I think we are blurring the line by which is legal or ethical. The law should always prevail but sometimes what is legal is not ethical and vice versa.
Conservative Politics & Daily Events Discussion
-
In Canada,
10. Having an Inadmissible Family MemberIf you are traveling with a family member who is inadmissible for any of the above reasons, you too are inadmissible.
A Canadian example? Nice, but I think this is not such a good analog to the point we are discussing (ie. children already resident in a country).
And I'm not trying to represent Canada on this. My beliefs and ethics are my own and do not mirror anyone else in particular (including Canadian law makers).
-
@Bill Martin After reading that disclaimer I believe that you are rubbing off on him! LOL
-
Since we're not answering the question and just posing more questions...
Parents robbed banks 15 years ago and used it to give their kids a better upbringing than the poverty the parents came from. Now the kids are grown and are fully integrated into our society as law-abiding young adults. Should the children be treated as criminals?
Receiving stolen property is a crime and if the money was use for their benefit then yes the kids are guilty
Sent from my iPhone using Polaris Slingshot Forum mobile app
-
Receiving stolen property is a crime and if the money was use for their benefit then yes the kids are guilty
Sent from my iPhone using Polaris Slingshot Forum mobile app
You're not guilty if you weren't aware it was stolen.Whether the parents commit fraud or murder, kids are not considered to be guilty of the parent's crime (or even held responsible to repay their debts). I think that principle should apply to Dreamers. IMHO
-
What if all the original money was spent on the family business that produces vast wealth for the kids. Though the originally purchased building, which used up all the stolen money, was lost in a fire which an insurance claim allowed the family business to rebuild and that is when the company took off. Is it considered all clean money or stolen property/gains?
-
You're not guilty if you weren't aware it was stolen.
Whether the parents commit fraud or murder, kids are not considered to be guilty of the parent's crime (or even held responsible to repay their debts). I think that principle should apply to Dreamers. IMHO
Interesting - ok let’s say those same illegal parents had a criminal enterprise making large amounts of money. They deposit less than $10k per transaction to avoid federal detection until said child has $1 million in his account. Said parents get busted - dreamer has no idea he is a millionaire. Absolutely no criminal prosecution but should the dreamer be allowed to keep the ill gotten gains or should he be held financially liable to return the money to the government?? If you believe he should return the money then what is the exact criteria for making that decision. If you allow him or her to keep it you set a completely different precedent. Nothing is ever simple anymore.
-
What if all the original money was spent on the family business that produces vast wealth for the kids. Though the originally purchased building, which used up all the stolen money, was lost in a fire which an insurance claim allowed the family business to rebuild and that is when the company took off. Is it considered all clean money or stolen property/gains?
Once again that pesky legal or ethical thing
-
LOL @Bill Martin, I was going to rely on YOU to answer Wolf's question, but here you are posing another tricky legal question yourself.
Can you answer your own question from the legal standpoint?
-
@Bill Martin the quotes are getting pretty long, so I'll just answer your question. The Dreamer being a "he" automatically makes him shady. No "he" doesn't get to keep the money. Conversely if the dreamer was a "she", well, she could keep the money...
...in her pocket. That bank account would most likely be seized by the feds.
-
You're not guilty if you weren't aware it was stolen.
Whether the parents commit fraud or murder, kids are not considered to be guilty of the parent's crime (or even held responsible to repay their debts). I think that principle should apply to Dreamers. IMHO
The whole dreamer thing is a difficult one because it is just not on person, or one small group of people - so long as parents keep bringing their children with them when they come here illegally it has the potential to be a never ending problem.
so how do we fix it? where do we draw a line and say those kids havent been here long enough? or do we set a date and say all kids here as of that date get the path to citizenship but none after that date? and if we do that dont we fall back to the same "its not their fault, they didnt know" place we are right now?
back when Ronald was president we tried the whole amnesty thing with the promise of laws to tighten the border - the left saw to it that those promised laws never happened - how do we keep from repeating this same thing over and over again so that our kids and their kids are still dealing with the same crap we are dealing with?
To me the answer is clear, no jobs for non citizens unless they are authorized to work and no welfare benefits for non citizens - - but we all know the left will say not giving benefits in inhumane and the right will say punishing employers is anti business
and the circle will just keep spinning
So the "dreamers" we have to define exactly what this is. To me this would be someone brought or sent by parents before they were old enough to know or be responsible who has now been here long enough that it would be un acceptably traumatic if they were deported - - to me that is a dreamer and this person should be given a green card and if they are good and dont break any laws they can apply for citizenship in 5 years - same requirement that my wife had to meet and the same test and interview.
-
@Bill Martin the quotes are getting pretty long, so I'll just answer your question. The Dreamer being a "he" automatically makes him shady. No "he" doesn't get to keep the money. Conversely if the dreamer was a "she", well, she could keep the money...
...in her pocket. That bank account would most likely be seized by the feds.
Soooo - the dreamer is not a US citizen - your saying the government can now seize a foreign national’s assets that easily - what if it was in a offshore account - you are over simplifying my scenario. I don’t want to start quoting statiutes as my quotes would be far to long and boring but this is far more complicated than you portray.
PS. Thanks for pointing it out - I’ll watch those pronouns much more closely
-
I agree @edwardaneal, 20 years ago I was saying "enforce the laws we have against employing illegals if you want to solve the problem". They are breaking the laws that are already in place. The Republicans can't argue against having a law that is already on the books, they are the self proclaimed, "law and order" party. The problem is, just like the plethora of gun laws we have, we have lots of laws on immigration with penalties to immigrants and citizens, nobody wants to actively enforce them.
If we got rid of Super Pacs, corporate campaign donations and lobbyists I have a feeling our country would start moving along like a well oiled machine. Politicians would no longer have incentive to look the other way.
-
@Bill Martin I was not saying your statements were getting long. It was the 20 people's posts on top of your response, by each person, making it even longer.
You asked a simple question, I have you a simple answer and then you make the scenario more complicated. I assumed since they were using the 10k limit to avoid the Fed's detection that they were depositing in a U.S. account.
Since you expanded upon the scenario, I would think if it is a country we work with the funds would probably be frozen. If it is a country we don't work with, the dreamer gets their money. Not because it's legal, but because nobody could stop them(except you with more expansions to your scenario) .
-
I agree @edwardaneal, 20 years ago I was saying "enforce the laws we have against employing illegals if you want to solve the problem". They are breaking the laws that are already in place. The Republicans can't argue against having a law that is already on the books, they are the self proclaimed, "law and order" party. The problem is, just like the plethora of gun laws we have, we have lots of laws on immigration with penalties to immigrants and citizens, nobody wants to actively enforce them.
If we got rid of Super Pacs, corporate campaign donations and lobbyists I have a feeling our country would start moving along like a well oiled machine. Politicians would no longer have incentive to look the other way.
HERE HERE SIR !!! Could not agree more
-
What!!? Again @Bill Martin? With that, I think I should stop for the day, while I'm on a roll .
-
Display More
@Bill Martin I was not saying your statements were getting long. It was the 20 people's posts on top of your response, by each person, making it even longer.
You asked a simple question, I have you a simple answer and then you make the scenario more complicated. I assumed since they were using the 10k limit to avoid the Fed's detection that they were depositing in a U.S. account.
Since you expanded upon the scenario, I would think if it is a country we work with the funds would probably be frozen. If it is a country we don't work with, the dreamer gets their money. Not because it's legal, but because nobody could stop them(except you with more expansions to your scenario) .
OK - let’s put out some facts. For example, when the US says it will be freezing the assets of a individual or group of individuals, it doesn't mean that the US will be able to freeze the money that they hold in foreign banks. Rather, it means that they will freeze any money held in US banks, investments in US companies, etc. and outlaw US entities from engaging in any sort of business with them. The overall point is that such sanctions are only effective if the entities at the receiving end happened to have a lot of assets tied up in US firms at the time the sanction came along.
So the point is if a dreamer has shrewd, unscrupulous parents we have a complete generation of foreign foul play on American soil. Lord knows we got enough US crooks in the House and Senate - sure don’t need folks being here illegally to profit illegally - that ain’t fair- it’s double dipping
-
Do cooperating countries freeze or seize accounts in cooperation with the U.S.? I thought they often do. ISIS accounts, Iranians accounts, Russian accounts...I thought Britain, France, Germany and Saudi Arabia have all seized accounts at our request.
-
.
Not getting in to the merit debate I have a problem with all the talking heads and even high ranking politicians claiming unequivocally that you absolutely, no way, no how, cannot end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution ....
During original 1868 debate over the 14th amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause and U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, "excludes persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
The text of the Senates minutes is public record, right there for anyone to read if they choose. It will not take a change to the Constitution to clarify original intent, simply a challenge that eventually reaches the Supreme Court for final decision. President Trump can start the ball rolling with an executive order, no doubt prompting an immediate injunction from a Federal Judge, then an Executive Branch challenge sending it to the SC who will undoubtedly go back to the Senate debate. Might stop birthright citizenship, might not, but it can in fact be done without Congress or a change to the Constitution. Then at least we will have clarity going forward.
....
.
