Given a bit of hard time at the US customs for a DSLR

[math guy]

Thanks for the correction, Harry.

Perhaps I was thinking of a similar statement found in the Jefferson Memorial:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

I believe that was John Adams....

--
-- Joe S.
'The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.' ~ Euclid

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/josephschmitt

 

[bikinchris]

Search on Google and you will find that US Customs has the responsibility to safe guard the US borders. This is not just for catching revenue cheats or someone bringing in illegal drugs. This includes items like child porn. The courts have ruled they have the authority.

I would guess you have the right to refuse and they have the right to refuse you entry into the USA.

Ed

That would be an interesting test case if Customs refused entry to a native born US citizen because he/she didn't agree with being searched with no cause. How and where would you deport them to? Traveling is not probable cause is it? I think there was a paper written about this once...called the Bill of Rights? I am sure what they are doing is betting that the vast majority of people don't think it's worth the hassle to question what cause they are being searched for. Personally, I have never been stopped or even questioned by Customs in any country I have entered. Except one delay in Paris, but that was the French version of TSA who took my bicycle lock. I guess generally, I look boring.

--

-> > "Oh, and since we're on the subject of advice, you may want to be a little leery of some of the advice you see on this, or any other, message board. If someone is giving you advice ......make a determination about how much weight you'll give that advice. You may find that sometimes there are 'serial-posters' on the internet that should read more and type less."
-Brian Blanco, Sarasota Florida

I include myself in that quote
Chris, Broussard, LA

 

[Pete Stavrakoglou]

I disagree with this statement. Being rich is not a crime that should be punishable by having it taken away. However, on the other hand, rich people don't pay their fair share of taxes and corporations either. (Corporations are considered tax entities under law, like they are people) So, it comes down to your suggestion. Who decides where the money should go? That's not going to end up well.

What needs to happen is that these people need to pay their fair share of taxes.

How do you measure that rich people don't pay their fair share of taxes? They may gt loopholes but they still shoulder the tax burden.

Here's a breakdown:

Top 1% of earners pay 40% of income taxes
Top 5% of earners pay 60% of income taxes
Top 10% of earners pay 71% of income taxes
Top 25% of earners pay 86% of income taxes
Top 50% of earners pay 97% of income taxes

And what about the bottom 50%? Many pay zero taxes yet soome are still entitled to tax credits without ever paying taxes. That's right, they get a check without having paid any taxes. maybe it's time the bottom 50% start paying their fair share.

As a sidebar, most of the money in the world is held by only a few people. The world's richest 1% of people own 40% of all wealth, and on the other end of the spectrum; 50% of world's adults own just 1% of the wealth. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at the expense of the middle class. Notice this fact:

The top ten percent of the U.S. population owns 81.8 percent of the real estate, 81.2 percent of the stock, and 88 percent of the bonds. (Federal Reserve Bank data in Left Business Observer, No. 72, Apr. 3, 1996, p. 5).

People getting paid 5 billion dollars for making bad decisions is not the answer. I would love to be able to bet against the US economy and make that kind of money, but I have a conscience.

These people are using the infrastructure paid for by all of us, getting rich and then not paying taxes by way of loopholes. Something needs to be done. but I don't know what other than trying to get them to pay their fair share. I just know it's not fair to just take it away.

I agree, and we should go after the excessive wealth of all the rich cats and share it in ways that will help the world's poor, as they're entitled to some of it as well.
--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

you smugglers are always trying to cheat the government out of "it's " money.

naughty people.

--

-> > "Oh, and since we're on the subject of advice, you may want to be a little leery of some of the advice you see on this, or any other, message board. If someone is giving you advice ......make a determination about how much weight you'll give that advice. You may find that sometimes there are 'serial-posters' on the internet that should read more and type less."
-Brian Blanco, Sarasota Florida

I include myself in that quote
Chris, Broussard, LA

--
My humble photo gallery: http://www.pete-the-greek.com

 

[BRJR]

And, just why have we and the rest of society caused and tolerated them being the "bottom 50%", in the first place?? :|
--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

 

[TOF guy]

Search on Google and you will find that US Customs has the responsibility to safe guard the US borders. This is not just for catching revenue cheats or someone bringing in illegal drugs. This includes items like child porn. The courts have ruled they have the authority.

Indeed that turns out to be true.

I would guess you have the right to refuse and they have the right to refuse you entry into the USA.

Somebody digged that document: http://www.law2.byu.edu/jpl/papers/v19n2_Jon_Adams.pdf

From its reading I understand that they don't have the right to refuse entry. But it does not look like you have the right to refuse to be searched either. Refusing may be ground for "reaonable suspicion" and from there you may be subject to a more thorough search.

--
Thierry

 

[bikinchris]

Because some people feel that others aren't worth as much as they are and someone has to do the $hit work, the work no one else wants to do.

