Immigration patrols on domestic Amtrak

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:


Do the proceeds from postage sales go into Treasury, and are they
earmarked somehow for wages?

I don't know the details and am too lazy to research them, but,
presumably, yes.

Merritt

Merritt Mullen wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

The post office is NOT a public corporation or any kind of corporation.
It's a government agency. Till the Nixon administration, it was a
cabinet-level executive department.

It is a government agency in the common meaning of the word, but it is
legally defined as "an independent establishment of the executive branch."

The law (39 U.S.C, sec. 201) says:

"There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive
branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal
Service."

I know, picky, picky. As you say it not any kind of corporation, such as
Amtrak is, and its employees are government employees paid by the Treasury
Department. Amtrak employees are not government employees and they are
paid by the corporation, not by the Treasury.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Every time I point out that the same thing about Amtrak,
except it's a corporation... oh never mind.

Hatunen wrote:
Merritt Mullen wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

The post office is NOT a public corporation or any kind of corporation.
It's a government agency. Till the Nixon administration, it was a
cabinet-level executive department.

It is a government agency in the common meaning of the word, but it is
legally defined as "an independent establishment of the executive branch."

The law (39 U.S.C, sec. 201) says:

"There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive
branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal
Service."

I know, picky, picky.

More than "picky, picky". As I said, "agency" has a specific
legal meaning that does not apply to independent units such as
the USPS or the Federal Reserve.

If you're talking about things like civil service pay grades, the postal
service isn't subject to that (thanks to much better representation by
postal unions than civil service unions years ago). There's some
flexibility in management pay as well. There's independent purchasing
and sometimes independent contruction of major facilities, assuming the
post office isn't in a court house or a Roosevelt-era building.

Most of the postal budget isn't subject to annual appropriation from
Congress.

But otherwise, the post office is subject to any other law that any
other federal executive agency is subject to, like preferences for
military veterans, participation in the Thrift Savings Plan.

As you say it not any kind of corporation, such as Amtrak is, and its
employees are government employees paid by the Treasury Department.
Amtrak employees are not government employees and they are paid by the
corporation, not by the Treasury.

Do the proceeds from postage sales go into Treasury, and are they
earmarked somehow for wages?

Gosh, I can't remember now. I'll have to ask.

I do know that, depending on how big they want to pretend the federal
deficit is in any particular year, sometimes the post office is on
budget, and sometimes it's not.

Hatunen wrote:

And, under changing requirements of identification for
employment, for giving evidence that one is part of the SS system
and has an SS number. For about the last fifteen years I have had
to present by SS card to propective empoyers. Needless to say,
they are easily fakeable, but the potential empoyers still
photocopy my SS card and birth certificate for their records. I
believe it gets them off the hook on certain federal
requirements.

Hardly. Demanding a birth certificate would put an employer on the hook for
violating civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring older
Americans.

On Aug 2, 5:40 pm, "Stephen Sprunk" wrote:
I doubt they type _anything_ into their computers other than the fact
they've admitted a person with your name on a particular date. It's only
the folks whose entry they _deny_ that get detailed records. A coworker of
mine, who is a Canadian citizen, was denied entry once; now he has to have a
green card to travel to the US even for vacation because some agent flagged
him as a "foreign worker" despite him never having held a job in the US in
his life (and has no intention of ever doing so).

They must (if sent to secondary) be typing something, because they
knew my previous place of employment and asked me why I'm not working
there anymore, why I changed jobs. The date that I changed jobs. They
had the exact location of my employment and exact duties of my job,
which would have been in that letter I got from my employment before
holidays a couple of years ago. The officer asked me what I did for a
living, etc, then asked for proof, I gave him the letter, he looked at
the letter for a minute, then started typing stuff in. Then he handed
me my papers back and started typing more things in (for a few
minutes) before telling me I could go.

They also have details of my commercial crossings too, since the last
time I crossed (recently) he asked if I had any of those things with
me on "this trip" (since it was a rare time for me not to be in the
commercial lane). So I figure with my commercial stuff, that's
definitely keyed in by someone in some detail, that they know what I'm
carrying, even if it's only by Tariff code.

S.

On Aug 2, 5:44 pm, "Stephen Sprunk" wrote:
Canada's lax border controls are why the US has tightened up its side. As
far as I can tell, all that Canada cares about is that you're not going
there to seek employment.

