You are here: Home / Archives for Society

Society

Failed to Pay Taxes? Americans Face Jail Time, Illegal Aliens Receive Amnesty

June 17, 2013 By 2 Comments

One of the major talking points from the Gang of Eight before they released their “comprehensive” immigration reform bill was that amnestied illegal aliens would be required to pay back taxes in order to receive legal status—“registered provisional immigrant” (RPI) status. However, as many Americans now know, such a requirement is not actually contained in the 1,000 plus page bill.

Rather, the Gang of Eight gives illegal aliens a free pass for not paying taxes, whereas U.S. citizens and legal immigrants committing the same offense face jail time and hefty fines. Under current law, any person “who willfully fails to pay” taxes owed are guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, face a fine up to $25,000, imprisonment not more than one year, or both. (26 U.S.C. 7203) And, any person who “willfully attempts in any manner to evade” taxes are guilty of a felony and upon conviction, face a fine up to $100,000, imprisonment not more than five years, or both. (26 U.S.C. 7201)

So will illegal aliens be subject to these same penalties as Americans if they’ve failed to pay taxes? Not under the Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill. Under their amnesty legislation, illegal aliens only need to pay taxes “assessed” to qualify for RPI status. But “taxes assessed” are of course different from “taxes owed.” Taxes assessed requires the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to either affirmatively record an individual’s owed taxes, or actually audit an individual. Accordingly, under the Gang of Eight bill, the issue of whether illegal aliens will actually have pay back taxes is left up to the discretion of the IRS to figure out at a later date—if at all. (See FAIR Legislative Update, Apr. 29, 2013)

While the federal government routinely uses its broad authority to prosecute U.S. taxpayers who violate our tax laws, illegal aliens who have unlawfully worked in the U.S. will continue to get a free pass if the Senate passes the Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill. Thus, although U.S. taxpayers must pay back taxes; penalties; fines; interest; and potentially jail time, the Gang of Eight essentially grants illegal aliens blanket amnesty for violations of tax law.

Filed Under: Amnesty 2013, Crime, Law, Politics, Population, Society

Did He Really Just Say That?

June 14, 2013 By 3 Comments

In a House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Hearing on Thursday, Committee members debated H.R. 2278, the “Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act” (the SAFE Act) proposed by Immigration Subcommittee Chair Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC). The SAFE Act contains a myriad of immigration enforcement measures aimed at improving interior enforcement.

Amidst impassioned testimonies from witnesses as well as Representatives, Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said the enforcement measures in the bill were simply too costly to enforce. “This is going to cost a lot of money…and most states and localities can’t afford it and I can attest that the federal budget can’t afford it.”

So then what does the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee propose as an alternative? Yes, you guessed it, “comprehensive immigration reform!” (See Rep. Conyers’ press release)

By demanding “comprehensive immigration reform” (i.e. amnesty) instead of immigration enforcement, Rep. Conyers completely ignores the monetary consequences of a mass amnesty. In fact, according to the Heritage Foundation, the Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill currently being considered in the Senate will cost U.S. taxpayers $6.3 trillion over the course of the next 50 years.

But, not only does Rep. Conyers refuse to consider the cost of an amnesty to U.S. taxpayers, he fails to consider the costs of our government continuing to ignore our immigration laws. In fact, the Administration’s current system of turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants costs taxpayers billions annually, at a tune of $113 billion at the federal, state, and local level (nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level).

At the end of the day, Rep. Conyers’ statement opposing the bill on fiscal grounds illustrates nothing more than the pro-amnesty lobby’s amnesty-first, enforcement-never approach to fixing our nation’s immigration system. It is paradoxical to allow those who oppose an enforcement bill on the grounds of cost to the government, to support a comprehensive immigration bill that only perpetuates this country’s already severe deficit.

Filed Under: Amnesty 2013, Politics, Population, Society

Rubio: I Voted Against Border Security Because I’m in Favor of Border Security (and Other Fairy Tales)

June 14, 2013 By 8 Comments

Nationally syndicated talk radio host Andrea Tantaros positively gushes all over Marco Rubio when he appeared on her program Thursday…and he still manages to destroy what little credibility he might still have.

Listen to this amazing interview.

In the space of about seven minutes he manages to insult the intelligence of the American people, spew out non sequiturs, and flat out lie about what is in, and what is not in, the Gang of Eight bill he continues to support.

In a single breath he claims he voted against an amendment to strengthen border security “because it doesn’t go far enough,” and then explains that by “not far enough,” he means that it would delay amnesty for illegal aliens for another four years.

