|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 19, 2014 17:29:37 GMT
What, in your opinion, is the difference between "legal tender" and "lawful money"? (It sounds very much like the difference, say, between a big car and a large automobile.)
Legal tender includes both species coinage (coined lawful money) and promissory (Federal Reserve) notes that the laws of the nation require the people to accept both as legal tender currency of the United States. You cannot, under the law, refuse to accept payment in American Eagle coins if someone is crazy enough and wants to pay a debt to you in American Eagle coinage.
The real difference is between "money" and a "promise of payment in money" when we address legal tender of the United States. Both the "promise of payment in money" and the actual "money" can be "legal tender" under the law.
The government cannot "create" money and has no authorization or ability to "create" money as money is simply a commodity generally accepted for exchange to facilitate the barter system. Gold, silver, and copper are traditionally forms of "money" historically as they have proven to be the best commodity to use to facilitate the barter system.
Under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 the Congress is authorized to "coin money" and the "coining process" is the taking of metal (gold, silver, copper historically) and manufacturing certified tokens containing a specific amount of the metal (money). The laws then can require people to accept this "coined money" as a medium of exchange and that makes it "legal tender money" for the nation. For example a Canadian Gold Maple Leaf is "coined money" but it is not "legal tender" in the United States.
Article I Section 8 Clause 1 authorized the Congress to borrow on the credit of the United States and it can, based upon the Supreme Court decision on Juillard v Greenman, issue "promissory notes" based upon this authority and can, under the law, require acceptance of these notes as a medium of exchange and that makes them "legal tender" of the United States. The "promissory note" is redeemable in the "lawful legal tender money" of the United States under the US Constitution.
We can also note that nothing in the US Constitution limits the People from using "money" that is not legal tender and that has happened during the history of the United States. For example during to California Gold Rush there wasn't enough "lawful legal tender money" (i.e. US coinage) so gold dust and nuggets were used more often than gold coins that were in short supply. The "gold" was the money and it was freely used as a medium of exchange in commerce. When the United States was founded the general "money" being used was Spanish coinage that was not "legal tender money" in the United States but it was still money.
Of note since 1977 the "gold clause" can once again be imposed by contract. If, by way of example, you were an employer and I could get you to agree I would gladly work for you at $7.25/hr in American Gold Eagle coinage as it would equate to $174/hr in purchasing power at $1,200/oz (i.e. $50 Gold Eagle worth $1,200 in Federal Reserve notes divided by 50 for the "dollar amount" and multipled by $7.25 to obtain "per hour" purchasing power in Federal Reserve notes). An enterprise can also purchase a "commodity" in Federal Reserve notes and sell it at a loss in American Gold Eagles. As you can imagine there can be huge tax advantages to that. For example I can purchase a new Mercedes in gold Eagles and based upon the "exchange rate" I'd only pay $2,500 (in gold coinage) for a $60,000 Mercedes. I'd only have to pay sales tax on the $1,200 I paid and the dealer would report a loss on the sale because the car probably cost them about $50,000 but they only sold it for $1,200.
Additionally if a person purchase American Gold Eagles with Federal Reserve notes they can report it as a "loss" on their income taxes (according to a discussion I had with the IRS). Of course if you then sell the American Gold Eagle you have to claim the "income" from the sale as it's a two-way street. According to the IRS a $50 Federal Reserve note and a $50 American Eagle are identical from an accounting standpoint.
In the end though I'd highly recommend reading the Supreme Court decision in Juillard v Greenman because it lays out extensive arguments and considerations related to "lawful money" and "legal tender" and it is really the Constitutional precedent that our Congress and government are ignoring today.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=110&page=421
You make some very interesting points; and note some things with which I had not been previously familiar. Still, as a purely practical matter (not as an academic theory), what is the everyday difference between "legal tender" and "lawful money"? |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 19, 2014 17:41:28 GMT
Although prudential considerations may arise, I do not believe that it was a good thing, as a matter of principle, to have granted amnesty to those who evaded the draft by fleeing to Canada. (Just as I do not believe in the principle of ex post facto laws--laws created to criminalize behavior that had been legal at the time that it occurred--neither do I believe in legalizing actions retroactively.) The US Constitution may not "authorize" immigration quotas being enacted by Congress; but it certainly does not prohibit these, either.
