Extradition

The transfer of an accused from one state or country to another state or country that seeks to place the a
ccused on trial.
Extradition comes into play when a person charged with a crime under state statutes flees the state. An in
dividual chargedwith a federal crime may be moved from one state to another without any extradition proc
edures.
Article IV, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution provides that upon the demand of the governor of the prosec
uting state, astate to which a person charged with a crime has fled must remove the accused "to the Stat
e having Jurisdiction of theCrime." When extraditing an accused from one state to another, most states fol
low the procedures set forth in the UniformCriminal Extradition Act, which has been adopted by most juris
dictions. A newer uniform act, the Uniform Extradition andRendition Act, is designed to streamline the extr
adition process and provide additional protections for the person sought, butby 1995, it had been adopted
by only one state.
Extradition from one state to another takes place on the order of the governor of the Asylum state (the st
ate where theaccused is located). The courts in the asylum state have a somewhat limited function in extr
aditing the accused to the statewhere she or he is charged with a crime. They determine only whether the
extradition documents are in order (e.g., whetherthey allege that the accused has committed a crime and
that she or he is a fugitive) and do not consider the merits of thecharge, since the trial of the accused will t
ake place in the state demanding extradition.
In some cases, courts considering extradition from one state to another may go beyond the procedural for
malities and lookat the merits of the criminal charge or at allegations by the accused that extradition will le
ad to harmful consequencesbeyond a prison term. These cases are rare because under the U.S. Constitu
tion, states are not given the power to reviewthe underlying charge. This problem occurred in New Mexic
o ex rel. Ortiz v. Reed, 524 U.S. 151, 118 S. Ct. 1860, 141 L.Ed. 2d 131 (1998), in which the state of New
Mexico refused to return a fugitive to the state of Ohio.
The Supreme Court has identified that a court considering an extradition case can only decide four issues
: (1) whether theextradition documents on their face are in order, (2) whether the petitioner has been char
ged with a crime in the demandingstate, (3) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for t
he extradition, and (4) whether the petitioner is afugitive. The New Mexico Supreme Court in Reed deter
mined that the person subject to the extradition, Manuel Ortiz, wasnot a "fugitive," and refused to honor th
e extradition order from the state of Ohio. The Supreme Court found that New Mexicocourts had overstep
ped their authority and ordered the New Mexico Supreme Court to return the fugitive.
Extradition from one nation to another is handled in a similar manner, with the head of one country deman
ding the return of afugitive who is alleged to have committed a crime in that country. Extradition between
nations is usually based on a treatybetween the country where the accused is currently located and the c
ountry seeking to place him or her on trial for analleged crime. The United States has entered into extradit
ion treaties with most countries in Europe and Latin America, andwith a few countries in Africa and Asia.
To determine whether an individual can be extradited pursuant to a treaty, the language of the particular tr
eaty must beexamined. Some treaties list all the offenses for which a person can be extradited; others pro

vide a minimum standard ofpunishment that will render an offense extraditable. The extradition treaties of
most countries fall into the second category,since treaties in the first category must be revised completely
if an offense is added to the list.
Even if they do not specifically say so, most treaties contemplate that for an offense to be subject to extra
dition, it must bea crime under the law in both jurisdictions. This is called the doctrine of double criminality
. The name by which the crime isdescribed in the two countries need not be the same, nor must the punis
hment be the same; simply, the requirement ofdouble criminality is met if the particular act charged is crim
inal in both jurisdictions (Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309, 42 S.Ct. 469, 66L. Ed. 956 [1922]).
The doctrine of specialty is also often applied even when not specifically stated in a treaty. It means that o
nce a person hasbeen surrendered, he or she can be prosecuted or punished only for the crimes for whic
h extradition was requested, and notfor any other crimes committed prior to the surrender. The doctrine w
as first established over a hundred years ago, in UnitedStates v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 7 S. Ct. 234, 30
L. Ed. 425 (1886). In Rauscher, the defendant, a U.S. citizen, wasextradited from Great Britain for the bea
ting death of a ship's crew member on a U.S. vessel but was indicted and tried on acharge of Cruel and
Unusual
Punishment based on the same act. Although the specialty principle was not specificallyenumerated in t
he treaty that allowed the extradition, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an accused "shall not be arrested
ortried for any other offense than that with which he was charged in those proceedings."
Extradition treaties often provide exceptions under which a nation can refuse to surrender a fugitive soug
ht by anothernation. Many nations will not extradite persons charged with certain political offenses, such a
s Treason, Sedition, andEspionage. Refusal to extradite under such circumstances is based on the poli
cy that a nation that disagrees with ordisapproves of another nation's political system will be reluctant to r
eturn for prosecution a dissident who likewise has beencritical of the other nation. But, of course, not ever
y criminal act will necessarily be protected. For example, some treatiesprovide that certain crimes, such a
s the assassination of a head of a foreign government, do not constitute political offensesthat are exempt
from extradition. The rise in airplane Hijacking, Terrorism, and hostage taking in the late twentieth centu
ryled many nations to enter into multilateral conventions in which the signing countries mutually agreed to
extradite individualswho committed such crimes.
Since the 1980s, the international extradition process has been viewed by law enforcement authorities as
too time-consuming, expensive, and complicated. It has also been criticized for frequently failing to bring f
ugitives to justice. As aresult, some countries, including the United States, have turned to abduction to ret
urn a fugitive to a nation to be tried.Although its legality is questionable, abduction has sometimes been ju
stified to combat drug trafficking and to ensurenational security. In 1989, for example, the United States in
vaded Panama in an attempt to bring General Manuel Noriega tothe United States to face charges relate
d to drug trafficking. The GEORGE H. W. BUSH administration asserted that the invasionwas necessary to pr
otect national interests in the Panama Canal and to prevent an armed attack by Panama.
Noriega was eventually brought to the United States to stand trial, where he contested the validity of the f
ederal districtcourt's jurisdiction over him (United States v. Noriega, 746 F. Supp. 1506 [S.D. Fla. 1990]). T
he court rejected hiscontention, holding that Noriega could be tried in the United States, despite the mean
s that were used to bring him to trial.The court declined to address the underlying legality of Noriega's cap
ture, concluding that, as an unrecognized head ofstate, Noriega lacked standing (the legal right) to challe