Then he moves quickly from non sequitur into non-truth. The problem with delaying amnesty for four years is that we need to start the amnesty process as soon as possible “because we are going to require them to pay a fine. And that’s the money we are going to use to pay for the border security.” What he neglects to mention is that the fines are small to begin with – $2,000 – and that the bill gives the Department of Homeland Security discretion to waive the fines, and that they can be paid out over ten years, and that they are supposed to offset some of the costs of the amnesty itself. Not exactly the bonanza he claims it is.

Rubio then claims that the bill fixes the problems of lack of border security, lack of mandatory E-Verify, and the lack of an entry/exit tracking system. Yes, the same Marco Rubio who, on Thursday, voted to table Sen. Chuck Grassley’s amendment that would have required that the Department of Homeland Security actually have our borders under control for six months before the amnesty process could begin.

As for a universal E-Verify system – that would not be required for more than a decade, if the bill’s timetable is actually met.

As far as an entry/exit tracking system for foreign nationals, Rubio’s assertion is flat out misleading. True, we don’t have one, but not because it hasn’t already been legislated. We don’t have one because it is yet another example of a congressionally legislated enforcement promise that has not been kept. The Gang of Eight bill would actually weaken the existing requirement. Instead of collecting biometric data on everyone who departs the U.S., Rubio’s bill would require only the collection of fraud-prone biographical data and exempt the millions of people who depart the U.S. each year across land borders.

If playing fast and loose with the truth is not bad enough, Rubio then goes on to insult the intelligence of the American people. He complains that we have 11 million people in this nation who are “not paying any consequence for being here illegally.” So Rubio wants to “punish” them by giving them amnesty and access to jobs, services and benefits.

Rubio repeatedly stresses the pro-amnesty Republicans’ logically absurd talking point that by not passing an amnesty bill we are giving illegal aliens “de facto amnesty.”

Anyone who might still harbor illusions that the Gang of Eight bill is a good faith effort to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws needs to listen to Rubio dissemble his way through this interview.

Filed Under: Amnesty 2013, Border, Crime, Law, Politics, Population, Society

Republicans’ Orwellian Doublespeak on Immigration

June 14, 2013 By 6 Comments

It’s starting to feel a lot like 1984. Not the year, but the novel. Big Brother is watching just about everyone and everything, and the language of politics is being twisted and distorted beyond anything even Orwell could have imagined.

Orwell’s glimpse of the dystopian future, in which the leaders of society engage in doublespeak, turning truth on its head every time they open their mouths, is upon us. In fact, at this very moment it is on the floor of the United States Senate, where a bill to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is being sold as the antidote to amnesty for illegal aliens.

Neither party has a monopoly on political doublespeak. But, as the debate over the Gang of Eight immigration bill, S.744, heats up, pro-amnesty Republicans seem to be raising it to an art form.

Click here to read my full op-ed in the Daily Caller.

Filed Under: Amnesty 2013, Law, Population, Society

Paul Ryan’s Favorite Book is Definitely not the Dictionary

June 13, 2013 By 5 Comments

Paul Ryan has declared that he will debate anyone who says the Gang of Eight bill is amnesty. This from a man who by comparison made Joe Biden sound like Demosthenes in their vice presidential debate last fall.

GoofyRyan

Ryan’s argument is that granting amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens is not amnesty because he has decided to call it “earned legalization.” What does he mean by “earned legalization?” Why, amnesty of course. Sadly, Ryan is what passes for the “intellectual leader” of the GOP these days.

It would not be difficult for Paul Ryan to find out the meaning of amnesty, and to discover that there is no such recognized term as “earned legalization.” He could click here, or here. Or he could pick up an actual dictionary, any dictionary will do. They are quite weighty publications, so he could strengthen both body and mind.

To save him some time, I’ll provide him with a standard definition.

  1. a general pardon, esp for offences against a government;
  2. a period during which a law is suspended to allow offenders to admit their crime without fear of prosecution;
  3. a pardon granted by the Crown or Executive and effected by statute.

Collins English Dictionary

He could also consult his hero Ayn Rand Ronald Reagan, who had no problem understanding plain English or the plain truth. Heck, he can even quote Marco Rubio, circa 2009.

If Ryan is serious about debating this issue (though he ran from the very first opportunity to do so) he might want to acquaint himself with existing U.S. law. In it, he could discover that the penalty for an alien who is illegally in the United States is deportation and either a three or ten year bar from applying to reenter the country. The Gang of Eight waives these penalties for illegal aliens, as well as forgiving identity theft, filing a false tax return, etc., etc, etc. This is amnesty.

Ryan’s argument is that illegal aliens won’t receive amnesty because they will have to “pay a fine [and] back taxes.” The “fine” is nominal, $2,000 and can be paid out over the span of 10 years, and can be waived at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Ryan’s assertion that the Gang of Eight bill requires amnestied aliens to pay back taxes bill is simply untrue. But the larger point is that this amnesty may indeed have certain conditions, but that only makes it a conditional amnesty –which is what almost every amnesty is.

