How can the the USA legally ask illegal immigrants to pay taxes while denying them any legal basis of citizenship? According to a report released by The Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy in February 2016, they state that: 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States are paying annually an estimated amount of $11.64 billion in state and local taxes, on average an estimated 8 percent of their incomes. Q. What is the legal basis of asking illegal immigrants in the USA to pay 'state and local taxes while denying them any basis for citizenship? Q. And underlying that, the ethical and moral justification?
Paying taxes need not have any legal connection to citizenship or potential citizenship. There is no constitutional provision, or law, which limits taxation to citizens or those on a path to citizenship. Legal immigrants, those on visas, and indeed tourists, must all pay various taxes, including hotel taxes and sales taxes. Lawful immigrants who work in the US must pay federal and (in most states) state income tax, and I believe some undocumented immigrants pay Federal income tax as well. Many countries tax people who are not citizens, nor immigrants in line for citizenship, and this has been true far back in history. Indeed the Romans taxed pretty much every inhabitant of and visitor to the Roman Empire, most of whom were not Roman Citizens. Things haven't changed that much since. It might be argued on philosophical grounds that such people should not be required to pay taxes, or should not be required to pay certain specific taxes. But that is not the law at this time, and this forum is not for debating what the law should be.
Short Answer You can be prosecuted for lying about race on the census, but it takes some pretty specific and narrow conditions and isn't a concern for the vast majority of people. Long Answer There are two analytically distinct questions. The first is whether you can lie on the census about race. The answer is &quot;yes&quot;, you can lie on the census about race. You would do so by providing an answer that is insincere, which is to say, an answer that is not consistent with how you self-identify. If you believe yourself to be and identify as African-American, for example, but answer &quot;Alaska Native&quot; not because you identify as an Alaska Native, but because you want to screw with the census, then you have lied about race on the census. Similar issues of sincerity have been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the context of the much higher stakes issue of conscientious objector status for someone seeking to avoid the draft. A 2014 law review article explores how courts test sincerity claims in practice. The second is whether you can be prosecuted about lying on the census. There is indeed a law that makes lying on a census form a crime. Refusing to answer either the short Census form or the longer American Community Survey form is a violation of federal law (Title 13, United States Code, Section 221). Refusing to answer is punishable by a fine of $100, while giving false answers carries a fine of up to $500. (As a practical matter, the Census says fines of up to $5,000 can be imposed under Title 18, Section 3571.) So, again, the answer is &quot;yes&quot; you can be prosecuted for lying on the census, but due to the obligation of the census to maintain confidentiality, knowing that a crime was committed or proving that you lied would be hard unless you did something to waive that right to confidentiality. Still, the person about whom the confidential information is maintained by the census can waive this confidentiality. 13 USC 9(a)(3). In practice, a prosecution for lying about race on the census would probably be most viable if, for example, you did a TV interview or posted a YouTube video in which you took video of yourself filling in the race item on your census form with an answer while stating that you didn't self-identify as this race but were just screwing with the government, and then showed yourself submitting that form. Thus, while the prohibition against lying on the census about race is virtually toothless, it does have enough teeth to make it possible to prosecuted someone who openly and publicly defies the requirement to be truthful on the census and admits to doing so, which can still have some utility in discouraging some kinds of open revolts calculated at undermining the integrity of the census. Also, even if you don't &quot;admit&quot; that you are insincere that isn't the end of the analysis. They can't dispute your self-identification with biological facts, but they can dispute that your answer is a sincere self-identification with either your own confession to the contrary or with circumstantial evidence that indicates you are lying (e.g. you fill out every other form before and after with a different answer and have a known animosity towards the census). If a jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt based upon circumstantial evidence that your answer was not sincere, it could find your testimony to be not credible and convict you anyway. If there are no lies, what purpose is served by having such a definition? The vast majority of people, facing no negative consequences for telling the truth, if they have cooperated enough to fill out the form at all, will try to fill it out consistently with the instructions. And, a significant share of all census responses are provided by government employees whose duty and purpose is to try to provide a correct answer. Also, most people comply with the laws even in the face of zero enforcement. For