nge the invasion as a violation of International

Law in the absenceof protests from the legitimate government of Panama over the charges leveled again
st him.
In United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 112 S. Ct. 2188, 119 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1992), the Supre
me Court held thatHumberto Alvarez-Machain's forcible abduction did not prohibit his criminal trial in the
United States. Alvarez, a citizen ofMexico and a physician, was accused by the U.S. government of partic
ipating in the Kidnapping, torture, and murder of aU.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration agent and the agent's airplane pilot, and was indicted for these crimes. Alvarezwas later
KIDNAPPED from his office and flown by private plane to El Paso, Texas. The Mexican government objecte
d to theabduction and protested it as a violation of the extradition treaty between the United States and M
exico. It asked that thelaw enforcement agents responsible for the kidnapping be extradited to Mexico, bu
t the United States refused to do so.
Alvarez sought to dismiss the indictment, claiming that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction to try hi
m because hisabduction violated the extradition treaty. The district court agreed and dismissed the indict
ment. The U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the abduction violated the treat
y's underlying purpose of providing a legal meansfor bringing a person to the United States to face crimin
al charges. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the lowercourts' use of the treaty as the basis for
prohibiting Alvarez's trial. Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, writing for the majority, foundin the treaty no provi
sions stating that abductions were forbidden. He further maintained that the treaty was "not the onlyway in
which one country may gain custody of a national of the other country for the purposes of prosecution." T
hus, heconcluded, the abduction did not prohibit Alvarez's trial in a U.S. court on criminal charges. Justice
John Paul Stevens fileda strong dissenting opinion in which Justices HARRY BLACKMUN and Sandra Day
O'Connor joined. According to the dissent,Alvarez's abduction was a gross violation of international law, i
ntruding on the territorial integrity of Mexico.
Other nations have also struggled with high-profile extradition cases. For example, in 2000, officials in Brit
ain refused toextradite former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to Spain where he would face trial for th
ousands of murders and otheratrocities during his rule from 1973 to 1990. While, Pinochet had absolute I
mmunity from prosecution in Chile, othernations, including Spain, were free to charge him with his allege
d crimes. When Britain refused to extradite him, he was ableto return to Chile and avoid prosecution.

Deportation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Deported" redirects here. For the 1950 film, see Deported (film).
For the process of transferring criminals between countries, see extradition.

Prisoners and gendarms on the road toSiberia, 1845

1891 certificate of identity of theImperial Government of China. The case to which this document pertains is
representative of the many Chinese deportation case files within the records of the US District court, Los
Angeles County, California.

Deportation is the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country.[1] Today the
expulsion of foreign nationals is usually called deportation, whereas the expulsion of nationals is
called banishment, exile, or penal transportation.[2] Deportation is an ancient practice, for
example: Khosrau I, Sassanid King of Persia, deported 292,000 citizens, slaves, and conquered
people to the new city of Ctesiphon in 542 C.E.[3]
Contents
[hide]

1Military occupation

2External deportation

3Internal deportation

4Colonial deportations

5Deportation in the Holocaust

6Expulsion and the legality of collective expulsion

7See also

8Notes

9References

Military occupation[edit]
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the deportation of people into or out of
occupied territory under belligerent military occupation:[4]
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied
territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are
prohibited, regardless of their motive. ... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its
own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

External deportation[edit]

Ethnic Germans being deported from the Sudetenland in the aftermath of World War II

