IRS offers extra tax refunds to illegal immigrants granted amnesty by Obama

There's no need to send anyone anywhere. Just take away their ability to work a regular job with a regular paycheck, any and all Government benefits. They'll go home on their own.

 

Actually, it is reality.

Whilst I understand the white nationalist position that would endorse the deportation of non caucasian folks without the constitutional benefits of due process, I must say your interpretation of it is highly inaccurate.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is fairly amusing, as not all illegals come from Mexico.

 

Can you show that US citizens were included in "Operation Wetback", like you claimed? And can you explain how deporting illegal aliens apparently violated their so called Constitutional rights?

Never said they did. Most do, however.

 

Sure.

which removed 1.1 million Mexicans, including US-born and thus US citizen children of Braceros.



See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/27336#sthash.rwBZXCNI.dpuf

Not quite what I said, was it? I never said "deporting illegal aliens violated their Constitutional rights". Would you care to rephrase your question to accurately reflect what I said?

 

So those children should have stayed? Who takes care of them once the parents are gone?

How were their Constitutional rights violated? You weren't very clear on that. Deportation is the punishment for illegally entering the country. We deported them.

 

They were US citizens. I demonstrated my statement was correct. If you have an issue with birthright citizenship then contact your representative.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=593







Many were shipped across the border without recourse to due process.

 

Yes, I'll contact my lib representative.

Those poor illegal aliens.

 

A sister in law got herself a new set of boobs with her EITC. Didn't get her out of poverty but it improved her standings at the local bar.

 

Each and every person that is pulled over by the police, those that apply for govt handouts, etc. Its nothing more than what we do already with the exception that if they are illegally here then they can be identified and apprehended.

 

Nobody was denied basic constitutional rights back then. Our policies today are still the same as they were back then, nothing has changed.

 

It isn't nor was it.

White nationalist position? Your race card is played out. Illegal immigrants are not entitled to due process unless they are charged with a crime. I must say your understanding of immigration law is highly inept.

 

You see back in 1954 and prior, children born to those here under the program were not considered US Citizens. The assumption by the author Phillip Martin shows a poor knowledge of history and citizenship acquisition, he seems to be applying today's assumption to the past. At best those children would be born US Nationals and not US Citizens. A US Birth Certificate does not confer US Citizenship.

 

This should say: You see back in 1954 and prior, children born to those here not under the program were not considered US Citizens. The assumption by the author Phillip Martin shows a poor knowledge of history and citizenship acquisition, he seems to be applying today's assumption to the past. At best those children would be born US Nationals and not US Citizens. A US Birth Certificate does not confer US Citizenship.

Wong Kim Ark makes clear that in order for a child to be born a US Citizen here, the parents must have legal domicile, meaning the govt must acknowledge their residence. WKA parents were here under the Treaty of Tientsin which became the Burlingame Treaty.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

That permanent domicil and residence was by way of treaty, the US govt acknowledging their change of domicil. An illegal immigrant can not have a permanent domicil or Residence within the US as they are not recognized by the US govt for officially entering the US as WKA parents had done.

 

I dont know. That kind of smells like an undue burden to demonstrate innocence to the government when not even accused of a crime.

- - - Updated - - -

Link please.

 

Let me see if I understand your argument here.

To prove that these citizens did not have US citizenship by birthright you cite a case that demonstrates citizenship being conferred as a birthright?


Aren't you citing the opposite of what you are arguing?

 

You, me and everybody else already does it. If you are pulled over do you not present your license? If you apply for welfare do you not present your ID? If an illegal doesn't have theirs, or an immigrant visitor doesn't provide their proper visa form or passport, what are we to believe? Police are already supposed to detain and contact ICE about the person, but the admin doesn't want it anymore (a dismissal of actual US law by the admin). So where is the "undue burden"?

 

You demonstrated you either did not read what I quoted or that you fail to comprehend what I quoted. WKA's parents were here with a legal domicil, their residence was acknowledged by the US Govt through the Treaties of 1858 and 1868 with China, i.e. they were allowed to enter the US legally (today's equivalence to a visa), thus any child born to them (Legally domiciled) would be born a US Citizen even if the parents were denied naturalization to US Citizens, as per Gray.

Please link to the law that states children born to illegals while in the US are given BRC for simply being born here. (HINT: there is no such case nor any law that states it. It is only policy as determined through the admin and its interpretation of law that now says that children born, even of illegal immigrants, are US Citizens. This can change simply with a new admin and interpretation. Besides, one is only assumed to be a US Citizen, unless they hold a US Passport stating specifically that they are a US Citizen.)

At best, a child born to illegals may be nothing more than a US National. Keep in mind that all US Citizens are also US Nationals but not all US Nationals are US Citizens. And here from a US senior official of Consular Affairs

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...42058533028907

 

The EITC is defined as a welfare benefit and has been since TRA 86.

The whole EITC issue is more complicated than just the issue with illegals. It has both positive and negative attribues. It is the best policy to get people out of the poverty statistics, but it also has the worst fraud rate since ins inception. The question is what should be the policy to help those who are poor and in poverty. The answer is not so simple as one can argue.

 

Illegals have been filing long before a valid TIN was required to be placed on the tax return. .

The Internal Revenue Code does not differentiate bwetween legal and illgal immigration status. The Code does, however, differentiate between resident and non resident, foreign and domestic. An illegal alin can become a resident alien for tax ppurposes if it meets the substantial presence test. Under this test, it is based simply on the days present in the country regardless of their immigration status. Only
immigration visas can have an impact on this test. They are A, G, F, J, M, or Q. However, this is an election by the alie with filing Form 8843.


By determining whether an alien is a resident or not helps define how they are taxed. Nonresident aliens are taxed either at 30% or the lower tax treaty rate or by the marginal rate if the income is effectively connected to a trade or business in the United States. A nonresident alien, if required to file, will file generally a Form 1040NR or a 1040NREZ. Some dedcitons are allowed on the NRA tax return as well as certain credits, including the Child Tax Credit. It does not include the EITC or American Opportunity Credit.

Finally, any tax return is accepted when submitted for processing. But if an invalid TIN is present, all this does is deny an exemption, a deduction, and/or a credit. A person can change the result by simply providing the correct TIN to the name on the tax return. If no TIN is available, the IRS has an IRSN that it can assign. This wold allow the exemption, but not deductions or credits associated with the valid TIN to claim.

 

Every tax system and economic system has imbedded the wealth redistribution effect. The question is how effective is that system to have someone within poverty levels and not have them in poverty levels. The reason why this is important is because the government's choices on how to best manage the redistribution.. .

 

Technically, your sister in law got herself out of poverty with the EITC. What she did with the money has more to do with her personal decision than with the credit itself.

 

Nope. The vast majority of illegals are NOT Hispanic. The term refers to Spanish-speaking people of European descent (Spain, Portugal). Spanish-speaking people who derive from the Americas (Mexico, South-and-Central America) are called Latinos. Thus endeth the lesson.

 

You DO realize The Social Contract Press is a white supremacist hate site, don't you? If you are going there for reliable information you are in trouble..

 

And they paid taxes that we allowed them to pay while being illegal. Shouldn't it be just as illegal for the illegal to pay them as to receive a tax refund? How is it going to cost Americans Billions, when the illegals are doing the same thing the legals are doing?

 

why are you claiming the only illegal aliens are non white are you under the racist assumption that only non whites break immigration laws
your a racist to believe that