example, it has been more than 40 years since the last person was prosecuted for not filling out a census form, even though it is crime not to do so, in part, because most people try to obey the law. And, compliance with the burden of filling out a census form is quite high. What's the value (who benefits) in making what used to be a fuzzy but more or less factual item about national and ethnic origins into a belief-based one, in effect making race into a religion. Many countries (not the U.S.) have a religion question in their census as well, and this isn't problematic where it is done, or in surveys asking questions about religion, although being clear on definitions can be important (e.g. in the case of a religious v. ancestral or ethnic v. self-identified definition of who is a Jew). I strongly suspect that the differences in how people respond to the question arising from a national or ethnic origin definition, and a definition based upon self-identification, are negligible at the statistical level. A century or so from now, when census records are made public, it will be possible to confirm this definitively by examining how the same individual's race was reported on half a dozen or more successive census forms. In non-census contexts, this shift in the definition has not produced any statistically meaningful differences in how people respond. Also, if anything, the new definition based on self-identification may be more useful to researchers who are trying to examine socially coherent communities, and it makes the race data slightly more comparable to data, for example, on religion and on sexual orientation (from non-census sources).
They need only take " reasonable measures", which is fairly subjective sounding... I know... But it just means that it's a fact dependent analysis taking into consideration all of the facts that are readily available. So, for example, it would be a different burden if you had 10,000 people coming, vs 10. If you post a sign saying no alcohol allowed on premises and you keep an eye out for blatant violations and deal w/ them accordingly you're fine. You're not duty bound to ensure that not a drop makes it in. It's basically meant to just keep you from serving it while not paying the higher licensing fee.
I suspect that this person could get a green card under 8 USC 1259 or 1255a, since it seems that he entered in 1952 or so, which was long before the Reagan amnesty. These sections of the code concern those who entered the US before 1972 and 1982, respectively. You might try asking on Expatriates as there are many people there who are familiar with immigration law. A consultation with an immigration lawyer is probably advisable.
Short Answer No. The immigration applicant is generally not entitled to his or her attorney fees in this situation, even though the government is violating one of its own laws. Long Answer The Black Letter Law Question The Right To Fees Depends On The Legal Theory Advanced A consistent answer doesn't exist at the level of generality of the title question. Some of the statutes that relate to a violation of the law by a government official include an attorney fees remedy to a prevailing plaintiff, while others do not. Violations of constitutional rights enforced under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 entitle a prevailing plaintiff to an attorney fees award. But the immigration law is a statutory requirement not a constitutional one and there is no generalized constitutional right to have the U.S. government comply with every provision of every enacted statute. Indeed, the general rule is that enforcement of statutory rights against private individuals is discretionary and non-justiciable. A writ of mandamus filed to compel the federal government to take action as it is required to do under the immigration laws would usually arise under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which does not generally entitle the prevailing plaintiff to attorneys' fees, and that would probably be the case in an All Writs Act petition for a writ of mandamus filed in relation to the timely processing of an immigration application. But the All Writs Act is basically a statutory touchstone through which the door is opened to the entire pre-Revolutionary War English common law of writ practice as modified in a common law manner through case law by the American federal courts, and there are probably some exceptions in fact patterns beyond the scope of the question. This said, I am not an expert in immigration law and it is possible that there are administrative law remedies under either the federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA) or the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which might provide a different solution to the same problem. Article III Court Litigation Is The Rare Exception In Immigration Cases Keep in mind that most immigration law matters are in the exclusive original jurisdiction of the immigration courts, which are not Article III courts, and are instead staffed by administrative law judges operating according to immigration court procedures, which must then be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and only after those remedies are exhausted may most immigration cases be brought before an Article III court which in that case is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the case arose within the immigration court system. And, appellate review of BIA decisions is quite limited. Perhaps someone more familiar with the federal APA and INA would know if there is any right to attorneys' fees under those