|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 4, 2015 21:00:44 GMT -5
Let me ask the question(s) again... If they have worked here and paid taxes for the last three years... why shouldn't they be able to do it if John Doe, who has been here working and paying taxes for that same period of time, can?... after all, taxes are collected based on wages earned... right?... Your "answer" doesn't make anything "unpleasant"... they're just getting a windfall they didn't "expect"... and if the ETIC is strictly based on work done and taxes paid... is it "fair?" to allow it for one worker... but not another... And we haven't discussed whether or not these individuals had ever filed a return before... Because they had no right to even be here, much less take jobs from Americans. Why should they get rewarded for breaking the law? But let me ask this... and I honestly don't know... could an Hispanic come here and work for a few months... say 6 months... go back to Mexico... come here again the following year... work 6 months again... and do it again for the third year (this year)... then file returns for the last three years... I believe you can come here and work for a time as long as you go back to Mexico periodically... but how often must one do this...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 4, 2015 21:02:12 GMT -5
Because they had no right to even be here, much less take jobs from Americans. Why should they get rewarded for breaking the law? But let me ask this... and I honestly don't know... could an Hispanic come here and work for a few months... say 6 months... go back to Mexico... come here again the following year... work 6 months again... and do it again for the third year (this year)... then file returns for the last three years... I believe you can come here and work for a time as long as you go back to Mexico periodically... but how often must one do this... Only if they have a work visa, which makes them legal. A totally different situation.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 4, 2015 21:08:51 GMT -5
That was the question... not the answer... I just wanted input with regard to both... is it fair for one to work and pay taxes and get it and the other doesn't... regardless of status... it's not only a question of status... but fairness as well... Liken it to a worker driving to work for a year... and it is discovered that he has never had a driver's license... must he forfeit his right to file for EITC because he has been driving illegally?... Was he here in the country illegally? If not, then no. He paid his taxes for the money he earned, the driving has nothing to do with that. Illegals have no right to work here, or even BE here. But see the scenario I posted above... can one come back and forth?...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 4, 2015 21:12:15 GMT -5
I was going to suggest the same thing about driving at work... I don't disagree with the Presidents immigration plan... I actually think it's a good one... I have been in favor of the Dream Act for a long time... I do have a problem with EITC... So you agree that criminals should be given benefits for being criminals? We're not talking about criminals here... you're calling them criminals but they're not... a criminal is someone who has been tried in a court of law and found guilty... or has pleaded guilty...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 4, 2015 21:22:00 GMT -5
So you agree that criminals should be given benefits for being criminals? We're not talking about criminals here... you're calling them criminals but they're not... a criminal is someone who has been tried in a court of law and found guilty... or has pleaded guilty... Sure we're talking about criminals. People who are found guilty in court are CONVICTED criminals. People who break the law, but haven't been caught and successfully prosecuted are still criminals.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 4, 2015 21:33:31 GMT -5
I don't agree... not sure where YOU live, but where I live a person is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law...
Unless you're talking about behavior that could be juvenile to a real crime...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 4, 2015 21:40:43 GMT -5
I don't agree... not sure where YOU live, but where I live a person is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law... Unless you're talking about behavior that could be juvenile to a real crime... I understand. Where I come from we speak English, not legalese. In the English language, when the word "criminal" is used as a noun, it means someone who has committed a crime - whether or not they've been convicted in a court of law. Merriam-Webster Also, where I live, being considered legally innocent doesn't necessarily make one FACTUALLY innocent. For that matter, it is also possible to be found legally guilty and still be factually innocent.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 4, 2015 21:51:07 GMT -5
So you agree that criminals should be given benefits for being criminals? We're not talking about criminals here... you're calling them criminals but they're not... a criminal is someone who has been tried in a court of law and found guilty... or has pleaded guilty... So, someone that breaks into your house and steals your stuff, and maybe kills your kids, is not a criminal until a court says he's a criminal? Really? And when the courts refuse to even look at the evidence, exactly how can he be convicted?