Let us look at this by way of example.
We could have a law like one you mentioned in another thread where it's a criminal offense to instigate a person to masturbate. A person is convicted of this offense and sent to prison for ten years but later this year the law is repealed because it's a stupid law. Should the person that's been sentenced to ten years be left to rot in prison or should they be released because the crime they committed in no longer a crime?
We can also note that once a law establishing criminal offense is repealed then a person is no longer prosecuted under the law. If we change the immigration laws to allow lawful immigration without quotas then we cannot prosecute a person that violated to law prior to repeal.
I would once again argue that, according to the founders of American including Washington, Madison and Jeffersion, our "quota system" violates an unenumerated Right of the Person protected by the 9th Amendment. I would also argue that your position is juxataposed to a belief that powers are granted to Congress by enumeration in the Constitution and that the "quota" system violates the 10th Amendments "reserve power to the people" as open immigration is not prohibited by the US Constitution (nor can the States prohibit open immigration). Immigration is both a Right and a Power of the People protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments respectively.
Remember you can't claim to embrace "conservative" Constitutional government and the be a "progressive" in interpeting the powers of the Federal government where such powers are not enumerated. A "conservative" interpretation requires that the "power" be enumerated and in alignment with "original intent" where clearly the founder of America oppose restrictions on immigration for peaceful purposes and did not delegate any authority to Congress in the US Constitution to restrict immigration for peaceful purposes.
You continue to speak of unlimited and unregulated immigration "for peaceful purposes," as if the qualifier should make it perfectly acceptable to me. It does not. As for the case you mentioned (which I had brought up in another thread) of the person who is sent to prison for 14 years--I think that is what the law allowed--for having instructed a person under the age of 21 to "commit masturbation": I am deeply conflicted. On a purely visceral level, I simply find it repellent that anyone should be imprisoned for such an innocuous matter. Still, I would not favor (on principle) an ex post facto application in reverse. (Perhaps the ideal solution, in this case, would be a full pardon by the governor.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 19, 2014 23:51:50 GMT
You make some very interesting points; and note some things with which I had not been previously familiar. Still, as a purely practical matter (not as an academic theory), what is the everyday difference between "legal tender" and "lawful money"?
The everyday difference is that we don't use "lawful money" and all of our pricing is based upon "legal tender" currency.
That doesn't imply I can't walk into a Mercedes dealership and purchase a new $60,000 Mercedes for $2,500 in American Gold Eagles though. I just have to convince the owner of the Mercedes dealership to agree to the negotiated price that will be paid in the "lawful money" of the United States. It isn't that hard to do because both of us would benefit from the tax laws (i.e. I only pay sales tax in $2,500 and he "loses money" on the difference between the price he paid in "legal tender" currency he paid for the car and the $2,500 in "lawful money" he sold it for).
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 19, 2014 23:59:02 GMT
You continue to speak of unlimited and unregulated immigration "for peaceful purposes," as if the qualifier should make it perfectly acceptable to me. It does not. As for the case you mentioned (which I had brought up in another thread) of the person who is sent to prison for 14 years--I think that is what the law allowed--for having instructed a person under the age of 21 to "commit masturbation": I am deeply conflicted. On a purely visceral level, I simply find it repellent that anyone should be imprisoned for such an innocuous matter. Still, I would not favor (on principle) an ex post facto application in reverse. (Perhaps the ideal solution, in this case, would be a full pardon by the governor.)
There is a huge difference between immigration for peaceful immigration (that benefits the immigrant and the country they immigrate to equally) and immigration for nefarious criminal reasons such as to commit acts of terrorism, to rob banks, or murder people.
