While it is true that some illegal immigrants evade taxes, most people estimate that roughly 75% pay all their taxes, even Social Security, which none of them stand to gain from. All in all, most research finds illegal immigrants to be a net positive in terms of tax revenues vs public services consumed, and that's not even taking into account the amount of money they inject through sales taxes when buying stuff. Also, trueroxfan, almost every American regularly commits several punishable errors when filing their taxes, whether it be intentional or not. However, unlike you, IRS officials seem to be able to differentiate between "criminals."
Errors are not the same as the intentional act of not filing or falsely claiming deduction. And the IRS does nothing about it. Russell George has said it over and over. The IRS is not checking these forms, they know what's going on, but they aren't doing anything about it and it is costing us 4 billion a year on just the Child Tax Credit alone.
Every single new post you make in this thread is a brand new source of embarrassment for you: is it really that hard to google this sh-t? how old are you - like 80?
1. Plenty of American citizens intentionally claim false deductions or don't file at all. I'm too lazy to check percentages, but I would wager that there's not that big a difference between illegals and citizens. 2. Oh no, 4 billion! The illegal population of Texas alone pays almost 5 times that amount annually.
My ridiculous opinion? Please point me to one single post stating that we should not enforce immigration laws and that we should give out free passes. You can't because I never said it. You have simply become the punch line to a joke nobody tells anymore. You make no sense and constantly embarrass yourself. You called them criminals, which is a legal term of art. I pointed your attention that you are, in fact, wrong. You respond with statistics that prove that you are wrong in an attempt to back up your statements. Yet you say that my logic doesn't compute. Hilarious.
I am not embarrassed that I support enforcing current immigration laws that are not enforced. I am not embarrassed that my opinion of these criminals differs from you. I won't stop talking just because you don't like what I have to say and continue to insult me rather than talk to me. It doesn't phase me. They are. No you didn't, they are criminals. I responded to you exactly why they are criminals. They have broken the law in numerous ways in order to remain in this country and get a job. Didn't respond with any statistics that proved me wrong. The only stats I gave out pointed out 2 things, previous amnesty did nothing to stop illegal immigration (quadrupled it), and that ONE tax deduction alone has been abused by over 2 million illegal immigrants (according IRS Inspector General) at a cost of over $4 billion a year, up to $30 thousand in refunds going to some families who claim 20 children and the IRS has done nothing, and because of federal law, they cannot share that information with any other agency to punish those individuals. It doesn't.
If you aren't embarrassed, then it is likely because you do not understand how wrong you are. They are it criminals until the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of a criminal defense as defined by the the criminal statutes of the United States. You claim that they are. This is basic civics. Your high school civics teacher should be fired along with your grade school math teacher. You sophomoric "are so" style of debate is wholly lacking. I have pointed out the legal flaws in your argument and you have yet to refute a single one. I suspect it is because you can't.
When did I say that? Sure, it is technically illegal, but that was just minutia. The point is that the notion that illegal immigrants are a drain on American society is factually incorrect. Quite the contrary, speaking from a tax perspective, we probably want more illegal immigrants. As for your refusal to differentiate between types of illegality and recognize that the law is nothing but a man-made, inconsistently applied, ever changing set of standards, I don't really know what to say except 'agree to disagree.'
You could say that he doesn't know **** about how the legal system works in this country...and you would be right.
We live on a small rock in space -- sometimes it's more about survival of the fittest than following the rules of a country's imaginary lines. The US took this land from its rightful owners -- if my family was stuck in some 3rd world ****hole I would certainly take an opportunity to sneak them into the promised land.
So come over the right way. Don't sneak across. I welcome all immigrants who are willing to come in here the legal way. I would support increasing our immigration quotas, I would support cleaning up the system so that it is not so expensive and difficult to get through the tangled bureaucracy. I don't give anyone a free pass though when they break the law. The law is the law. If you come over here illegally you are supposed to be deported. It doesn't stop there though, if you are here illegally you are very likely committing other crimes as mentioned before. I am not talking about drug smuggling, or human-trafficking, but identity theft and such. Like I said, I know why they are coming over here, and my opinion has always been we should help Mexico more than countries like Pakistan. But among those who are coming here for work are hardened drug and human traffickers and we need to get them out of this country and ensure that our border is secure so that they can not continue to come through. When you break the law you have committed a crime and you are a criminal. Somebody made a point that you aren't a criminal if you haven't been to court. Nonsense. If you are a murderer, are you not a criminal? Regardless of the stage of trial. You may not be a convicted murderer, and we may refer to you as an accused murderer, but you are still a murderer. Same goes with any other crime. If we know with 100% certainty that you have committed a crime, you are a criminal. I stand by my opinion, it's unfortunate that people like Refman and Sam can't discuss issues without resorting to personal insults, but I can't control their opinions or their thoughts.
Well that will weaken the influence of the GOP. Conservative Hispanics can make or break the future of the GOP. If more horse **** is spewed from their members, you will see another land slide come 2016.
It's a pity that you cannot discuss facts and figures without resorting back to your canned responses that are not supported by said facts and figures.
You do know the Obama administration has deported more illegals than any president in the last 60 years right?
What's your point? His administration has also released thousands with criminal records. My stance on immigration isn't on party lines. I have a problem with rewarding people for breaking laws (amnesty).
Yeah...even the ones you invented in your own mind but do not exist in any volume of the United Sates Code.
No - you have a stance against *certain * people for breaking certain laws. Your stance is not against "lawbreakers" as a whole. This has been illustrated beyond a doubt. That's why the bipartisan b****slap has landed upon you. Your anti amnesty argument would be better heard if you weren't so abjectly stupid about the former.
Lol, are you seriously pulling the racist card out? Or the anti-immigrant story out? That is beyond r****ded considering I am only 2nd generation. My family was fleeing a war torn country from across the world, but they managed to do it the right way. If by "certain people," you mean illegal immigrants, yes, I have a problem with "certain people." Why do you assume I am not against other lawbreakers? That's not what this discussion was about. This discussion began about Hispanics and votes, then warped into an immigration debate, which I didn't initiate. If we had been talking about any other crime, I would be just in favor of punishing them. Your accusation makes no sense. Okay? You haven't proven anything. Illegal immigration is still illegal. I am still against illegal acts. So whether or not that fits the statutes technical term of "criminal" is irrelevant. The standard definition of criminal, is one who breaks a law, or commits a crime. Still.Criminals. No matter how weak or stupid you think the charge is. Wouldn't be a SamFisher post without some insult. My argument is solid.
