illegal gets welfare benefits for the past 20 years.

The bottom line is that you have been fooled by right wing propaganda. Who are the "millions" getting welfare/subsidies. Most of the children are U S citizens.

If you find immigrants claiming nieces/nephews/cousins living in other countries report them.

Tax returns are voluntary and people give their data under a threat of perjury. Have you cheated on your return; have you been caught? I have no problem with more investigators but a lot of U S citizens may not want that scrutiny.

Anyone who disputes this simply has their head up their arse.

 

Try reading the Treasury Department's Inspector General report posted by Northwinds two posts above........after you pull your head out of your arse........ facts are facts even if you don't like the facts

 

75% don't and they can't file? SMFH Then you ignorantly tell me to Try addressing reality as opposed to hypothetically possibilities Your intellectual ignorance is hysterical along with your inability to actually comprehend that 75% number you are using. Not even your Truthout Blog link claims what you are attempting to. I find it even funnier that your Yahoo link claims the Truthout link is a 2007 report.

The 1040EZ is for filing without dependents, so many illegals would be using the 1040, not the 1040ez.

Thats fuknhysterical! Your own link links to 2 reports that totally state the opposite of what you claim, I've already shown that in comments 140 and 144, but here it is again in case you missed it:

That just made your claim irrelevant, but thanks for playing!

Quota's? Most illegals are Mexican, they have the highest number allowed in legally, they also have the TN visa which only Mexico and Canada can use, they are also the priority when it comes to H2A visas which has no quota limit.

So explain why we should allow all who wish to come here to come with no regards to our own.

 

Intellectual dishonesty is when you are shown by your own links that they are interpreted by a blog writer incorrectly and you continue to claim they are factual.

Nice rant, but off-topic as usual.

 

You were saying?

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/hanson-dec09.pdf

 

Why? According to IRS they legally can.

Voluntary? WTF are you talking about?

You better yell POP! as you stand up then.

 

Well.... now that you brought up NET taxes paid? How about we go ahead and add in the food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid etc. Medicaid can be worth MORE than their ENTIRE income alone.

If you're poor enough to get 100% of your federal income taxes back, you're poor enough to "qualify" for state aid which of course will EASILY wipe out any contributions you made. Not to mention YOU are paying payroll taxes for YOUR OWN retirement and Medicare.

You're either a giver or a taker. WHEN you start actually PAYING federal income taxes instead of getting it refunded? Is a pretty simply line to determine between the two.

 

I was saying that it was false.

At the consumer end, immigration lowers the prices of goods and services produced by immigrant labor such as agricultural products, home construction, cleaning, tourism, restaurants, hotels, home care, and child care.

On balance, immigration lowers the U.S. GDP by about .1 percent per year. Statistically, accounting for margin of error, this is close to zero, Hanson said.

http://www.analysisonline.org/site/aoarticle_display.asp?issue_id=1&sec_id=140002434&news_id=140001400

Close to zero effect. Reform will make it positive to GDP.

 

No, they can not.

About our tax system. WTF are you talking about?

 

Reform will not make it positive, they are already working, they are low-skilled and will reduce further our GDP if legalized due to their newly acquired ability to use the welfare system even more-so.

 

I suggest you do some reading up on ACTC, even Alwayssa will tell you what I told you, in fact he has stated it in this thread.

Tax returns are not voluntary.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/voluntary.htm

 

Here are some important facts that need to be considered.

First and foremost anyone working in the United States regardless of whether they're a citizen, legal immigrant, or illegal immigrant, is required to pay income taxes and the same rules apply to all (as it should be).

Next is the fact that usually "child tax credits" don't normally eliminate a tax obligation but instead reduce the tax burden of the person subjected to the taxation.

Many of those children that are being claimed on the tax returns are US citizens and they are entitled to all benefits provided to US citizens under the law regardless of the immigration status of their parents.

