America - The Official Thread

[Joey D]

I would be interested to hear people's take on what would be the removal of due process.

"We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order. Most children come without parents..."

Hard to say, the Constitution doesn't really apply to people entering the country illegally. Only citizens and, at times, people who entered the country through a point of entry.

However, I feel that everyone is entitled to due process.

 

[Danoff]

I would be interested to hear people's take on what would be the removal of due process.

"We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order. Most children come without parents..."

People will argue that due process is only something afforded to US citizens.

Edit:

Tree'd

 

[Scaff]

Hard to say, the Constitution doesn't really apply to people entering the country illegally. Only citizens and, at times, people who entered the country through a point of entry.

However, I feel that everyone is entitled to due process.

People will argue that due process is only something afforded to US citizens.

Edit:

Tree'd

Isn't that somewhat debatable, as the wording I've come across uses citizen in one part, but then refers to "any person", making no reference to bring a citizen.

It also raises the question of how would you establish if someone is a citizen without some form of due process (even an ID check is arguably a part of due process).

• We see this tension between citizenship and noncitizenship in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
  

 

[AbeFroman75]

Harley Davidson said, in its SEC filing, that it's because of the tariffs. So it's not a press release, it's a legal document.

This has been in the planning stages for well over a year. Now, I'm not a corporate tax attorney so the exact reasons for this filing would be pure speculation from anybody that isn't and doesn't really understand the legal tax details of a multi-billion dollar international corporation. Could it be that they are this filing is to mitigate their taxes since customs and tariffs are considered a cost of doing business and thus a possible way to lower their tax liability for something they were already planning on doing? Who knows, if you or anybody here is a corporate tax attorney that has experience handling these types of accounts I'd love to hear it.

 

[Joey D]

Isn't that somewhat debatable, as the wording I've come across uses citizen in one part, but then refers to "any person", making no reference to bring a citizen.

It also raises the question of how would you establish if someone is a citizen without some form of due process (even an ID check is arguably a part of due process).

• We see this tension between citizenship and noncitizenship in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

True it's not exactly black-and-white, but for the most part, the Constitution only applies to citizens of the US.

This has been in the planning stages for well over a year. Now, I'm not a corporate tax attorney so the exact reasons for this filing would be pure speculation from anybody that isn't and doesn't really understand the legal tax details of a multi-billion dollar international corporation. Could it be that they are this filing is to mitigate their taxes since customs and tariffs are considered a cost of doing business and thus a possible way to lower their tax liability for something they were already planning on doing? Who knows, if you or anybody here is a corporate tax attorney that has experience handling these types of accounts I'd love to hear it.

It's not speculation, the SEC filing literally spells it out in clear-cut language why they are doing it. If its legally filed document is speculation, then I'm at a loss. I wasn't quoting a news story or an opinion piece, I was quoting source material.

 

[Danoff]

Isn't that somewhat debatable, as the wording I've come across uses citizen in one part, but then refers to "any person", making no reference to bring a citizen.

It also raises the question of how would you establish if someone is a citizen without some form of due process (even an ID check is arguably a part of due process).

• We see this tension between citizenship and noncitizenship in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

From my perspective, the Bill of rights codifies (or should codify) human rights, not American citizen rights. So I think it ought to apply.

 

[Scaff]

True it's not exactly black-and-white, but for the most part, the Constitution only applies to citizens of the US.

It makes sense that parts of it are limited, such as the right to bear arms.

However I'm looking at this from the specific angle of due process, fair trial, etc.

If that's not assigned to all (citizen or not, legal or not), then it opens it up to abuse the rights of the citizen. Thus being directly at odds with itself, and failing in what its stated as a right for the citizen.

 

[AbeFroman75]

It's not speculation, the SEC filing literally spells it out in clear-cut language why they are doing it. If its legally filed document is speculation, then I'm at a loss. I wasn't quoting a news story or an opinion piece, I was quoting source material.

It's really simple, are you a corporate, corporate tax or securities attorney in the US? Yes or no? This has been in the planning stages for quite a long time (before the tariffs) prior to filing the 8-k (which is apparently a very commonly issued form used to inform investors and the SEC of anything that could effect stock prices, among other reasons) Yes or no?

Why they are issuing this statement using the tariff reason when they have been planning this for over a year under a different reason is something that I am curious about. If you are a corporate tax attorney or work for the SEC the please by all means let it be known. If you are not an attorney or don't work for the SEC handling this kind of thing, then you are speculating.

Now, before you state "it's literally spelled out." I will simply ask again "Why they are issuing this statement using the tariff reason when they have been planning this for over a year under a different reason."

Edit: Read the last paragraph of the form.

