Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hold whatever body part you want, but there's no way I'm going to waste time with you as you turn yourself into a pretzel trying to argue a stupid point...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
...Even income taxes, would be illegal considering their income is illegal.
In other words, the prosecution of Al Capone was illegal since requiring income taxes on illegal income, is, in effect, illegal.
Sorry. You don't know what you're talking about...
In other words, the prosecution of Al Capone was illegal since requiring income taxes on illegal income, is, in effect, illegal.
Sorry. You don't know what you're talking about...
I never made such an asinine comment. Obama isnt prosecuting them, he is desingating them immune from prosecution.. Its OBAMA making the argument you are trying to attribute to me. I never once said they shouldnt be prosecuted, in fact I argued just the opposite.
They must pass a criminal background check.. FEE that they wouldnt otherwise had incurred
There is an application fee, I hear its something like $500, which they wouldnt be paying had they remained illegal..
While Congress might have designated these fees on people to become LEGAL citizens, they have NEVER assessed them on illegals. This is no different than getting a drivers license to vote and being told it has to be free because the fee to do so is a TAX.
All of this requires new paperwork to be filed, and all of it requires more federal employees, of which Congress has NOT authorized funding for..
No matter how many times you try to pretend Congress authorized this, they didnt..
Assuming, momentarily, that any individual would be required to pay for a criminal background check (please provide a link), then that background check fee is not a tax. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Identification to vote is a state issue that is completely different than federal immigration law. The EO does not create more federal employees.
An application fee is not a tax. Congress designed Customs and Immigration to be primarily a fee-based agency rather than a spending-based agency. So it gave CIS the ability to set its fees in order to cover its costs. As I mentioned previously, it is within the Executive Branch's purview to determine which immigrants get work authorization.
Assuming, momentarily, that any individual would be required to pay for a criminal background check (please provide a link), then that background check fee is not a tax. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Identification to vote is a state issue that is completely different than federal immigration law. The EO does not create more federal employees.
An application fee is not a tax. Congress designed Customs and Immigration to be primarily a fee-based agency rather than a spending-based agency. So it gave CIS the ability to set its fees in order to cover its costs. As I mentioned previously, it is within the Executive Branch's purview to determine which immigrants get work authorization.
Obamas own speach says they will be required to obtain background checks, and yes, fees are designated as a tax, just like paying a fee to obtain a photo ID to vote is a tax.
ACA was designated as a "fee", they also called that a TAX..
Its the Supreme Court who ruled this, not I.. so if you think you are smarter than the Supreme Court, please take it up with them.
Obamas own speach says they will be required to obtain background checks, and yes, fees are designated as a tax, just like paying a fee to obtain a photo ID to vote is a tax.
ACA was designated as a "fee", they also called that a TAX..
Its the Supreme Court who ruled this, not I.. so if you think you are smarter than the Supreme Court, please take it up with them.
You are talking about 3 different things--a photo ID requirement to vote, the processing of immigration forms, and the penalty for failing to obtain health insurance under the ACA. None of them are under the same category of law.
Voter ID requirements are part of state law, and vary by state (some states do not have them).
The ACA is a different part of federal law. In analyzing the penalty for failing to obtain health insurance, the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts decided it was a constitutional use of Congress' taxing power (rather than treat it is a part of Congress' commerce power, as 4 of the Justices in the majority would have).
In any event, CIS is granted the power by Congress to set fees for applications to cover most of its operational costs, because Congress did not want CIS to be an appropriated agency, but rather a fee-based agency.
If you want to cut the numbers, the wise thing would be to stem the flow versus open the door. He didn't issue and EO to say he wanted to focus on employers hiring, or on border security (both of which would have been consistent with existing law) he countered the law and made it easier for illegal immigrants.
He has cut illegal crossings dramatically since taking office.
"The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—most of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped
The standstill appears to be the result of many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and broader economic conditions in Mexico."
The current occupier of the White House has said he would proceed with Amnesty "immigration reform" though Executive Order.
Republicans have gave a warning signal (like an Indian smoke signal) saying No, don't do it!
Could this be a treasonous act by the president and warrant impeachment?
Afterall, isn't it in the Constitution:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The Constitution, Article I, Section 3
It wasn't an "impeachable act" when Reagan did it.
You are talking about 3 different things--a photo ID requirement to vote, the processing of immigration forms, and the penalty for failing to obtain health insurance under the ACA. None of them are under the same category of law.
Theu are all taxes.. The fact that different laws demand the tax payment doesnt mean they arent taxes
But illegals arent subject to the process hence its a new mandate, i.e. TAX
The normal process is to pay the tax in order to receive a benefit, albeit citizenship etc, these individuals are paying the tax but not receiving the same benefit, which again, HAS NOT BEEN LEGISLATED BY CONGRESS
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Voter ID requirements are part of state law, and vary by state (some states do not have them)
The fact that some dont require them is meaningless since the discussion taking place is those that do..
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
The ACA is a different part of federal law. In analyzing the penalty for failing to obtain health insurance, the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts decided it was a constitutional use of Congress' taxing power (rather than treat it is a part of Congress' commerce power, as 4 of the Justices in the majority would have).
You mean its exactly what I said it was, which was legislated under th epower to tax?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
In any event, CIS is granted the power by Congress to set fees for applications to cover most of its operational costs, because Congress did not want CIS to be an appropriated agency, but rather a fee-based agency.
They set the fees for those who go through the citizenship process, not those who arent..
It wasn't an "impeachable act" when Reagan did it.
Reagan was a conservative republican working for the best interests of the country.
Obama is a liberal democrat born in Kenya for the express purpose of destroying the nation
See the difference?
Neither do I.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never made such an asinine comment. Obama isnt prosecuting them, he is desingating them immune from prosecution.. Its OBAMA making the argument you are trying to attribute to me. I never once said they shouldnt be prosecuted, in fact I argued just the opposite. 
