But isn't border "security" only supposed to keep people out?

Message

Posted by jerep on 4/7 at 12:27 pm

"A new bill making its way through Congress could allow the federal government to prevent Americans who owe back taxes from leaving the country.

The provision is part of Senate Bill 1813, which was introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in November and passed by the Senate on March 14 “to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes.” ..."

"Still, the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” or “MAP-21 passed the Senate in a vote of 74-22, and is now headed for the GOP-controlled house where it’s expected to meet stronger opposition."

LINK

Three questions come to mind:

1) Why didn't it meet "stronger opposition" in the Senate?

2) After this is implemented what else will congress tack on as a reason to revoke a passport and have U.S. citizens prevented from leaving the country?

3) Which presidential candidates would veto this, and which ones would happily sign it into law?

Edit: Forgot the link.

This post was edited on 4/7 at 12:30 pm

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Tigah in the ATL

on 4/7 at 12:28 pm to jerep

We don't live in an anarchy & people are expected to pay taxes.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Bestbank Tiger

on 4/7 at 12:33 pm to Tigah in the ATL

quote:
We don't live in an anarchy & people are expected to pay taxes.

Yeah, and the "list" will work about as well as the terrorist watch list.

Better hope you don't share a name with a tax deadbeat.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by gonads&strife

on 4/7 at 12:45 pm to Tigah in the ATL

quote:
We don't live in an anarchy & people are expected to pay taxes.

We also don't live in a totalitarian police state with debtors prisons.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by jerep on 4/7 at 1:07 pm to Tigah in the ATL

Simply stating that we don't live in anarchy may be true, but says nothing about this law. No one in the communist block lived under anarchy, they were people, and they were expected to pay taxes.

But supposedly we do live under a system of rule of law rather than arbitrary power. (Although that pretense is getting pretty thin.)

If convicted of certain crimes, one can be imprisoned. This, on the other hand, would allow the IRS to have someone's passport revoked by simply asserting that they owed taxes.

The claim of living in a free country with rule of law and limited government should be sufficent reason to oppose this, but in addition, the 5th amendment guarantees that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

This legislation would allow the use of force to prevent someone from leaving the country simply because some IRS beaurocrat sends a form letter to some beaurocrat in DHS or enters a SS number in some DHS data base.

Due process refers to a fair trial before an impartial jury, the opportunity to confront the accuser, a presumption of evidence, the opportunity to present evidence, and that those who make false accusations will be subjected to penalties of purjury.

The proposed legislation would provide for depriving a person of their liberty without due process.

To suggest that this law is acceptable simply because we don't live in anarchy is equivalent to suggesting that any action of government is acceptible simply because it is an action of government which by definition means we don't live in a state of anarchy. That is a perfect example of a non-sequitor.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Revelator on 4/7 at 1:27 pm to gonads&strife

quote:
We also don't live in a totalitarian police state with debtors prisons.

Yet!

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Mo Jeaux

on 4/7 at 1:30 pm to Tigah in the ATL

quote:
We don't live in an anarchy & people are expected to pay taxes.

I love progressives. Does cognitive dissonance hurt?

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by kingbob

on 4/7 at 1:32 pm to jerep

Looks like another "I told you so" for Ron "F&#k the World" Paul

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by magildachunks

on 4/7 at 1:50 pm to jerep

I bet we get a wall built now.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Joshjrn

on 4/7 at 2:10 pm to magildachunks

Ron Paul is a prophet

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by MFn GIMP

on 4/7 at 2:15 pm to jerep

You do realize that tax evasion and filing false results is a felony right? And even if you just don't file your taxes you are still guilty of a crime and can spend up to a year in prison.

Passports aren't just handed out to everyone, there are a whole host of reasons that the state department can deny you a passport. For instance, the person applying has committed a felony,which tax evasion is. LINK

quote:
§ 51.60 Denial and restriction of passports.

top
(a) The Department may not issue a passport, except a passport for direct return to the United States, in any case in which the Department determines or is informed by competent authority that:

(1) The applicant is in default on a loan received from the United States under 22 U.S.C. 2671(b)(2)(B) for the repatriation of the applicant and, where applicable, the applicant's spouse, minor child(ren), and/or other immediate family members, from a foreign country (see 22 U.S.C. 2671(d)); or

(2) The applicant has been certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as notified by a state agency under 42 U.S.C. 652(k) to be in arrears of child support in an amount determined by statute.

(b) The Department may refuse to issue a passport in any case in which the Department determines or is informed by competent authority that:

(1) The applicant is the subject of an outstanding Federal warrant of arrest for a felony, including a warrant issued under the Federal Fugitive Felon Act (18 U.S.C. 1073); or

(2) The applicant is subject to a criminal court order, condition of probation, or condition of parole, any of which forbids departure from the United States and the violation of which could result in the issuance of a Federal warrant of arrest, including a warrant issued under the Federal Fugitive Felon Act; or

(3) The applicant is subject to a U.S. court order committing him or her to a mental institution; or

(4) The applicant has been legally declared incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction in the United States; or

(5) The applicant is the subject of a request for extradition or provisional request for extradition which has been presented to the government of a foreign country; or

(6) The applicant is the subject of a subpoena received from the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1783, in a matter involving Federal prosecution for, or grand jury investigation of, a felony; or

(7) The applicant is a minor and the passport may be denied under 22 CFR 51.28; or

(8) The applicant is subject to an order of restraint or apprehension issued by an appropriate officer of the United States Armed Forces pursuant to chapter 47 of title 10 of the United States Code; or

(9) The applicant is the subject of an outstanding state or local warrant of arrest for a felony; or

(10) The applicant is the subject of a request for extradition or provisional arrest submitted to the United States by a foreign country.