I would agree with you that a person incarcerated for a law like the masterbation law should not have their conviction reversed nor would that happen. I would agree that release should be based upon a commutation of sentence or by a pardon from the governor.
Would we both also agree that if a person violated the "masterbation" law when it was in effect but not prosecuted and then it was repealed that they should not be prosecuted once it's repealed? In short, once the law is repealed should prosecutions continue or can they even continue once the law is repealed?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 20, 2014 15:53:03 GMT
You make some very interesting points; and note some things with which I had not been previously familiar. Still, as a purely practical matter (not as an academic theory), what is the everyday difference between "legal tender" and "lawful money"?
The everyday difference is that we don't use "lawful money" and all of our pricing is based upon "legal tender" currency.
That doesn't imply I can't walk into a Mercedes dealership and purchase a new $60,000 Mercedes for $2,500 in American Gold Eagles though. I just have to convince the owner of the Mercedes dealership to agree to the negotiated price that will be paid in the "lawful money" of the United States. It isn't that hard to do because both of us would benefit from the tax laws (i.e. I only pay sales tax in $2,500 and he "loses money" on the difference between the price he paid in "legal tender" currency he paid for the car and the $2,500 in "lawful money" he sold it for).
Interesting. I have always considered it good sport to negotiate with automobile salespeople--they do not intimidate me in the slightest; in fact, they begin at an enormous disadvantage, in my opinion--but I had never considered the possibility of one's offering a small amount of American Gold Eagles in lieu of Federal Reserve Notes. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 20, 2014 15:58:46 GMT
You continue to speak of unlimited and unregulated immigration "for peaceful purposes," as if the qualifier should make it perfectly acceptable to me. It does not. As for the case you mentioned (which I had brought up in another thread) of the person who is sent to prison for 14 years--I think that is what the law allowed--for having instructed a person under the age of 21 to "commit masturbation": I am deeply conflicted. On a purely visceral level, I simply find it repellent that anyone should be imprisoned for such an innocuous matter. Still, I would not favor (on principle) an ex post facto application in reverse. (Perhaps the ideal solution, in this case, would be a full pardon by the governor.)
There is a huge difference between immigration for peaceful immigration (that benefits the immigrant and the country they immigrate to equally) and immigration for nefarious criminal reasons such as to commit acts of terrorism, to rob banks, or murder people.
I would agree with you that a person incarcerated for a law like the masterbation law should not have their conviction reversed nor would that happen. I would agree that release should be based upon a commutation of sentence or by a pardon from the governor.
Would we both also agree that if a person violated the "masterbation" law when it was in effect but not prosecuted and then it was repealed that they should not be prosecuted once it's repealed? In short, once the law is repealed should prosecutions continue or can they even continue once the law is repealed?
It is a very interesting question you pose as regarding prosecution after a law has been repealed. In pure theory, prosecution could, I suppose, continue. But as a practical matter, I would see nothing to be gained by society by its prosecuting those who--upon reflection--had acted in a thoroughly harmless manner. So I would strongly counsel against it. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 21, 2014 12:44:54 GMT
Interesting. I have always considered it good sport to negotiate with automobile salespeople--they do not intimidate me in the slightest; in fact, they begin at an enormous disadvantage, in my opinion--but I had never considered the possibility of one's offering a small amount of American Gold Eagles in lieu of Federal Reserve Notes.
The price negotiation would have to be with the owner of the car lot and not the salesman but there are advantages for both the buyer and the seller by using the "market value" differences between "lawful money" American Eagle coins and "legal tender" Federal Reserve notes because, under the law, both are identical based upon the denomination value. It's really playing a "money market" game just like trading in international currencies in many respects.
That is, of course, why Title 31 establishes that the equal purchasing power of "all currencies" (i.e. US coinage and Federal Reserve notes) needs to be maintained but that isn't happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 21, 2014 13:06:06 GMT
It is a very interesting question you pose as regarding prosecution after a law has been repealed. In pure theory, prosecution could, I suppose, continue. But as a practical matter, I would see nothing to be gained by society by its prosecuting those who--upon reflection--had acted in a thoroughly harmless manner. So I would strongly counsel against it.
