Immigration Policy A Big Bowl Of Wrong
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
I think that mainly because of the overarching notion that the executive branch doesn’t get to pick and choose which Congressionally enacted laws it will faithfully execute.
But beyond that big-picture objection, I have trouble with a myriad of unintended consequences associated with it. (In using the phrase “unintended consequences” I am being generous to the Obama administration because for all I know, the consequences may well be intended.)
For example, according to the Associated Press, the Internal Revenue Service has confirmed that millions of illegal immigrants benefiting from President Obama’s executive orders could get a tax windfall.
“Armed with new Social Security numbers, many of these immigrants, who had been living in the U.S. illegally, will now be able to claim up to four years’ worth of tax credits designed to benefit the working poor,” the Associated Press reported.
The report goes on to say that could be up to $24,000 for a family of five if they can document their earnings over those years.
Now, I suppose one has to consider that some of these people paid taxes if they were working.
But since federal law bars illegals from employment, they must use madeup Social Security numbers or somebody else’s if they get a paycheck from an employer.
When that happens, in most cases, they claim the maximum number of dependents to keep income tax withholdings as low as possible.
And a significant number of illegals are paid in cash and are less likely to pay taxes at all.
When all is said and done, most illegal immigrants likely avoid paying taxes as much as they possibly can.
Of course, the thought that illegal immigrants can now get a Social Security number and claim a windfall is driving Republicans on Capitol Hill crazy.
"I represent hard-working, law-biding Texans," said Rep. Sam Johnson, a senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee. "I think these amnesty rewards, and that's what they are, need to be stopped."
And:
“This is basic economics: If you want more of something, you subsidize it. By subsidizing illegal entry with four years’ worth of new tax credits, the IRS would promote lawlessness,” Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a statement earlier this month. “This program severely undermines the White House’s lip-service to enforcing the law and would increase the burden on law-abiding taxpayers.”
I can see some of that.
I mean, the person is here illegally and the government is writing them checks?
Just doesn’t seem right.
Even so, I don’t like the way Republicans in Congress are responding.
This whole notion of defunding the Department of Homeland Security is the wrong way to go.
I know Republican lawmakers are feeling the heat over this because the more conservative wing of the party is no fan of any type of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
But taking it out on DHS? How is that a good thing going forward? How does that solve anything? It just makes the GOP look unhinged and radical.
Holding the security of the nation hostage as a legislative strategy over an immigration policy disagreement just does not seem prudent to me.
As I am writing this Friday, the deadline for DHS funding is looming. The Senate has passed a bill that includes DHS funding without restrictions on Obama’s immigration orders.
House Republicans have to either suck it up and pass the bill, vote it down and shut down DHS, or come up with some other plan, like a stopgap funding measure to temporarily fund DHS while they sort this mess out.
The whole thing seems even more ridiculous when you consider a U.S. district court in Texas has ruled that Obama’s immigration orders are unconstitutional and issued an injunction against implementing them.
The administration is seeking an emergency action to lift the injunction, but there’s a fair chance Obama’s immigration orders are going to be on hold anyway. So why expend all this political capital on something that may be moot?
To be clear: I don’t agree with Obama’s immigration orders, but I don’t agree with the way House Republicans are dealing with it, either.
Beyond that, I think the GOP needs to reassess the way it looks at immigration issues in general. Seems to me, the way it’s going now, the GOP is abandoning any hope of attracting Hispanic voters.
And that’s too bad, because by and large, I think the values of Hispanic voters line up pretty well with the GOP – except on immigration.
So there’s this tendency for Hispanics – who demographically tend to be more pro-life, traditional and family-values oriented – to vote Democrat strictly because of immigration.
It’s just like the guy driving around in a pickup truck with “Abortion Kills” and “NRA” bumper stickers who votes Democrat every time because he’s in a union.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers with regard to immigration, but it seems to me if Republicans want to enjoy continued electoral success, they’re going to have to pitch a little bigger tent and stop alienating large blocks of voters.[[In-content Ad]]
I think that mainly because of the overarching notion that the executive branch doesn’t get to pick and choose which Congressionally enacted laws it will faithfully execute.
