• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are "undocumented immigrants" persons?

Monday, 30th November, the case Trump v. New York will be argued before the Supreme Court.

The Court's decision in the case may or may not affect the 2020 elections. The Trump administration will be arguing that "undocumented immigrants" (illegal aliens) should not be considered "persons" for the purpose of congressional representation numbers. Trump has said, on more than one occasion that some states are over-represented in Congress due to the number of illegals in those states.



The 14th Amendment, Section 2 would appear to contradict Trump while supporting the idea that all humans/persons should be counted during the national census that takes place every 10 years. Although the Amendment does state that "Indians not taxed" were not to be counted. Native Americans did not become American citizens until the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, even after the passage of that Act some states refused to call Indians "citizens' if they lived on a designated reservation, until 1957.

I don't think it is limited to citizens, but I also don't think it should include people who are here illegally.
 
Really? What's the limit in the US?


" You may bring large sums of money with you in the form of cash, money order, or traveler's checks. There is no maximum limit, however, any amount exceeding $10,000 USD must be declared upon arrival on both the Form 6059B and FinCEN 105. "

.


You should also know that in some US states, a police officer could impound that cash if he/she suspects it is from illegal activity such as drug dealing.

They say that you're innocent until proven guilty, but that's only for people, inanimate objects are guilty until proven innocent.
This also applies to customs officers.
 
" You may bring large sums of money with you in the form of cash, money order, or traveler's checks. There is no maximum limit, however, any amount exceeding $10,000 USD must be declared upon arrival on both the Form 6059B and FinCEN 105. "

.
Exactly. There is no limit, contrary to the claim.

You should also know that in some US states, a police officer could impound that cash if he/she suspects it is from illegal activity such as drug dealing.

They say that you're innocent until proven guilty, but that's only for people, inanimate objects are guilty until proven innocent.
Civil asset forfeiture is a problem.

This also applies to customs officers.
Please cite me an instance of CBP seizing currency based on nothing more than mere suspicion that the cash has an illicit source.

I'll wait.
 
Civil asset forfeiture is a problem.

There are instances of injustices of course and same goes for the exercise of jurisdiction over the person.

First, let me preface this by saying, I absolutely support the legalization, or, at minimum, the decriminalization of drugs.

Now there are many instances where the government is exercising in rem jurisdiction in this sphere. I think many take their chagrin for the Drug War into a space where they then oppose the government's assertion of in rem jurisdiction. Ok, fair enough. But there IS a nuance.

Now of course we will discuss drug cases....

If they find you with 10k, a satchel of drugs during a constitutionally valid search, I think we would both agree under current law they should charge you, the person, with trafficking. Now, when they do that, they seize you, your person, and of course everything else with you.

Now let's just say that you had a valid defense to possession and were acquitted of possession. Say it was an awkward coincidence that the judge and jury found credible. Ok, you're not guilty. You're not walking out with the satchel of drugs of course, right?

What they don't tell you is that many of these people are hapless mules.

Option A: the government asserts over your person in a criminal matter where they might face a 10 year min....OR
Option B: government cuts you loose and asserts in rem jurisdiction over the cash and drugs?

Hmmmmm

So you can see that actually most people are absolutely ****ing thrilled when they find out the government is deciding to assert ONLY in rem jurisdiction.

--------------------

Now in the news, the news can focus on injustices, and that's fine, but injustices occur with convictions against the person too.

That is not a defense of those injustices, but we don't stop prosecuting people for crimes simply because some have been wrongfully convicted.

-----------------

The concept of in rem jurisdiction is ITSELF valid. Goes back to the Founding Fathers even....

Its the DRUG WAR that is illegitimate.

Just my p.o.v. on it....
 
Exactly. There is no limit, contrary to the claim.

But it subject to controls...quite restrictive control actually

Civil asset forfeiture is a problem.

Definitely from drug dealers and smugglers

Please cite me an instance of CBP seizing currency based on nothing more than mere suspicion that the cash has an illicit source.

I'll wait.