That's a fundamental problem that I see with how Republicans are addressing the roughly 11 million undocumented aliens in the United States. Regardless of the "reason" we know that our current immigration laws suck and they need to be changed.
Once changed then the Republicans want to effectively "continue prosecution" of those that violated the "prior" immigration laws in their proposed changes addressing the 11 million undocumented aliens currently working and living peacefully in the United States.
That's one place where I have a serious problem.
Former President Reagan was correct to grant amnesty to undocumented aliens but was wrong to impose future quotas that everyone knew would simply create more undocumented aliens based upon the law of supply and demand for labor. If the "quota" is less than the demand for immigrant labor then the "supply" will be provided for by illegal immigration.
What the "legal market" does not provide the "black market" will provide when there is demand. "Supply based upon demand" is a basic axiom of capitalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 21, 2014 20:08:18 GMT
It is a very interesting question you pose as regarding prosecution after a law has been repealed. In pure theory, prosecution could, I suppose, continue. But as a practical matter, I would see nothing to be gained by society by its prosecuting those who--upon reflection--had acted in a thoroughly harmless manner. So I would strongly counsel against it.
That's a fundamental problem that I see with how Republicans are addressing the roughly 11 million undocumented aliens in the United States. Regardless of the "reason" we know that our current immigration laws suck and they need to be changed.
Once changed then the Republicans want to effectively "continue prosecution" of those that violated the "prior" immigration laws in their proposed changes addressing the 11 million undocumented aliens currently working and living peacefully in the United States.
That's one place where I have a serious problem.
Former President Reagan was correct to grant amnesty to undocumented aliens but was wrong to impose future quotas that everyone knew would simply create more undocumented aliens based upon the law of supply and demand for labor. If the "quota" is less than the demand for immigrant labor then the "supply" will be provided for by illegal immigration.
What the "legal market" does not provide the "black market" will provide when there is demand. "Supply based upon demand" is a basic axiom of capitalism.
Your closing argument--"What the 'legal market' does not provide the 'black market' will provide when there is a demand"--could be applied with equal force to, say, the selling of heroin. And perhaps, from a purist libertarian perspective, that is perfectly okay. But from my standpoint, it is not. Although there are certainly some exceptions, I do believe that most Republicans would be willing to grant amnesty to the 11 million (or so) illegal aliens currently in the US, in exchange for serious future enforcement of our borders. But when the president openly mocks Republican aspirations in this regard--why, does the GOP want a "moat," replete with "alligators"?--it would seem that he has no serious intention of doing any future enforcement; say, with a tall, double-layered fence across our border, all the way from east Texas to Baja, California. (And his actions to date--having his Department of Justice selectively enforce those laws that he considers wise and noble, while ignoring all others--suggests that he might very well pocket the legalization part, while ignoring the enforce-our-borders part, of any future deal.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 22, 2014 12:02:12 GMT
Your closing argument--"What the 'legal market' does not provide the 'black market' will provide when there is a demand"--could be applied with equal force to, say, the selling of heroin. And perhaps, from a purist libertarian perspective, that is perfectly okay. But from my standpoint, it is not. Although there are certainly some exceptions, I do believe that most Republicans would be willing to grant amnesty to the 11 million (or so) illegal aliens currently in the US, in exchange for serious future enforcement of our borders. But when the president openly mocks Republican aspirations in this regard--why, does the GOP want a "moat," replete with "alligators"?--it would seem that he has no serious intention of doing any future enforcement; say, with a tall, double-layered fence across our border, all the way from east Texas to Baja, California. (And his actions to date--having his Department of Justice selectively enforce those laws that he considers wise and noble, while ignoring all others--suggests that he might very well pocket the legalization part, while ignoring the enforce-our-borders part, of any future deal.)
