SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > The Lounge

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 13 December 2018, 14:56
doitforjonny doitforjonny is offline
pumpin gas and kickin ass
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 919
KidA-

When there was no 'illegal' there was for the most part also no 'New Deal' (what 30 year crossover? -ish).

With the addition of benefits and socialism, defining legal and illegal gets real.
  #82  
Old 13 December 2018, 14:58
KidA's Avatar
KidA KidA is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: WbyGV
Posts: 19,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by doitforjonny View Post
KidA

By saying it 'should stay in circulation' I am alluding to the fact that you can tax its departure.

As Agoge stated, unenforced laws are worthless. The complexity of making it criminal AND enforceable requires the buy in from Politicians, Law Enforcement, AND the Judiciary. It breaks at the Judiciary with judicial discretion and you get laws with no teeth.

LE doesn't enforce, because Judicial lets them walk with no punitive action.

LP's solution is much better. And it should also be applied to Best Western, MoneyGram, Walmart etc. At least then we can measure the outflow of revenue and make take an educated action based on volume.

I can't cash a check for 5k without jumping through government regulation and I am a citizen. Why should illegals have more financial flexibility than what we currently give our citizens. That makes no sense.

Putting a 'cyber' wall like taxes on outflows at the individual level is a function of the Executive branch alone, once written. It does not involve judicial discretion, hence is much more realistic to execute than 'get the employers'.
Well I see that as the wrong fix.

If the problem is illegals are earning money, it doesn't matter where they send it or what they do with it, stop them from earning money.

But that's going to affect the Americans who hire them. It's going to hurt their profits. So we don't want to fix it.

Let's just admit that and move on: We don't want to collectively fix it at all. We just like talking about it a lot.

Your solution is putting a lot on the businesses to verify - because those "illegals" all have fake IDs so now some minimum wage clerk at Kroger is going to be held accountable if they ask for ID when a guy hands a wad of cash and asks for a Money Order?

Not to mention I can make a money order out to anyone at all, then put it in an envelope and mail it anywhere in the world. Who is going to be the government agent who monitors that to make sure they arent' working, getting paid by Americans, and then sending their money somewhere else?
__________________
Hey homo, its me -- Andy/SOTB
  #83  
Old 13 December 2018, 14:58
KidA's Avatar
KidA KidA is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: WbyGV
Posts: 19,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by doitforjonny View Post
KidA-

When there was no 'illegal' there was for the most part also no 'New Deal' (what 30 year crossover? -ish).

With the addition of benefits and socialism, defining legal and illegal gets real.
That's why I said it should have been fixed.

This article talks about some of the challenges, but the important is at the bottom - they're doing it in $50 and $100 incriments which are incredibly hard to track, hell you can just mail cash at that point.

More importantly, if the family back home isn't getting the money then you just incentivized them to illegally come here too.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/02/...al-immigrants/
__________________
Hey homo, its me -- Andy/SOTB

Last edited by KidA; 13 December 2018 at 15:07.
  #84  
Old 13 December 2018, 15:09
doitforjonny doitforjonny is offline
pumpin gas and kickin ass
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 919
It puts the pressure on the financial institutions and facilitators, not the employers, who already have onerous regulation in place for US Citizens.

They have the processes already build, whereas your employers do not.

I agree, in a perfect world, it should just be 'fixed'. But the reality is that in our current environment that will never happen.

What could happen is more financial regulation.

We disagree on the fix. I am happy with an executable fix that has the effect of starting down the road to a permanent fix, and creates a revenue stream that disincentivizes the individual that can be pointed towards things like the wall.

Do I think it will happen? No, not in the next two years, unless it is a part of a larger negotiation.

Do I think Trump is setting the stage for negotiations of that sort, with The Wall as the catspaw? Yes and that is the point of this thread - Trump using political theater to shape the landscape for the next 2 years of negotiation.
  #85  
Old 13 December 2018, 15:20
Steve83 Steve83 is offline
Find a way out
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Solon
Posts: 1,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by doitforjonny View Post
It puts the pressure on the financial institutions and facilitators, not the employers, who already have onerous regulation in place for US Citizens.

They have the processes already build, whereas your employers do not.

