Illegal immigrants stealing $4.2 billion/yr from IRS.

[DSRilk]

1) Is illegal, that's why the IRS did a massive hold on 45,000 accounts THIS YEAR, to insure tax forms were not being mitigated in illegal forms as you have stated. Because of these hold overs, a lot of people just started to get their much needed tax returns THIS MONTH, mainly May 3rd, several months after they should have been released. Yes, there are people that extort the system, but that is more or less the system's fault. It needs serious revisions to become more centralized with the current economy. That lies in the hands of the people in charge, not the people that extort the system.

2) This statement doesn't even make sense. Have you even been an illegal alien? You obviously know nothing about it. I've had family members and acquaintances that were illegal, and while some of them may lead noble causes they are still acting illegally. The problem isn't with them though, its with the government systems of both countries. For example, if a thief stole food to feed his family because he can't earn the money himself should he be punished for it? If not, should he be given food without working for it? One country says no, the other says yes - if you become a legal citizen. What they do is choose to not become a legal citizen but get as many of the benefits of one as they can scramble for.

Basically, no matter how noble the cause - stealing is stealing. They are hindering the job market. Their money made here is being outsourced (as you stated yourself, no less) therefore, not being cycled back into the country they stole it from. They also make life harder on those that should be working their stolen jobs. Their presence alone is a direct result of corporate corruption by not hiring people qualified for the their jobs, thus not having any responsibility over them if they get hurt or laid off with no reason other than they are no longer needed.

These aliens NEED basic protection from the corporations they sacrifice their freedoms and benefits to work for. They should become citizens, but for whatever reason, be it uneducated understandings of the system, lack of resources, or a generic fear of change, they do not. In the end, it hinders them and legal citizens. It just mostly goes unrealized. (There are also outliers, like most illegal aliens trade and deal in illegal substances and are members of violent gangs.)

I didn't say (or mean to imply) it was legal to claim people living in another household outside the US, I said that to me it's the same thing as claiming someone living outside your house in the US, and that THAT was perfectly legal.

I don't understand your response to #2 at all. First, you don't need to be an illegal immigrant or know one to know how taxation works. Now, I may be mistaken in terms of my understanding that you can't get back more than you pay in (though I'm pretty sure I'm not), but that has nothing to do with legal vs. illegal immigrants.

Re: your thief analogy, if he's shooting game on the king's land and he's doing so because he can't find work and the government has made it impossible for him to actually become a member legally, then no, I see no issue with it. He's "stealing" from a system designed to force him into systemic servitude and he's doing so to feed his family, not get a bigger TV or car.

The reality is, not one person in their right mind would choose the life these people have had forced upon them by bad geographic luck. Yet many are perfectly happy condemn them and act as if they deserve nothing. Or that they can become deserving if they go through this massive bureaucracy that ensures that most of them can't actually become citizens.

[Gamdwelf]

I can't stand when people tell others to educate themselves, when they're the ones who are so blind. A small minority of illegals are in jobs that require a Social Security number. If the employer doesn't require one, there's no point in acquiring one. While it's true the ones who do use a SSN may be paying into a system they will never benefit from, any expatriate can tell you it works the same everywhere (with all the amnesty nonsense, you can also expect this to become a non-issue). I worked in Russia for 9 months. I paid taxes in Russia. The money stayed in Russia. That's a fact. I figure it was payment for using their roads, hospitals and other facilities while I was working there.

The talking points on this issue are garbage. How many times have we all heard the nonsense about them only taking jobs Americans refuse to take? Yeah, because these criminals keep the wage in those industries from going to a level that is acceptable to Americans. Will we pay more for fruit with Americans working the jobs? Sure. Do we do that already with overpaid workers in industries like auto? You bet. It's an outright lie anyways. Construction used to be a well-paying job. I'm sure we all knew people making $20 an hour building homes and businesses. Do you know what those jobs pay now? 8 bucks. Cash. Under the table. Maybe you've heard about the legislation they put forward every year to allow Mexican truck drivers on our roads. Do you know how much an American truck driver makes? Yeah, way more than the $8 an hour they pay Mexican truckers. That's another industry you can kiss goodbye. I live in a resort town. Even the "lowly" housekeeping jobs in hotels used to pay minimum wage with employer-matched benefits. Guess how much they get now. $20 a room. No permanent staff. No benefits. Just criminals coming in to clear a couple rooms, then going home.

