- This topic has 420 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
CDMA ENG.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 24, 2010 at 12:54 PM #505965January 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM #505897
Jumby
ParticipantFeds find dubious home tax credit claims from Texas
12:00 AM CST on Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Federal inspectors scouring tax returns that contain a credit for first-time homebuyers have found something curious about claims from Texas.
Nearly 1,000 were filed by people employing a special taxpayer identification number primarily used by illegal immigrants, who are not entitled to the credit…..
January 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM #506043ParticipantFeds find dubious home tax credit claims from Texas
12:00 AM CST on Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Federal inspectors scouring tax returns that contain a credit for first-time homebuyers have found something curious about claims from Texas.
Nearly 1,000 were filed by people employing a special taxpayer identification number primarily used by illegal immigrants, who are not entitled to the credit…..
January 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM #506452ParticipantFeds find dubious home tax credit claims from Texas
12:00 AM CST on Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Federal inspectors scouring tax returns that contain a credit for first-time homebuyers have found something curious about claims from Texas.
Nearly 1,000 were filed by people employing a special taxpayer identification number primarily used by illegal immigrants, who are not entitled to the credit…..
January 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM #506544ParticipantFeds find dubious home tax credit claims from Texas
12:00 AM CST on Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Federal inspectors scouring tax returns that contain a credit for first-time homebuyers have found something curious about claims from Texas.
Nearly 1,000 were filed by people employing a special taxpayer identification number primarily used by illegal immigrants, who are not entitled to the credit…..
January 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM #506798ParticipantFeds find dubious home tax credit claims from Texas
12:00 AM CST on Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Federal inspectors scouring tax returns that contain a credit for first-time homebuyers have found something curious about claims from Texas.
Nearly 1,000 were filed by people employing a special taxpayer identification number primarily used by illegal immigrants, who are not entitled to the credit…..
January 26, 2010 at 9:14 PM #505997GH
ParticipantMy income last year was ($35,000) – that is NEGATIVE $35,000 for those not familiar with accounting rules, so I for one could not pay. I guess that leaves the rest of you who are apparently doing so well you can afford all this PC BS. Guess that makes ME a racist for not paying my share!
Did you know that in the United States we have ONE GM bankruptcy a WEEK if you aggregate all the small businesses which fail. Funny Obama believes we are SO RICH we were to pay for health care for all. Thank god for Massachusetts I will not be a criminal for refusing to pay my “fair share”!
January 26, 2010 at 9:14 PM #506143ParticipantMy income last year was ($35,000) – that is NEGATIVE $35,000 for those not familiar with accounting rules, so I for one could not pay. I guess that leaves the rest of you who are apparently doing so well you can afford all this PC BS. Guess that makes ME a racist for not paying my share!
Did you know that in the United States we have ONE GM bankruptcy a WEEK if you aggregate all the small businesses which fail. Funny Obama believes we are SO RICH we were to pay for health care for all. Thank god for Massachusetts I will not be a criminal for refusing to pay my “fair share”!
January 26, 2010 at 9:14 PM #506552ParticipantMy income last year was ($35,000) – that is NEGATIVE $35,000 for those not familiar with accounting rules, so I for one could not pay. I guess that leaves the rest of you who are apparently doing so well you can afford all this PC BS. Guess that makes ME a racist for not paying my share!
Did you know that in the United States we have ONE GM bankruptcy a WEEK if you aggregate all the small businesses which fail. Funny Obama believes we are SO RICH we were to pay for health care for all. Thank god for Massachusetts I will not be a criminal for refusing to pay my “fair share”!
January 26, 2010 at 9:14 PM #506645ParticipantMy income last year was ($35,000) – that is NEGATIVE $35,000 for those not familiar with accounting rules, so I for one could not pay. I guess that leaves the rest of you who are apparently doing so well you can afford all this PC BS. Guess that makes ME a racist for not paying my share!
Did you know that in the United States we have ONE GM bankruptcy a WEEK if you aggregate all the small businesses which fail. Funny Obama believes we are SO RICH we were to pay for health care for all. Thank god for Massachusetts I will not be a criminal for refusing to pay my “fair share”!