Anyone paying a tax should be afforded the benefits of that taxation without discrimination. If we don't want to provide benefits based upon taxation for "illegal" immigrant then they should be exempted from the requirement to pay the taxes. The 14th Amendment requires "equal protection under the law" and immigration status is irrelevent to this Constitutional requirement. An "illegal" immigrant is just as much a "person" as a natural born citizen of the United States.

Finally, while child tax credits were granted it did not change the fact that it's been estimated that "illegal" immigrants pay about $7 billion more annually in federal taxation than all of the benefits they receive from the federal government. The US government is "making money" off of "illegal" immigrants in the United States that are also creating more jobs higher for Americans while filling in the job openings that Americans typically won't accept because of the hard physical labor and low wages.

All immigrants benefit the US economy by creating more jobs than they fill and provide more money to local, state and the federal governments than they use in benefits.

 

When a person pay rent for a house or apartment the cost of the property taxes are included in the rent. While not directly identified as the payer of the property tax the renter is actually paying it and not the landlord. Additionally everyone pays sales taxes (where they exist) that generally include local sales taxes. Between the "property tax" that the immigrants pay with by renting and the sales taxes they may be subjected to they are paying the costs of local government as these are the primary funding sources for local government.

Let's look at it this way, if there are only 10 million "illegal" immigrants and they average four to an apartment then that represents 2.5 million apartments that had to be built and that property taxes are being collected on and those property taxes are paying for local government services. The property taxes on an apartment are a hell of a lot higher than on a bare piece of land.

Let's not forget all of the spending they do as well because that spending results in income to business and individuals that also pay taxes. Without the spending of millions of "illegal" immigrants in the US there would substantially fewer jobs and lower tax revenues at all levels of government. Just think of how many trucking jobs alone are dependent upon 11 million "illegal" immigrants just to get the food to the market so they can eat. If we lost 11 million people tomorrow how many grocery markets would end up closing because of the loss of customers? How many Americans would be laid off if we lost 11 million consumers for any reason?




Quota's? Most illegals are Mexican, they have the highest number allowed in legally, they also have the TN visa which only Mexico and Canada can use, they are also the priority when it comes to H2A visas which has no quota limit.

So explain why we should allow all who wish to come here to come with no regards to our own.[/QUOTE]

 

The problem is that this relates to anyone and not just "illegal" immigrants (that can't collect Social Security or Medicare even though they pay the taxes).

The actual root of the problem is even more specific as it relates to American employers that don't provide enough compensation to their employees to live on without assistance while these employers are profiting from the labor of the employee. The taxpayers are basicallly getting stuck with the tab of providing assistance to employees where an enterprise is profiting by under-compensating them. I have a way of addressing this:

Individual Welfare = Corporate Welfare


That is a very real fact that many "conservatives" refuse to believe but alway remember that if employers provided enough compensation (in wages and benefits) to their employees so they could afford the necessities of life then there would be no need for "welfare assistance" to workers in America.

 

Why should an illegal alien pay taxes when they are getting paid under the table.

Illegals may not speakee good Engleesh but they aren't stupid.

Single mothers with an anchor baby might want to mooch off the taxpayers by claiming the EITC windfall.

But their live in boyfriend from Mexico has nothing to gain by paying taxes from his paycheck.

 

Employers aren't in control of your wages, YOU ARE.

No education+no job skills=low wages

 

In some cases that is true (i.e. we control our wages) but in other cases it is not. Because the Law of Supply and Demand is used related to Labor (not a requirement for a free market economy) it can introduce coercion where a person is forced to accept wages that are below the costs necessary for them to provide the labor to the enterprise. It can force a person to "work at a loss" and that force is "coerion" in the employment contract. In a free market that relies on contract law the introduction of coercion invalidates and violates contract law.