All countries reserve the right to deport foreigners, even those who are longtime residents. In
general, foreigners who have committed serious crimes, entered the country illegally, overstayed
and/or broken the conditions of their visa, or otherwise lost their legal status to remain in the country
may be administratively removed or deported.[5]
In many cases, deportation is done by the government's executive apparatus, and as such is often
subject to a simpler legal process (or none), with reduced or no right to trial, legal representation
or appeal due to the subject's lack of citizenship. For example, in the 1930s, during the Great
Depression, more stringent enforcement of immigration laws were ordered by the executive branch

of the U.S. government, which led to the expulsion of up to 2 million Mexican nationals from the
United States.[6] In 1954, the executive branch of the U.S. government implemented Operation
Wetback, a program created in response to public hysteria about immigration and immigrants from
Mexico.[7] Operation Wetback led to the deportation of nearly 1.3 million Mexicans from the United
States.[8][9]
Already in natural law of the 18th century, philosophers agreed that expulsion of a nation from the
territory which it historically inhabits is not allowable. [10] In the late 20th century, the United
Nations drafted a code related to crimes against humanity; Article 18 of the Draft Code of Crimes
Against the Peace and Security of Mankind declares "large scale" arbitrary or forcible deportation to
be a crime against humanity.[11]
Deportation often requires a specific process that must be validated by a court or senior government
official. It should not be confused with administrative removal, which is the process of a country
denying entry to an individual at a port of entry and expelling them. [12]

Internal deportation[edit]

Striking miners and others being deported at gunpoint from Lowell, Arizona, on July 12, 1917, during theBisbee
Deportation.

Deportation can also happen within a state, when (for example) an individual or a group of people is
forcibly resettled to a different part of the country. If ethnic groups are affected by this, it may also be
referred to as population transfer. The rationale is often that these groups might assist the enemy in
war or insurrection. For example, the American state of Georgia deported 400 female mill workers
during theCivil War on the suspicion they were Northern sympathizers.[13]
During World War II, Joseph Stalin (see Population transfer in the Soviet Union) ordered the
deportation of Volga Germans, Chechens,Crimean Tatars, Ukrainians and others to areas away from
the front, including central and western Soviet Union. Some historians have estimated the number of
deaths from the deportation to be as high as 1 in 3 among some populations. [14][15] On February 26,
2004 theEuropean Parliament characterized deportations of the Chechens as an act of genocide.[16]
The Soviet Union also used deportation, as well as instituting the Russian language as the only
working language and other such tactics, to achieve Russification of its occupied territories (such as
the Baltic nations and Bessarabia). In this way, it removed the historical ethnic populations and
repopulated the areas with Russian nationals. The deported people were sent to remote, scarcely

populated areas or to GULAG labour camps. It has been estimated that, in their entirety, internal
forced migrations affected some 6 million people.[17][18] Of these, some 1 to 1.5 million perished.[19][20]
After World War II approximately 50,000 Hungarians were deported from
South Slovakia by Czechoslovak authorities to the Czech borderlands in order to alter the ethnic
composition of the region.[21] Between 110,000 and 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans on
the West Coast,[22] as well as about 3,000 Italian American[23] and about 11,500 German
American families,[24] were forcibly resettled from the coasts to internment camps in interior areas of
the United States of America by President Franklin Roosevelt.[25]
In the late 19th and early 20th century, deportation of union members and labor leaders was not
uncommon in the United States during strikes or labor disputes.[26] For an example, see the Bisbee
Deportation.[27]

Colonial deportations[edit]
Deporting individuals to a colony is a special case that is neither completely internal nor external.
Such deportation has occurred in history. For example, Britain deported religious objectors and
criminals to America in large numbers before 1776,[28] and transported criminals to Australia between
1787 and 1855.[29]

Deportation in the Holocaust[edit]

People being deported during theWarsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Nazi policies openly deported homosexuals, Jews, Poles, and Romani from their native places of
residence to Nazi concentration campsor extermination camps set up at a considerable distance
from their original residences. This was the policy known as the "Final Solution". The historical term
"deportation", occurring frequently instead of the religious term Holocaust in various locations, thus
means in effect "sent to their deaths" as distinct from deportations in other times and places. [citation
needed] [30]

Expulsion and the legality of collective expulsion[edit]

Expulsion is an act by a public authority to remove a person or persons against his or her will from
the territory of that state. A successful expulsion of a person by a country is called a deportation. [31]

According to the European Court of Human Rights, collective expulsion is any measure compelling
non-nationals, as a group, to leave a country, except where such a measure is taken on the basis of
a reasonable and objective examination of the particular case of each individual non-national of the
group. Mass expulsion may also occur when members of an ethnic group are sent out of a state
regardless of nationality. Collective expulsion, or expulsion en masse, is prohibited by several
instruments of international law.[32]