January 26, 2010 at 9:14 PM #506900ParticipantMy income last year was ($35,000) – that is NEGATIVE $35,000 for those not familiar with accounting rules, so I for one could not pay. I guess that leaves the rest of you who are apparently doing so well you can afford all this PC BS. Guess that makes ME a racist for not paying my share!
Did you know that in the United States we have ONE GM bankruptcy a WEEK if you aggregate all the small businesses which fail. Funny Obama believes we are SO RICH we were to pay for health care for all. Thank god for Massachusetts I will not be a criminal for refusing to pay my “fair share”!
January 26, 2010 at 9:15 PM #506002cabal
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?
Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.
The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.[/quote]Another entertaining Piggington thread. Under current law, there should be no problem because Joe, Jose or Juan’s children are all US citizens entitled to equal educational benefits . Your issues are with the applicability of the 14th amendment Section 1 and allocation of tax revenues.
Vesting citizenship by birthplace in a constitutional amendment was originally intended to provide guaranteed protection for freed slaves against injustices such as the Dred Scott supreme court decision, specifically protection against deportation and the right to life, liberty and property. I tend to agree the loophole for anchor babies should be closed as illegal immigrants have little analogy to the slave situation, probably. What gives me some pause is the philosophical argument of Deistic “Natural Rights” espoused by our Founding Fathers, or the unalienable right to life, liberty and property vested to all humans outside and above any govt rights. Citizenship by birthplace (Jus Solis), rooted in English common law, was instituted for pragmatic reasons, to facilitate nation building by attaining labor and skillsets via a growing population. If a child born on US soil of illegal parents say in the sparse west late 1800s, I doubt anyone would have an issue recognizing that childs citizenship. It feels odd to me that limited resources is now sufficient grounds to deny this settled right. For me, the question is does an innocent child born of illegal parents who has committed no crime, who if able to speak accepts the jurisdiction of this country, and who grows up to be a productive member of society have the right of citizenship?
As for how Uncle Sam spends/wastes our tax dollars, educating legal children of illegal immigrants doesn’t even crack my worst top ten list. For better or worse, we live in a republic, not a true democracy. This means we don’t decide anything, we elect others to decide for us. I’m not fond of our progressive tax system, or taxation for redistribution since I’m in the highest tax bracket, but consume no more public resources than the average person. Too bad.
I don’t agree Juanitas parents should try to sneak her into this country. But for the record, I admire SK in CVs unconditional love for the well being of innocent children whose circumstances are no fault of their own. Some may call this naïve, I see it as a sign of nobility.
January 26, 2010 at 9:15 PM #506148Participant[quote=ucodegen]
If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?
Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.
The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.[/quote]Another entertaining Piggington thread. Under current law, there should be no problem because Joe, Jose or Juan’s children are all US citizens entitled to equal educational benefits . Your issues are with the applicability of the 14th amendment Section 1 and allocation of tax revenues.
Vesting citizenship by birthplace in a constitutional amendment was originally intended to provide guaranteed protection for freed slaves against injustices such as the Dred Scott supreme court decision, specifically protection against deportation and the right to life, liberty and property. I tend to agree the loophole for anchor babies should be closed as illegal immigrants have little analogy to the slave situation, probably. What gives me some pause is the philosophical argument of Deistic “Natural Rights” espoused by our Founding Fathers, or the unalienable right to life, liberty and property vested to all humans outside and above any govt rights. Citizenship by birthplace (Jus Solis), rooted in English common law, was instituted for pragmatic reasons, to facilitate nation building by attaining labor and skillsets via a growing population. If a child born on US soil of illegal parents say in the sparse west late 1800s, I doubt anyone would have an issue recognizing that childs citizenship. It feels odd to me that limited resources is now sufficient grounds to deny this settled right. For me, the question is does an innocent child born of illegal parents who has committed no crime, who if able to speak accepts the jurisdiction of this country, and who grows up to be a productive member of society have the right of citizenship?
As for how Uncle Sam spends/wastes our tax dollars, educating legal children of illegal immigrants doesn’t even crack my worst top ten list. For better or worse, we live in a republic, not a true democracy. This means we don’t decide anything, we elect others to decide for us. I’m not fond of our progressive tax system, or taxation for redistribution since I’m in the highest tax bracket, but consume no more public resources than the average person. Too bad.