Unlike goods and services where the Law of Supply and Demand does not introduce coercion (i.e. an enterprise is not forced to purchase goods or provide services at a loss) the person doesn't have that option. They must work or die even if it results in working at a loss. All they can do is hope that a "necessity" doesn't materialize like requiring medical services. It is the very fact that a person must work that creates the potential of coercion that violates contract law if the person is forced to work "at a loss" where they aren't compensated enough (in wages and/or benefits) to provide for the basic necessities of life,

An "enterprise" can simply go out of business instead of operating at a loss but the person cannot "go out of business" to avoid operating at a loss except by committing suicide. Unless the proposition is that everyone working "at a loss" commit suicide then we must accept that they are involuntarily forced into accepting employment that doesn't provide the minimum necessary compensation required for survival.

 

No it doesn't. Stop making up imaginary morals.

/yawn

Your entire argument is based on some made up morality that has absolutely nothing to do with the real world or the legal system for that matter.....

Who would have EVER thought getting a job and supporting yourself would be considered "coercion".

That's pot addled long haired hippy (*)(*)(*)(*) there.

 

Illegals are forbidden to work in the us, it is illegal for an illegal to work here. Monies earned in the US are required to have taxes paid on them, illegally or not. So we agree so far.

OK

The children are not earning nor are they filing the forms. The child is not entitled to any credit. The earner receives the credit for the dependent, whether that dependent is a US Citizen or not has no bearing on it. This is where you are simply wrong.

Again, any money earned in the US is subject to tax, whether it is earned legally or not. A tax credit does not fall within the 14th EPC. Again, this is where you are simply, wrong.

Again, you fail to actually comprehend any data. The $7M is an amount collected in SS and Medicare withholdings which goes into an ETF. The ETF also includes mismatched SS filings, which are usually divorced women who fail to file their Name change with SS, incorrect numbers transcribed either by an employer or the filer, and ITIN's using SS#'s for wages. Of that $7M the employer actually pays half, so that leaves less than $3.5M possibly by illegals. Totalization Agreements and PRUCOL status can lower that number even further.

Illegal immigrants do NOT benefit the country, your own links disprove your now ignorant claim.

 

The renter would be paying rent, the owner would still be paying the property tax. It may be included in the rent, or it may not be. The little they would pay in property tax isn't enough to cover the cost of their children going to school ($8K-$12K per child per year). Sales tax anybody/everybody pays by simply purchasing things here.

 

It has been explained in this thread that some can collect SS. Most can also use Medicare.

This is Progressive/OWS propaganda based on their opinion or ignorance of actual economics.

 

Good luck with that in court.

Nobody is forced to work, slavery was ended.

We mustn't accept anything. If a person can not manage their own income and expenses, whose fault is it?

 

By analogy the argument is that its acceptable to a bank if the person isn't convicted in a court of law due to a lack of evidence. Sorry, just because the courts will not rule in favor of the plaintiff doesn't imply that an injustice didn't occur.

If that is the case then they aren't required to pay for goods and services either due to a lack of income.

A person cannot balance a budget when there is inadequate income to cover the basic necessities. If a person requires 2400 calories a day to survive but their income only allows them to budget for 1000 calories then they're going to eventually get sick and die. If a person requires 10,000 btu's of heat energy to keep from freezing to death in their apartment in winter but can only afford 5,000 btu's they're going to freeze to death in their sleep.

The argument that a person can always reduce expenditures indefinately to balance their budget is invalid. They can to a point but beyond that point it becomes impossible. They can stop eating steak and eat hamburger and then they can give up meat altogether but by the time they hit the Top Ramen diet they can't reduce it anymore and they can't survive on Top Ramen alone.

 

Analogies very seldom cover the claim made, this is no exception.

Yet you haven't shown anything to back up this claim. The only persons your analogy would cover are homeless, to which a majority of them choose to be, or those that failed in retirement.

Sure they can, people have done just that. College kids are known for that diet. The only necessities are food, shelter, and clothing.

Again, you think it is everybody else's responsibility to cover the inability of the one, where as I believe if the one can't take care of themselves then they can look for help
through charity.

 

Why would they seeing as conservatives hate their parents and the 14th amendment (and have since 1868 )?