 

[Scaff]

It's really simple, are you a corporate, corporate tax or securities attorney in the US? Yes or no? This has been in the planning stages for quite a long time (before the tariffs) prior to filing the 8-k (which is apparently a very commonly issued form used to inform investors and the SEC of anything that could effect stock prices, among other reasons) Yes or no?

Why they are issuing this statement using the tariff reason when they have been planning this for over a year under a different reason is something that I am curious about. If you are a corporate tax attorney or work for the SEC the please by all means let it be known. If you are not an attorney or don't work for the SEC handling this kind of thing, then you are speculating.

Now, before you state "it's literally spelled out." I will simply ask again "Why they are issuing this statement using the tariff reason when they have been planning this for over a year under a different reason."

Edit: Read the last paragraph of the form.

Do you have a source for the plans to move production to the EU from over a year ago?

I'm aware of the shuttering of some US production and the expansion of the Thailand site from then, but not if any commitment to an EU based plant.

 

[huskeR32]

It's really simple, are you a corporate, corporate tax or securities attorney in the US? Yes or no? This has been in the planning stages for quite a long time (before the tariffs) prior to filing the 8-k (which is apparently a very commonly issued form used to inform investors and the SEC of anything that could effect stock prices, among other reasons) Yes or no?

Why they are issuing this statement using the tariff reason when they have been planning this for over a year under a different reason is something that I am curious about. If you are a corporate tax attorney or work for the SEC the please by all means let it be known. If you are not an attorney or don't work for the SEC handling this kind of thing, then you are speculating.

Now, before you state "it's literally spelled out." I will simply ask again "Why they are issuing this statement using the tariff reason when they have been planning this for over a year under a different reason."

Edit: Read the last paragraph of the form.

Perhaps you could meet the same standard that Joey did, and provide a source for your statements. What exactly was Harley planning a year ago? What were their reasons? Where can I read about it?

 

[AbeFroman75]

Do you have a source for the plans to move production to the EU from over a year ago?

I'm aware of the shuttering of some US production and the expansion of the Thailand site from then, but not if any commitment to an EU based plant.

I never did. Can you please provide a source for where I said they planned to move production to the EU?

If I did say that they planned to move production to the EU, I was incorrect.

Perhaps you could meet the same standard that Joey did, and provide a source for your statements. What exactly was Harley planning a year ago? What were their reasons? Where can I read about it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/business/harley-davidson-thailand-factory-manufacturing.html

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harley-davidson-steel-tariffs/

"Harley-Davidson has long cast its eyes abroad amid sluggish growth at home. It hopes to make half its sales international over the next decade, compared with about one-third last year and less than one-quarter 10 years ago. Its international sales last year grew 2.3 percent; by contrast, sales in the United States fell 3.9 percent."

 

[Scaff]

I never did. Can you please provide a source for where I said they planned to move production to the EU?

If I did say that they planned to move production to the EU, I was incorrect.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/business/harley-davidson-thailand-factory-manufacturing.html

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harley-davidson-steel-tariffs/

"Harley-Davidson has long cast its eyes abroad amid sluggish growth at home. It hopes to make half its sales international over the next decade, compared with about one-third last year and less than one-quarter 10 years ago. Its international sales last year grew 2.3 percent; by contrast, sales in the United States fell 3.9 percent."

I will need to double check my work email inbox, as I recall it mentioning using the Asian factories as a short term measur, with the longer term aim being an EU located facility.

May not be recalling it 100%, as I said I will need to check.

 

[Joey D]

It's really simple, are you a corporate, corporate tax or securities attorney in the US? Yes or no? This has been in the planning stages for quite a long time (before the tariffs) prior to filing the 8-k (which is apparently a very commonly issued form used to inform investors and the SEC of anything that could effect stock prices, among other reasons) Yes or no?

Why they are issuing this statement using the tariff reason when they have been planning this for over a year under a different reason is something that I am curious about. If you are a corporate tax attorney or work for the SEC the please by all means let it be known. If you are not an attorney or don't work for the SEC handling this kind of thing, then you are speculating.

Now, before you state "it's literally spelled out." I will simply ask again "Why they are issuing this statement using the tariff reason when they have been planning this for over a year under a different reason."

Edit: Read the last paragraph of the form.

I never did. Can you please provide a source for where I said they planned to move production to the EU?

If I did say that they planned to move production to the EU, I was incorrect.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/business/harley-davidson-thailand-factory-manufacturing.html

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harley-davidson-steel-tariffs/

"Harley-Davidson has long cast its eyes abroad amid sluggish growth at home. It hopes to make half its sales international over the next decade, compared with about one-third last year and less than one-quarter 10 years ago. Its international sales last year grew 2.3 percent; by contrast, sales in the United States fell 3.9 percent."

No, I'm not an attorney. All I can do is read the source material put in front of me, which is what I did. I also know the penalties for falsifying information to the SEC isn't taken lightly and has real consequences.