Are you actually going to tell me it doesn't ever happen ?
 
But it subject to controls...quite restrictive control actually
Not really. More than $10,000 requires completion of a FinCEN 105, and only when entering or leaving the United States. That's it.

Are you actually going to tell me it doesn't ever happen ?
I'm asking you for an example of CBP seizing currency based on nothing more than mere suspicion of an illicit source.
 
$10,000 if traveling internationally is the limit where you have to declare it.
I know. I am well aware of currency reporting requirements at the border. And I know there is no limit to how much currency or negotiable instruments a person may carry across the border, or even just through the airport, contrary to your initial claim.
 
I know. I am well aware of currency reporting requirements at the border. And I know there is no limit to how much currency or negotiable instruments a person may carry across the border, or even just through the airport, contrary to your initial claim.

Oh so you were just being condescending rather than refuting the point i was making.
 
Oh so you were just being condescending rather than refuting the point i was making.
Even better: I gave you the opportunity to refute your own claim. And you did.
 
Not really. More than $10,000 requires completion of a FinCEN 105, and only when entering or leaving the United States. That's it.

As I said, quite restrictive controls

I'm asking you for an example of CBP seizing currency based on nothing more than mere suspicion of an illicit source.

That web page isn't enough ?
Why do you think it exists if seizures don't happen? Do you think that attorney set it up in the remote chance it might happen to someone, some day in the future ?

Btw, in some states a policeman can seize the cash your carrying on mere suspicion that it came from illegal activity like drug dealing/smuggling
And if that happens, then YOU have to prove it was earned legitimately, and not the DA's office who has the burden to prove it was not.
 
I didnt, but clearly youre not interested in the actual debate.

Except you did...

Literally there is a limit to how much cash you can bring through an airport for example, or all the way up to bitcoin, stock or bank deposits.

$10,000 if traveling internationally is the limit where you have to declare it.
...because, as you acknowledge, there is no limit to how much cash you can bring through an airport.
 
As I said, quite restrictive controls
All you have to do is fill out a form if the amount is greater than $10,000 and you walk out of Customs with all your money. I can't think of any universe in which "quite restrictive" fits that as an accurate description.

That web page isn't enough ?
Since it doesn't allege a single instance, ever, of US Customs & Border Protection seizing currency based on nothing more than mere suspicion, no it isn't enough.

Why do you think it exists if seizures don't happen? Do you think that attorney set it up in the remote chance it might happen to someone, some day in the future ?

Btw, in some states a policeman can seize the cash your carrying on mere suspicion that it came from illegal activity like drug dealing/smuggling
And if that happens, then YOU have to prove it was earned legitimately, and not the DA's office who has the burden to prove it was not.
As I said, civil asset forfeiture is a problem. But that wasn't the allegation to which I was responding:
This also applies to customs officers.
 
Except you did...




...because, as you acknowledge, there is no limit to how much cash you can bring through an airport.

I didnt, you are not comprehending my point, and clearly are not interested in me clarifying it for you or the topic, but instead trying to score a cheap point. Even though I answered your question. Do you want to discuss the topic that I refuted to about how money is free, but people arent? Or just argue semantics?
 
I didnt, you are not comprehending my point,
Was your point to make a demonstrably false claim? If not, I gave you an opportunity to correct the error, and you took it. If being wrong was your point, then I stopped people from believing your error.

Do you want to discuss the topic that I refuted to about how money is free, but people arent?
I want to keep people from believing things that are objectively false. Mission accomplished.
 
Was your point to make a demonstrably false claim? If not, I gave you an opportunity to correct the error, and you took it. If being wrong was your point, then I stopped people from believing your error.


I want to keep people from believing things that are objectively false. Mission accomplished.

You dont want to discuss the topic. Got it.
 
All you have to do is fill out a form if the amount is greater than $10,000 and you walk out of Customs with all your money. I can't think of any universe in which "quite restrictive" fits that as an accurate description.