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 4, 2015 21:53:26 GMT -5
I don't agree... not sure where YOU live, but where I live a person is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law... Unless you're talking about behavior that could be juvenile to a real crime... I understand. Where I come from we speak English, not legalese. In the English language, when the word "criminal" is used as a noun, it means someone who has committed a crime - whether or not they've been convicted in a court of law. Merriam-Webster Also, where I live, being considered legally innocent doesn't necessarily make one FACTUALLY innocent. For that matter, it is also possible to be found legally guilty and still be factually innocent. Problem with that is you don't know if they've committed a crime until they are found guilty of the crime... take Ollie North for example... he was accused of a crime... found guilty of a crime... got off on a technicality... he did commit the criminal deed... is he a criminal?... or not... or is it all legalese?...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 4, 2015 21:55:53 GMT -5
We're not talking about criminals here... you're calling them criminals but they're not... a criminal is someone who has been tried in a court of law and found guilty... or has pleaded guilty... So, someone that breaks into your house and steals your stuff, and maybe kills your kids, is not a criminal until a court says he's a criminal? Really? And when the courts refuse to even look at the evidence, exactly how can he be convicted? That would be correct... all his actions are "alleged" until they are proven... such people are "charged" with "allegedly" committing those crimes when they are jailed... they are found "guilty" in court... or by plea...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 4, 2015 21:57:33 GMT -5
I understand. Where I come from we speak English, not legalese. In the English language, when the word "criminal" is used as a noun, it means someone who has committed a crime - whether or not they've been convicted in a court of law. Merriam-Webster Also, where I live, being considered legally innocent doesn't necessarily make one FACTUALLY innocent. For that matter, it is also possible to be found legally guilty and still be factually innocent. Problem with that is you don't know if they've committed a crime until they are found guilty of the crime... take Ollie North for example... he was accused of a crime... found guilty of a crime... got off on a technicality... he did commit the criminal deed... is he a criminal?... or not... or is it all legalese?... Except there really isn't a problem with that. Just because we don't know for sure if someone committed a crime doesn't change the definition of criminal. If you ask me "Is Ollie North a criminal?" I will tell you "I don't know." and be just fine with that answer. For the purpose of this thread, though, we're talking about people we've stipulated are criminals. If you ask me "If someone crosses the border illegally, are they a criminal?" I will answer "Yes. Of course."
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 4, 2015 22:00:11 GMT -5
So, someone that breaks into your house and steals your stuff, and maybe kills your kids, is not a criminal until a court says he's a criminal? Really? And when the courts refuse to even look at the evidence, exactly how can he be convicted? That would be correct... all his actions are "alleged" until they are proven... such people are "charged" with "allegedly" committing those crimes when they are jailed... they are found "guilty" in court... or by plea... Sorry but, no. All his actions have been stipulated to as part of the discussion. They are not alleged, they are factual for the purpose of this discussion. He is, in fact, a criminal; even if he has not been legally found so.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 4, 2015 22:17:34 GMT -5
Problem with that is you don't know if they've committed a crime until they are found guilty of the crime... take Ollie North for example... he was accused of a crime... found guilty of a crime... got off on a technicality... he did commit the criminal deed... is he a criminal?... or not... or is it all legalese?... Except there really isn't a problem with that. Just because we don't know for sure if someone committed a crime doesn't change the definition of criminal. If you ask me "Is Ollie North a criminal?" I will tell you "I don't know." and be just fine with that answer. For the purpose of this thread, though, we're talking about people we've stipulated are criminals. If you ask me "If someone crosses the border illegally, are they a criminal?" I will answer "Yes. Of course." Sure it does... criminal behavior is not always a criminal act... if someone is here from Mexico and doesn't have the proper documentation, does that make him a criminal... or would you be just fine not knowing?... Most don't "cross" the border illegally... one can simply walk across the border legally... staying is what makes them here illegally... some prefer to call them undocumented... At what point do they become "criminals?"...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 4, 2015 22:18:54 GMT -5
That would be correct... all his actions are "alleged" until they are proven... such people are "charged" with "allegedly" committing those crimes when they are jailed... they are found "guilty" in court... or by plea... Sorry but, no. All his actions have been stipulated to as part of the discussion. They are not alleged, they are factual for the purpose of this discussion. He is, in fact, a criminal; even if he has not been legally found so. Just because YOU say so... but you are wrong...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 4, 2015 22:26:07 GMT -5
Sorry but, no. All his actions have been stipulated to as part of the discussion. They are not alleged, they are factual for the purpose of this discussion. He is, in fact, a criminal; even if he has not been legally found so. Just because YOU say so... but you are wrong... No, I'm correct. Redleg said the guy broke into your house and stole things. That makes him a criminal.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 4, 2015 22:28:03 GMT -5
Except there really isn't a problem with that. Just because we don't know for sure if someone committed a crime doesn't change the definition of criminal. If you ask me "Is Ollie North a criminal?" I will tell you "I don't know." and be just fine with that answer. For the purpose of this thread, though, we're talking about people we've stipulated are criminals. If you ask me "If someone crosses the border illegally, are they a criminal?" I will answer "Yes. Of course." Sure it does... criminal behavior is not always a criminal act... if someone is here from Mexico and doesn't have the proper documentation, does that make him a criminal... or would you be just fine not knowing?... Yes. That does make him a criminal. They become criminals when they enter the country in a way that is against the law.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 4, 2015 22:31:47 GMT -5
Just because YOU say so... but you are wrong... No, I'm correct. Redleg said the guy broke into your house and stole things. That makes him a criminal. You can't believe everything Redleg tells you... Redleg stole those things from his neighbor... blocked his phone ID... called another neighbor he doesn't like... told him he was hurt and needed help there... then called 911 and reported a burglar...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 4, 2015 22:34:25 GMT -5
Sure it does... criminal behavior is not always a criminal act... if someone is here from Mexico and doesn't have the proper documentation, does that make him a criminal... or would you be just fine not knowing?... Yes. That does make him a criminal. They become criminals when they enter the country in a way that is against the law. But you can cross simply with a passport... or ID if you're underage... visa not required... that's not illegal... but you can't stay here forever... If you crawl under the fence... of course you're here illegally...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 4, 2015 23:08:42 GMT -5
SOME DECENT CONVERSATION OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, GUYS... IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO TALK WITHOUT CONSTANTLY ATTACKING EACH ANOTHER... WHICH ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING... THANKS MUCH...
