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

1. Actually, you have with me, anda few others on several occasions. Anytime illegals comes up on this forum, you pop in and begin to cite your argments, the same arguments fro mover a year ago. You even stated that it does not require a Constitional amendment, just a simple law change.

2. There are no legal scholars who are arguing that children born by illegal parent or parents are not U.S. citizens. They are arguing, however, to change the law so that children of illegal parent or parents are not U.S. citizens. The law change usually rrquires a constitutional amendment or have laws where one deines food, clothing, shelter, and medicine to those wo are of illegal status. The scholars you are citing are not even arguing that children of illegal parent or parents are not U.S. citizens.

3. WKA is the foundation of jus soli citizenship, which one is born here is not dependent of the status or lack therorf, to be a US. citien. Wong Kim Ark was of Chinese descent, which the Chinese Exclusion aCt was trying to be applied. The USSC denied that snce he was born here, and thus subject to the jurisdiction therof, then he was a US citizen. The same principle applies to illegal aliens in the same way s WKA case did.

 

So you cant quote anywhere in WKA that Gray states children born to illegals are also born citizens? Are we simply suppose to take your word that the 14th does what you claim, when you have not given one quote from the SC, nor even backed up your diatribe? You still haven't rebutted anything I have stated or shown. I'm not the one needing to concede anything, nor am I the one needing to move on. You have the option of showing Gray or any other SC case that clearly defines children born to illegals are indeed born citizens, or you simply accept that what you think the law means is, at best, questionable and possibly mis-interpreted by you and those of your ilk. Its really not all that hard.

 

Fair enough. Your contention is still counter to fact.

 

And none of you were able to refute or rebutt anything that I stated, you simply quit posting. :shrug:

They are arguing that the interpretation of the law is mis-interpeted by this admin. That there is no law or case that clearly defines children born to illegals to receive BRC . Even this admin uses WKA out of its context to justify its FAM to grant children born to illegals BRC. Many even clearly state that it would take nothing more than a simple INA to pass to deny this class of persons BRC.

Remember Gray states that the 14th (1868 ) is merely declaratory of existing law (the CRA of 1866), prior to that only Whites were allowed to be born USC.

The principles are very different, one was here with the consent of the govt, the other is not, and as Gray clearly points out, the parents must have a permanent domicil and residence in order for the child to be born a citizen. You continuing to deny that fact renders your claims inept.

 

You can claim it to be what ever you want, doesn't change the fact that you've shown nothing to counter anything that I have stated or shown. Your opinion is quite frankly your opinion, If I didn't change your mind by showing you the wording of a SC Justice, I fear there are no facts in the world that would make your opinion change. Oh well.

 

Actually I have cited both the Wong Kim case and the Constitution. Both indicate your contention is incorrect

 

And I cited the WKA case as well, to include quoting Gray backing up exactly what I stated. You can claim to cite 'till your blue in the face but until you actually give the section of WKA or a quote that backs up your assumptions, you're simply assuming based on ideological ignorance? Make sure you don't try to take it out of context because I'll call you on it.

I'll wait...

 

Your contention is incorrect and has been demonstrated so. Your contention runs counter to both case law and the Constitution.

 

You haven't demonstrated anything, you haven't even quoted anything, you only exclaim that the 14th makes it so. It shouldn't be to hard for you to quote Gray or give the section of WKA that backs up your opinion, hell, I gave the part of Grays opinion that backs up mine, the part that you can't get past.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...hright-citizenship-really-in-the-Constitution
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/CRS-Citizenship-Report.pdf

 

Your contention are still incorrect and have been shown to be. Even both of your latest links indicate that is currently true.

 

I agree with you.....outrageous. Actually, I believe you've undersold the magnitude of the problem.

My understanding is that illegal immigrants can receive earned income tax credit from the IRS because of amnesty bonuses in the tax codes, getting up to $24,000 in tax credits.

Give me an f'ing break. "Amnesty bonuses"?

 

Oh we have rebutted. It is just that you chose to ignore the facts presented to you.

 

It is a wee bit more complicated than that. Amnesty allows illegals to obtain a Valid SSN. As long as the refund statues have not expired, they can use a procedural process to file amended returns claiing the EITC because they now have a valid SSN for the primary/secondary taxpayer and the qualified children being claimed for EITC.

It gets even better, H%R Block and all the other tax return factoris will make money fling the Form 1040X on their behalf. So the revenue stream will be there for private business as well as refundable credits being issued bedcause of the proceudreaal law that allows them to do this.

BTW, this procedural law is broader than just illegal immigrant. If you get rid of the procedure, then you will affect US citizens and legal residents as well. And they will not be too happy.