acts, although I suspect that the answer is that there is not. Indeed, the fact that Article III litigation is such a rare exception to the general rule is one of the reasons that this problem has not been viewed as a crisis that is critical to fix. It is easier to find alternative funding to litigate cases that come up only dozens of times a year than it is to do so for issues in cases that are routine and pervasive. Exceptions Apply Where There Is Wrongful Government Litigation Conduct Also, while attorney fees are not recoverable as a matter of course in actions arising under the All Writs Act where there is not a common law right to attorney fees in a particular fact pattern, attorney fee awards may still be entered in an action under the All Writs Act, or under any other cause of action in federal court, as a sanction for wrongful litigation conduct. There are three kinds of sanctions for wrongful litigation conduct that commonly arise: Rule 11 If a party files a legal document in a federal court case which is frivolous (i.e. lacks any colorable legal basis), groundless (i.e. lacks any factual basis), or vexatious (i.e. is made for the purposes of harassing a party or delaying the case for no legitimate purpose even if it is not otherwise frivolous or groundless), then an attorney fees award may be made as a sanction proportionate to the fees incurred as a result of the wrongful litigation conduct under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Discovery Sanctions If a party fails to obey the rules governing pre-trial disclosure of information in &quot;discovery&quot; forcing the other party to enforce those obligations in motion practice prior to trial, one of the remedies that the court may (and often does) provide for this wrongful conduct is to award attorney fees to the party that requested the information and did not receive the response that party was entitled to under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Contempt of Court If a party or someone else with knowledge of the court order and some relationship to a party fails to obey a court order, or if someone who is present in the courtroom engages in conduct disrespectful to the court in the court's actual presence, party who engaged in this misconduct may be held in contempt of court. Contempt of court may be criminal, simply punishing the wrongdoer for misconduct in the same way that one might for a misdemeanor violation, or civil, imposing incarceration or fines or other remedies until the wrongdoer complies with a court order. When someone is held in contempt of court, the sanction for doing so frequently involves an award of attorneys fees incurred as a result of the wrongful action by a party to the case against the wrongdoer. Of these three options, the third, contempt of court, has the most bite as a practical matter. If a judge orders the immigration agency to meet a deadline by a certain time and it fails to do so, which isn't an uncommon result when it has already failed to do so despite receiving formal complaints about the delays, it is very likely that the sanction for failing to meet the court ordered deadline to comply will result in an attorney fees sanction against the government. Does This Rule Encourage Misbehavior? what would prevent the government from always abusing its power? It may decide to process applications as slow as possible, and only process an application in a timely manner if a lawsuit is filed against the government (at the expense of the applicant); but without any further financial consequences to the government. Sometimes Government Officials Do The Right Thing Because It's Their Job In any political and legal system, we have to count on some of the key actors to follow the law not because there are consequences for not following the law, but because their job is to uphold the law. For example, we trust judges and juries to try and rule in accordance with the facts presented to them and the relevant law in the cases they decide in court, even though both judges and juries have absolute immunity from liability for their official judicial acts. The President, and every single other federal government official, federal judge and federal administrative law judge, is likewise sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States, and the President and everyone else in the executive branch acting with authority delegated to them from the President's Executive Branch power has a duty to &quot;faithfully execute the laws&quot; of the United States. Presidential elections represent (theoretically anyway) the judgment of the American people concerning who is most able to do that job properly and to make good choices about how to exercise discretion in doing so. Also, as a practical matter, many snarls in the immigration process are handled by members of Congress in their constituent service role or through the passage of private laws, rather than by attorneys for the applicants in the Article III court, in part precisely because individual litigants can rarely afford to pay lawyers to do that. Almost every Senator and members of the House of Representatives (539 in all including non-voting delegates who still get staff), where I worked as an intern for a while, has a staff member who devotes perhaps 1/4 to 1/2 FTE to resolving cases like this one. Sometimes Delays Are Unavoidable And Not Due To Official Misconduct The wrongfulness of the delay is also mitigated by the fact that often delays are not due to any bad faith conduct on behalf of the federal government officials involved. It is not infrequently the case that it is