5 ms·
The point was that the two Amazon employees were citizens of India and took the bribes in India, so they were outside US jurisdiction.
by alasdair_ 6y ago
The point was that the two Amazon employees were citizens of India and took the bribes in India, so they were outside US jurisdiction.
- tsimionescu 6y agoThan why not say 'in India', instead of 'Indian'? There are many Indian people living and working in the US, with US citizenship. Conversely, if they had been US citizens ('Americans') living in India, the legal problem may have been similar. Saying 'low-level Indian contractors' brings to mind a specific, at least somewhat xenophobic, image,and is very often used very casually.
- cscurmudgeon 6y agoWell said. There are Indians under US jurisdiction. It is painful to see people contorting themselves to defend xenophobia and casual racism.
- aww_dang 6y agoLegally speaking, US citizens would still be liable.
- nkrisc 6y agoThe vast majority of people living on India are Indian, no?
- dwaltrip 6y agoAlmost everyone living in India is Indian, but not all Indians live in India.
- nkrisc 6y agoBut if I were a betting man, I'd wager that the vast majority of Indians in the world do live in India, based purely on the population total of India.
- dwaltrip 6y agoTrue. But most of the people commenting here in this thread are not from India, so most of the Indians we interact with are probably not in India.
- alasdair_ 6y agoYou seem to have assumed that the poster is talking about ethnicity or heritage rather than citizenship or geographical location. One of the things that I like about HN over (say) Reddit is the guidelines for comments work pretty well. I’m particularly thinking of “Assume good faith.” - absent any other evidence, it’s better to assume that other posters are not racist assholes if you’re not sure if someone is talking about citizenship versus ethnicity.