holding that a statute that "protects the borders of the United States against illegal immigration" would apply to extraterritorial acts by foreign nationals despite the lack of a clear statement of extraterritorial application because "`the natural inference from the character of the offense[s]' is that an extraterritorial location `would be a probable place for [their] commission,'" quoting United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 99, 43 S.Ct. 39, 67 L.Ed.2d 149 (1922)
How later courts described this case
- holding that a statute that "protects the borders of the United States against illegal immigration" would apply to extraterritorial acts by foreign nationals despite the lack of a clear statement of extraterritorial application because "`the natural inference from the character of the offense[s]' is that an extraterritorial location `would be a probable place for [their] commission,'" quoting United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 99, 43 S.Ct. 39, 67 L.Ed.2d 149 (1922)
- explaining, without deciding, that even if due process requires a sufficient nexus, the indictment in that case “clearly alleged that appellants intended to smuggle aliens into the United States, thereby causing effects there” so that “there was no arguable facial constitutional infirmity in the indictment”
- concluding that statutes prohibiting inducement of aliens to enter United States illegally applied extraterritorially because, inter alia, they were "fundamentally international" in "focus and effect"
- reasoning that “[m]any incomplete attempts” to bring aliens to the United States “occur outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States” because the offender “will ordinarily also be outside the United States during the attempt”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I join all of the court’s opinion except its statement that by pleading guilty a defendant waives any claim that the offense to which he pled guilty is not a crime. United States v. Idowu, 105 F.3d 728 (D.C.Cir.1997), suggests a view contrary to the court’s. The issue was neither briefed nor argued and, for the reasons the court gives, did not need to be reached.