4 ms·

> If US travelers are overstaying in any particular EU countries, I would expect and appreciate the same measures would be put in place. You mean US citizens f

> If US travelers are overstaying in any particular EU countries, I would expect and appreciate the same measures would be put in place. You mean US citizens from particular states? Because that's what the equivalent would be.

IshKebab 8y ago
Not really. States are not countries.
- askmike 8y ago
  Why does that matter? There are huge differences culturally and socioeconomically between different states (and even areas). States have very different laws with a "federal government" managing it all. I don't see how it's very different from EU member states and the EU in Brussel managing it all.
  - ameister14 8y ago
    There are a few ways it's very different. First is that the US has a national standard process for obtaining a passport that applies regardless of what state you're in. That is not the case for the EU. Second, not all EU member countries are parties to all the same treaties, again, unlike the US. Third, each EU country has its own domestic and international policy, restricted that may be as regards to international agreements on production. Fourth, as it is possible for a member state to enter or leave the EU, unlike the US, having a treaty with the EU as a whole makes the United States bound to potential new members that it did not have the opportunity to individually evaluate.
    - benj111 8y ago
      "potential new members that it did not have the opportunity to individually evaluate" Theres nothing stopping the US adding a state.
      - ameister14 8y ago
        Sure, but if that occurs the state is now no longer an individual and can never leave. States in the US are not individually parties to any agreements with other countries, so the treaty would have no additional members. The same thing applies if belgium decides to conquer a few more miles of land. You can leave the EU, no state leaves the USA.
        benj111 8y ago
        If a state wanted to leave the US it could. The US doesn't have an article 50, but if Texas declared independence, the rest of the US could choose to respect that. Of course the US could decide to send in the troops, but the EU could send the troops to the UK. There might be technical legal differences between the two examples, but at this level its more might is right and the winner writes the rules. Example The Ukraine. Whether a leaving EU party would remain part of a treaty would depend on whether it was individually named. The UK for example is having to negotiate all trade deals anew as current ones are EU only.
        ameister14 8y ago
        No, a state can't leave legally. There was a theoretical framework that would allow it in the Constitution, but that was decided 150 years ago. The EU has an explicit legal avenue for leaving. Also, no; the EU cannot send troops to the UK. Individual member states could do so, but not the EU. That may change in the future but at the moment it is how it is. I don't understand the Ukraine reference; in context it seems like you are saying they tried to leave the EU and the EU sent in troops, but that didn't happen. Could you elaborate?
        benj111 8y ago
        The Ukraine reference was referring to Russia annexing part of it, and the rest of the world doing nothing. As I said there might be technical legal differences, but practically speaking at this level they can be ignored. If Texas wants independence, it isn't going to be put off by US laws. The US will loudly point to those laws yes, but whether it does anything will be independent of those laws.
philwelch 8y ago
EU member states are sovereign countries, or at least that’s the pretense. It’s not equivalent.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  US states are also sovereign entities, or at least that's the pretense.
  - xxpor 8y ago
    States have never had separate sovereignty in international affairs.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > States have never had separate sovereignty in international affairs. And yet their separate sovereignty, allegedly restricted to “domestic” affairs, is why the US, through it's court system, allows US states to ignore US international commitments (notably, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations) in their execution of their criminal law.
      - ameister14 8y ago
        No, that is not why. It's because the US has two policies, domestic and international, and the application of treaties on domestic law is up to the federal government to execute. If the Congress chooses not to do so, there isn't a domestic law broken and so the states aren't bound. So actually, if they had separate sovereignty, the states would have to sign the treaties themselves and would potentially be more bound to them, not less.
      - masonic 8y ago
        No, the United States formally withdrew from the Optional Protocol to the Convention concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes 14 years ago. The cases alluded to in the parent comment (Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, Medellin v. Texas) came after the US withdrawal from the Optional Protocol.

IshKebab 8y ago

Not really. States are not countries.

askmike 8y ago
Why does that matter? There are huge differences culturally and socioeconomically between different states (and even areas). States have very different laws with a "federal government" managing it all. I don't see how it's very different from EU member states and the EU in Brussel managing it all.
- ameister14 8y ago
  There are a few ways it's very different. First is that the US has a national standard process for obtaining a passport that applies regardless of what state you're in. That is not the case for the EU. Second, not all EU member countries are parties to all the same treaties, again, unlike the US. Third, each EU country has its own domestic and international policy, restricted that may be as regards to international agreements on production. Fourth, as it is possible for a member state to enter or leave the EU, unlike the US, having a treaty with the EU as a whole makes the United States bound to potential new members that it did not have the opportunity to individually evaluate.
  - benj111 8y ago
    "potential new members that it did not have the opportunity to individually evaluate" Theres nothing stopping the US adding a state.
    - ameister14 8y ago
      Sure, but if that occurs the state is now no longer an individual and can never leave. States in the US are not individually parties to any agreements with other countries, so the treaty would have no additional members. The same thing applies if belgium decides to conquer a few more miles of land. You can leave the EU, no state leaves the USA.
      - benj111 8y ago
        If a state wanted to leave the US it could. The US doesn't have an article 50, but if Texas declared independence, the rest of the US could choose to respect that. Of course the US could decide to send in the troops, but the EU could send the troops to the UK. There might be technical legal differences between the two examples, but at this level its more might is right and the winner writes the rules. Example The Ukraine. Whether a leaving EU party would remain part of a treaty would depend on whether it was individually named. The UK for example is having to negotiate all trade deals anew as current ones are EU only.
        ameister14 8y ago
        No, a state can't leave legally. There was a theoretical framework that would allow it in the Constitution, but that was decided 150 years ago. The EU has an explicit legal avenue for leaving. Also, no; the EU cannot send troops to the UK. Individual member states could do so, but not the EU. That may change in the future but at the moment it is how it is. I don't understand the Ukraine reference; in context it seems like you are saying they tried to leave the EU and the EU sent in troops, but that didn't happen. Could you elaborate?
        benj111 8y ago
        The Ukraine reference was referring to Russia annexing part of it, and the rest of the world doing nothing. As I said there might be technical legal differences, but practically speaking at this level they can be ignored. If Texas wants independence, it isn't going to be put off by US laws. The US will loudly point to those laws yes, but whether it does anything will be independent of those laws.

philwelch 8y ago

EU member states are sovereign countries, or at least that’s the pretense. It’s not equivalent.

dragonwriter 8y ago
US states are also sovereign entities, or at least that's the pretense.
- xxpor 8y ago
  States have never had separate sovereignty in international affairs.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > States have never had separate sovereignty in international affairs. And yet their separate sovereignty, allegedly restricted to “domestic” affairs, is why the US, through it's court system, allows US states to ignore US international commitments (notably, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations) in their execution of their criminal law.
    - ameister14 8y ago
      No, that is not why. It's because the US has two policies, domestic and international, and the application of treaties on domestic law is up to the federal government to execute. If the Congress chooses not to do so, there isn't a domestic law broken and so the states aren't bound. So actually, if they had separate sovereignty, the states would have to sign the treaties themselves and would potentially be more bound to them, not less.
    - masonic 8y ago
      No, the United States formally withdrew from the Optional Protocol to the Convention concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes 14 years ago. The cases alluded to in the parent comment (Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, Medellin v. Texas) came after the US withdrawal from the Optional Protocol.