Also, your sources say Thailand and have nothing to do with the EU, which is what the initial post on the matter what referring too. I was aware it build bikes in other parts of the globe, but that had no bearing on its move to the EU, which is what is being discussed right here and now.

Do you have a source saying Harley was planning on moving its production facility to the EU? Nothing I'm seeing suggests this.

It appears you are trying to debate something that's not even being discussed. If we were saying "oh this is the first time Harley Davidson has ever moved out of America" you'd have a legitimate statement. But that's not what we are saying, we are saying, based on trusted source material, that HD is moving to the EU due to tariffs.

 

[Scaff]

No, I'm not an attorney. All I can do is read the source material put in front of me, which is what I did. I also know the penalties for falsifying information to the SEC isn't taken lightly and has real consequences.

Also, your sources say Thailand and have nothing to do with the EU, which is what the initial post on the matter what referring too. I was aware it build bikes in other parts of the globe, but that had no bearing on its move to the EU, which is what is being discussed right here and now.

Do you have a source saying Harley was planning on moving its production facility to the EU? Nothing I'm seeing suggests this.

It appears you are trying to debate something that's not even being discussed. If we were saying "oh this is the first time Harley Davidson has ever moved out of America" you'd have a legitimate statement. But that's not what we are saying, we are saying, based on trusted source material, that HD is moving to the EU due to tariffs.

Even if HD don't open an EU facility it doesn't change that this is (in HDs words) over and above any previous plans.

 

[TenEightyOne]

From my perspective, the Bill of rights codifies (or should codify) human rights, not American citizen rights. So I think it ought to apply.

That largely seems to be the case in SC reviews of Constitutional extent in such specifics.

 

[AbeFroman75]

No, I'm not an attorney. All I can do is read the source material put in front of me, which is what I did. I also know the penalties for falsifying information to the SEC isn't taken lightly and has real consequences.

Also, your sources say Thailand and have nothing to do with the EU, which is what the initial post on the matter what referring too. I was aware it build bikes in other parts of the globe, but that had no bearing on its move to the EU, which is what is being discussed right here and now.

Do you have a source saying Harley was planning on moving its production facility to the EU? Nothing I'm seeing suggests this.

It appears you are trying to debate something that's not even being discussed. If we were saying "oh this is the first time Harley Davidson has ever moved out of America" you'd have a legitimate statement. But that's not what we are saying, we are saying, based on trusted source material, that HD is moving to the EU due to tariffs.

An 8-K does not appear to be the same thing as a 10-k or 10-q. It's apparently a glorified press release but for investors and the SEC. They even state in the last paragraph

The company intends that certain matters discussed in this report are "forward-looking statements" intended to qualify for the safe harbor from liability

I never said EU, in the 8-k it also never mentions moving production or the company to the EU. Even in initial post you were referring to the article never mentions moving production to the EU like MrTree said (unless google translate messed up). Where are you guys getting HD is moving to the EU?




This is an old story about Harley expanding it's overseas production to increase international growth because their US sales are in the crapper. The fact that they've seemed to have switched the reason to blame the EU tariffs for something that they already had planned for is what I, personally, am curious about.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm a bit confused as to what this trade war is all about - or at least why Trump seems hell bent on it, when it would appear* to achieve very little (* although there's a strong possibility that his real motives are deliberately opaque)... however as a somewhat personal aside, one of the first things to be hit in the UK is the price of Bourbon. It may seem trivial, but it is no laughing matter here in Scotland, since whisky is a huge deal for the Scottish economy, and thus Scottish distillers will no doubt be very worried about the prospect of extra tariffs, esp. in the US. However, there's a news article today that says that a bottle of Jack Daniel's is to 'jump' by 10% - this isn't great, but I did find it slightly amusing since the price of Jack Daniel's is inexplicably random in the UK, as anyone who has ever shopped at a Tesco Metro may have noticed... one week it's £15 a bottle, next week it's £20, then it's £25, then it's £18... etc. so I'm not personally too bothered about a 10% rise, even though it is a seemingly pointless exercise in futility for both sides. On a related note, Jim Beam could easily withstand a price hike - I've seen it recently at £11 a bottle in the UK (and a staggering £8.25 in Japan!) - they must be quaking in their boots!

 

[baldgye]

however as a somewhat personal aside, one of the first things to be hit in the UK is the price of Bourbon. It may seem trivial, but it is no laughing matter here in Scotland, since whisky is a huge deal for the Scottish economy, and thus Scottish distillers will no doubt be very worried about the prospect of extra tariffs, esp. in the US. However, there's a news article today that says that a bottle of Jack Daniel's is to 'jump' by 10% - this isn't great, but I did find it slightly amusing since the price of Jack Daniel's is inexplicably random in the UK, as anyone who has ever shopped at a Tesco Metro may have noticed... one week it's £15 a bottle, next week it's £20, then it's £25, then it's £18... etc. so I'm not personally too bothered about a 10% rise, even though it is a seemingly pointless exercise in futility for both sides. On a related note, Jim Beam could easily withstand a price hike - I've seen it recently at £11 a bottle in the UK (and a staggering £8.25 in Japan!) - they must be quaking in their boots!