While I don't anticipate the US government decriminalizing heroin anytime soon if heroin was decriminalized would you really want to prosecute individuals for past violations of the law when those laws are no longer on the books? If we decriminalized the use of heroin would you seriously want to prosecute a heroin addict for using heroin prior to the use being decriminalized? Remember that the heroin addict, like the undocumented workers (i.e.. illegal aliens), harmed no one by their breaking of the law that prohibits the simple use of heroin.
From the House proposals I've read the Republicans are NOT willing to grant "Amnesty" to all 11.5 million undocumented aliens in the US under any condition. They are also trying to impose some really impossible conditions upon most of them just to allow them to stay in the US. For example they want to hold the "immigrant" responsible for paying taxes that their US employers were responsible for paying or that the "immigrant" might have paid under an alias that they can't prove they paid. Even if they do pay these huge fines and tax penalties they would still be denied the "naturalization" process.
Border enforcement, from all I've read, is at the highest level it's ever been in my lifetime. The percentage of those attempting to illegally cross the border is far higher today than it was during prior adminstrations.
Of course the best way to secure our borders is to eliminate the quota system completely. That would eliminate probably 98% or more of the attempts at illegally crossing the border. With illegal border crossings reduced to only those that would do so for nefarious criminal purposes the Border Patrol's workload is significantly reduced and they can focus on the specific problem of nefarious criminals trying to enter the United States.
By analogy imagine what would happen if marijuana was legalized throughout the United States where everyone could grow their own. It would all but eliminate any marijuana being illegally smuggled from Mexico into the United States.
On a final note we should also point out that how we address the existing "illegal" immigrant problem and border enforcement are two different issues. We should not hold the 11.5 undocumented immigrants hostage related to border enforcement criteria in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 23, 2014 0:10:47 GMT
Your closing argument--"What the 'legal market' does not provide the 'black market' will provide when there is a demand"--could be applied with equal force to, say, the selling of heroin. And perhaps, from a purist libertarian perspective, that is perfectly okay. But from my standpoint, it is not. Although there are certainly some exceptions, I do believe that most Republicans would be willing to grant amnesty to the 11 million (or so) illegal aliens currently in the US, in exchange for serious future enforcement of our borders. But when the president openly mocks Republican aspirations in this regard--why, does the GOP want a "moat," replete with "alligators"?--it would seem that he has no serious intention of doing any future enforcement; say, with a tall, double-layered fence across our border, all the way from east Texas to Baja, California. (And his actions to date--having his Department of Justice selectively enforce those laws that he considers wise and noble, while ignoring all others--suggests that he might very well pocket the legalization part, while ignoring the enforce-our-borders part, of any future deal.)
While I don't anticipate the US government decriminalizing heroin anytime soon if heroin was decriminalized would you really want to prosecute individuals for past violations of the law when those laws are no longer on the books? If we decriminalized the use of heroin would you seriously want to prosecute a heroin addict for using heroin prior to the use being decriminalized? Remember that the heroin addict, like the undocumented workers (i.e.. illegal aliens), harmed no one by their breaking of the law that prohibits the simple use of heroin.
From the House proposals I've read the Republicans are NOT willing to grant "Amnesty" to all 11.5 million undocumented aliens in the US under any condition. They are also trying to impose some really impossible conditions upon most of them just to allow them to stay in the US. For example they want to hold the "immigrant" responsible for paying taxes that their US employers were responsible for paying or that the "immigrant" might have paid under an alias that they can't prove they paid. Even if they do pay these huge fines and tax penalties they would still be denied the "naturalization" process.
Border enforcement, from all I've read, is at the highest level it's ever been in my lifetime. The percentage of those attempting to illegally cross the border is far higher today than it was during prior adminstrations.
Of course the best way to secure our borders is to eliminate the quota system completely. That would eliminate probably 98% or more of the attempts at illegally crossing the border. With illegal border crossings reduced to only those that would do so for nefarious criminal purposes the Border Patrol's workload is significantly reduced and they can focus on the specific problem of nefarious criminals trying to enter the United States.