impossible for federal government officials to do the job that Congress have given them a mandate to carry out, by the deadlines that Congress has set forth, with the funds that Congress has appropriated to them to get the job done. This is true not just in the immigration law context, but in all sorts of circumstances. The Political System's Design Naturally Disfavors Immigrants Of course, politicians and government officials often don't do everything that they are supposed to do for reasons that aren't noble or blameless. The administration in place for the last four years as of the time that this answer is written specifically campaigned on a platform of radically reducing legal immigration and largely succeeded in doing so, even though it lost many particular legal battles on that front. This wouldn't be the first time that this has happened. Immigrants, by definition, are made up of a class of people who can't vote in Presidential or Congressional elections and, as the median voter theorem would predict, their interests as non-voters fall to the bottom of the political priorities. The U.S. Legal System Is Applying Rules Designed For Different Contexts The other reason that this happens is that it evolved that way. There are a lot of good policy reasons (beyond the scope of this answer) for the American Rule that each side bears their own attorney fees in lawsuits between private parties. In a nutshell, it encourages people not to litigate minor disputes and encourages settlements that reduce the deadweight loss of transaction costs associated with litigation in lawsuits where there are substantial amounts in controversy. There are good arguments for the opposite rule as well, which is why there are many exceptions to it and why the English legal system, post-1789, ultimately ended up changing its default fee shifting rule. But when that rule was put in place, &quot;public law&quot; (i.e. lawsuits between the government and private individuals and between governments) was largely outside the jurisdiction of the common law courts that are the ancestors of the modern U.S. court system. The general rule was that you couldn't sue the government or government officials at all, and there were few exceptions and the scope of government regulation in people's lives was much smaller, although that was starting to change. Other Countries Adopt The Rule You Propose In contrast, in French law, under the First Republic, sovereign immunity from its citizens (that survived in England) was abolished, and the Republic established a separate legal system for handling public law disputes, under the supervision of the French Council of State, that has endured through the present. In the French system, copied in principle (although not every administrative detail) by essentially all other countries with a civil law legal system, once you file a public law complaint (on a form you can purchase at your neighborhood convenience store), the Council of State assigns one public law lawyer (basically a senior civil servant and not a member of the same legal professions as private law lawyers and notaries and prosecutors and judges) to represent the government in your case, and assigns another one from the same pool of government lawyers to represent its citizens in the case, in a manner similar to how barristers are assigned to serious criminal cases on a case by case basis in the British criminal justice system. There is a lot to be said for the civil law approach. Historically, it has led to government bureaucracies that are better run and treat citizens more fairly and with less corruption, relative to U.S. style systems, which is an important reason why state owned enterprises are much more popular in countries with civil law systems than in countries without them. But that simply isn't the path that U.S. law has taken, even though there are good arguments that the U.S. system is more vulnerable to being unfair. Various Workarounds And Limitations Prevent Worst Case Scenarios Still, because government officials do try to follow the law as best they can most of the time (especially career civil servants who implement the political appointee's policies), and because really outrageous litigation conduct by government lawyers who take unreasonable positions in public law litigation can result in judicial sanctions, the system still does provide some means for relief when the government violates the law. Finally, the fact that attorney fees aren't shifted in these cases doesn't mean that these cases aren't litigated. In some cases, the individual or their sponsor can afford to litigate the issue. In some cases, immigration attorneys litigate the issue pro bono (i.e. without charge to the client) because the issue has importance to their ability to deliver results to all their other clients or as a form of charitable giving and, in some cases, local governments fund this litigation on behalf of their non-citizen residents or non-profit advocacy groups fund this kind of litigation from private donations. For example, the City of Denver is among those local governments that has established a fund to help pay lawyers to litigate immigration issues on behalf of its residents to address the financial barriers those residents face to enforcing their legal rights under federal immigration laws. So, in an example of the Coase Theorem of economics, even when the formal legal arrangements and rules of a system are non-optimal, a free market economy tends to find workarounds that reallocate unfair burdens in a way that is sufficient to make the system as a whole function better.