But beyond that big-picture objection, I have trouble with a myriad of unintended consequences associated with it. (In using the phrase “unintended consequences” I am being generous to the Obama administration because for all I know, the consequences may well be intended.)
For example, according to the Associated Press, the Internal Revenue Service has confirmed that millions of illegal immigrants benefiting from President Obama’s executive orders could get a tax windfall.
“Armed with new Social Security numbers, many of these immigrants, who had been living in the U.S. illegally, will now be able to claim up to four years’ worth of tax credits designed to benefit the working poor,” the Associated Press reported.
The report goes on to say that could be up to $24,000 for a family of five if they can document their earnings over those years.
Now, I suppose one has to consider that some of these people paid taxes if they were working.
But since federal law bars illegals from employment, they must use madeup Social Security numbers or somebody else’s if they get a paycheck from an employer.
When that happens, in most cases, they claim the maximum number of dependents to keep income tax withholdings as low as possible.
And a significant number of illegals are paid in cash and are less likely to pay taxes at all.
When all is said and done, most illegal immigrants likely avoid paying taxes as much as they possibly can.
Of course, the thought that illegal immigrants can now get a Social Security number and claim a windfall is driving Republicans on Capitol Hill crazy.
"I represent hard-working, law-biding Texans," said Rep. Sam Johnson, a senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee. "I think these amnesty rewards, and that's what they are, need to be stopped."
And:
“This is basic economics: If you want more of something, you subsidize it. By subsidizing illegal entry with four years’ worth of new tax credits, the IRS would promote lawlessness,” Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a statement earlier this month. “This program severely undermines the White House’s lip-service to enforcing the law and would increase the burden on law-abiding taxpayers.”
I can see some of that.
I mean, the person is here illegally and the government is writing them checks?
Just doesn’t seem right.
Even so, I don’t like the way Republicans in Congress are responding.
This whole notion of defunding the Department of Homeland Security is the wrong way to go.
I know Republican lawmakers are feeling the heat over this because the more conservative wing of the party is no fan of any type of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
But taking it out on DHS? How is that a good thing going forward? How does that solve anything? It just makes the GOP look unhinged and radical.
Holding the security of the nation hostage as a legislative strategy over an immigration policy disagreement just does not seem prudent to me.
As I am writing this Friday, the deadline for DHS funding is looming. The Senate has passed a bill that includes DHS funding without restrictions on Obama’s immigration orders.
House Republicans have to either suck it up and pass the bill, vote it down and shut down DHS, or come up with some other plan, like a stopgap funding measure to temporarily fund DHS while they sort this mess out.
The whole thing seems even more ridiculous when you consider a U.S. district court in Texas has ruled that Obama’s immigration orders are unconstitutional and issued an injunction against implementing them.
The administration is seeking an emergency action to lift the injunction, but there’s a fair chance Obama’s immigration orders are going to be on hold anyway. So why expend all this political capital on something that may be moot?
To be clear: I don’t agree with Obama’s immigration orders, but I don’t agree with the way House Republicans are dealing with it, either.
Beyond that, I think the GOP needs to reassess the way it looks at immigration issues in general. Seems to me, the way it’s going now, the GOP is abandoning any hope of attracting Hispanic voters.
And that’s too bad, because by and large, I think the values of Hispanic voters line up pretty well with the GOP – except on immigration.
So there’s this tendency for Hispanics – who demographically tend to be more pro-life, traditional and family-values oriented – to vote Democrat strictly because of immigration.
It’s just like the guy driving around in a pickup truck with “Abortion Kills” and “NRA” bumper stickers who votes Democrat every time because he’s in a union.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers with regard to immigration, but it seems to me if Republicans want to enjoy continued electoral success, they’re going to have to pitch a little bigger tent and stop alienating large blocks of voters.[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092