This universe. The US government tightly restricts deposits of large amounts of cash, and if you're caught carrying more than $10k, you'll need to be able to explain it


Since it doesn't allege a single instance, ever, of US Customs & Border Protection seizing currency based on nothing more than mere suspicion, no it isn't enough.

So why do you think it exists ?

And if you care to read it, it actually states:


"...civil forfeiture is applied too broadly, resulting in the seizure of millions of dollars from innocent people every year."

Are you accusing that web site of publishing false information ?


As I said, civil asset forfeiture is a problem. But that wasn't the allegation to which I was responding:

It's cash/asset seizure not forfeiture. You can always go to court and get your money back. The point I was making is that you, personally, are innocent until proven guilty. But an inanimate item, say a bundle of cash is guilty until proven innocent

Another example would be customs. If you return to the USA, from say Dubai, wearing a $10,000 gold Rolex watch, a customs officer can seize it on suspicion you bought it overseas and haven't paid duty on it (and, assuming that you did, you have to furnish proof)
I am aware of such a case Btw, a man had actually bought an expensive watch in the USA (and paid tax on it), but wore it overseas and when he returned, customs seized it and he had to get a lawyer to get his watch back for him using the receipt he got when buying it.
 
This universe. The US government tightly restricts deposits of large amounts of cash, and if you're caught carrying more than $10k, you'll need to be able to explain it
Except that's not what we've been talking about. What we've been talking about is carrying currency across the border. There is no restriction on doing so, you don't have to explain it, though you do have to spend three and a half minutes writing some information (name, destination address, passport info, amount and type of currency, etc.) on a piece of paper.

So why do you think it exists ?
Because of civil asset forfeiture that goes on inside the US, not at the border, and not by CBP.

Are you accusing that web site of publishing false information ?
No, I'm accusing you of not sticking to the topic of currency reporting requirements at the border.

It's cash/asset seizure not forfeiture.
And that process is known as civil asset forfeiture.

Another example would be customs. If you return to the USA, from say Dubai, wearing a $10,000 gold Rolex watch, a customs officer can seize it on suspicion you bought it overseas and haven't paid duty on it (and, assuming that you did, you have to furnish proof)
I am aware of such a case Btw, a man had actually bought an expensive watch in the USA (and paid tax on it), but wore it overseas and when he returned, customs seized it and he had to get a lawyer to get his watch back for him using the receipt he got when buying it.
Again, you're drifting. We are talking about currency, not merchandise. Further, I find your description of events highly suspect, as it's incredibly unlikely CBP seized the merchandise in question. If they did anything, they detained it, which is not the same thing. If the only question was where the watch was purchased, the lawyer was overkill. Further, I hope the lawyer (or CBP) advised your friend he can easily avoid such issues in the future by completing a CBP Form 4457, "Certificate of Registration for Personal Effects Taken Abroad." I would have my pricey goods registered in such a fashion if I ever traveled abroad with them. As it is, the only expensive items I typically transport across the border are my computer and camera gear. The computer is easily proven to be a non-recent purchase, and imaging equipment is generally free of duty from almost all countries of origin anyway.
 
I am reminded of the US Immigration questionnaire, non-citizens must fill in upon arrival to the USA by plane. They're handed out as the plane approaches the USA.
I've only ever filled them out on airplanes but assume land borders are the same or very similar

One of the questions asks if you're coming to the USA to overthrow the government. Has anyone in their right mind answered "Yes"

Ditto the census. Would anyone in their right mind include illegal aliens ?




"Federal funds, grants and support to states, counties and communities are based on population totals and breakdowns by sex, age, race and other factors. Your community benefits the most when the census counts everyone. When you respond to the census, you help your community gets its fair share of the more than $675 billion per year in federal funds spent on schools, hospitals, roads, public works and other vital programs. "





Remind me which states don't comply with "illegal immigration enforcement" ?
Which states/cities "encourage illegal immigrants to shelter there while they shield them from law enforcement" ?

Please specify those states and give evidence to support you unsubstantiated claims.