Since I'm living in Canada, it's not something they'd worry about with
me, it seems to me the only thing they really care about is that I'm
not importing tons and tons of duty/tax free stuff on holidays.
(That's why they impose limits). Do they enforce them? No, not really.
I declare honestly, and I'm over the limit on all my short (under 7
day) trips, when I get to 7 days where the limit goes from $200 or
something like that, to $750, I rarely have that much stuff. I've
often brought back $60 on a few hour trip (limit being $20, if I
recall correctly). I declare it, every time, expecting to pay taxes,
they don't seem to want to bother with that.

However my former boss would tell a different story. She likes to go
with friends and not declare how much they really spent, but butter it
down to the maximum limit per person, and the one time she declared
$20 over the $200 limit (which was $20 for herself, even though her
passengers were under their $200 allowance), they put them in
secondary and took the seats out of the car, took everything out, gave
it a nice little search. She got mad at me for telling her to "be
honest". I said, "you've been lying to them for the whole time I've
known you, they probably know that, and you've just given them a
reason to search your car. Be honest always and they probably won't
pay attention, if you pay taxes, so be it." I've never had a problem
with bringing stuff back... I also don't go there exclusively to shop,
I just like grocery shopping for snacks for the cupboard that aren't
sold in Canada if I happen to be down there.

S.

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:00:33 GMT, Merritt Mullen
wrote:

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:


Do the proceeds from postage sales go into Treasury, and are they
earmarked somehow for wages?

I don't know the details and am too lazy to research them, but,
presumably, yes.

I don't think I care to proceed on your uncaring assumptions. You
cared enough to make the flat our assertion, "As you say it [the
postal service] not any kind of corporation, such as Amtrak is,
and its employees are government employees paid by the Treasury
Department."

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 04 Aug 2007 05:33:53 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
Merritt Mullen wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

The post office is NOT a public corporation or any kind of corporation.
It's a government agency. Till the Nixon administration, it was a
cabinet-level executive department.

It is a government agency in the common meaning of the word, but it is
legally defined as "an independent establishment of the executive branch."

The law (39 U.S.C, sec. 201) says:

"There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive
branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal
Service."

I know, picky, picky.

More than "picky, picky". As I said, "agency" has a specific
legal meaning that does not apply to independent units such as
the USPS or the Federal Reserve.

If you're talking about things like civil service pay grades, the postal
service isn't subject to that (thanks to much better representation by
postal unions than civil service unions years ago).

Teh legaal term "agency" has nothing to do with pay grades.

There's some
flexibility in management pay as well. There's independent purchasing
and sometimes independent contruction of major facilities, assuming the
post office isn't in a court house or a Roosevelt-era building.

Most of the postal budget isn't subject to annual appropriation from
Congress.

But otherwise, the post office is subject to any other law that any
other federal executive agency is subject to, like preferences for
military veterans, participation in the Thrift Savings Plan.

Even private delivery companies are subject to laws.

As you say it not any kind of corporation, such as Amtrak is, and its
employees are government employees paid by the Treasury Department.
Amtrak employees are not government employees and they are paid by the
corporation, not by the Treasury.

Do the proceeds from postage sales go into Treasury, and are they
earmarked somehow for wages?

Gosh, I can't remember now. I'll have to ask.

I'd honestly like to know.



--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:57:17 GMT, Merritt Mullen
wrote:

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:

And, under changing requirements of identification for
employment, for giving evidence that one is part of the SS system
and has an SS number.

Why not just tell them your number, let them punch it into the computer
and let the SSA come back with the name of the holder of that number (or
vice versa, for that matter). Why trust a battered piece of paper that
has been in someone's wallet for years?

For about the last fifteen years I have had
to present by SS card to propective empoyers.

You seem to be fairly unusual in that regard given the responses I have
seen so far on this group.

As I said the federal government does not ask that of their prospective
employees.

I wassn't applying to the federal government.



--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 04 Aug 2007 05:47:19 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

And, under changing requirements of identification for
employment, for giving evidence that one is part of the SS system
and has an SS number. For about the last fifteen years I have had
to present by SS card to propective empoyers. Needless to say,
they are easily fakeable, but the potential empoyers still
photocopy my SS card and birth certificate for their records. I
believe it gets them off the hook on certain federal
requirements.

Hardly. Demanding a birth certificate would put an employer on the hook for
violating civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring older
Americans.

Nevertheless, they do.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *