How do you draw that conclusion? Legal immigrants would be eligible to own land after 1 year of living here and becoming permanent residents. And illegal immigration should not be encouraged, since it is… illegal.
How generous of you.
So you don’t feel for those who were brought here as little children and have nowhere to be deported to?
I oppose illegal immigration, but I’d make an exception for those who came as kids, grew up here, and have nowhere else to go. They’re probably better for our country than the natural born citizens, because they’ve had to struggle AND probably stay clean and follow the law 100% of the time for fear of being caught and deported.
If you asked me for a hard boiled egg and I didn’t have any eggs in the fridge, I would indeed count the time it would take me to go to the store to get the egg.
No it’s not. Some of the poorest people in the country can do it. I assume you meant to say it’s difficult, expensive and time consuming to become a permanent resident of the USA if you are here illegally. Yes. That is true, but my point is that these claims…
…only tell half the story of becoming a permanent resident. When you start from the beginning, it is also difficult, expensive, and time consuming.
But this is an aside from your original argument in which you avoided my question:
If your point is that we should have seized their assets long ago then yes I’m not disagreeing there.
However once you cross the line between simple law enforcement matters into matters of national politics then the rules change. This case is more politics and less law enforcement.
Which policy ?
Seizing mega yachts as sanctions over a war? Or scriptas idea about barring foreigners from owning US land?
Lemme quote you again :
You aimed that at me personally. you said “you”… “your point”.
I think that civil asset forefeiture is useful. I think it has a place. I don’t think its “bad policy” entirely. I think its been abused and we neeed laws to better regulate it.
examples:
I DO NOT think it should be used because a state patrol officer sees someone has >$1000 in cash and then decides its probably drug money.
But DO think that forefeiture is useful if instead the patrol officer finds 2 kilos of cocain in someones trunk along with >$1000 in cash.
If there is a court order or warrant involved in the asset seizure then I think its probably mostly OK. If the actions have fairly high bar for what constitutes evidence that theres a crime commited then its probably OK.
All that said the money shouldn’t be forfeit without due process. People should have the reasonable ability to get it back if they’re not proven guilty of something.
Exactly my point. The new task force is political. I don’t support politically motivated attempts to seize people’s property.
Scripta’s idea about barring non-citizens and non-permanent residents from owning land.
The “you” was aimed at both you and scripta because you originally defended (or seemed to defend scripta’s point). You said this in reference to my point about lots of illegal immigrants owning property:
Then you said:
Which implies that you would be okay with restricting non-citizens’ rights to own property here.
If you were defending scripta’s beliefs which border on the xenophobic without actually agreeing with him, I see a distinction without a difference. If you were just playing devil’s advocate, then you fooled me good.
Thanks for that clarification. It was my fault for assuming you didn’t like civil asset forfeiture in general.
Since you agree with the use of civil asset forfeiture when a crime is committed with the assets being used or when the assets are obtained from the proceeds of that crime, what do you make of the inherent problem with using civil asset forfeiture on foreign bad guys? Aren’t the crimes they have committed things that US law enforcement has no jurisdiction over? If the Russian oligarchs’ victims are Russians in Russia, what is there for us to do?
What you quote me there saying I was pointing out that owning land is very different than the pile of very untelated topics you listed such as purchasing a bus ticket. That doesn’t mean I endorsed his idea. I wasn’t trying to mislead by not explcitily saying that I was/wasn’t agreeing with scripta. But I can see how you might think I agreed with him if I argumed with you. I shoulda probably prefaced my comments to you by saying that I don’t necessarily agree with scripta.
Honestly at first I was more ‘neutral’ on scripta’s idea when I first saw it but thinking about it more, now I think I’m against barring foreigners from land ownership. You made a good point that doing thats a solution looking for a problem.
As far as I understand seizing money from oligarchs has taken an act of congress and/or executive order.
This isn’t like a local police officer enforcing a city law or FBI enforcing federal law on US soil.
Congress & the president have the legal authority to take such actions.
Let me ask you… do you think the oligarchs are innocent? Are you trying to defend the oligarchs specifically here or are you making just a principal argument about the US government taking property from foreigners without due process, regardless of circumstance?
meed18, I don’t think you and I are really very far apart on these topics. we probably isagree on some things. But I do like a spirited debate.
After we declared war against him, yes. Right now we’re not at war with the people whose assets we are trying to seize.
Lol. Since we have so many russia ukraine threads, I am kinda sad we mucked up the crypto thread with this discussion. So I’m good with ending this thread at the hitler comparison and keeping Russia-Ukraine out of the Crypto thread part 2.
But I think the rules about declaring war in the USA changed around Vietnam and congress & the president haven’t looked back. We don’t have to declare war anymore to be at war.
edit: ooops, guess I lied about the /thread .
But if you invoke Hitler…
I never said those were my beliefs. I’ve only presented it as an idea, showed that it’s not my idea and practiced the world over, and asked why it’d be so bad to implement it here. And so far the only answer that makes sense to me is in relation to illegal immigrants. I was hoping to see a deeper discussion of economic implications, because so far I view them as more positive than negative. But this is the wrong thread for it anyway and I see that there’s no support here for even discussing it, so let’s just drop it.
LOL. I’m pretty sure Russia and Belarus didn’t declare war on Ukraine either. Just because we’re not throwing rocks at each other (yet) and we didn’t say “war”, doesn’t mean we’re not at war. Russian propaganda machine has forbidden the use of the word “war” in their internal media coverage when covering Ukraine. But at least on this side of the new curtain we all know the truth.
