What’s Left Behind: The Limits of U.S. Debt Enforcement Abroad
Unlike criminal or immigration law, which can be enforced transnationally, American debt law stops at the border. This territorial limit creates structural risk in a legal landscape where immigration policy shifts frequently: sudden changes in lawful status for foreign nationals living in the United States can trigger mass departures, rendering any private debts they held effectively uncollectible. This issue is not about borrower intent or morality, but instead what happens to civil enforcement mechanisms when jurisdiction abruptly ends.
In the United States, consumer debt is a civil obligation rather than a criminal one.[i] To collect, a creditor must file suit, obtain a money judgment, and enforce that judgment under Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs execution of judgments.[ii] These procedures are enforceable while the debtor remains within U.S. borders or owns property subject to domestic jurisdiction, but they lose force once a debtor leaves and holds no attachable assets in the country.[iii]
A civil judgment issued by a U.S. court has no automatic legal effect abroad.[iv] In the absence of a treaty or federal statute requiring reciprocity, recognition of U.S. judgments in other countries depends on the doctrine of comity.[v] As the Supreme Court explained in Hilton v. Guyot, comity is a matter of “courtesy and good will,” not legal obligation.[vi] An American creditor seeking repayment from a debtor overseas must therefore begin a new proceeding in the foreign forum, convince that court to recognize the U.S. judgment, and satisfy its procedural and public-policy requirements.[vii] In some cases, translation, filing, and foreign-counsel costs may exceed the debt amount itself, making enforcement economically irrational for small-dollar consumer claims. As a result, creditors may not pursue recovery once the debtor relocates abroad. Anticipating those losses, lenders may adjust ex ante by tightening credit standards, raising interest rates, or declining to extend credit to borrowers whose immigration status could change quickly.[viii] The territorial limit of debt law therefore becomes an economic filter, shaping who can access credit and on what terms.
This outcome reflects a deeper structural problem. Immigration law governs who may enter or remain in the United States, while debt law governs private obligations within it. Once a debtor leaves permanently, either voluntarily or through deportation, these systems no longer overlap, and the law provides no bridge between them. Immigration policy thus becomes a mechanism that indirectly determines the reach of private-law enforcement, creating jurisdictional shocks rather than moral fault lines. International instruments such as the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention offer a potential solution.[ix] The Convention establishes a framework for recognizing and enforcing civil and commercial judgments among signatory states.[x] If ratified and implemented, it would allow U.S. judgments to be enforced abroad without full re-litigation and secure reciprocal treatment for foreign judgments in U.S. courts.[xi] Such a system would bring predictability to cross-border enforcement and close the gap that currently allows debt obligations to vanish at departure.
Until that framework exists, U.S. debt enforcement remains confined to national borders. Creditors can sue, win, and record valid judgments in the United States, but those judgments lose practical meaning once a debtor leaves the country permanently.
Emma Tanner is a staff member of Fordham International Law Journal Volume XLVIII.
[i] See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4) (2025) (prohibiting debt collectors from implying that nonpayment may result in arrest or imprisonment, underscoring that consumer debt is a civil, not criminal, obligation).
[ii] See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1) (governing procedure for execution of judgments and related enforcement actions).
[iii] See, e.g., Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 207 (1977) (holding that quasi in rem jurisdiction requires minimum contacts and thereby limits enforcement against absent defendants).
[iv] U.S. Dep’t of State, Enforcement of Judgments—Legal Considerations in Foreign Countries, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/internl-judicial-asst/Enforcement-of-Judgements.html (last visited Nov. 9, 2025).
[v] Dan Harris & Nadja Vietz, Will Your U.S. Judgment Be Enforced Abroad?, Harris Sliwoski (Blog) (Sept. 22, 2021), https://harris-sliwoski.com/blog/will-your-u-s-judgment-be-enforced-abroad/.
[vi] Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163–64 (1895).
[vii] U.S. Dep’t of State, supra note 4 (explaining that a U.S. judgment must be filed as a new action in the foreign forum and that recognition depends on the foreign court’s procedures and public policy rules).
[viii] See Fed. Reserve Bank of Chi., Financial Access for Immigrants: Lessons from Diverse Perspectives 7–9 (2006), https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/others/region/financial-access-for-immigrants/lessons-from-diverse-perspectives-pdf.pdf (discussing how perceived enforcement risk and legal uncertainty constrain credit access for non-citizen borrowers).
[ix] Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, July 2, 2019, Hague Conf. on Private Int’l L., https://assets.hcch.net/docs/806e290e-bbd8-413d-b15e-8e3e1bf1496d.pdf.
[x] Hague Conf. on Private Int’l L., Explanatory Report on the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention (2020), https://assets.hcch.net/docs/a1b0b0fc-95b1-4544-935b-b842534a120f.pdf.
[xi] Hague Conf. on Private Int’l L., Status Table—Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=137.
This is a student blog post and in no way represents the views of the Fordham International Law Journal.