However, can I ask the person provide me money in exchange that I am not going to call police? First of all, the conduct you describe is a tort, in addition to possibly being a crime, and so you could ask them to provide you with money in exchange for a release from tort liability (i.e. not suing them). This is done all of the time and is perfectly legal, although if one is afraid of extortion claims, the safer course would be to file the lawsuit first (and possibly also report the crime to the police first) and then to seek money damages. Once a criminal complaint has been filed and an accusation made publicly, there is no "extortion" element. A lawyer would not be permitted as a matter of professional ethics from proposing a settlement in exchange for not contacting the police, but could obtain money with a threat of civil liability. This is not obviously within the definition of extortion, because reporting them for committing an actual crime would not necessarily be "wrongful" conduct in every situation, and wrongful use of "fear" is one of the elements of the California crime for extortion. But, it is clearly within the definition of "fear" which is defined to mean: Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat of any of the following: To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person. To accuse the individual threatened, or a relative of his or her, or a member of his or her family, of a crime. To expose, or to impute to him, her, or them a deformity, disgrace, or crime. To expose a secret affecting him, her, or them. To report his, her, or their immigration status or suspected immigration status. This definition makes no reference to the validity of the accusation. It might be possible to determine with more case law research when threatening to report a crime that they have committed is "wrongful use" of "fear". My expectation is that this is something of a gray area and may be quite fact specific (it is not a point upon which there is great uniformity between U.S. states). This excerpt from a California Supreme Court decision helps clarify the line between a legitimate threat and an extortionate one (case law citations and references omitted), and tends to suggest that insisting on money, hinging on a threat that the a criminal complaint will be made otherwise, does constitute extortion in the State of California, even when made by the victim in the case of a crime that was actually committed: Extortion “Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent ... induced by a wrongful use of force or fear....” (Pen.Code, § 518.) Fear, for purposes of extortion “may be induced by a threat, either: [¶] ... [¶] 2. To accuse the individual threatened ... of any crime; or, [¶] 3. To expose, or impute to him ... any deformity, disgrace or crime[.]” (Pen.Code, § 519.) “Every person who, with intent to extort any money or other property from another, sends or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying, or adapted to imply, any threat such as is specified in Section 519, is punishable in the same manner as if such money or property were actually obtained by means of such threat.” (Pen.Code, § 523.) Extortion has been characterized as a paradoxical crime in that it criminalizes the making of threats that, in and of themselves, may not be illegal. “[I]n many blackmail cases the threat is to do something in itself perfectly legal, but that threat nevertheless becomes illegal when coupled with a demand for money.” The extortion statutes “all adopted at the same time and relating to the same subject matter, clearly indicate that the legislature in denouncing the wrongful use of fear as a means of obtaining property from another had in mind threats to do the acts specified in section 519, the making of which for the purpose stated is declared to be a wrongful use of fear induced thereby.” “It is the means employed [to obtain the property of another] which the law denounces, and though the purpose may be to collect a just indebtedness arising from and created by the criminal act for which the threat is to prosecute the wrongdoer, it is nevertheless within the statutory inhibition. The law does not contemplate the use of criminal process as a means of collecting a debt.” In Beggs “we explained that because of the strong public policy militating against self-help by force or fear, courts will not recognize a good faith defense to the satisfaction of a debt when accomplished by the use of force or fear”; For purposes of extortion “[i]t is immaterial that the money which petitioner sought to obtain through threats may have been justly due him”; “The law of California was established in 1918 that belief that the victim owes a debt is not a defense to the crime of extortion”. Moreover, threats to do the acts that constitute extortion under Penal Code section 519 are extortionate whether or not the victim committed the crime or indiscretion upon which the threat is based and whether or not the person making the threat could have reported the victim to the authorities or arrested the victim. Furthermore, the crime with which the extortionist threatens his or her victim need not be a specific