Wouldn't the increase, or seeming increase in American Whisky grow demand for Scottish Whisky though?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Wouldn't the increase, or seeming increase in American Whisky grow demand for Scottish Whisky though?

I'm not sure people seeking a Kentucky Bourbon want to drink a Scotch Whiskey. Different flavour, different demographic IMHO. I'm not saying there won't be an impact, but I'm not sure in this case it will change buying habits that much.

 

[baldgye]

I'm not sure people seeking a Kentucky Bourbon want to drink a Scotch Whiskey. Different flavour, different demographic IMHO. I'm not saying there won't be an impact, but I'm not sure in this case it will change buying habits that much.

Well I was more thinking for the commercial market.
You think, in England at least Gin is the in cool thing to have a wide range of in bars/restaurants. No reason why Whisky can't be next and if positioned it could be a lot cheaper for the bars to stock up Scottish whisky??

idk just seems like a good opportunity for the market to expand a bit

 

[Touring Mars]

Wouldn't the increase, or seeming increase in American Whisky grow demand for Scottish Whisky though?

Where, in Scotland/UK? I doubt the increase would offset the losses incurred in the massive export market to the US...

in England at least Gin is the in cool thing to have a wide range of in bars/restaurants. No reason why Whisky can't be next

There is one reason - nobody likes it.

 

[Famine]

There is one reason - nobody likes it.

Indeed. Most Scotch is like drinking a bottle brush.

 

[baldgye]

Where, in Scotland/UK? I doubt the increase would offset the losses incurred in the massive export market to the US...

Well, across Europe. The new tariffs will affect all of Europe (though, of course I'm ignoring Brexit in this hypothetical)

There is one reason - nobody likes it.

touche

 

[Brett]

I'm not sure people seeking a Kentucky Bourbon want to drink a Scotch Whiskey. Different flavour, different demographic IMHO. I'm not saying there won't be an impact, but I'm not sure in this case it will change buying habits that much.

I like both bourbon and scotch, but I have not bought a bottle of scotch in about two years because the prices have become too high for my tastes. Bourbon prices are slowly creeping up too.

 

[Scaff]

No reason why Whisky can't be next and if positioned it could be a lot cheaper for the bars to stock up Scottish whisky??

Plenty of bars have a wide range of single malts, the fly in your idea is that single malt is dearer than bourbon (and most blended stuff is vile).

 

[MatskiMonk]

I like both bourbon and scotch, but I have not bought a bottle of scotch in about two years because the prices have become too high for my tastes. Bourbon prices are slowly creeping up too.

Comparatively, what does a typical Scotch vs domestic Bourbon cost there?

 

[Brett]

Comparatively, what does a typical Scotch vs domestic Bourbon cost there?

The lower end scotches that I have enjoyed start around $40 to $45ish. I have enjoyed some more expensive stuff and it has moved up in cost to around $75 to $80. I could previously get the $40 ones for low $30s, maybe high $20s, and $75 for $50-60ish. Bourbon that I have been drinking have crept up to about $30 to $35, when they were previously mid $20 to high $20s.

It probably needs to be said these are all relative numbers, as I have not been tracking the prices in any way, but I have noticed an upwards trend in cost of bourbon and scotch. There is also probably a bit of exaggeration due to being annoyed that I can no longer enjoy bourbon/scotch as inexpensively.

I have stopped buying scotch because I feel like I am getting better value out of buying a bottle of bourbon. With scotch, the ones I have enjoyed have become too expensive compared to the cost of bourbons I enjoy. Scotch is not bringing enough additional value to justify the higher cost. Plus, I like to try whisk(e)ys that I have not had before and the price for that favors bourbon heavily.

 

[TheCracker]

Indeed. Most Scotch is like drinking a bottle brush.

Compared to Gin - which is like brush cleaner with 'botanicals'. Does anyone actually drink it without tonic?

 

[baldgye]

Compared to Gin - which is like brush cleaner with 'botanicals'. Does anyone actually drink it without tonic?

Gin's not too bad to be fair. Though I prefer water and lime cordial (means you can get pretty pissed while staying/feeling hydrated!)

 

[TexRex]

Compared to Gin - which is like brush cleaner with 'botanicals'.

Does anyone actually drink it without tonic?

Contrary to popular belief, it's the gin that makes the tonic drinkable. I prefer pine-forward "botanical" gins, but something like a Tanqueray is pleasant on the rocks. Then you've got your Beefeater, which is a great throwing gin.