her relocation (if any) as well as the prior judgment on grounds of the Fourth Amendment are irrelevant to these new charges. In the second hypothetical scenario, collateral estoppel is precluded from the standpoint that issues are not identical and therefore do not involve double jeopardy. See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436,, 444, 448 (1970). HHS's prior failure to produce FOIA records did not involve litigation, does not negate, and is not essential to the fact, that the physician committed fraud. VanDEVENTER v. MNB, 172 Mich.App. 456, 463 (1988) ("Collateral estoppel conclusively bars only issues "actually litigated" in the first action."). Edited to add/correct reference (see comments) Beyond these hypothetical scenarios, it should be obvious that collateral estoppel may apply to criminal cases. This is reflected, for instance, in footnote 4 of Yeager v. U.S., 129 S.Ct. 2360; 557 U.S. 110 (2009): Although the doctrine of collateral estoppel had developed in civil litigation, we had already extended it to criminal proceedings when Ashe was decided. Another treaty of interest might be Kennelly, Precluding the Accused: Offensive Collateral Estoppel in Criminal Cases (cited here).
When the person has been naturalised, that is, when the US government officially recognises them as a US citizen. There are many pathways to citizenship and the ones on the linked page are pretty typical across the world although the details vary: residence for a period with or without marriage to a citizen service descent.
Legally, they cannot just nab you. The usual (?) option is that authorities in the US request extradition pursuant to the US-Mexico extradition treaty via the Department of Justice, and if the paperwork is in order, this can result in a Provisional Arrest Warrant (and arrest) in Mexico, which will be carried out by the Mexican federal police. This is true whether or not you go to the US consulate. After a hearing in the Mexican courts you might be extradited (or not, but DoJ presumably doesn't proceed with cases that they will lose). Extradition is not possible for every offense, so you would have to look at the offenses listed in the treaty, and whatever the Arizona warrant is about. You can't be extradited for parking tickets, you can be extradited for murder: whatever it is, it has to be a crime in both places, and has to be subject to a minimum one year imprisonment. Also, if you are a Mexican citizen as well, you cannot be extradited unless the Mexican authorities agree to (whereas there is no choice if you are only a US citizen). An alternative is deportation, which would overcome limitations related to extradition, but it's not clear what the requirements for deportation from Mexico are (typically illegal presence, unclear whether Mexican authorities can or would try an end-run around official extradition procedure). Although consulates enjoy a degree of immunity from local law, a consulate in Mexico is still Mexican territory, subject to Mexican law. If you are in the consulate, Mexican authorities cannot enter without permission to arrest you. They also cannot arrest you without a warrant (see Art. 16 of the Mexican constitution). Consular staff also cannot arrest you (if you are not caught flagrante delicto). Nor are they authorized to execute a US warrant in Mexico (thus they have to go through the process of judicial review to send you back to the US, and why a Mexican warrant is required). See this Q&amp;A, relevant to the status of embassies: what is relevant to us is that both the US and Mexico operate under the rule of law, so the issues surrounding Syrian refugees in the Syrian embassy do not arise here.
Extradition is done for specific charges. A principle found in virtually all extradition treaties called the &quot;rule of specialty&quot; says that the country requesting extradition may not prosecute the defendant for any crimes except the ones for which extradition was granted without the permission of the extraditing country, except for crimes committed after the defendant is extradited. This protection expires once the defendant has been released from jail and had a fair chance to leave the country. The rule of specialty doesn't necessarily mean the other charge needs to be dropped, but the defendant can't be tried for it as long as the rule applies. If they're later in the country for another reason (or don't leave when they have the chance), they can potentially be rearrested for the other crime. But as long as they're only in the country because they were extradited, they can't be tried for any other past crimes without the extraditing country's permission.
I assume that you were not born in the United States, and that your mother was/is not a US citizen. If these assumptions are incorrect, the answer below does not apply. A child born outside the United States to a US citizen and a non-US citizen will be a US citizen so long as the parent spent a certain amount of time physically present in the United States. For a child born before 1986 to gain US citizenship through a single parent, that parent would have had to spend 10 years total in the USA, of which at least 5 years were after the parent’s 14th birthday. So if your father was a citizen and lived in the US until at least 1966 or his 19th birthday (whichever was later), you would be a US citizen. However, the document you describe does not prove that your father was a US citizen. Instead, it only proves that your father was admitted to the US as an permanent resident (a so-called “green card”). If your father did become a citizen, he would have received a Certificate of Naturalization. This would be necessary to prove your father’s US citizenship and, by extension, yours.