And, just why have we and the rest of society caused and tolerated them being the "bottom 50%", in the first place?? :|
--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

--

-> > "Oh, and since we're on the subject of advice, you may want to be a little leery of some of the advice you see on this, or any other, message board. If someone is giving you advice ......make a determination about how much weight you'll give that advice. You may find that sometimes there are 'serial-posters' on the internet that should read more and type less."
-Brian Blanco, Sarasota Florida

I include myself in that quote
Chris, Broussard, LA

 

[VueFinder]

i wonder if you take a photo of the newspaper the day you leave the US they would have to believe you?

 

[math guy]

I won't disagree entirely, but it is worth mentioning that many times we "tolerate" it because that is what people have chosen for themselves.

One reason I teach high school is to help provide students the opportunity to better themselves. But many people choose not to take that option, squander their educational opportunity, and therefore end up with much fewer financial opportunities in the future. It's sad, but I see it every day, every school year. The fact is that actions have consequences, and often the consequence of not giving school a good effort is that school turns out to be the best 13 years of one's life.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not implying that all poor people are there by choice. And I certainly do my part to help the less fortunate. But I know for a fact that many poor people are not less fortunate, simply less industrious. And it's not a small number -- at least not in my experience. It's enough to make me question the validity of many statistics I read about wealth distribution -- or at least the interpretation of those statistics.

Because some people feel that others aren't worth as much as they are and someone has to do the $hit work, the work no one else wants to do.

And, just why have we and the rest of society caused and tolerated them being the "bottom 50%", in the first place?? :|

--
-- Joe S.
'The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.' ~ Euclid

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/josephschmitt

 

[Barry Stewart]

That should put their inquisitive minds at rest.
--
Barry

 

[igb]

I tend to prefer capitalism to any other form of economics. However, I'm not naive enough to believe that it has no vices nor that other forms of economics have no virtues.

What I do believe is that no form of government or economic structure is perfect or will solve all our problems. Why not? Because humans are at their core sinful and in rebellion against their Creator who told them to love each other. So there will always be greedy people who do not love their fellow men and who find a way to take advantage of any system. Different systems are prone to be being taken advantage of by different groups of people, but they all have their weaknesses.

I don't subscribe to that vision of the nature of man because it's blatantly partial and focused on the negative (humans have also strengths/virtues). Besides it's a sterile (in the sense that you can never come to a conclussion) and unnecessary debate when discussing political organisation. I think it's fair to say that the core of said discussion, since at leat the Roman republic, is the balance of power between oligarchy and the plebs (class warfare if you will)

I live in the USA and thus have studied much about our founding fathers. One of them, Thomas Jefferson, stated, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." I suspect other nations have founding fathers who have made similar statements.

As I understand it, and to put your quote in context, John Adams was in his late days quite pro aristocracy (which is likely to entail a certain contempt for the populace)

In connection with that and, regarding my initial reply to claims of an attack to the wealthy, pls see this letter from Jefferson to Adams.

Of this a cabal in the Senate of the U.S. has furnished many proofs. Nor do I believe them necessary to protect the wealthy; because enough of these will find their way into every branch of the legislation to protect themselves. From 15. to 20. legislatures of our own, in action for 30. years past, have proved that no fears of an equalisation of property are to be apprehended from them.

http://www.tncrimlaw.com/civil_bible/natural_aristocracy.htm

Unfortunately, many people lose sight of that necessary connection.

--

--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html

 

[GodSpeaks]

Thanks for info. Apparently it is not needed to bring a proof of purchase in the US. They do record the S/N as you've mentioned.

When I lived in Canada, I registered my equipment with Canada Customs. No proof of purchase required (at that time, maybe it's changed).

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

• Rayna Butler

 

[Pete Stavrakoglou]

And, just why have we and the rest of society caused and tolerated them being the "bottom 50%", in the first place?? :|

Perhaps some of them have made choices in life that have placed them there? But I guess that's the fault of the top 50% because we have "caused" them to do so. Nonsense.
--
My humble photo gallery: http://www.pete-the-greek.com

 

[math guy]

I don't subscribe to that vision of the nature of man because it's blatantly partial and focused on the negative (humans have also strengths/virtues).

The belief in "original sin" does not imply that all people have the same faults -- simply that all people have faults by nature. My point was that since that is the case, we can always expect to find among those faults the fault of greed.

Besides it's a sterile (in the sense that you can never come to a conclussion) and unnecessary debate when discussing political organisation.

I wasn't meaning to say that we need to debate the religion while discussing politics, simply that we need to acknowledge that it does play a role. In doing so, we can eliminate unrealistic, unattainable goals from our political plans.

I think it's fair to say that the core of said discussion, since at leat the Roman republic, is the balance of power between oligarchy and the plebs (class warfare if you will)

As I understand it, and to put your quote in context, John Adams was in his late days quite pro aristocracy (which is likely to entail a certain contempt for the populace)

But the quotation I cited (incorrectly as Jefferson -- my fault) didn't imply that only the populace needed their human passions to be bridled. It makes no mention of class distinction, but rather of moal distinction. Perhaps Adams believed those two to be connected; I don't know. (I haven't had time to read the entirety of your link yet). I was just using his statement as evidence that those who formed this nation's government freely admitted that government in and of itself was not enough to correct all the possible flaws in society. That was really all I was trying to say.

