I think you’re missing the point. The point is that these oligarchs are as close as we can get to an equivalent of a royal court. They own or run the biggest enterprises in Russia. Most of them, if not all of them, likely have some influence with the government. So if they get squeezed, maybe they’ll squeeze the government.
I also learned that seizure falls under the DOJ jurisdiction and requires proof, but foreign assets can also be frozen (not seized) by the Treasury without any proof of wrongdoing – if you’re on a list, your stuff is fair game.
I highly doubt they have much influence. And even if they do, I even more highly doubt anyone with anything to lose is telling Putin anything but Yes Sir right now.
If they decide to go that route, there’s going to be a big hit to real estate in some markets as foreign investors pull out, especially the Chinese. It’s not a good long term strategy for a government (that relies so heavily on foreign investment) to broadcast to foreigners that their property is one wrong move by their government away from being seized. There are way too many downsides and unintended consequences to outweigh the unlikely positives of seizing russian oligarchs’ property.
Since when does our system not allow “bad people” due process before we deprive them of life, liberty, or property?
Keep in mind, I was a police officer for 8 years. I’ve probably deprived more people of their liberty and property than anyone else on this board, so there is no love lost between me and “bad people.” But I came across a ton of “bad people” that I couldn’t do a damn thing too that probably deserved it - yet I had to follow the law. Do Russian oligarchs deserve that same protection? How is it totally okay to take all their money and allow them to own all kinds of property here for decades, but then the leader of their country decides to invade some other country and all of a sudden we have a problem with all that money they spent here? Would we have left them alone if it was just a “minor incursion?” What exactly is the line some other country’s leader must cross before we take the stuff that “bad people” from that country keep here? Do you have a particular standard we can follow across the board so I know what exactly China has to do to Taiwan for us to start seizing CCP baddies’ property?
Not to mention all the unintended consequences on international investment we don’t know that actions like this will have.
And this was preceded by our neighbor to the North seizing accounts without due process belonging to their citizens using emergency powers for very low level criminal actions.
I hope you can see why this might make some of us “unhappy.”
Honestly, your other points notwithstanding, I think I’d welcome it. Maybe then people (and small-time investors) would finally be able to afford something reasonable. Rents would probably go down too. The obvious downside is property taxes, but we’ll survive. Many countries around the world don’t even allow foreigners to own (or control) property or businesses.
Ok so you’re arguing a general principal of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and due process?
OK I understand taking that stance. I just wasn’t clear what your argument / point was.
This is not just a money grab of random innocents. Its targetted at specific individuals who are in Putins inner circule and instigated by Russia performing an act of war.
In this case it depends on the details of the case against the Oligarchs. How much evidence do we have against these people and do we think we’re accidentally seizing assets of any innocent people??
In general civil forfeiture is a tricky subject. On one hand we don’t want to see our governemtn take money from innocent people. On the other hand if you’ve got people who the government is taking legal action against it makes sense to seize their assets.
It’s one thing to demand $5K/mo rent for a $1M house. It’s another to expect $5K/mo for a the same house if it’s only worth $500K. And another if it’s only worth $200K. Few will be LOLing.
No, that’s not what I said. But would it be so bad if in order to own real estate one must be a citizen or at least a permanent resident?
Would it be so bad if in order to own a car, one must be a citizen?
Would it be so bad if in order to rent an apartment, one must be a citizen?
Would it be so bad if in order to use public transit, one must be a citizen?
Would it be so bad if in order to attend public school, one must be a citizen?
Would it be so bad if in order to visit the city park, one must be a citizen?
Would it be so bad if in order to cash a check, one must be a citizen?
Would it be so bad if in order to stay out of jail, one must be a citizen?
Any particular reason you’re drawing the line at real property ownership? Is there no need to go further because that is enough to keep those pesky foreigners in the underclass, but you don’t want them fully impoverished?
There are plenty of non-citizens that immigrated illegally and started their lives in the USA in an underclass that have gone on to be able to afford real estate. WTF are you talking about?
Why do you draw the line at real estate? Why should a non-citizen be allowed to buy a car, but not a home? That is a legitimate question. Nothing made up about it.
Most people? Hardly. I would assume 30-35% think that. 30-35% think the opposite, and the remainder is on the fence.
As it currently stands, non-citizens and non-permanent-residents have the right to own property in the US. @scripta, who as far as I can tell, is much less politically conservative than me, is suggesting that it wouldn’t be bad if we started to restrict property ownership to only citizens and permanent residents.
I’ve never heard something so xenophobic come out of the mouth of a left leaning voter. Apparently big bad Ruskie oligarchs owning property here is such a problem (but only AFTER their dear leader invades another sovereign nation) that leftists abandon all their priors about caring for the downtrodden immigrants that are stuck living here illegally because of a broken immigration system. I find it hard to wrap my head around the thought that we should make the lives of millions of immigrants harder so we can punish a few dozen billionares in the (misguided) hopes that it gets Putin to surrender.
I figured since it’s politically impossible to even get democrats to admit that we need to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the country, a restriction of the rights off immigrants to the point where they can’t own property would be off the table. But apparently that’s something the left is open to now?
You guys will say anything to disagree with me, huh?
This isn’t xenophobic. I didn’t even think of the relatively rare scenario you described of illegal immigrants who live here and own property. I’m OK with that ownership, since they’re de facto permanent residents.
And when I ask if it would be so bad to add the residency requirement for ownership, I’m not talking about Russian oligarchs specifically, but all foreigners in general. I’ve thought about it before when I read about what some other countries require (Mexico for land and Japan for business come to mind, though I don’t know all the details), it just happened to be topical now.