Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unless Hawaii had been conquered by the UK in 1959 or so... no. He wasn't.
You ARE particularly dense, HD.
The government of a citizen can indeed have jurisdiction over its citizen even when that citizen is abroad.
Example: U.S. citizens are still required to pay federal taxes to the U.S. government when abroad and may be prosecuted for a failure to do so.
And yet, we've won all the court decisions and Obama has been inaugurated president twice.
It's a pickle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The government of a citizen can indeed have jurisdiction over its citizen even when that citizen is abroad.
Short of an act of war, no. It cannot. Why do you imagine some criminals try to flee the country?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Example: U.S. citizens are still required to pay federal taxes to the U.S. government when abroad and may be prosecuted for a failure to do so.
Explain how that prosecution would take place without the person returning to US jurisdiction? You do know (I hope) that the US does not allow trials in absentia.
Explain how that prosecution would take place without the person returning to US jurisdiction?
Since when does the federal government wait for an actual prosecution and conviction to seize assets it believes it's owed?
Virtually every financial institution outside of the United States is required to identify and report all American account holders to the I.R.S. or face a severe withholding penalty on all income from U.S. sources.
Frozen foreign bank accounts. Seized assets. No return to the U.S. necessary.
Since when does the federal government wait for an actual prosecution and conviction to seize assets it believes it's owed?
To seize an asset, it must be present within the jurisdiction of the government. The US government cannot, for example, sieze assets that are held in Switzerland, or the Cayman Islands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Virtually every financial institution outside of the United States is required to identify and report all American account holders to the I.R.S. or face a severe withholding penalty on all income from U.S. sources.
All you have described here is the US government operating with authority within its own jurisdiction. The government has no leverage on any financial institution that does not do business here, within the borders of the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Frozen foreign bank accounts. Seized assets. No return to the U.S. necessary.
The US cannot freeze or seize any assets not held in the US.
You fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Voilà... jurisdiction invoked.
Voila... you didn't get in the same hemisphere as jurisdiction.
Short of an act of war, no. It cannot. Why do you imagine some criminals try to flee the country?
Explain how that prosecution would take place without the person returning to US jurisdiction? You do know (I hope) that the US does not allow trials in absentia.
Don't need a trial, we got the Patriot Act.
Obama can order a drone strike on any enemy tax evader any time it so pleases him.
To seize an asset, it must be present within the jurisdiction of the government. The US government cannot, for example, sieze assets that are held in Switzerland, or the Cayman Islands.
Birther thread disclaimer: All discussions in this post are for entertainment purposes only, since birthers have lost every single one of the more than 200 court cases they have filed, and Barack Obama has been elected and inaugurated as President of the United States... twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Total BS.
And yet... you fail again in trying to demonstrate that.
What you missed: The taxes in Canada due the US are collected by Canada, not the United States because Canada has exclusive and absolute jurisdiction in Canada. We have none, so we cannot collect a penny of them.
Likewise, the taxes in the US due Canada are collected by the US, not Cabada because the US has exclusive and absolute jurisdiction in the US. They have none, so they cannot collect a penny of them.
This is a classic reciprocal treaty in which each country agrees to cooperate with the other without infringing on either's sovereignty by violating the exclusive and absolute jurisdiction of the other over their own territory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Voilà... jurisdiction invoked in a foreign nation.
Voila, no jurisdiction whatsoever in a foreign nation, making us completely dependent on their good will to do something we cannot do.
What you missed: The taxes in Canada due the US are collected by Canada, not the United States because Canada has exclusive and absolute jurisdiction in Canada. We have none, so we cannot collect a penny of them.
Good grief, you're extremely dim-witted.
By what authority does the U.S. tax the income earned in Thailand by a U.S. citizen living and working in Thailand?
JURISDICTION
The U.S. asserts JURISDICTION to tax on the basis of two factors: source of income, and citizenship. If a foreign individual or corporation receives income from a U.S. source, that income is subject to tax. If a U.S. citizen living abroad received income from a foreign source, that income is subject to tax merely because of the U.S. citizenship of the receiver.
Thus we have a perfect example of WORLDWIDE JURISDICTION over citizens within a certain area: The U.S. taxes the foreign-earned income of U.S. citizens living abroad.
The same principle applies to the U.K.'s birthright citizenship law (in Obama's case, the British Nationality Act of 1948). The U.K. had WORLDWIDE JURISDICTION to bestow automatic British citizenship at birth to any child born worldwide to a British father provided that the father of such a person is not a citizen of the U.K. by descent only.
As such, Obama was NOT under the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. at birth. He fell under the U.K.'s jurisdiction in the area of citizenship. Obama does NOT meet the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement's meaning and intent stated in the Congressional Record: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Obama was subject to the U.K.'s citizenship jurisdiction. He owed allegiance to a foreign power at birth. Legally, Obama isn't even a U.S. citizen at all. He is only recognized as one by current political policy.
The same is true of any child born in the U.S. to a non-citizen parent whose country asserts worldwide jurisdiction in the same manner. Legally, they are not U.S. citizens. They are only recognized as such by current political policy.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 04-11-2013 at 09:25 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