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Mar 5, 2015 7:36:14 GMT -5
A.D. posted
From the IRS web site:
Heretofore, illegals were not entitled to any ETIC [sic]. Therefore, the new rules are a windfall to illegals and amount to rewarding illegals for being illegals IMHO, which is actually an incentive for illegally entering the U.S. Wake up, people!
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Mar 5, 2015 8:02:50 GMT -5
Yes. That does make him a criminal. They become criminals when they enter the country in a way that is against the law. But you can cross simply with a passport... or ID if you're underage... visa not required... that's not illegal... but you can't stay here forever... If you crawl under the fence... of course you're here illegally... I think we all know what "illegal" means. You and the administration can parse on if you choose. We are not talking about a weekend at Disneyland here. Ask Casa de Maryland. The folks our tax dollars support. THEY know what it means.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 5, 2015 10:04:05 GMT -5
A.D. posted From the IRS web site: Heretofore, illegals were not entitled to any ETIC [sic]. Therefore, the new rules are a windfall to illegals and amount to rewarding illegals for being illegals IMHO, which is actually an incentive for illegally entering the U.S. Wake up, people! I wasn't saying I thought it was right... and certainly not that I agreed with it... (I've said I don't agree with the EITC under any circumstances)... just throwing out a question for discussion... but... *Have a Social Security Number that is valid for employment
*Have earned income from working for someone, running or owning a business or farm or another source
*Cannot file as married filing separate
*Must be a nonresident alien married to a U.S. citizen or resident alien, file a joint return and choose to be treated as a resident alien (for more information on making this choice, see Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens)Would this not qualify a non-resident alien to claim the ETIC under the circumstanced I listed?... and was not this the rule BEFORE this so-called amnesty EO... I think the real beef here is that they might be allowed to go back three years and file or amend their returns and claim the ETIC...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 5, 2015 10:09:14 GMT -5
But you can cross simply with a passport... or ID if you're underage... visa not required... that's not illegal... but you can't stay here forever... If you crawl under the fence... of course you're here illegally... I think we all know what "illegal" means. You and the administration can parse on if you choose. We are not talking about a weekend at Disneyland here. Ask Casa de Maryland. The folks our tax dollars support. THEY know what it means. Maybe you all do "think you know what illegal means"... I "know" what illegal means... Crossing the border with the proper documents doesn't make anyone an illegal... staying here beyond the time you are allowed to stay without returning does... No parsing necessary...
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Mar 5, 2015 10:37:38 GMT -5
I'd be surprised to find that most "illegals' cross the border with appropriate documents.
Don't forget, when discussing legal matters, intent is often a factor in whether or not an act or deed is illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 5, 2015 11:01:27 GMT -5
Let me ask the question(s) again... If they have worked here and paid taxes for the last three years... why shouldn't they be able to do it if John Doe, who has been here working and paying taxes for that same period of time, can?... after all, taxes are collected based on wages earned... right?... Your "answer" doesn't make anything "unpleasant"... they're just getting a windfall they didn't "expect"... and if the ETIC is strictly based on work done and taxes paid... is it "fair?" to allow it for one worker... but not another... And we haven't discussed whether or not these individuals had ever filed a return before... I don't see why you're asking the question again when it has already been answered. You may not have gotten an answer that agrees with your core ethic. Try the Democratic Underground.
|
|