Get a clue.

Pretty much this in combination with the fact that Illegals, because of their socioeconomic status take out in services provided by the government much greater than what they put in.

[yetgdhfgh]

I don't really understand the current infatuation with him. If he was in office today, the tea party would be rallying to get him kicked out.

Ronald reagan was a rare republican a guy who was affable and likeable
many of his policies where a disaster imo but he did instill optimism

but look who else they have nixon who was impeached for watergate, Ford who couldnt even get elected and need i mention the two bushes

Its all about image in politics especially if your target audience are the same ones who would gladly give there life savings to televangelists to people like popoff and ted haggard

[ptwonline]

I don't really understand the current infatuation with him. If he was in office today, the tea party would be rallying to get him kicked out.

The scary thing is that Reagan used to be considered too much of an extremist to get elected as President. He got in because Carter was pretty unlucky with the things going on in the world. Now Reagan wouldn't even pass the conservative purity test based on what he actually did because he did now-unacceptable things like work with Democrats to actually get things accomplished.

As for the illegal immigrants scheming to get money from the IRS: yes it's a real issue. Yes it should be addressed. This was a fairly rare thing until a few years ago. People were coming to America to work, not to steal from the gov't. But then someone figured out this sort of fraud and spread the word. The question is this: would it be cheaper to fight it or to simply let it go? It would certainly cost a lot of money to get the kind of audit manpower available to stop this sort of tax cheat, and of course no one seems to want to pay for that.

[eriseis]

Imagine that. I dislike illegal immigrants because they're criminals. Sorry I don't want to pay criminals tax dollars.

Let's call them potatoes instead, I'm sure your understanding of pragmatics would help you understand why strict literalism only leads to inane and superficial arguments.

Also, I'm still waiting on you to respond to my previous post where I point out what's wrong with your sources.

---------- Post added 2012-05-07 at 10:36 AM ----------

If a homeless person pitches a tent in your front yard, are you going to allow them to live there pretty much forever? They have no malicious intent for moving in, they are just looking for a place to live!

I'm sure you understand why your example does not equate to the situation at hand. Also, if you want to keep demonizing a single group of people and go on a slippery slope, there's nothing I can really tell you.

[DSRilk]

Ronald reagan was always a liberal in conservative clothing

Quote (Reagan began his political career as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and an active supporter of New Deal policies)

The only thing that stoped him from being a hollywood democrat was his hatred of communists

The right wing really need to look into his past before they make him a saint to conservatism

He was one of the biggest tax and spend polictians around but i guess when most republican presidents have bee utter disasters except Eisenhower you take what you can get

This is remarkably absurd. He was extremely fiscally conservative, which is what led to the huge bubble and burst that came later on. The problem the R party has these days is that they included two totally unrelated groups - fiscal and social conservatives - in order to win elections, and now if you don't fit both, you are a considered a closet liberal. The reality is that the fiscal conservatives believe in government leaving everyone alone, and the social conservatives believe the government should literally be spying on you in bed. The two ideas of what government is about are in strong opposition, but they're both jammed into one party. The only reason they can work together is because most libertarians (who make up much of the fiscal conservative wing) believe in personal freedom, but don't care too much if someone else's is taken away as long as they retain their own.

[Beazy]

4 billion? Thats all? I would rather cut the 1 trillion dollars we spend bombing innocent people in other countries in the name of democracy, and let the immigrants stay.

[Gamdwelf]

Let's call them potatoes instead, I'm sure your understanding of pragmatics would help you understand why strict literalism only leads to inane and superficial arguments.

Also, I'm still waiting on you to respond to my previous post where I point out what's wrong with your sources.

---------- Post added 2012-05-07 at 10:36 AM ----------



I'm sure you understand why your example does not equate to the situation at hand. Also, if you want to keep demonizing a single group of people and go on a slippery slope, there's nothing I can really tell you.

Its actually a pretty good analogy.

[Gamdwelf]

4 billion? Thats all? I would rather cut the 1 trillion dollars we spend bombing innocent people in other countries in the name of democracy, and let the immigrants stay.

This so much!

[rhorle]

I could care less about your video with that statement. You are accusing illegal immigrants of coming to the US with an explicit objective of committing a crime, which is not true.