By analogy imagine what would happen if marijuana was legalized throughout the United States where everyone could grow their own. It would all but eliminate any marijuana being illegally smuggled from Mexico into the United States.
On a final note we should also point out that how we address the existing "illegal" immigrant problem and border enforcement are two different issues. We should not hold the 11.5 undocumented immigrants hostage related to border enforcement criteria in the future.
If heroin were suddenly decriminalized--which, like you, I do not anticipate--I would not favor the prosecution of those who had used it previously. (In fact, I really do not believe it is in society's best interests to prosecute heroin users now; although heroin pushers are quite another matter.) It is my understanding that most Republicans--in the House and otherwise--would be happy to grant amnesty to the 11 million-plus illegal immigrants (while not necessarily labeling it "amnesty"--the word is just too toxic, for political purposes), in exchange for serious border enforcement. A quid pro quo. But those who declare, boldly, that these illegals should not be held "hostage" to the deal are really suggesting that the Republican side should cave, but the Democratic side should not feel any compelling need to budge one inch. And that is simply not how compromise works. Oh, and as for "border enforcement": It is my understanding that those who are turned away at the border are now counted as "deportations"--unlike the practice in all previous administrations--thereby allowing for the number of "deportations" to be greatly inflated... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 23, 2014 4:04:24 GMT
If heroin were suddenly decriminalized--which, like you, I do not anticipate--I would not favor the prosecution of those who had used it previously. (In fact, I really do not believe it is in society's best interests to prosecute heroin users now; although heroin pushers are quite another matter.) It is my understanding that most Republicans--in the House and otherwise--would be happy to grant amnesty to the 11 million-plus illegal immigrants (while not necessarily labeling it "amnesty"--the word is just too toxic, for political purposes), in exchange for serious border enforcement. A quid pro quo. But those who declare, boldly, that these illegals should not be held "hostage" to the deal are really suggesting that the Republican side should cave, but the Democratic side should not feel any compelling need to budge one inch. And that is simply not how compromise works. Oh, and as for "border enforcement": It is my understanding that those who are turned away at the border are now counted as "deportations"--unlike the practice in all previous administrations--thereby allowing for the number of "deportations" to be greatly inflated...
We still seem to agree that once a criminal statute is repealed that past violations of the repealed law should not be prosecuted (and probably can't be prosecuted under the US justice system).
Here's a link to the House GOP proposal on immgration reform from January.
www.msnbc.com/msnbc/house-gop-unveils-immigration-proposal
There are a couple of serious flaws with it.
First of all I've since read that the "documents" that would be issued to current undocumented aliens would be different than those that enter with documentation. It would place a special restriction on any path to citizenship for those already here and that is unacceptable. All "documented" legal immigrants should be treated the same (14th Amendment).
Next is the fact that the "immigrants" are going to be held accountable for taxes and fines that their US employers were responsible for withholding and paying to the US government. I don't believe employers should be used as immigration enforcement agents but they should be expected to comply with the tax laws and the employers, not the immigrants, should be held legally accountable for the non-paid taxes that are supposed to be withheld from the employees wages.
Finally the condition of "college education or US military service" is completely unacceptable. We shouldn't coerce immigrants into becoming cannon fodder for US wars nor can we expect them to obtain a college education.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 24, 2014 0:51:59 GMT
If heroin were suddenly decriminalized--which, like you, I do not anticipate--I would not favor the prosecution of those who had used it previously. (In fact, I really do not believe it is in society's best interests to prosecute heroin users now; although heroin pushers are quite another matter.) It is my understanding that most Republicans--in the House and otherwise--would be happy to grant amnesty to the 11 million-plus illegal immigrants (while not necessarily labeling it "amnesty"--the word is just too toxic, for political purposes), in exchange for serious border enforcement. A quid pro quo. But those who declare, boldly, that these illegals should not be held "hostage" to the deal are really suggesting that the Republican side should cave, but the Democratic side should not feel any compelling need to budge one inch. And that is simply not how compromise works. Oh, and as for "border enforcement": It is my understanding that those who are turned away at the border are now counted as "deportations"--unlike the practice in all previous administrations--thereby allowing for the number of "deportations" to be greatly inflated...