(c) The Department may refuse to issue a passport in any case in which:

(1) The applicant has not repaid a loan received from the United States under 22 U.S.C. 2670(j) for emergency medical attention, dietary supplements, and other emergency assistance, including, if applicable, assistance provided to his or her child(ren), spouse, and/or other immediate family members in a foreign country; or

(2) The applicant has not repaid a loan received from the United States under 22 U.S.C. 2671(b)(2)(B) or 22 U.S.C. 2671(b)(2)(A) for the repatriation or evacuation of the applicant and, if applicable, the applicant's child(ren), spouse, and/or other immediate family members from a foreign country to the United States; or

(3) The applicant has previously been denied a passport under this section or 22 CFR 51.61, or the Department has revoked the applicant's passport or issued a limited passport for direct return to the United States under 22 CFR 51.62, and the applicant has not shown that there has been a change in circumstances since the denial, revocation or issuance of a limited passport that warrants issuance of a passport; or

(4) The Secretary determines that the applicant's activities abroad are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States.

(d) The Department may refuse to issue a passport in a case in which the Department is informed by an appropriate foreign government authority or international organization that the applicant is the subject of a warrant of arrest for a felony.

(e) The Department may refuse to issue a passport, except a passport for direct return to the United States, in any case in which the Department determines or is informed by a competent authority that the applicant is a minor who has been abducted, wrongfully removed or retained in violation of a court order or decree and return to his or her home state or habitual residence is necessary to permit a court of competent jurisdiction to determine custody matters.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Bestbank Tiger

on 4/7 at 2:22 pm to MFn GIMP

quote:
You do realize that tax evasion and filing false results is a felony right? And even if you just don't file your taxes you are still guilty of a crime and can spend up to a year in prison.

Then charge the person with a crime. THEN you can take their passport on the grounds that they're a flight risk.

Don't just have an unaccountable bureaucrat make an arbitrary decision. That's the same kind of crap we have with the TSA (toddlers on the terrorist watch list, etc.)

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by MFn GIMP

on 4/7 at 2:32 pm to Bestbank Tiger

quote:
Then charge the person with a crime. THEN you can take their passport on the grounds that they're a flight risk.

You aren't just denied a passport because of having a warrant out against you. You can be denied a passport for something as simple as not paying back a loan from a government agency.

You guys are making it seem like this is some sinister prohibition on the ability to receive a passport that has never existed in this country.

ETA: and I don't agree with the proposal either but it doesn't make Ron Paul some prophet because we are thinking of adding one more thing to the list of reasons you can be denied a passport.

This post was edited on 4/7 at 2:33 pm

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 2:34 pm to Mo Jeaux

quote:
I love progressives. Does cognitive dissonance hurt?

Clever as a motherfricking fox.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Bestbank Tiger

on 4/7 at 2:35 pm to MFn GIMP

Of course, the real news here is the do-nothing Senate actually passed a bill.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 2:37 pm to jerep

I like how angry libertarians et al get about things like terrorist watchlists and passport holds because, OMG, a couple dozen people a year might be temporarily inconvenienced due to a mistaken identity. Yeah bro, the cons totally outweigh the pros here.

I have a buddy who shares the name of someone on the no-fly list and missed a flight due to it. The TSA took a whopping few hours to get it sort it out, he was able to get on another flight the same day. He got over it. And FWIW, he has no problem with the fact that these lists exist.

This post was edited on 4/7 at 2:42 pm

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Tigah in the ATL

on 4/7 at 5:35 pm to MFn GIMP

quote:
Passports aren't just handed out to everyone, there are a whole host of reasons that the state department can deny you a passport.

The horror!!

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by novabill

on 4/7 at 7:58 pm to moneybadger

quote:
Yeah bro, the cons totally outweigh the pros here

What are the pros of putting taking someones passport? Or do you just like the idea of a growing government taking away more and more of our liberties?

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by novabill

on 4/7 at 8:01 pm to Tigah in the ATL

quote:
Tigah in the ATL

seems to love the idea of a americans having fewer and fewer liberties.

think about all the things the government has mandated or restricted since some of us were kids in the 70s. i for one am not a big fan of my uncle or big brother being in control of my life, but i understand we may disagree on that.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 8:01 pm to novabill

quote:
What are the pros of putting taking someones passport?

Read the article.

quote:
Or do you just like the idea of a growing government taking away more and more of our liberties?

Shouldn't you be at a tea party about now?

Reply • Back to Top • Refresh

Return to Board	Jump to Page
Page 1 of 2