I agree, in a perfect world, it should just be 'fixed'. But the reality is that in our current environment that will never happen.

What could happen is more financial regulation.
You could likely get large banks, Walmart and Western unions to comply with this but it seems every month another go-around for monetary transfers across borders are being created outside the financial industry.

A crypto, paypal or other would ostensibly put this in the hands of silicon valley. We know where they stand on this issue.
__________________
L'État, c'est la grande fiction à travers laquelle tout le monde s’efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde.

~ Frédéric Bastiat

Last edited by Steve83; 13 December 2018 at 15:25.
  #86  
Old 13 December 2018, 15:20
KidA's Avatar
KidA KidA is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: WbyGV
Posts: 19,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by doitforjonny View Post
It puts the pressure on the financial institutions and facilitators, not the employers, who already have onerous regulation in place for US Citizens.
.
This is where we'll disagree. You're saying the financial institution should be responsible for a decision the employer made. I strongly disagree with that. It shouldn't be up to the financial institution to ensure that you didn't hire Juan Valdez from the Home Depot parking lot.

These employers know, for all intents and purposes and for the vast majority of hires, that they are hiring illegals. They're hiring them distinctly because they are cheaper.

Juan the Illegal isn't putting on a coat and tie and showing up at Chase Manhattan with a fake SSN to apply for a job....

he's working at Mike's Construction putting on roofs on a sub division and Mike's paying him in cash which he's sticking in an envelope or Western Union and mailing to Mama back home in Guadalajara....
__________________
Hey homo, its me -- Andy/SOTB
  #87  
Old 13 December 2018, 15:22
Mars Mars is offline
Toxic Enemy of the Sheep
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Shadow Gallery
Posts: 7,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidA View Post
...on the other topic:

What's the criminal penalty for being an illegal? Deportation? Should we house them in jails and pay for them to sit there watching TV?
As far as I know, most of it is prosecuted under Title 8 Sections 1325 and 1326. The thing about it is that there really isn't a big bite for anyone. Others here may know way more about it than I.
  #88  
Old 13 December 2018, 15:30
DirtyDog0311 DirtyDog0311 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South
Posts: 7,645
Getting rid of their ability to wire money back to their main hive seriously degrades the support network they have at their disposal here in the States. If they're here illegally, then any money they make from that illegal activity isn't theirs "morally" ---- therefore any argument about 'telling people what they can do with their money' is a false-start.

This also shouldn't be a solution targeting ONLY employers or ONLY financial institutions. It should target both. Any and all means to disrupt the permissive environments they've set up here in the States should be employed.
  #89  
Old 13 December 2018, 15:35
KidA's Avatar
KidA KidA is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: WbyGV
Posts: 19,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyDog0311 View Post
Getting rid of their ability to wire money back to their main hive seriously degrades the support network they have at their disposal here in the States. If they're here illegally, then any money they make from that illegal activity isn't theirs "morally" ---- therefore any argument about 'telling people what they can do with their money' is a false-start.

This also shouldn't be a solution targeting ONLY employers or ONLY financial institutions. It should target both. Any and all means to disrupt the permissive environments they've set up here in the States should be employed.
So now you want to criminally punish an institution that had 0 to do with a thing, for the thing they had 0 to do with. You want to make it their problem and be responsible for decisions someone else made?

You guys in your zeal to stop them damn illegals are turning into a police state, but then you'll rail on and on about how now we're in a police state.

As long as they can come up with a foil for you to hate you'll cheer every chain they wrap around your neck. The left has it with gun owners and you have it with illegals and the politicians are gleefully churning out links in the chain and passing them out left and right.

That morality argument you made at the beginning of this post is one of the dumbest reaches you've ever attempted and up to this point we were agreeing on the issue.
__________________
Hey homo, its me -- Andy/SOTB
  #90  
Old 13 December 2018, 15:47
DirtyDog0311 DirtyDog0311 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South
Posts: 7,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidA View Post
So now you want to criminally punish an institution that had 0 to do with a thing, for the thing they had 0 to do with. You want to make it their problem and be responsible for decisions someone else made?

You guys in your zeal to stop them damn illegals are turning into a police state, but then you'll rail on and on about how now we're in a police state.