We still seem to agree that once a criminal statute is repealed that past violations of the repealed law should not be prosecuted (and probably can't be prosecuted under the US justice system).
Here's a link to the House GOP proposal on immgration reform from January.
www.msnbc.com/msnbc/house-gop-unveils-immigration-proposal
There are a couple of serious flaws with it.
First of all I've since read that the "documents" that would be issued to current undocumented aliens would be different than those that enter with documentation. It would place a special restriction on any path to citizenship for those already here and that is unacceptable. All "documented" legal immigrants should be treated the same (14th Amendment).
Next is the fact that the "immigrants" are going to be held accountable for taxes and fines that their US employers were responsible for withholding and paying to the US government. I don't believe employers should be used as immigration enforcement agents but they should be expected to comply with the tax laws and the employers, not the immigrants, should be held legally accountable for the non-paid taxes that are supposed to be withheld from the employees wages.
Finally the condition of "college education or US military service" is completely unacceptable. We shouldn't coerce immigrants into becoming cannon fodder for US wars nor can we expect them to obtain a college education.
I strongly believe that immigration quotas should be predicated upon that which is helpful to the US--and not necessarily upon that which is most congenial to the goal of "reuniting" families fractured by illegal immigration (as was codified into law in the 1960s). And serving in the US military is certainly helpful to this country; whereas obtaining a college degree is likely to be helpful in the long run (or even in the medium run). I further believe that illegal immigrants should have to go to the back of the line when applying for US citizenship. (Is that what you mean by "a special restriction"?) Your point as concerning unpaid taxes--and the responsibility for that, as regarding employers and former employers--is not at all frivolous. As I am not especially receptive to employers who simply ignore the law, I would certainly feel no angst at these employers' being held responsible for the unpaid taxes. Still, the illegals benefitted, monetarily, from not having these taxes withheld; so they should probably be held responsible for payment, in my opinion. (However, if the government wished to come down hard on these employers also--perhaps by fining them rather severely, or even closing them down for a couple of weeks--I certainly would not object to that.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 24, 2014 11:10:11 GMT
I strongly believe that immigration quotas should be predicated upon that which is helpful to the US--and not necessarily upon that which is most congenial to the goal of "reuniting" families fractured by illegal immigration (as was codified into law in the 1960s). And serving in the US military is certainly helpful to this country; whereas obtaining a college degree is likely to be helpful in the long run (or even in the medium run). I further believe that illegal immigrants should have to go to the back of the line when applying for US citizenship. (Is that what you mean by "a special restriction"?) Your point as concerning unpaid taxes--and the responsibility for that, as regarding employers and former employers--is not at all frivolous. As I am not especially receptive to employers who simply ignore the law, I would certainly feel no angst at these employers' being held responsible for the unpaid taxes. Still, the illegals benefitted, monetarily, from not having these taxes withheld; so they should probably be held responsible for payment, in my opinion. (However, if the government wished to come down hard on these employers also--perhaps by fining them rather severely, or even closing them down for a couple of weeks--I certainly would not object to that.)
Three points to address.
First I would argue that "capitalism" is the best possible means of determining how much immigration is helpful to America. I don't place one ounce of faith in Congress being able to make this determination. The "free market" should be what determines the level of immigration and not Congress.
If we pass immigration reform then those already in the United States would be at the "end of the line" when it comes to the naturalization process because the "effective date" would be the date that is established when they register for legally documented immigration status. It is not retro-active.
