On Tuesday, September 05, 2000 1:40 PM Michael S. Lorrey
retroman@turbont.net wrote:
> > Nice to quibble over such things, but how should citizenship be
conferred?
> > And should noncitizens be subject to the government, if one believes in
> > government with the consent of the governed? (If one does not, that's
> > another story.)
>
> While one could say that the nation having an open immigration policy with
> regard to outgoing traffic, anyone who doesn't leave is consenting to be
> governed by those in charge, i.e. the old 'voting with their feet' gambit.
I disagree. But, again, if you are willing to go down this road, I suppose,
then, you support every policy of all ruling cliques in Washington and
Laconia during your lifetime. Well, do you?
> This
> policy seems to work within the 50 states, as the various state
> governments tend
> to get distressed if there is a high rate of taxpayers leaving their
> particular
> state for greener pastures (unless, of course, those leaving tend to be of
> the
> welfare class). Thus a non-citizen who stays here, when they could leave
> any time, is in actuality consenting to be taxed.
The problem would be, here, the need for that sort of policy on the national
level too. It also doesn't work if, say, you're for polygamy and all fifty
states are against it. Or if the central government decides to tax
everyone, which it currently does.
> Taxing a non-citizen 'legally' could take many forms, for example,
> imposing
> expatriation tariffs on money sent by non-citizens out of the country to
> relatives elsewhere would not be a direct tax on their income, but on
> their 'gift' to others.
But all of these are mere legal niceities. They do not speak to the spirit
of government by consent of the governed. They merely set up euphamisms to
ease consciences.
> Additionally, the INS does tend to encourage resident aliens who are
productive
> taxpayers to become citizens. Sasha, for example, had told me he was
debating
> becoming a citizen for a few years, but was unsure the potential tax
advantages
> of remaining in his current position (since he had been exiled from the
USSR,
> which no longer existed, he was actually not a citizen of any country,
which I'm
> sure drove the INS to distraction, as they would have no place to deport
him to
> if he ever became a liability, and bureaucrats hate quantum people.)
I was under the belief that deportation was to wherever one arrived from.
Perhaps I'm wrong here...
> > But Thomas does care. Note how before he was appointed, he was very
much
> > for Natural Law, but during the appointment process he turned into a
> > pragmatist very quickly. I guess his avowed principles were only so
much
> > window dressing. (Or, if he's returned to them, they are only to be
held
> > when they are convenient.) This tells me he is not independent minded.
He
> > just caters to a different audience than the NAACP.
>
> I don't know where you get any of this. What is your rationale for this
claim?
Didn't you watch the hearings?
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:14 MDT