As long as they can come up with a foil for you to hate you'll cheer every chain they wrap around your neck.

That morality argument you made at the beginning of this post is one of the dumbest reaches you've ever attempted and up to this point we were agreeing on the issue.
If there are penalties in place for the financial institutions, then they will have a strong reason to implement internal policies and procedures that ensure the law is being followed. That is why. Everyone knows that if there is a way for the shit-ass banks to make a penny, they'll do it. Even if it takes clever ways to skirt around an issue. Only force will work with them. So force them 'we' will.

And I'm not saying 'morality' in the traditional sense. I know better than to use that argument with you. I'm saying it because the word 'legally' isn't appropriate. If you have someone making money which otherwise wouldn't be possible had they not committed an illegal activity --- that money shouldn't be 'theirs' to do with what they will. Especially since it is being used to erode the collective national identity. Maybe I should make up some fancy latin phrase to describe it. Because everyone knows attaching a latin phrase to something Pavloviany tricks people into thinking that thing is legit.

And I am fully prepared to follow any law that I myself propose.
  #91  
Old 13 December 2018, 16:04
KidA's Avatar
KidA KidA is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: WbyGV
Posts: 19,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyDog0311 View Post
If there are penalties in place for the financial institutions, then they will have a strong reason to implement internal policies and procedures that ensure the law is being followed. That is why. Everyone knows that if there is a way for the shit-ass banks to make a penny, they'll do it. Even if it takes clever ways to skirt around an issue. Only force will work with them. So force them 'we' will.

And I'm not saying 'morality' in the traditional sense. I know better than to use that argument with you. I'm saying it because the word 'legally' isn't appropriate. If you have someone making money which otherwise wouldn't be possible had they not committed an illegal activity --- that money shouldn't be 'theirs' to do with what they will. Especially since it is being used to erode the collective national identity. Maybe I should make up some fancy latin phrase to describe it. Because everyone knows attaching a latin phrase to something Pavloviany tricks people into thinking that thing is legit.

And I am fully prepared to follow any law that I myself propose.
But again, according to people who have researched the issue, the majority is being sent back in cash or money orders... sure sure the drug lords and whatnot are doing a fuck ton but it's mainly Juan the lettuce guy who is mailing $100 a week in an envelope x 10 million Juans or whatever the number is.

That's where the real money going back issue is. Putting another law in place to monitor banks because Tyson's chicken might have 100 illegals catching birds in hen houses seems like just more big goddamned government to me.

Since people don't like reading articles, this is right from the GAO:

Quote:
Still, most remitted money is coming from migrants who want to support their families, Cuevas-Mohr said, in increments so small that there’s no reason for them to be tracked for fraud.

“Most of these transfers are very small and repetitive,” Cuevas-Mohr said. “If you live in the U.S. and are sending money to your mother—I am talking $50 or $100—you send it almost every week or two weeks.”
__________________
Hey homo, its me -- Andy/SOTB
  #92  
Old 13 December 2018, 16:11
CAVmedic CAVmedic is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidA View Post
These employers know, for all intents and purposes and for the vast majority of hires, that they are hiring illegals. They're hiring them distinctly because they are cheaper.

Juan the Illegal isn't putting on a coat and tie and showing up at Chase Manhattan with a fake SSN to apply for a job....

he's working at Mike's Construction putting on roofs on a sub division and Mike's paying him in cash which he's sticking in an envelope or Western Union and mailing to Mama back home in Guadalajara....
In Ohio at least, the idea that the illegal aliens are working for cheaper is a myth. They know what the jobs pay, and any good worker is in demand and will skate to the next company.

Companies pay the tax on these illegals income. When they can't 1099 or W2 an employee for labor cost, it ends up in their profit margin and viola, pay the tax on that portion. Not saying that justifies having 6 million over here making new American citizens, but that's how it is.

Fruit and vegtable farms all over America have been using illegal aliens for decades.
  #93  
Old 13 December 2018, 16:14
Silverbullet's Avatar
Silverbullet Silverbullet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bunker
Posts: 15,720
Same debate and exact same posts are already in other threads.

This constant FB like posting BS is getting on my nerves.

Closed.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2018