I do find the discretion issue a compelling argument, and…
… illegal entry is a crime, and I don’t see the President’s order distinguishing between those people here as a result of committing that crime, or here because of the civil violation of overstaying their visas. In other words, the President’s order fails to act against lawbreakers as well as mere civil violators, so I’m not sure how you can hold that up as the distinguishing characteristic between my hypo and the real world.
I pointed this out repeatedly in the other thread, so I assumed you had seen it, but the policy only applies to those who entered the US at 16 or younger. I suppose in some strict sense they were guilty of illegal entry, but it’s not as though they would be tried as adults on that charge.
No. We ask that people post clear thread titles and clear debate topics, and an OP with some details is preferred to “Here, debate this.” There’s no rule requiring that people explaing everything they are thinking or take a comprehensive position on the issue upfront. That would make it hard to have certain types of debates. It’s true that we don’t want people to play games and start debates under false pretenses, but that’s not the same thing as an analogy. In this case most posters clearly felt the OP used a bad analogy and they’re within their rights to say so and to criticize the way the question was posed. However I remind everybody that attacks on the OP don’t belong in this forum.
Good point.
OK, now I see TWO reasons to consider capital gains taxes differently.
Although… we could simply tweak the analogy. If the President made his announcement FIRST, then people who failed to pay capital gains taxes would not be committing a crime. They would declare their capital gains income, but subtract the taxes generated thereby from their tax payments, relying on the President’s representation. This such shield them from criminal liability – Spies v. US.
Right? Now we have two civil issue, not one criminal and one civil.
How does that work? Illegal presence isn’t a civil infraction because the President says he isn’t going to prosecute it. It’s because Congress didn’t impose a criminal penalty. Spies’ felony conviction was overturned, but he was still guilty of a misdemeanor. The IRS has just failed to charge him with it.
Already answered: Obama has legal discretion to change the deportation policy; the burden is on you to demonstrate he has such discretion regarding capital-gains tax, and you have not, and doing so would go against your obvious position here anyway.
It is not. But it is something any lawyer should research before posting a thread like this.
I guess my point was I didn’t know it was an analogy at all (until John Mace’s reply in post #3), because no mention of the actual topic, which was immigration and not capital gains taxes, was made in the OP.
In particular, my objection wasn’t that he didn’t “explain what he was thinking and take a comprehensive position”, it was that he didn’t even mention the intended topic of debate. At the very least I would have thought changing the title to “Can the president eliminate capital gains taxes on his own [Obama’s deportation policy]” would have been helpful, like you do with other misleading thread titles.
Although according to Bricker’s reply to my post, it was supposed to be obvious, so maybe I’m just dense. Suffice it to say that the presence of the cliche “It’s the right thing to do” was not enough to tip me off, as he evidently intended.
You are a timid woodland creature, gathering nuts and berries. You are not a grizzly bear, for while they gather nuts and berries, they are not timid. You usually scamper down the same forest path to where all the nuts and berries are. One day, you encounter something odd. Directly in the middle of your usual path, there is an unexpected scattering of leaves, piled suspiciously as if to obscure something underneath. Your keen woodland creature sense of smell detects the faint odor of lawyer.
Do not, under any circumstances, step onto that pile of leaves. If, by some means, you can convince the grizzly bear to do so, so much the better. Just so long as you don’t.
I don’t agree. I posted the question to see what arguments existed. Someone found a good argument. There’s no reason I should have to complete detailed research before I post a proposition, even if there’s a simple refutation to be made.
Well, if you start threads in the expectation that people have read other threads already, it’s perhaps not unfair to expect that you review those threads too. I’ve posted everything I mentioned here in the original thread on the deportation policy.
How about if I merely start a thread in the expectation that others have read any one of a kajillion news headlines?
And who cares? If I should have known it, but didn’t, the appropriate step is to bring it to my attention again. Is there some fee you have to pay before you can post?
That would be different, but that’s not what you said you were doing when people grumbled in the Pit thread (in which I defended you, I might add.)
Yes, it is exactly what I said I was doing.
Fair enough. I may have been thrown off by this:
…and a subsequent post by Captain Amazing.