http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/us/09immigration.html?_r=1&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/business/25tax.html?scp=1&sq=tax amnesty&st=cse Where is the Republican outrage in the second case? Why are there so many politicans rallying against successful young men and women who are willing to pay their way through college, and become positive forces for society? And so few against tax evading leechers---shame, shame, shame what is wrong with the American DREAM?
Hasn't this been hashed out before? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=197891 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=197196 You're comparing two different topics. What did you do? Pick the first two at the top of the headline news? Which is a better option? Audit accounts, catch as many tax evaders as possible? Or threaten a crackdown, offer those to come forward and pay their taxes and then catch as many as you can?
Republican opposition to DREAM Act and immigration reform in general-absolutly no amnesty for criminals! Republican position on tax evasion? ambigious. No opposition to amnesty for criminals. hypocrisy, hypocrisy.
Let's also not forget that idol of the modern Republican is often said to be Ronald Reagan who gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Those singing his praise now would have hated him at the time if they managed to keep a coherent position regarding illegal immigrants.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, enacted November 6, 1986, also Simpson-Mazzoli Act, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. It granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously. An estimated 3 million unauthorized immigrants received amnesty under Reagan's program. A May 26, 2006 New York Times article arrives at the figure 2.8 million: 1.7 million under a general amnesty plus 90% of the 1.3 million that applied under a special program for agricultural workers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986 Mike Huckabee argued illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits: "They pay fuel taxes. If they're using a fake Social Security number, they're paying Social Security taxes and will never receive any benefit. It would be closer to the truth to say they're subsidizing Joe McCutchen and Jim Holt more than the other way around. In a 2007 interview, Huckabee argued job loss caused by illegal immigration is not a problem, saying, "You know, when people say, 'they're taking our jobs'—I used to hear that as Governor—and I started asking this question, 'can you name me any person, give me their name, who can't get a job plucking a chicken or picking a tomato or tarring a roof that would like to do that work?' ... I never, ever, had a person who could come up with the name of a person who could not get a job because an illegal immigrant had stepped in front of them because it was either a job that person didn't want to do or didn't exist." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#Immigration Conservatives should be careful that the politicians they claim to support are who they think they are.
Anyone who doesn't believe American wages are suppressed due to illegal immigration isn't paying attention, and Huckabee knows which side his bread is buttered on. Corporations love him, because he's able to weave their agenda into his phony religious dogma, with just a dash of Christian sanctimony on top.
This may be true to a small extent on the lowest end of the pay scale, but many if not most of the jobs done by illegals today simply wouldn't get done if the business owner couldn't get workers at the rate that illegals will work for. If landscaping services started charging the prices they would need to if citizens worked for them, fewer people would get their lawns done and would do it themselves. There are certainly some areas (fast food, construction, lawn service) where illegals are probably squeezing out high school kids, but it isn't like they are bringing down wages for teachers, IT workers, or secretaries.
True, but who knows what the repercussions are of all the high school teenagers and dropouts that compete with illegal aliens for jobs? If anything, I want more high schoolers to balance their education while working a part-time job. But the biggest problems imo are the stress on public schools that have to accommodate them, and the traffic congestion caused by landscaping trucks going 15 mph below the speed limit.
There isn't that much competition, the high schoolers just go to places where they are more stringent on citizenship requirements. Teens who want to work probably are already. Public schools are funded by property taxes, so even illegal aliens pay them directly (if they own) or indirectly (if they rent). I don't think traffic congestion is a reasonable thing to blame on illegal aliens driving landscaping trucks. There are plenty of people out there driving 10-20 mph below the limit and only a tiny percentage of these are landscaping trucks.
The American Dream was working just fine until the cost of basic necessities started outpacing wages. Coincidentally it was about the time wealth concentration started to get out of control. It's trickling down but only the ignorant believes it's rain.
Not very good comparison. In the first case, the infraction is entering the U.S. w/o proper documents and the penalty is deportation to deter illegal entrance. The 2nd case's infraction is tax evasion($), and penalty is retrospective payback to IRS ($) and criminal sanctions if willful to collect more taxes ($). An amnesty program in the first would not achieve the the purpose of immigration law , whereas an amnesty program for the 2nd will achieve the goal of tax law.
Immigration law in the United States is deeply flawed. I'm not saying every illegal immigrant should be granted amnesty. However, the consistent Republican position that we cannot move forward on immigration reform, even for bright students with no criminal records, due to the fact that there is some kind of principle of "amnesty" that we need to deny "lawbreakers", is deeply flawed when one considers the general apathy Republicans address towards corporate crime such as off-shore bank accounts. This isn't a matter of proper incentives. This is a matter of blind obstructionism based on nothing denying the impetus for change, which I suppose is just one more for the record.
This does not have any bearing on whether the Republican position is hypocritical, only on whether you agree with their immigration stance. The amnesty in question is completely different. In order to be analogous to the dread act, the proposed IRS legislation would have to allow those with offshore accounts not only to reveal them, but also to avoid back taxes on them. If the Dream act only provided that those illegal immigrants that voluntarily revealed themselves could return to their country of origin without sanctions and then apply to immigrate to the US as any other citizen of that country would, it would be similar to the IRS proposal (no penalty, no benefit, just put back into the place you would have been without breaking the law). It seems like you are hung up on the word amnesty instead of what the two laws actually DO.
