[hannasanarion]

You are thinking about personhood the wrong way. In the law, personhood means being able to own things, sue and be sued, pay taxes, enter contracts, and a number of other things.

Do you think that immigrants don't pay taxes?

[baselined]

>Do you think that immigrants don't pay taxes?

This is what puzzles me about the immigration debate. Most move here to work and better themselves and effectively pay a higher tax rate than corporations.

[Wildgoose]

I don't know where "immigrants" came into this. I made NO mention of immigration, just foreign (overseas) ownership of shares in Corporations. What has that got to do with immigration?

[baselined]

It came from the post above.

[Wildgoose]

Are you really suggesting that Corporate Officers aren't able to enter contracts, sue people, etc.? And what the Hell have immigrants got to do with any of this?

[hannasanarion]

Corporate officers are able to enter contracts, sue people, etc, as themselves. Not as the company, which is a separate person from themselves. When you buy a product from Apple and they refuse to respect their warranty, you don't sue Tim Cook, you sue Apple. You can only do that because Apple is incorporated.

>you have the argument about taxing the citizens of other countries

[Wildgoose]

If a company poisons baby-milk, who do you arrest? The company? It's a "person" after all.

(I presume you know this, but this was an actual case in China).

[hannasanarion]

You arrest the employees if what they did was criminal (which would be the case whether a company is involved or not) and fine the company, or in extreme cases, revoke the company's charter (aka corporate death penalty).

Being able to be imprisoned is not a defining feature of a legal person, this line of argument will get you nowhere.

[Wildgoose]

You brought up immigrants, not me. What are you talking about?