The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
09-28-2017, 08:52 AM
#9441
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
omg. I'm glad you posted that.
I'm in a new office, and left in the new cube I'm sitting is a my little pony valentine. a pink one with a red star, and it's one of those ones that has the multiples images depending on the angle of view.
I tagged you on fb instead, hopefully that works.
I'm in a new office, and left in the new cube I'm sitting is a my little pony valentine. a pink one with a red star, and it's one of those ones that has the multiples images depending on the angle of view.
I tagged you on fb instead, hopefully that works.
Reply
0
0
09-28-2017, 11:45 AM
#9445
Serious question...
The other day it was announced DHS was to start monitoring social media accounts of immigrants. It was then reported that was to include naturalized U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
One of many articles [ sorry, Huffington Post]: U.S. Quietly Announces Plan To Monitor Immigrants’ Social Media Accounts, Search Histories and another Homeland Security Plans to Collect Social Media Info from US Immigrants
How is it legal for this to apply to a naturalized citizen? I get the immigrant/permanent resident aspect, not that I agree/disagree.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says: " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Or is this just another "f**k you we decide on what's legal...".
The other day it was announced DHS was to start monitoring social media accounts of immigrants. It was then reported that was to include naturalized U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
One of many articles [ sorry, Huffington Post]: U.S. Quietly Announces Plan To Monitor Immigrants’ Social Media Accounts, Search Histories and another Homeland Security Plans to Collect Social Media Info from US Immigrants
How is it legal for this to apply to a naturalized citizen? I get the immigrant/permanent resident aspect, not that I agree/disagree.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says: " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Or is this just another "f**k you we decide on what's legal...".
Reply
0
0
09-28-2017, 12:14 PM
#9446
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
To quote our current congress: Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment. What the Constitution says is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and we define that.
This is a non-story. All law enforcement agencies are starting to collect social media presences for records/investigations. They are using monitoring very loosely in those stories.
This is a non-story. All law enforcement agencies are starting to collect social media presences for records/investigations. They are using monitoring very loosely in those stories.
Reply
0
0
09-28-2017, 12:35 PM
#9447
WTF, "impeachment"??? How'd you arrive at that one?
Further: DHS planning to collect social media info on all immigrants | TheHill
Federal Register: A Notice by the Homeland Security Department on 09/18/2017
In May, the Trump administration approved a new questionnaire for visa applicants that requests social media handles for the past five years, as well as biographical information going back 15 years.
The rule filed last week, however, goes beyond would-be visitors to the U.S. and would also apply to those who have already obtained a green card or gone through the naturalization process.
The rule filed last week, however, goes beyond would-be visitors to the U.S. and would also apply to those who have already obtained a green card or gone through the naturalization process.
Reply
0
0
09-28-2017, 01:02 PM
#9448
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,031
Total Cats: 6,596
Stop-and-identify was once considered permissible in the US, based on its heritage in the English common law. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada would be the closest I can think of to forming a basis for this demand, though that ruling is limited to situations involving reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement.
In broader terms, however, I think you're probably right in that a requirement that naturalized citizens provide social media information is NOT constitutional (Papachristou v. Jacksonville, Brown v. Texas, Kolender v. Lawson, etc.)
It WOULD be constitutional for the fed to require this information be collection prior to or during the naturalization process, which is what it seems to me that DHS is saying in their release. To quote directly from the link you posted:
"This system of records contains information regarding transactions involving an individual as he or she passes through the U.S. immigration process, some of which may also be covered by separate Systems of Records Notices."
At the point where an individual is passing through the immigration process, they are not a naturalized citizen, and therefore the 14th does not apply. I realize that HuffPost claimed that this will also apply retroactively, but haven't seen any evidence to support this claim. (Also, note genderist language in the above. Why is DHS discriminating against non-binary / agendered individuals?
)
Reply
0
0
09-28-2017, 01:34 PM
#9451
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
most feds are smart enough not to investigate us citizens (for law enforcement purposes) without a warrant/authority. it has been my experience that they actually make a big deal of it.
Reply
0
0
09-28-2017, 02:08 PM
#9453
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
To quote our current congress: Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment. What the Constitution says is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and we define that.
This is a non-story. All law enforcement agencies are starting to collect social media presences for records/investigations. They are using monitoring very loosely in those stories.
This is a non-story. All law enforcement agencies are starting to collect social media presences for records/investigations. They are using monitoring very loosely in those stories.
To be fair, that wasn't "Congress" it was the insane Maxine Waters that said this.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 08:04 AM
#9459
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,177
Total Cats: 1,681
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 09:05 AM
#9460
For taxes, quite simply the more complex something is the smaller the group of people that it benefits. Mostly meant here in regard to legal jargon. Perhaps someone can shed a better light but for example there can be a 5000 page legal document full of big vocabulary words and super verbose that could actually be written with good elementary school English in about 5 pages. This is used deliberately as a tool to conceal, obfuscate to the benefit of the writer(s) and reduce understanding of the document. See tax code. I have respect for lawyers, accountants, and others, but this kind of thing opens a potential to have "the law" be whatever "the lawyers" write on a piece of paper. I'm pretty sure this is common practice and knowledge for hundreds of years. We don't have 5 rules for taxes, whether it's zero or a flat tax or whatever. We have something that nobody (?) fully understands. So there's lots of hiding room for all kinds of antics to take place. Not that it is simple by any means. There will always be people trying to outsmart each other. But you can cut through it too and just call crooks crooks when appropriate without any legal jargon necessary.
The result of this is an ever growing and complex tax code with so many rules that you have to have different specialties even within tax accounting that focus on specific sectors of the tax code because the entire code is too large for one person to completely master. Taxes are something that I did not actually specialize in myself but am starting to have a growing appreciation for because the ins and outs of the tax code are fascinating. It is amazing what even an average citizen can do that most people simply are unaware of due to simple ignorance of the law due to the growing complexity. I have often thought about starting a personal tax filing and tax planning practice on the side to eventually transition into full time.
Reply
0
0
