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

They didn't "pay taxes" as you exclaim. They may have had pay roll taxes taken from their paycheck (which doesn't constitute paying taxes) until they file tax forms, which they may then either receive some or all of it back, may actually owe a little more, or as now with the EITC, receive monies that are credits giving them a negative tax rate. As they are not citizens, nor are they legal residents, they should not be entitled to any tax credits. Each additional credit the illegal takes is money that comes out of the US Govt pocket (which is really our pocket). If you don't see the additional costs, the budget deficit rising because of that, then you fail in economics.

 

What about store purchases? They don'y pay local taxes when they shop and spend their paychecks that have already gone through a payroll tax which helps small businesses?

And by the way you didn't answer my question?

 

Sales tax is hardly the same thing as income tax. Stop pretending minimum wage dish washers and lawn maintenance workers earn tax credits and deserve free money from Uncle Scam.

 

The EITC and the topic are about Fed Taxes, nothing to do with consumption tax.

Your question was given what it deserved,

Your question shows an ignorance to tax law and runs in circles. It seems you would rather try to have someone chase their tail so you appear to look semi-intelligent, to bad that backfired on you.

 

Because you can't answer the question. Hundreds if not thousands of businesses across this country hire illegals and those illegals pay a federal payroll tax, do they not? And if that is allowed, then we as a country are as guilty as they are illegal, right? The question is a yes or no question. Rolling your eyes won't get it answered.

And since we are allowing this to happen, they have every right to EITC as everyone else as long as they file. And here's the other thing you left out. While we are burying our souls with hypocrisy here, it's fair to point out, that while some on here pretend they do not want the illegals here, they certainly have a strange way of showing it. We don't want them here, but yet take a drive from one end of this country to the other and you will see them at almost every construction site there is, working their (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) off. And so, our poor little OP wants to demonize illegals for getting a few tax credits because they are illegal, but yet we want them to do our hard work for us. Hypocrisy soup anyone?

So, let's see if I get this straight; I ask you a tax question you can't answer, but I am ignorant and semi-intelligent because of it? Got to hand it to you, you've out done yourself tonight. What a joke.

 

So your argument against birthright citizenship is to cite the USSC which determined citizenship is a birthright?

 

They don't pay anything, money may be withheld for payroll taxes yet to be determined after tax forms are filed. If they file tax forms and they don't meet the qualifications to owe taxes, that money is then given back to them, in essence they then have paid no taxes. If they get a tax credit, then they have a negative tax rate, meaning they received back more then was withheld. Your incessant inane claim that because they may have had payroll deductions withheld constitutes paying taxes shows an ineptness that limits any ability to take you serious.

Not right.

If you were able to read what I stated let alone comprehend what I stated you would have realized your question had been answered and you were shown to be inept.

Do you even know what the EITC actually is?

What's this "we" (*)(*)(*)(*)? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? The rest of your diatribe is nothing more then hyperbole.

No, your ignorant for simply failing to read what I stated and being unable to comprehend what I said. But please keep it might knock some since into you.

 

So you think WKA determined citizenship is a birthright?

If you really don't understand the case, please don't try to argue it with your made up fallacies. Gray merely confirmed that people here with residence and permanent domicil that have a child while here, then that child

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States.

Nowhere in that case or any other USSC case is there a granting of BRC to children born here of people that do not/can not have a government acknowledged residence and permanent domicil. Children born to illegal immigrants may be US Nationals at best.

 

paying into the payroll tax means they paid into the system. The W2 will show the amount of Federal Income Tax Withheld in box 2. It will also show the employee contribution to Social Security and Medicare taxes withheld. The employer is simply the middle man and has been since 1942.

The problem is that if an illegal is getting paid as an employee, then they do not have a valid SSN and the employer did not do the due diligence it is required to do, generally. However, employers are not experts in deterring whether an id is real or fake unless it is obvious.

 

The Constitution says you are wrong.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

 

Yea, we figured out the game already. pretend the question is not worthy of answering, camouflaging the fact you can't answer.

