This day in ... (between the lines)
Current time: 11-21-2017, 12:57 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: eye2i2hear
Last Post: eye2i2hear
Replies: 3
Views: 2058

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
This day in ... (between the lines)
11-20-2016, 10:35 AM
Post: #1
This day in ... (between the lines)
subtitle: this day in ... (between the lies)

#landofthefree #payMenoworpayMeThePeoplelater

somedude known as Chris Riotta Wrote:
Nuri Katz has heard it all before: whether it’s a pessimistic attitude toward the direction of the country, hoping to gain a new perspective of the world or avoiding tax hikes, thousands seek aid from the international citizenship expert on how to move out of the country in the wake of every national election.

With six passports himself, Katz knows just how unrealistic it is for everyday Americans to pick up and leave every time someone they don’t like is elected into the White House. Google saw an unprecedented surge in searches for moving out of the country after George W. Bush’s 2004 reelection victory – and again each time President Barack Obama was elected after. Most recently, Canada’s immigration website crashed the same night Donald Trump was announced the official president-elect.

Despite the public’s dire interest in escaping each White House administration, however, the immigration practitioner says "citizenship hopping" is a freedom exclusively held by the mega-rich.

"Unless you’re someone extremely wealthy, or you somehow have the ability to sell your house, your car and move to Canada, the idea of leaving the country after an election isn’t exactly realistic," Katz, a licensed member of The Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council, told International Business Times. "Even then, most people don’t even qualify for citizenship in Canada. Most won’t even be able to file an application."

Americans hoping to head north each time election results aren’t in their favor doesn’t make much sense when put in perspective. Taxes are generally on par with what Americans pay in the states, and often times can be even higher. There also isn’t any special exception reserved for Americans hoping move to the neighboring country, which means Americans are just as likely to face months of waiting for temporary resident visas and rejection from Canadian citizenship as any other international immigrant. The process includes several obstacles and endless red tape and requires a significant amount of time and money, which often deters any normal citizen from ditching their American passports for a fresh Canadian one. Katz says he’s seen an outpouring of inquiries from Americans hoping to start fresh in a new country after the 2016 presidential election, though nothing serious has come to fruition.

Ditching American citizenship has been a hot trend for the nation’s top one percent in recent years, however. The country has seen an uptick in thousands of members from the upper class gaining citizenship in other countries within the last five years. 2015 saw 4,279 Americans ditch their citizenship, a 20 percent increase in just one year – the third record-breaking year in a row. That number is 18 times higher than the rate of Americans renouncing their citizenship in 2008.

Analysts see growing tax burdens on the nation’s biggest earners as one of the prime examples why more Americans are leaving under President Barack Obama than ever before. But experts like Katz don’t foresee that rate declining under President-Elect Donald Trump: rather, more Americans than ever before will likely continue the rich’s mass exodus.

"There’s a lot of higher net worth Americans who are going to be politically and financially motivated to find other options than ever before," Katz said. But they’re not all heading to Canada. "Canada is already struggling with the amount of interest from all over the world, including China, Mexico and India, and taxes are much higher for wealthy Canadians."

"People don’t really understand Canada is actually a different country: You have to immigrate, and immigration no matter what is a difficult process," Katz continued. "And if Trump annuls NAFTA then you’re straight out of luck."

Correction (for a closing example): People don't really understand Canada is actually a different gang/mob rule territory Claimed.


sidebar within a sidebar: why (for the typical "Democrats", but all such practically) is it always a promise/threat to move to "Canada" and not "Mexico" (you know, where most of the "immigrants" come from)?
[i knowz, i knowz, [i]why ask why[i]]
sidebar2: not to even get into the author seeing the comparing of "Taxes" as the only/primary reason to wish to get away/out.?

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-20-2016, 01:48 PM
Post: #2
RE: This day in ... (between the lines)
Am I the only one who notices how many few people want to give up American citizenship?

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-20-2016, 07:40 PM
Post: #3
RE: This day in ... (between the lines)
Am I the only person who does not understand the concept of citizenship?

Think about it, what sane person would vote for a new leader or look for a new master? I guess the whole world is insane!
Citizenship = Slavery
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-17-2017, 04:10 PM
Post: #4
Lightbulb RE: This day in ... (between the lines)
[Image: bathcaptain.gif~c100] sailin' pools...

Martin Shkreli, @Slate.com (somewhat snarcasticly, somewhat smugly) Wrote:
Harper’s has published selections from the June transcript of voir dire in the fraud trial of the famously besmirked pharma bro, wherein prospective jurors were forced to reveal to a judge any biases that might prevent them from making a fair decision in Shkreli’s case. More than 200 people were dismissed from the pile of possible jury members because, it seems, Shkreli’s reputation as a smug jerkoff who price-gouges HIV and cancer patients preceded him. Their in-court explanations are positively healing to read.

The only thing I’d be impartial about is what prison this guy goes to,” one juror declared. Said another: “I don’t like this person at all. I just can’t understand why he would be so stupid as to take an antibiotic which H.I.V. people need and jack it up five thousand percent. I would honestly, like, seriously like to go over there—” “Sir, thank you,” the judge interrupted, presumably to protect the potential juror from drawing charges of his own for threatening the defendant.

These hero almost-jurors prove that effective shade need not be complicated nor particularly creative. Some of their simplest phrases are their best. “I have total disdain for the man”; “I’m aware of the defendant and I hate him”—if these people weren’t standing before a judge, they would 100 percent be blowing on the tips of their nails, flipping their hair, and flouncing away before their interlocutors could utter another word. Everything they said—“he’s a greedy little man”; “he’s the most hated man in America”—is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... .

The most honest juror self-disqualifications concern Shkreli’s face, which nine out of 10 faceologists* (*not a real medical specialty) agree is yearning to be knocked around. “I was looking yesterday in the newspaper and I saw the defendant,” one person said. “There was something about him. I can’t be fair. There was something that didn’t look right.” Yes, yes, that sounds right. Another juror explained that “when I walked in here today I looked at him, and in my head, that’s a snake—not knowing who he was—I just walked in and looked right at him and that’s a snake.” Perceptive!

Of course, none of these people made it onto Shkreli’s jury, because judges must strive to get a set of 12 people who know as little about the involved parties as possible, and who have no preconceived notions about their innocence or guilt.

When is a smug jerkoff who price-gouges, a smug jerkoff who doesn't want to pay their fair share... Stare ?

And the juror pool for the likes of "smug jerkoff" "Sovereign" "Anarchist" "Treasonous" "Infidel" "Savage" "Illegals" of the "don't want to pay their Fair Share" "WILLFUL FAILURE TAX PROTESTORS"!?!? How many wouldn't make it into that jury (aka yours/mine)?!?

ALL those with the since-as-an-early-age-as possible myth perpetuation, indoctrination, propaganda, manipulation, intimidation, coercion, threats of and initiation of aggression and violence, including forcing others to pay for such, as being "normal" (aka "God Blessed American!") "jurors who have no preconceived notions about the innocence or guilt".?

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)