New York for one. We even passed the Green Light Law, which allows illegal immigrants to obtain a driver license.
 
...what we've been talking about is carrying currency across the border. There is no restriction on doing so, you don't have to explain it...

Absolutely you do (have to explain it)

The web page I posted actually refers to customs seizing "millions of dollars" per year

And for some reason, you don't believe this ?

Because of civil asset forfeiture that goes on inside the US, not at the border, and not by CBP.

LOL, yes it ***IS*** inside the USA
Customs agents can hardly act on FOREIGN territory

It doesn't matter if it one inch inside the USA or 100 miles

No, I'm accusing you of not sticking to the topic of currency reporting requirements at the border.

And I'm accusing you of sticking your head in the sand and outright ignoring what that attorney's web site clearly states

And Btw, a policeman in some states has the same powers when it comes to seizing cash. I mention this to illustrate that an INANIMATE object (such as a bundle of cash) is guilty until proven innocent (and not the other way round as it is with people)


Again, you're drifting. We are talking about currency, not merchandise.

Both are inanimate objects and both are treated the same legally - and that is somehow the point you're struggling to grasp

Further, I find your description of events highly suspect, as it's incredibly unlikely CBP seized the merchandise in question. If they did anything, they detained it, which is not the same thing.

Please explain the legal difference between seizure and detention. Your grasping at straws is becoming comical


If the only question was where the watch was purchased, the lawyer was overkill. Further, I hope the lawyer (or CBP) advised your friend he can easily avoid such issues in the future by completing a CBP Form 4457, "Certificate of Registration for Personal Effects Taken Abroad." I would have my pricey goods registered in such a fashion if I ever traveled abroad with them. As it is, the only expensive items I typically transport across the border are my computer and camera gear. The computer is easily proven to be a non-recent purchase, and imaging equipment is generally free of duty from almost all countries of origin anyway.


You're so smart

However I don't know anyone who does this, and if customs seized your $10,000 watch, you might well hire a lawyer to get it back. I know I would.
 
Absolutely you do (have to explain it)
No, you really really don't.

The web page I posted actually refers to customs seizing "millions of dollars" per year

And for some reason, you don't believe this ?
I readily believe CBP seizes millions of dollars per year. What I don't believe is that CBP seizes millions of dollars per year based on nothing more than a mere suspicion that the money has an illicit source, and the seizures are not based on a failure to declare, or something more solid like probable cause.

LOL, yes it ***IS*** inside the USA
Customs agents can hardly act on FOREIGN territory
If you don't know the distinction between "at the border" versus "inside the US," and the differing roles of CBP and local/county/state law enforcement, then you really have no business discussing the finer points of this topic.

Regardless, that's my answer as to why the web page exists: for CAF that goes on inside the US. It may also exist to aid clients in recovering some portion of cash that was seized by CBP, but that cash wasn't seized by CBP based on a mere suspicion of it being derived from unlawful activity.

And I'm accusing you of sticking your head in the sand and outright ignoring what that attorney's web site clearly states
Except you haven't provided a shred of evidence that CBP seizes cash based on a mere suspicion of illegal activity. Quote the passage that states such on the web page you cited. Or, better yet, go find a news source instead of a law firm's advertisement.

And Btw, a policeman in some states has the same powers when it comes to seizing cash. I mention this to illustrate that an INANIMATE object (such as a bundle of cash) is guilty until proven innocent (and not the other way round as it is with people)
Don't care, that's not the point I'm arguing. I have in fact repeatedly said that civil asset forfeiture is a problem in the US. Not only am I not arguing this point, I'm actually agreeing with you that it's an issue to be addressed.

Both are inanimate objects and both are treated the same legally - and that is somehow the point you're struggling to grasp
I'm not struggling to grasp anything. The distinction between the merchandise and the currency is that the merchandise (watch) is subject to duty if purchased overseas and being imported for the first time. Therefore, if it is reasonable to suspect a foreign origin, documentation can be demanded to support a claim of domestic purchase (or previous importation), and the merchandise can be detained. Currency is subject to no tax or duty and may be freely imported; its source is not typically questioned, probably because it's not at all suspicious for large amounts of money to be legitimately crossing the border.