I don’t agree Juanitas parents should try to sneak her into this country. But for the record, I admire SK in CVs unconditional love for the well being of innocent children whose circumstances are no fault of their own. Some may call this naïve, I see it as a sign of nobility.
January 26, 2010 at 9:15 PM #506557Participant[quote=ucodegen]
If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?
Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.
The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.[/quote]Another entertaining Piggington thread. Under current law, there should be no problem because Joe, Jose or Juan’s children are all US citizens entitled to equal educational benefits . Your issues are with the applicability of the 14th amendment Section 1 and allocation of tax revenues.
Vesting citizenship by birthplace in a constitutional amendment was originally intended to provide guaranteed protection for freed slaves against injustices such as the Dred Scott supreme court decision, specifically protection against deportation and the right to life, liberty and property. I tend to agree the loophole for anchor babies should be closed as illegal immigrants have little analogy to the slave situation, probably. What gives me some pause is the philosophical argument of Deistic “Natural Rights” espoused by our Founding Fathers, or the unalienable right to life, liberty and property vested to all humans outside and above any govt rights. Citizenship by birthplace (Jus Solis), rooted in English common law, was instituted for pragmatic reasons, to facilitate nation building by attaining labor and skillsets via a growing population. If a child born on US soil of illegal parents say in the sparse west late 1800s, I doubt anyone would have an issue recognizing that childs citizenship. It feels odd to me that limited resources is now sufficient grounds to deny this settled right. For me, the question is does an innocent child born of illegal parents who has committed no crime, who if able to speak accepts the jurisdiction of this country, and who grows up to be a productive member of society have the right of citizenship?
As for how Uncle Sam spends/wastes our tax dollars, educating legal children of illegal immigrants doesn’t even crack my worst top ten list. For better or worse, we live in a republic, not a true democracy. This means we don’t decide anything, we elect others to decide for us. I’m not fond of our progressive tax system, or taxation for redistribution since I’m in the highest tax bracket, but consume no more public resources than the average person. Too bad.
I don’t agree Juanitas parents should try to sneak her into this country. But for the record, I admire SK in CVs unconditional love for the well being of innocent children whose circumstances are no fault of their own. Some may call this naïve, I see it as a sign of nobility.
January 26, 2010 at 9:15 PM #506650Participant[quote=ucodegen]
If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?
Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.
The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.[/quote]Another entertaining Piggington thread. Under current law, there should be no problem because Joe, Jose or Juan’s children are all US citizens entitled to equal educational benefits . Your issues are with the applicability of the 14th amendment Section 1 and allocation of tax revenues.
Vesting citizenship by birthplace in a constitutional amendment was originally intended to provide guaranteed protection for freed slaves against injustices such as the Dred Scott supreme court decision, specifically protection against deportation and the right to life, liberty and property. I tend to agree the loophole for anchor babies should be closed as illegal immigrants have little analogy to the slave situation, probably. What gives me some pause is the philosophical argument of Deistic “Natural Rights” espoused by our Founding Fathers, or the unalienable right to life, liberty and property vested to all humans outside and above any govt rights. Citizenship by birthplace (Jus Solis), rooted in English common law, was instituted for pragmatic reasons, to facilitate nation building by attaining labor and skillsets via a growing population. If a child born on US soil of illegal parents say in the sparse west late 1800s, I doubt anyone would have an issue recognizing that childs citizenship. It feels odd to me that limited resources is now sufficient grounds to deny this settled right. For me, the question is does an innocent child born of illegal parents who has committed no crime, who if able to speak accepts the jurisdiction of this country, and who grows up to be a productive member of society have the right of citizenship?
As for how Uncle Sam spends/wastes our tax dollars, educating legal children of illegal immigrants doesn’t even crack my worst top ten list. For better or worse, we live in a republic, not a true democracy. This means we don’t decide anything, we elect others to decide for us. I’m not fond of our progressive tax system, or taxation for redistribution since I’m in the highest tax bracket, but consume no more public resources than the average person. Too bad.
I don’t agree Juanitas parents should try to sneak her into this country. But for the record, I admire SK in CVs unconditional love for the well being of innocent children whose circumstances are no fault of their own. Some may call this naïve, I see it as a sign of nobility.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.