Willie

Yeah, that’s the internet for you. Anything you want to stay around will vanish someday, and anything you want gone will be here forever.

While there’s no ‘and’ after ‘(A)’, it appears that’s the standard format for a list like this. Every list of x, y, and z in this bill is written in the same way. It seems like it’s supposed to be written like you would a list you give in English. There’s a list of conditions under which a prisoner can be transferred to a prison closer to their home when near release time, and the conditions are listed in the same exact way.

‘‘(2) TRANSFER TO INSTITUTION CLOSER TO RELEASE RESIDENCE.—A prisoner who is successfully participating in an evidence-based recidivism reduction program shall be considered by the Bureau of Prisons for placement in a facility closer to the prisoner’s release residence upon request from the prisoner and subject to—
‘‘(A) bed availability at the transfer facility;
‘‘(B) the prisoner’s security designation; and
‘‘© the recommendation from the warden of the prison at which the prisoner is incarcerated at the time of making the request.

There’s no way they will allow you to transfer to a prison that has no space for you, so long as you can fulfill both B and C, it’d be physically impossible! It’s clear they intend for you to meet all 3 requirements, just like in the segment being discussed by the supreme court in the article. There’s also like a seven item list of responsibilities the Attorney General has in the bill too, formatted with the same (A); (B); ©; … (G); and (H) format. And there’s no way they let the dude just pick which task from the list he’s responsible for. Once you become familiar with the bill’s format, it’s extremely clear how this is supposed to work.

I feel like that specific issue is pretty cut and dry, but that’s just me.

So I looked it up, and the law appears to be worded like this:

‘‘(1) the defendant does not have—
‘‘(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
‘‘(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and
‘‘© a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;’’

So let’s simplify this into English. Because the header says that “The defendant does not have” and then has subsections, we will append that idea to the start of each subsection.

The defendant doesn’t have more than four crime points

and

The defendant doesn’t have a 3 point offense

and

The defendant doesn’t have a violent 2 point offense.

Simplifying it down like this makes it seem like the way it is written is the more strict way the supreme court decided on. It sounds like the supreme court is correct in this case, but they don’t know why they’re correct, since their reason is all wrong.

Let’s look at it this way.

Condition 1 is to disqualify anyone with 5 or more crime points.

Condition 2 is to disqualify anyone who has committed any crime that is worth 3 crime points.

Condition 3 is to disqualify anyone who has committed a crime worth 2 points, but only if it is a violent crime.

So basically, they intend for a violent crime worth 2 points to disqualify you, and they intend for any 3 point crime to disqualify you as well. And they intend for having 5 points to disqualify you.

Worrying about the value of added points is missing the point of the wording of the entire set of rules. Especially if there exist crimes worth 1 crime point. There’s a whole range of crimes you can commit and still qualify.

You could commit:

Up to 4 crimes worth 1 point each.
Up to 2 crimes worth 1 point each, as well as one non-violent crime worth 2 points.
And up to 2 non-violent crime worth 2 points each.

The point of condition 1 is to put a cap on the amount of crimes worth 1 or 2 points you can commit.

I hope this helped you understand it the way I understand it.

And be careful, a lot don’t have built in speakers either. Don’t just expect to get a TV out of a commercial display.

Yeah, I am imagining the soil moisture things from the garden store, with the little needle gauge thing, that takes so little power that there’s no battery slot. I feel like the amount of power this thing makes is extremely low.

In a way, but since you can only be US president for two terms, “doing it to get re-elected” means that you don’t believe they’ll continue doing whatever they’re doing during their second term if you re-elect them.

What happens if your brain implant is like a phone, and stops getting updates after 2 or so years? That’d suck really bad.

Yeah, I learned all about ITINs and other ways that these folks can get real jobs and pay taxes a few hours ago. It was quite an interesting read.

Like I said in my comment, I’ve met very few undocumented immigrants. And realistically, if they can perform a job as a normal person, and pay taxes like a normal person, then even if I have met more, I likely never knew, because why would you go around telling folks about your situation in that case. That’d be a good way to blow your cover. And it’s not like I’m going to ask about their experience immigrating, since that’s not really a subject that’s appropriate to approach with people you don’t know.

I live in the middle of nowhere, so my experience is likely vastly different from all y’all’s. So it’s nice to hear your perspectives. Thanks for sharing.

Dang bro, you’re right. I mistakenly assumed the article was over at the section where they presented me with other articles to read, since it didn’t make sense for them to show me that if the article I was reading continued. So from my perspective the article was basically “They pay taxes, we promise.”. They even used language that seemed to close out the article to me before that section by saying “More importantly, the claims about taxes, housing costs and immunizations are false.” and not elaborating further.

I wouldn’t have even made my first comment had I seen the section below, since they answered exactly the questions I was asking. Haha. I was about to roll in here and ask if we had even looked at the same article, before I gave it a second look. I guess in the end, we hadn’t.

This whole ITIN thing is interesting, I’ve seen the fields for it in the past, but never really thought about it too much since I always assumed it was for people who are in like… a transitional period of their immigration of sorts, not for fellas who aren’t supposed to be working. The article that the article linked about ITINs makes it sound like you can even get your tax return with it. That’s crazy, but it makes sense.

You’re assuming they receive paychecks at all, though. All undocumented immigrants I’ve known the situations of in my time (which is very few mind you, so it’s possible that this is not the norm) got paid in cash for the work they did, instead of getting a check. And I find it unlikely that the business or person paying them in cash under the table would have gone and paid their income tax for them and announced “These are the taxes the illegal immigrants I hire are paying!” and I even more doubt that the folks who received the funds paid their income tax on their own, since their employers were already playing on their fears of being discovered by the government to pay them lower wages than the market would normally accept (I want to say it was below the federal minimum at the time).

While I agree that we should totally be getting more taxes from rich folks. It’s not really relevant to the current discussion about the taxes paid by undocumented immigrants. That said, I’m not super concerned about undocumented immigrants paying income tax, since it’s really the fellas who employ them that are the problem. I was only mentioning it because I was curious as to how true what that article was saying really was, since it did not match my experiences.

I’m having a hard time believing that undocumented immigrants pay all their taxes. You can say they pay some for sure, since there’s no way they don’t pay sales tax and such. Wouldn’t undocumented immigrants not have to pay the largest tax most folks have to pay, though, since they likely wouldn’t be paying income tax? I suppose if they once held a work visa or whatever, and had it expire, and they never relocated or changed jobs somehow, they’d still be paying their income tax, but I feel like that’d be rare, unless workplaces have no idea when your visa expires, and isn’t required to fire you when they find out.

I wish that article wasn’t about some random twitter post, and had more information in it. Maybe then they would have explained this. I would have assumed the tweet was BS the moment they said those folks don’t have to pay rent. Like… where did the person who believed that tweet think those fellas lived?