Please explain the legal difference between seizure and detention. Your grasping at straws is becoming comical
A seizure is a final taking of property based on a violation of law or regulation. A detention is a temporary holding of property while a determination is made as to that property's status.

You're so smart
Shut up baby, I know it.

However I don't know anyone who does this, and if customs seized your $10,000 watch, you might well hire a lawyer to get it back. I know I would.
I am aware of plenty of people who do this. The most common item I'm aware of people registering is firearms (and their attached optics) for overseas hunting trips. Camera gear is also not rare, but is ultimately unnecessary.
 
No, you really really don't.

So these airport seizures are done by the customs for fun ?

Or might they be done because the people carrying that money failed to satisfactorily explain it ?


...what I don't believe is that CBP seizes millions of dollars per year based on nothing more than a mere suspicion that the money has an illicit source...

Please elaborate of what reasons customs may have had. Remember what the web page said:

"However, civil forfeiture is applied too broadly, resulting in the seizure of millions of dollars from innocent people every year."

So not talking about known criminals/smugglers or people with long criminal records...

If you don't know the distinction between "at the border" versus "inside the US," and the differing roles of CBP and local/county/state law enforcement, then you really have no business discussing the finer points of this topic.

Translation: There ***IS*** no difference and you're just floundering for something to cover up how your "naked argument" has been exposed

Your "emperor has no clothes on"


Except you haven't provided a shred of evidence that CBP seizes cash based on a mere suspicion of illegal activity. Quote the passage that states such on the web page you cited. Or, better yet, go find a news source instead of a law firm's advertisement.

To repeat again:

"However, civil forfeiture is applied too broadly, resulting in the seizure of millions of dollars from innocent people every year."

That's a pretty big "shred"

Customs only NEED a suspicion to seize goods etc
Whereas they need a little thing called evidence to arrest you.


Don't care, that's not the point I'm arguing....

So you agree that a policeman, in some states, can seize cash on mere suspicion, but a customs agent at the border cannot ?

Please provide the criteria you believe a customs agent must meet in order to seize goods/cash

I'm not struggling to grasp anything. The distinction between the merchandise and the currency is that the merchandise (watch) is subject to duty if purchased overseas and being imported for the first time. Therefore, if it is reasonable to suspect a foreign origin, documentation can be demanded to support a claim of domestic purchase (or previous importation), and the merchandise can be detained. Currency is subject to no tax or duty and may be freely imported; its source is not typically questioned, probably because it's not at all suspicious for large amounts of money to be legitimately crossing the border.

And a customs agent can demand evidence from you of domestic purchase (ie a receipt) on MERE SUSPISCION and if you don't have it on you (does anyone after the day of purchase) it will be seized

Cash is EXACTLY the same, if you fail to satisfy the customs agent, it will be seized. Hence the quote from that attorney's web page:

"However, civil forfeiture is applied too broadly, resulting in the seizure of millions of dollars from innocent people every year."


A seizure is a final taking of property based on a violation of law or regulation. A detention is a temporary holding of property while a determination is made as to that property's status.

Nope, you can regain property that's been "seized"
Customs don't borrow stuff from you, if they "detain" your good/cash...you absolutely do NOT get it back unless or until you go to court and PROVE tax was paid on the goods/cash.

Notice the word "seizure" above - are you claiming to know more about the law that the attorney who created that web page ?


Shut up baby, I know it.

It appears your emperor is dressed in clothes of sarcasm, such is your inability to recognize it

I am aware of plenty of people who do this. The most common item I'm aware of people registering is firearms (and their attached optics) for overseas hunting trips. Camera gear is also not rare, but is ultimately unnecessary.


Please provide one example where a person has satisfied a customs agent by providing proof of domestic purchase when returning to the USA with an expebsive item.
 
Back
Top Bottom