It is a crime to enter the country illegally.

[Gamdwelf]

It is a crime to enter the country illegally.

Yes, yes it is, the first act they do on American soil is to commit a crime.

[yetgdhfgh]

This is remarkably absurd. He was extremely fiscally conservative, which is what led to the huge bubble and burst that came later on. The problem the R party has these days is that they included two totally unrelated groups - fiscal and social conservatives - in order to win elections, and now if you don't fit both, you are a considered a closet liberal. The reality is that the fiscal conservatives believe in government leaving everyone alone, and the social conservatives believe the government should literally be spying on you in bed. The two ideas of what government is about are in strong opposition, but they're both jammed into one party. The only reason they can work together is because most libertarians (who make up much of the fiscal conservative wing) believe in personal freedom, but don't care too much if someone else's is taken away as long as they retain their own.

I would not call ronald reagan a fiscal conservative his huge build up in the military which cost billions maybe trillions btw was the reason the USSR couldnt keep up and the reason why it bankrupted the ussr and caused a revolution in the ussr and a end to the cold war

[Faloestin]

Now here is where your argument falls apart. One can get back significantly more that one paid in income taxes. EIC, Child Tax credits, etc are all credits not deductions. This means that your taxes due are lowered by that amount - not that your taxable income is lowered. So if you owe $500 in taxes and have $3000 in tax credits, you will get back $2500.

The bottom 50% of US income tax payers pay no income taxes. A good portion of these actualy pay negative taxes (get back more than they paid) due to these tax credits.

Sorry, but the bold part above is nonsense. You are correct that in some recent years something like half of tax filers didn't owe any income taxes, but :

- the bottom 50% did pay lots of other federal taxes (and state, and local)
- in 2009, about 17% of tax filers didn't pay any federal taxes, but that number's higher than normal because of the economy & the stimulus
- in normal years, about 14% of tax filers don't pay any federal taxes
- that 14% can't pay no matter how hard they're squeezed - they're the elderly, the disabled, students, etc.
- here's a decent link with lots of details

[Gamdwelf]

Sorry, but the bold part above is nonsense. You are correct that in some recent years something like half of tax filers didn't owe any income taxes, but :

- the bottom 50% did pay lots of other federal taxes (and state, and local)
- in 2009, about 17% of tax filers didn't pay any federal taxes, but that number's higher than normal because of the economy & the stimulus
- in normal years, about 14% of tax filers don't pay any federal taxes
- that 14% can't pay no matter how hard they're squeezed - they're the elderly, the disabled, students, etc.
- here's a decent link with lots of details

But they are still US citizens who are receiving benefits from wealth distribution, not citizens of other countries when most money they get is sent out of our country into another.

[DSRilk]

Yes, yes it is, the first act they do on American soil is to commit a crime.

Yes. How can anyone assume they deserve anything but to live in squalor. If God had wanted them to have decent lives, he would have ensured they were born a couple miles north in the US. Obviously because they were born in Mexico, they deserve what they get. </sarcasm - I hate having to even bother to mark this as such, but it seems people just don't understand satire or sarcasm on these boards>

[Leonidas]

I didn't say (or mean to imply) it was legal to claim people living in another household outside the US, I said that to me it's the same thing as claiming someone living outside your house in the US, and that THAT was perfectly legal.

I don't understand your response to #2 at all. First, you don't need to be an illegal immigrant or know one to know how taxation works. Now, I may be mistaken in terms of my understanding that you can't get back more than you pay in (though I'm pretty sure I'm not), but that has nothing to do with legal vs. illegal immigrants.

Re: your thief analogy, if he's shooting game on the king's land and he's doing so because he can't find work and the government has made it impossible for him to actually become a member legally, then no, I see no issue with it. He's "stealing" from a system designed to force him into systemic servitude and he's doing so to feed his family, not get a bigger TV or car.

The reality is, not one person in their right mind would choose the life these people have had forced upon them by bad geographic luck. Yet many are perfectly happy condemn them and act as if they deserve nothing. Or that they can become deserving if they go through this massive bureaucracy that ensures that most of them can't actually become citizens.

Personally, I'm not arguing with you. I'm trying to get a point across.

