In this thread there is a link to a page that says that it is illegal for a U.S. citizen to buy and/or smoke a Cuban cigar outside of the U.S. This is punishable by fines up to $250,000 and/or ten years in prison.
Ignore that this seems to violate Amendment VIII. Let’s say someone goes to Canada and buys and smokes a Cuban cigar. This is not a crime in Canada. Let’s say that a U.S. law enforcement agency finds out about it. Would that person, who has committed no crime according to the laws of the sovereign nation he is visiting, be eligible for political asylum in that country? (I use Cuban cigars as the example, but I suppose this could apply to drug use in a country with more lenient laws than the U.S. as well, or any other action that is a crime in the U.S. but not in the host country.)
You can still be prosecuted for violating US laws abroad, if the other country cooperates with US authorities. As an example, you can be prosecuted in the US if you sexually exploit a child in Thailand while on vacation. The Thai authorities will arrest you, and you will be tried in a US court.
IANAL
Johnny, I don’t get your point. A stupid law is not the same as political persecution. To be a political refugee you have to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of persecution based on religion, race, sex, etc. I don’t see where a cigar fits any of those categories.
But the problem here is the fact that purchasing Cuban cigars is not illegal in Canada. Child abuse is a crime in Thailand as well as the US. Most bilateral extradition treaties specify that the country where the offender was arrested is only obliged to extradite them if the action he is accused of constitutes a crime in both countries; this is referred to as the principle of double criminality.
The situation was similar during the Vietnam War when many American draft dodgers went to Canada, and Canada would not extradite them.
Of course the answer to the OP depends on the particular country in question, and this country’s asylum laws.
Poor choice of words. I was in a hurry to go offline.
Some countries won’t extradite a person to the U.S. if that person may receive a death penalty. Of course, smoking a cigar is not a crime in most places. If someone smokes a Cuban cigar, he is in violation of U.S. law. But if smoking a Cuban cigar is not a crime in the host country, and given that the U.S. penalties for committing this non-crime are severe – indeed, ‘cruel and unusual’ since th punishment far outweighs the ‘crime’ – would the host country (pick one; Canada is closest, but I’ll wager virtually any country in Europe allows people to smoke Cuban cigars or have other things that are not crimes there, but are in the U.S.) look at the petitioner and say, ‘This is nuts! We can’t send him back to the U.S., where he may spend ten years in prison for smoking a cigar! Permission to stay in the country granted.’?
By the reasoning of that law, U.S. Customs should start drug-testing every tourist returning from Amsterdam!
I just don’t see it happening. It may be against the law, but any prosecutor who tries to press charges will find himself laughed out of court, Federal or not.
This site (originally linked in the thread I linked to in the OP) says otherwise (bolding mine):
A note to the mods: This is not a question about how to break U.S. law, though it may appear to be. (Nor is it a debate about the stupidity of the law, the Eighth Amendment, etc.) The question is whether a person who does break the law could or would be sheltered by the host country for doing something that is not against any laws in the host country.
I think the answer is, probably not. Each nations sets their own standards for asylum claims, but, in general, they seem to be concerned mostly with persecution based upon race, religion, or the like, or else with people being subjected to torture or genocide. Even if the people of a foreign nation think the Cuban embargo is silly, or the penalties for violating it too harsh, I doubt they would consider you a refugee entitled to asylum.
FYI, you can find out some information about asylum rules for various countries here.
On a related note, I believe it is a pretty well-established principle of international law that you are subject to the laws of your own nation even when you go abroad. I’m sure there are limits and nuances to this (I’m not an expert in international law) but it’s not the case that you automatically cease to be subject to US law once you leave the country.
Now I’ve got it - you’re asking about extradition laws and refugee laws combined.
The usual rule about extradition is that of double criminality: most countries will only extradite a person to a foreign country if the crime that he’s wanted for in that country is also a crime in the country that’s being asked to extradite. Since Canada doesn’t have a similar embargo on Cuban products, I would be surprised if Canada would agree to extradite an American who smoked a Cuban cigar here.
But, that’s a different issue from the cigar-smoker having a right to stay in Canada. Canada might say, “We’ll not extradite you to the U.S., but that doesn’t give you the right to stay in Canada. You want to stay here, you have to apply for a permanent resident status, and that can only be done from outside Canada.” So the cigar smoker might have to leave to another country, say the U.K., and then apply to the Canadian authorities for permission to emigrate to Canada.