Take one example. A tax amnesty doesn’t mean tax scofflaws get off scot free. It means that the penalties for not paying taxes are reduced or waived. That’s the amnesty part. Most importantly, it does not entitle tax cheats to continue to avoid paying taxes in the future.

The amnesty Ryan is defending is coupled with the inestimable reward of allowing those who violate U.S. immigration law to remain in the United States and eventually to gain citizenship and full access to each and every benefit offered by local, state, and federal governments. In other words, after paying a small fine (perhaps) for having entered, resided, or worked in the United States illegally, they gain the benefit of entering, residing and working in the United States legally.

What Ryan is trying to pass off as “earned legalization,” is, in fact, nothing more than buying one’s way out of compliance with the law – which is nothing more than an assault on the rule of law.

Filed Under: Amnesty 2013, Border, Crime, Education, Law, Politics, Population, Society

Senators Criticized Misleading Benghazi Talking Points, Now Can’t Get Their Own Right

June 13, 2013 By 2 Comments

Three Republican Senators who have spent nearly a year railing against the Obama State Department for misleading the public with inaccurate talking points have now resorted to remarkably similar tactics when promoting an amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens.

Whether or not you believe the Obama administration rewrote the Benghazi talking points to deceive Americans, there’s no denying that Republican Senators Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and John McCain (Ariz.) are now engaging in extraordinarily similar strategies to push the Senate amnesty bill.

On news programs, in press releases and letters to constituents, and on the Senate floor, these public officials are deliberately misrepresenting the facts about the Gang of Eight bill even though their talking points have been widely exposed.

Sen. Ayotte’s recent response to a constituent regarding S. 744 is riddled with falsehoods:

  • “Secures the border first” – Illegal aliens are given the right to remain and work in the U.S. six months after enactment of the legislation. And, even green card status and citizenship are not held up for border security.
  • Provides for “more border agents” –There is no requirement that more border agents be added. DHS must only craft a border security plan. There’s nothing dictating what needs to be included.
  • “More fencing” – S. 744 requires the DHS Secretary to submit a fencing “strategy,” but doesn’t actually require that any fencing be built.
  • “Requires all employers to use an employment verification system” – After a lengthy implementation, employers are still not required to verify some “intermittent” workers or any existing employees.
  • Requires illegal aliens to “pay fines” – Waivable by the DHS Secretary. Millions in required fees have already been waived by DHS during Obama’s administrative amnesty for young illegal aliens.
  • And “pay taxes” – Illegal aliens may file taxes but since they are generally low income, they are unlikely to be net contributors to tax revenue and would be eligible for a myriad of credits.
  • “Pass background checks” – How can we be sure? What kind of background checks? A recent Judicial Watch investigation uncovered that DHS suspended full criminal background checks on administrative amnesty applicants in order to keep the process moving as quickly as possible. We could expect more of the same “lean and lite” policy if the Department faced processing amnesty applications from 12 million illegal aliens.

On the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. John McCain falsely claimed S. 744 will:

  • Require illegal aliens to pay back taxes – The bill only requires illegal aliens to pay taxes that the IRS has assessed at the time they apply for registered provisional immigrant (RPI) status. If the IRS had no knowledge that the individual had been working here, there would obviously be no tax liability assessed and the alien has nothing to satisfy for the purpose of getting legal status.
  • Require illegal aliens to learn English – Illegal aliens are not required to learn English when they apply for RPI status and must only show they’re enrolled in a “course of study” when they apply for a green card.
  • Bar criminal aliens from amnesty – DHS may waive misdemeanor convictions, gang membership, trafficking in fraudulent documents, DUIs, stalking, child abuse, repeat immigration violations, and domestic violence – to name a few.

And don’t forget Sen. Graham:

  • In the Judiciary Committee mark-up, Graham said: “…this bill, I think, protects the American worker from being displaced.” – 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. S. 744 invites 35 million permanent immigrants over the next 10 years. It also does not require that employers hire Americans first.
  • On CNN in March, Graham claimed the legislation would turn our family-based system “into a merit-based immigration system.” – In fact, less than 10 percent of future immigration under the Gang of Eight bill would be “merit-based” and massive family-based chain migration would continue.

So the question remains, have Sen. Ayotte and her Gang of Eight buddies Graham and McCain failed to read the bill or are they doing exactly what they accuse the Obama administration of doing – misleading the public with inaccurate talking points?

Filed Under: Amnesty 2013, In the Spotlight, Jobs, Law, National, Politics, Population, Society
« Older Posts