LOL! That doesn't mean they don't pay anything. Is this what you meant by people like me being ignorant? What a joke.

Uh, like everyone else who is legal, the same thing might happen. Imagine that!

And all the while those deductions are being withheld, the social Security Administration claims that there is about 7 billion dollars taken out on them where they will never see a dime of those benefits, while you cry about a few getting tax credits of more than what they put in for taxes. Show your link proving they all get that.

Oh, it is very right. We are the biggest hypocrites. But ha, maybe you can explain how it is not right? Lol!

Nice dodge! You've answered nothing!

Do you; http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/EITC,-Earned-Income-Tax-Credit,-Questions-and-Answers?

Ah yes, the typical Right-wing so called selective outrage against illegals until it benefits the "WE". Except you think you aren't part of the "WE". You aren't fooling anyone. It's how the wingers role. "WE" including the left all know how this movie always ends. So look in your own pocket, you'll be surprised what you find.

Unless it is second grade, you are right, I may have missed it.

 

Um....No it doesn't. Gray in WKA explained all that.

 

Yeah, it really does. Your argument is running counter to facts. Sitting there and claiming that those born in the US are not citizens is absolutely counter to facts and reality.

 

So you are actually unable to read the entire comment ans realize your question was answered? Hell I even answered it in the the comment you are now quoting, but don't let your inept inability to understand words get in the way.

Tax withholdings are not paying taxes. Those withholdings are nothing more than an estimate of what may be owed for the year, they can even opt to have no withholdings withheld and then file tax forms and see of they then owe (but you've already demonstrated you no nothing of tax law nor business law or immigration law). Its based on the exemptions they claim. At the end of the year, once they file the proper tax forms, they will then know if they owe taxes or if the receive a "refund", as to your question (now for the third time answered). A tax "credit" has nothing to do with paying taxes (which goes to my point it is given as Alwayssa stated, welfare, govt hand-out). but then when you fail to understand what is being discussed......

The EITC was never intended for persons filing with an ITIN, and those filing with an SS are those that are legally here under a visa/non-immigrant visa. What the Admin has done by allowing DACA (who are still illegal immigrants in the deportation process and are not legally here) to receive work authorized SS numbers is allowed them to now be allowed to claim a credit that was never intended for them.

SS claims a total of about $7B which includes non-matching numbers, non-matching names, to which half of that money is from the employer. SO now SS paid into by an illegal may be less than $3B, of which an illegal can claim SS through PRUCOL status and if their home country had a Totalization Agreement with the US (things you are obviously unaware of). That money is in an ETF account and is not part of SS, but a separate account all together.

When you are ignorant to how things actually are, you make stupid claims, but thanks for playing.

Don't blame me for your inability to comprehend the answer.

Thats just a link, if you don't understand what it is, then how is just a link going to help you? I've explained it, Alwayssa has explained it, a little more clearer than I did, now its up to you to comprehend it.

Sorry, I'm not "Right wing" or "Left-wing".

I guess your still in 2nd grade.

 

Um....No. But rail all you want, you are demonstrating you know very little history or how the laws of citizenship have come about. I suggest you understand the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to understand the 14th Amendments BRC clause. Then try comprehending Gray in WKA when he states the part that I previously quoted in regards to it.

 

Yes, the case you cite and the Constitution both say your contention is incorrect.

 

Wong Ark Kim case say you are wrong with all U.S. laws saying that if a child is born here on U.S. soid, then they are a U.S. citizen. The only way they can become a U.S. national is if the child is born in the Marianas and chooses not to become a U.S. citizen.

 

Your argument has been denounced every time you bring it up, including those who are in the legal field.

No one, and I mean no one, believes your theory that children of illegal immigrants are not U.S. citizens. Per 8 USC 1401, the definition of U.S. citizenship is defined and includes children born in the United States whose parents have no citizenship therof orrsidency status therof. As long as the child was born into the juriddiciton for which the United States laws are applied, the child is a U.S. citizen. Every lawyer would agree on this poit.