 

LMFAO you made claims as you have done here and still haven't refuted my statements. I didn't ignore your facts, I used your facts against you, presented a simple question and then never heard from you again in that topic.

 

The fact is you isquote, misread, and misinterpret the Supreme Court decisions on a constant basis. Your belief that children of illegal aliens are not citizens, but U.S. nationals, is not accepted by any court or any school of law in the country. It is definitely not accepted by the ABA nor is it accepted by groups that want to limit illegal immigration even know your theory is not acceptable and therefore not relevant to their agenda.

The Gray case had nothing to do with illegal immigration status. It had to do with counting people for representation and that is all. It did not determine legal residency status of illgal immigrant. The Wong Kim Ark case is the case that established jus soli doctrine for citizenship. It does not have to say illegal aliens to make that claim.

 

It has never been to court. And yet you still cant get past the part I quoted of Gray's opinion in WKA. The rest of your diatribe is hilarious and shows little knowledge of actuality.

WTF? Gray as in Justice Gray the one that wrote the opinion in WKA. Gray vs whoever is your inability to follow along with the conversation, per usual. WKA did not establish jus soli doctrine, jus soli was in place prior to the 14th and was limited to whites only (why do you think they needed the CRA of 1866 and then the INA of 1870?). SMFH The WKA case merely establishes that children born here to persons with residence and permanent domicil are citizens at birth, nothing more, nothing less.

 

The legal issue of birthright citizenship has been to court several times which the Supreme Court has ruled on that birthright citizenship is based on jus soli, not jus sangrinis. And the significant case is Wong Kim Ark. This case set the foundation that jus soli defines American citizenship if the child is born in the jurisdiction of the United States. This applies whether the parents have or do not have legal authority to reside in this country. Every, and I mean every, law school agrees with this. Some have argued that we should not use jus soli for immigrants, any immigrant. And in that argument, they are not siding with your arguemt that illegals are at best U.S. Nationals.

If that were the case, then would mean they are subject to the laws of the United States as U.S. nationals are in several of our terirories.

You are not citing Justice Gray's opinion in Wong Kim ARk Case since he was one of six who voted in favor of Wong Kim Ark..

YOu have to understand the background of the case. In 1872, the United States Government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. Since those with Chinese ancestry cannot obtain citizenship under current naturization laws nor could they come here legally , which made them the first illegal aliens in the country, then Wong Kim Ark was the first "anchor baby." The Supreme Court ruled that jus soli is the definition for U.S. citizenship. It may be that Justice Gray had a change of heart in his original decision, which has been debated, but it is not his opinion when he was part of the affirmative dicesion group who wrote the majority opinion.

Again, you are misquoting a case you really know nothing about or the decision it made. YOur argument is baseless.

 

When was the last time BRC was brought up to the SC? What were the cases? Ill bet in each case the parents were here legally and thus the opinion was the child was born a citizen. So if it has been to the SC numerous times you shouldn't have a problem pointing to the speceific case that grants BRC to children born to illegals. I'll wait....

Not every, and I mean every, law school agrees, nor does every Constitutional Scholar, but I digress, your hyperbole is rather funny. You are simply throwing (*)(*)(*)(*) against a wall and trying to call it art. Even the CBO (link previously given) agrees that it isn't as cut and dry as you make it to be, if it were then there wouldn't be a Bill brought up about it every new Congress. You've demonstrated that you don't understand anything about it, and your inept claims show it.

So point to the portion of Grays opinion that you think makes your argument relative, since the WKA case is the only BRC case that has been brought about since the 14th Amendment was passed.

You need to understand the opinion of Gray, he clearly states that he 1872 Chinese Exclusion Act may keep new Chinese immigrants from entering, but the parents were here under the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, and that treaty, although it denied them the ability to naturalize, it did not deny the child born here from them citizenship , because they were here with the acknowledgment of the Govt, again the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. Directly from Gray

Again because his parents were here legally, he was born a citizen. He was never Americas first "Anchor Baby".

(*)(*)(*)(*)ing hysterical. You just demonstrated you haven't a clue as to what the case is about, nor do you even understand the Chinese Exclusion Act. Do you really think that once the CEA passed that all the Chinese that were already here became illegals? You do understand that WKA's parents came here prior to 1872 under the Burlingame Treaty of 1868.

I'm not? Who's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing opinion am I citing? Have you googled my quotes? Do they not lead you back to Grays opinion from the actual court documents? Are you really this inept? I even previously linked to the court documents. i'm still waiting for you to provide the portion of Grays opinion you believe backs up your inane claims, so I'll even give the court case link again. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html