Short Answer Is unlawful entry into Mexico a crime? In the U.S. there is a federal law making unauthorized entry into the country illegal. Does Mexico have similar law? Yes. Illegal entry into Mexico is illegal but, it is not a crime. The form of the question suggest that the person asking it may not be familiar with the distinction between something being &quot;illegal&quot; and something being a &quot;crime&quot;. The notion that they are the same is a common misconception. If so, does anyone know of English translations? An English translation of Mexico's immigration law can be found here. Long Answer Illegal entry into Mexico is illegal and has legally authorized consequences, although it is not a crime. Civil Consequences For Immigration Law Violations In Mexico Civil detention of unlawful entrants into Mexico is authorized by Articles 99-105 of Mexico's Migration Act of 2011. Deportation is authorized by Articles 114-125. There are civil fines for violating immigration laws in Mexico based on a multiple of the minimum wage, ranging from 20 days of minimum wage to 10,000 days of minimum wage, depending upon the offense and its severity (one day's minimum wage is 88.36 pesos). Articles 143-158. So fines range from 1767.2 pesos to 883,600 pesos for immigration violations. Today's exchange rate is 19.4 pesos to $1. So, these fines range from $91 USD to $45,546 USD. Immigration Related Crimes In Mexico Immigration crimes are found at Articles 159-162. According to the linked translation, these crimes are as follows: Article 159. A term of eight to 16 years in prison and a fine ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 days of the general minimum wage in effect in the Federal District will be imposed upon an individual who: I. Traffics one or more individuals in order to enter another country without the corresponding documentation and for the purpose of directly or indirectly obtaining a profit; II. Introduces one or more foreigners into Mexico without the corresponding documentation and for the purpose of directly or indirectly obtaining a profit; or III. Lodges or transports one or more foreigners in or through Mexico for the purpose of avoiding migratory inspection and in order to directly or indirectly obtain a profit. In order to actualize the crime provided for in this article, it will be necessary to demonstrate that the offender's intent is to obtain an indisputable, current, or impending economic benefit in cash or in kind. Penalties will not be imposed upon individuals of renowned moral rectitude who, for strictly humanitarian reasons and without seeking any benefit, assist an individual who has entered the country in an unlawful manner, even when such individuals [of renowned moral rectitude] receive donations or resources for continuing their humanitarian work. Article 160. The penalties indicated in the foregoing article will be doubled when the aforementioned conducts are carried out: I. With respect to children and adolescents, or when a child or adolescent who is not able to comprehend the significance of the action is induced to, motivated to, assisted in, or obligated to conduct any of the behaviors described in the previous article; II. Under conditions or using means that place or could place health, integrity, safety, or life at risk or that allow for inhumane or degrading treatment of the individuals affected by such conduct; or III. When the perpetrator or orchestrator is a public servant. Article 161. A public servant who assists, conceals, or prompts any person to violate the provisions of this Law in order to obtain a direct or indirect profit in cash or in kind will be sentenced to a term of four to eight years in prison and a fine ranging from 500 to 1,000 days of the general minimum wage in effect in the Federal District. Article 162. In regard to the crimes indicated in this Law, the Federal Office of the Public Prosecutor will exercise the criminal action on its own initiative. The Institute is obligated to provide the Federal Office of the Public Prosecutor with all elements necessary for prosecuting these crimes. So basically, the only immigration crimes in Mexico are human trafficking and immigration related bribery. Illegal entry into Mexico, per se, even if it is intentional, while it is illegal and may justify civil immigration detention, deportation and/or a civil fine, is not a crime. Of course, one could conceivably commit other crimes in connection with the immigration process (e.g. assaulting a government official, forging official documents), but illegal entry into Mexico, per se is never a crime, unlike the situation in U.S. immigration law, where illegal entry is both illegal and also a crime in many (but not all) circumstances.