The immigration restrictionist griups do want birthright citizenship to be removed. They either want to challenge the law thorugh the judicial process or pass a constitutional amendment. This means that their lawyers do not believe your baseless theory.

 

No it doesn't, Gray in WKA makes it very clear that children born to those here legally are citizens by birth. There is no known case of a child born to illegals as being confirmed to be a citizen by birth. I suggest you re-read what I quoted from Gray and the at least attempt to comprehend what he states.

 

It does no such thing. Gray merely states that if a child is born here to persons that have a residence and legal domicil then that child is born a citizen, nowhere in that case does it state that children born to illegals are citizens at birth. It is merely assumed by the admin in FAM1111 that children born to illegals are now considered citizens at birth. Obama has changed it 3 times since he has been in office. Prior to Obama, the Bush Admin is was children may be considered citizens at birth. There is no defining case, nor defining law on the subject, it is all assumption based on ideological perception.

All Us Citizens are US Nationals, not all US Nationals are US Citizens.

Are you really going to attempt to tell a US Consulate senior official he doesn't know what he is talking about?

 

Yes, it really does. Both the Wong Kim Ark case and the constitution are very clear about birthright citizenship, namely that it is automatic.

 

Well it hasn't, not here in this forum, not by you or anybody else in here. There are legal opinions going both ways, so your poorly worded inept claim is ignorant fallacy on your part.

And yet there are legal scholars that state exactly what I have, go figure.

The parents aren't required to have US Citizenship (the ignorance of your claim) they don't even need to be here on a immigrant visa, a non-immigrant visa is just as good, but what they all have in common is legality, authorization by our govt to be here, the very thing you keep ignoring in your inept diatribe. As long as the parents are here with Residence (an illegal immigrant is denied legal residence by US Law) and permanent/temporary domicil (the legal effect of changing countries as authorized by the govt) then there children are born Citizens.

Gray spells that out through the entire opinion of WKA.

If WKA did what you exclaim, then why does Bouve come out in 1912 argue that illegals should be allowed residence and their children should be allowed citizenship at birth? http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/4891735?n=456&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=0.5&printThumbnails=no

Some groups want it clarified once and for all. Challenging it through the judicial process would be the easiest, but no Constitutional Amendment is needed, Congress only needs to pass a law in the INA that addresses it (again Gray in WKA and my previous quoting of him a page or 2 back). Even Old Harry Reid pushed a change in the law back in the 1980's, the law is brought up every new Congress, it simply fails to get out of committee. So obviously there are lawyers and judges that would accept my "theory".

 

Are you talking about Gray v Saunders? That is the only USSC decision that I know of with that name. The object or principle issue had to do with counting people for congressional seats. It formulated the one person one vote rule in how our election system defines its persons who can be countee in the congressional seats. It has nothing to do with birthright citizenship whatsoever.



The principle of birthright citizenship is the rule of jus soli whereas you are wanting citizenship under just sangrinis. All U.S. laws wwhen it comes to citizenship are generally legalized under Jus Soli. Only citizens born outside the United States, or its territories, such a a child born in Canada, are under Jus Sangrinis. .

The whole argument is notbased on the law or what the Supreme Court has defined as a U.S. citizen.

 

No they are not. Yo obviously fail to comprehend anything Gray is stating in WKA. If Gray and WKA are so clear about it, I'm sure you could point to the paragraph or section of the WKA to back up your statement, i mean after all I already pointed to Gray in WKA showing that the parents that are here legally and have a child that child is born a citizen, certainly you can show where he says anybody born here is a citizen or that children born to illegal are citizens at birth. It shouldn't take you long and it shouldn't be so hard a task for you, I'll wait.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you not know who the judge was in WKA? Justice Gray?

The SC has not defined who is a US Citizen beyond WKA and Elk v Wilkins.

 

Yes, they really do.

You know, I realize you are wrong. you probably realize it too. Perhaps rather than sitting there lobbing juvenile insults, you can simply move on? Concede the point? Anything other than belligerence?