My post was in reply to a series of posts arguing different economic policies. The trend seemed to be pointing out flaws in the other system as evidence that one's own system must be correct. I was just saying that no system is or can be perfect when dealing with people who are greedy by nature.

--
-- Joe S.
'The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.' ~ Euclid

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/josephschmitt

 

[Bill Robinson]

Might be useful : http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/b263gst1.pdf

cheers
Bill

Gotta believe in something....believe I'll take another photo...

http://www.pbase.com/billrobinson

 

[Alashi]

Yes, they do get picky. I registered my camera back in the 80's and 90's for trips abroad because I'd heard of this possibility. I was never confronted, but I was glad to have registered it anyway.

That's our world! It's all about money. As a young idealist, I didn't realize that.

Alashi

 

[mrfbaggins]

One reason I teach high school is to help provide students the opportunity to better themselves. But many people choose not to take that option, squander their educational opportunity, and therefore end up with much fewer financial opportunities in the future. It's sad, but I see it every day, every school year. The fact is that actions have consequences, and often the consequence of not giving school a good effort is that school turns out to be the best 13 years of one's life.

I am sure you will agree there are many reasons for not fulilling the potential your education system offers.

One is the quality of the education. I am married to and respect the work of many hard working teachers. I do not respect the many who are of such a poor standard their students fail, and they cannot be easily dismissed.

I also will never blame the actions of a minor in foregoing an education. Parents are responsible here. Their inactions, and lack of support lead many young people to miss out in life.

Where you are born, your ethnicity, the quality of the teacher, the parental support................Don't blame the child, for they are children.

I also do not suport your comment that we are inherently greedy. Some are and some are not.

I do not support a statement that we are all sinners. For the athiests among us this is not a statement of truth; I am human, that is all.

I am responsible for my actions, and my path in life is dictated by my upbringing, choices made, and the unforseen circumstances which can turn it from one direction to another.

I have a moral code developed over millions of years of evolution, and modified by the physical environment in which I live.

I offer the utmost respect to all who have and share in a religious faith. It has no place in politics though.

 

[Alashi]

Parents are responsible here.

To the extent that they do their best to provide a supportive, encouraging and nurturing environment. However, sometimes you end up raising a sociopath anyway.

Children make their own decisions--we raise them to; sometimes they are really bad ones. Until they are 18, we end up responsible for things we really have no control over.

Some succeed in stellar fashion, others do not. I'm 64 and I know this. I've raised a few .... I have some experience.

And BTW, I make silly faces at all of them.

Alashi

 

[BRJR]

And, there's a lot more to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2RD4vTuPN0&playnext=1&list=PLF83E932A5FA4931E
--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

 

[mrfbaggins]

Parents are responsible here.

To the extent that they do their best to provide a supportive, encouraging and nurturing environment. However, sometimes you end up raising a sociopath anyway.

Children make their own decisions--we raise them to; sometimes they are really bad ones. Until they are 18, we end up responsible for things we really have no control over.

Some succeed in stellar fashion, others do not. I'm 64 and I know this. I've raised a few .... I have some experience.

And BTW, I make silly faces at all of them.

Alashi

Last time I checked all failures of humaity were not sociopaths!

Of course there are extremes

Childern may believe they make their own decisions, but parents are in law and in morality, responsible for them. I take my responsibilities seriously.

We should raise childern to make RESPONSIBLE decisions with an awareness of CONSEQUENCES. Until the child is eighteen. It is our JOB as parents to protect, and guide them through this.

I have too much experience with abused (any form of neglect or harm) children where parents absolve themselves of any responsibility. Shameful in my book.

I respect your age and that you have children; however, it is not sufficient pathos. We all age and procreate.

When a generation stands up. The next generation stands tall

 

[Alashi]

I think I understand fully what you are saying. I too have strong convictions about parenting and parenting responsibilities. And no, all misbehaved kids don't grow up to be sociopaths either. But sometime, they just do !

My kids have never been mistreated or abandoned. They have been supported every step of the way with love, guidance, conversation, respect and encouragement. I've never struck any of them. I don't raise my voice to them, even if they raise theirs.

I think I've done my best and for the most part, it's worked out. One child hasn't (yet), no matter what I did or continue to do. But, when his brain starts to reach maturity in his late 20's or early thirties, that may turn the trick. All I can do is keep trying to help.

A parent can only do so much.

I haven't been perfect, but my wife sure respects all I have done and given. I have even received thanks from all my children, at one time or another, for raising them the way I did. Even from the one who makes bad decisions. These were unsolicited, but usually happened when I lowered my head feeling discouraged. But, I never give up. I want them to be independent, responsible, happy and loving. I try through example and discussion to show them the way.

So, I don't know if we are arguing or what, but this is likely the wrong forum for this particular discussion.

I actually come here to discuss my cameras!

Alashi