I agree that the government needs to set a major overhaul on its own standards. Both to help its own citizens and get illegal aliens legalized faster and much more effectively. Also the word needs to get out that becoming a citizen (if the illegal is indeed hardworking and diligent) is a good thing. However, the corporate corruption that fuels the current state of the economy is the malefactor in this argument. They intentionally hire these illegal aliens, don't support them, drop them like hats when they aren't needed, and the make less than they're worth. They also pull strings to not make changes towards laws that would work against this impudence!

The problem isn't with the U.S. government alone though. It's with the countries these aliens come from. They need more accountability of their own standards for the average person. Their own rich governments need to compensate the meek and the helpless so running to other countries isn't such an ordeal. In the end, the problem is that no one that can do anything cares... or doesn't have the proper motivation. What needs to happen is the public needs to become aware of the laws that govern them and their problems - yet, the media has more of a tendency of misdirecting the public to internal non-related social affairs...

What we need is mass-education and desire to know the problem at it's source. Then we need to large scale incentive to work on these problems as a whole. This goes for all the countries and people involved. It's too idealistic for me, but I try to do my part by educating any who will listen to look for the answers themselves... in which I won't lie, requires sorting through a large mess of generalized public-believed lies.

[DSRilk]

I would not call ronald reagan a fiscal conservative his huge build up in the military which cost billions maybe trillions btw was the reason the USSR couldnt keep up and the reason why it bankrupted the ussr and caused a revolution in the ussr and a end to the cold war

Corporate conservative is probably more accurate, true. That said, military spending is the one type of spending that most "conservatives" seem okay with. Not hard core libertarians mind you, but most of the R party seems perfectly fine with spending that is designed to destroy those who aren't us.

[Faloestin]

He [Reagan] was extremely fiscally conservative

Not by today's standards, he wasn't. Reagan raised taxes, remember? Despite the statues and speeches, Ronald Reagan wouldn't be allowed in the convention doors of the modern Republican Party.

One conservative (or idiotic, depending on your viewpoint) thing that Reagan did do was let trickle-down economics into the White House. Until Reagan made David Stockman the head of OMB, the supply-side idea that you could raise revenue by cutting taxes was treated as a laughably innumerate. Reagan embraced voodoo economics and what followed was 25 years of mostly uninterrupted tax cuts and rising deficits.

[Citizen T]

Ronald reagan was always a liberal in conservative clothing

Quote (Reagan began his political career as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and an active supporter of New Deal policies)

The only thing that stoped him from being a hollywood democrat was his hatred of communists

The right wing really need to look into his past before they make him a saint to conservatism

He was one of the biggest tax and spend polictians around but i guess when most republican presidents have bee utter disasters except Eisenhower you take what you can get

You are correct in that he was a Democrat early in his career. But as the sayin goes.. "If you're under 30 and conservative you don't have a heart. If you're over 30 and liberal you don't have a brain".

As President, his stances were pretty unambiguous:
Pro-Life
Lowered the highest marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%.
Supported supply side economics (i.e. trickle down economics) and very much opposed Keynesian economics.
Supported Constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools.
Supported capital punishment.
Targeted Dept. of Education for abolishment - failed but was attempted.
Dismissed acid rain requirements as burdonsome on economy.
Pro Defense to the tune of creating the 200 ship Navy.
Led US to defeat the USSR in the cold war rather than continue the policies of appeasement.
Proposed the original NAFTA type initiatives.
Supported Second Amendment rights for all citizens.
Was the originator of missle defense systems - i.e. Star Wars
Attempted to restructure Social Security (and make it voluntary) - failed but attemped.
Cut AFDC.
Championed "Workfare" to reform welfare.

These are just a few ideas that I can recall. I'm sure there are many many more. I can't see how you can consider this great man a liberal in any sense - at least not in the prime of his career.

[yetgdhfgh]

Corporate conservative is probably more accurate, true. That said, military spending is the one type of spending that most "conservatives" seem okay with. Not hard core libertarians mind you, but most of the R party seems perfectly fine with spending that is designed to destroy those who aren't us.

That is true

OT Im gonna say im not sure what the solution is to all this

humans will always go to where they feel they will get a better life (who here wouldnt try if you was in there shoes)

Whats the solution i agree the scumbags need to be shipped of asap but the hard working smoes need to be cut a break maybe they need to earn they way in
but in this political climate i cant see that happening once again in America the worse possible compromise is the one that will happen