crime. “[T]he accusations need only be such as to put the intended victim of the extortion in fear of being accused of some crime. The more vague and general the terms of the accusation the better it would subserve the purpose of the accuser in magnifying the fears of his victim, and the better also it would serve to protect him in the event of the failure to accomplish his extortion and of a prosecution for his attempted crime.” Attorneys are not exempt from these principles in their professional conduct. Indeed, the Rules of Professional Conduct specifically prohibit attorneys from “threaten[ing] to present criminal, administration, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute.” (Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 5–100(A).) In Libarian v. State Bar we upheld disciplinary action against Librarian who, after losing at trial, sent a letter to opposing counsel, accusing his opponent's client of perjury and threatening to use the perjury charge as the basis of a new trial motion and a criminal complaint unless opposing counsel's client paid Librarian's client. “Although no action was taken either by Librarian or Siegel to prosecute Nadel, the record clearly shows conduct which is in violation of Librarian's oath and duties as an attorney. The threats contained in the letter indicate an attempt to commit extortion. The sending of a threatening letter with intent to extort money is ‘punishable in the same manner as if such money ... were actually obtained’ (Pen.Code, § 523) and the crime of extortion involves moral turpitude.” The conduct of an attorney who threatened an oil company with reporting adulteration of its gasoline to the prosecutor unless it paid his clients was not only grounds for disbarment but “constituted an attempt to extort money as said crime is defined in sections 518, 519 and 524 of the Penal Code”; attorney's suggestion in letter demanding $175,000 settlement in divorce case that he might advise his client to report husband to Internal Revenue Service and United States Custom Service constituted “veiled threats [that] exceeded the limits of respondent's representation of his client in the divorce action” and supported attorney's extortion conviction]. As these cases illustrate, a threat that constitutes criminal extortion is not cleansed of its illegality merely because it is laundered by transmission through the offices of an attorney. Bearing these principles in mind, we turn to the instant case. Flatley v. Mauro, 139 P.3d 2, 15–21 (Cal. 2006).
Is it legal? Yes. You can make just about any payment arrangements you like. You wouldn't be able to verify compliance, though, without some connection to the student's employer. The IRS won't tell you how much money a third party earned, or how much tax they paid, in a given year. Pretty sure they can't provide that info, which is why companies wanting to verify your income ask for copies of your tax returns rather than permission to get those returns.
All laws (federal, state and local) apply to everybody, unless you have diplomatic immunity. That is, unless e.g. the federal government decides as a matter of policy to ignore certain federal laws. California does not have a law generally prohibiting the use of marijuana, though public consumption is illegal, minor consumption is illegal, and possession over 28.5 grams is illegal. So that is one less law to be concerned with violating. The federal law still exists, and has not been repealed for anyone. However, the federal government by policy is not pursuing marijuana cases in legal contexts in those states that have legalized marijuana. The complication for foreign students is that there are also immigration laws whereby you may be deported for a drug offense (that link is full of technical details on immigration and drug laws, worth reading). The immigration laws basically make it easy to penalize a foreigner (for example you might be deemed "inadmissible" so you cannot be re-admitted to the US if you leave; it just depends on what their grounds are for action). For example, "a noncitizen is inadmissible as of the moment that immigration authorities gain substantial and probative 'reason to believe' the noncitizen has ever participated in drug trafficking," which does not mean a conviction. It is reported that in California, DHS officers have treated minor infractions as "convictions," which means to be safe you have to avoid even infractions. It appears (and hire an immigration attorney if you want to test this) that trouble only arises if there is reason to believe you are trafficking, if you are a drug addict or abuser, if you are "convicted" (not necessarily "tried and found guilty," it also includes certain legal maneuverings), or if you admit to drug use (even in the case of home use under doctor's orders, i.e. a California-legal context). This incidentally includes non-use but working for the marijuana industry. It is possible that you could get stopped on the street by a random immigration search, and if you are in possession, then... it is not guaranteed that possession of a small amount of marijuana, when caught by federal authorities, cannot lead to immigration problems.