Attempting to collect past taxation that the employers should, by law, have been withholding and paying to government from what is often a minimum paid worker is an absurd proposition. They barely managed to survive on their low wages to begin with and if we just looked at the Social Security taxes for the minimum wage over five years it would be over $5,000 and they might be held accountable for the "payroll" tax as well (based upon the self-employment tax) plus penalities that could double or triple that amount. How is someone working at minimum wage that can't even save two dimes to rub together going to be able come up with many thousands of dollars in "back taxes" that the employers were legally responsible for paying to the government? The irony is that if the taxes had been withheld and the "illegal" immigrants filed tax returns they probably would have received more back from filing than what they paid in taxes (i.e. 48% of Americans have a zero or negative tax liability related to income taxes and minimum wage workers receive the most back on their tax returns).
The proposal creates an insurmountable financial obstacle for the low paid immigrant that resulted from US employers not complying with the tax codes and the Republicans know that.
To be fair to the person we should logically wipe the slate clean and start from day one (i.e. the date of filing for legal status) when it comes to both taxes and the naturalization process.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 24, 2014 17:11:23 GMT
I strongly believe that immigration quotas should be predicated upon that which is helpful to the US--and not necessarily upon that which is most congenial to the goal of "reuniting" families fractured by illegal immigration (as was codified into law in the 1960s). And serving in the US military is certainly helpful to this country; whereas obtaining a college degree is likely to be helpful in the long run (or even in the medium run). I further believe that illegal immigrants should have to go to the back of the line when applying for US citizenship. (Is that what you mean by "a special restriction"?) Your point as concerning unpaid taxes--and the responsibility for that, as regarding employers and former employers--is not at all frivolous. As I am not especially receptive to employers who simply ignore the law, I would certainly feel no angst at these employers' being held responsible for the unpaid taxes. Still, the illegals benefitted, monetarily, from not having these taxes withheld; so they should probably be held responsible for payment, in my opinion. (However, if the government wished to come down hard on these employers also--perhaps by fining them rather severely, or even closing them down for a couple of weeks--I certainly would not object to that.)
Three points to address.
First I would argue that "capitalism" is the best possible means of determining how much immigration is helpful to America. I don't place one ounce of faith in Congress being able to make this determination. The "free market" should be what determines the level of immigration and not Congress.
If we pass immigration reform then those already in the United States would be at the "end of the line" when it comes to the naturalization process because the "effective date" would be the date that is established when they register for legally documented immigration status. It is not retro-active.
Attempting to collect past taxation that the employers should, by law, have been withholding and paying to government from what is often a minimum paid worker is an absurd proposition. They barely managed to survive on their low wages to begin with and if we just looked at the Social Security taxes for the minimum wage over five years it would be over $5,000 and they might be held accountable for the "payroll" tax as well (based upon the self-employment tax) plus penalities that could double or triple that amount. How is someone working at minimum wage that can't even save two dimes to rub together going to be able come up with many thousands of dollars in "back taxes" that the employers were legally responsible for paying to the government? The irony is that if the taxes had been withheld and the "illegal" immigrants filed tax returns they probably would have received more back from filing than what they paid in taxes (i.e. 48% of Americans have a zero or negative tax liability related to income taxes and minimum wage workers receive the most back on their tax returns).
The proposal creates an insurmountable financial obstacle for the low paid immigrant that resulted from US employers not complying with the tax codes and the Republicans know that.
To be fair to the person we should logically wipe the slate clean and start from day one (i.e. the date of filing for legal status) when it comes to both taxes and the naturalization process.
We appear to be in agreement as concerning the back-of-the-line status for illegals who are undergoing the naturalization process. The problem with a laissez-faire approach to immigration--allowing "[t]he free market" to determine immigration levels--is that we will surely end up with many low-skill, low-education immigrants (e.g. seasonal fruit pickers, nannies and other domestic servants, and other minimum-wage workers), and not too many physicians, attorneys, and CPAs. I believe our immigration laws should attempt to serve our country as a whole--not just some narrow cross-section of it (e.g. produce distributors or wealthy homeowners). As a practical matter, I can see your point as regarding the difficulty of the government's ever acquiring back taxes that were unpaid. And I really have no deep, visceral desire to punish the laborer whose taxes were (illegally) not withheld by his or her employer(s). It is a very close call, in my opinion. |
|
