An Executive Order that'll make a Democrat's Head Explode

[T-Bone]

I have an analogy... first, some background.

Obama's executive order on immigration essentially halts most deportations. Sure, the administration explained their rationale... and Democrats embraced the new immigration position.

Reason to stopping deportations:
1. Do not want to separate kids from their parents
2. We have more than 11 million illegals and it's not feasible to deport them all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0960d2-1b56-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html


What's the New Executive Order? Imagine a Republican POTUS signed an order to stop pprosecution of individuals that under pay their federal income taxes. The rationale?
1. Do not want to imprison parents, thereby separating them from their kids
2. Millions cheat, and you cannot prosecute them all

Imagine the outrage.. how Democrats would say it's a bad order. That it's different than the immigration order. Blah, blah. They will list all sorts of caveats to "prove" the immigration order is Good, while poo pooing on this new executive order.

Is there a double standard here?

-T

 

[nostradumbass]

I said a similar thing a while ago in some thread. I said if enforcing immigration laws is so inflammatory and unreasonable to dems, how could they mind if I just decided to treat the IRS the same way?

 

[jmag]

 

[Liquid Smoke]

If you believe feminists there are millions of rapists in the country. Can't possibly prosecute them all.

 

[klnOmega]

1/3 of murders in America go unsolved.
Why even bother.

 

[Higus]

Well, the obvious distinction is that enforcing (presumably, cannot confirm) deportation laws has greater costs than benefits, whereas not enforcing tax laws is costly to revenue than the cost to enforce them. Not sure if the former is true or not, but the latter most certainly is.

 

[T-Bone]

Well, the obvious distinction is that enforcing (presumably, cannot confirm) deportation laws has greater costs than benefits, whereas not enforcing tax laws is costly to revenue than the cost to enforce them. Not sure if the former is true or not, but the latter most certainly is.

There are regional issues with illegals... aND Obama's policy is hurting states with large snd/or dense illegal populations.

The problem, though, is that undocumented workers are not evenly distributed. In areas like southern Texas and Arizona and even parts of Brooklyn, undocumented immigrants impose a substantial net cost to local and state governments, Shierholz says. Immigrants use public assistance, medical care and schools. Some immigrant neighborhoods have particularly high crime rates. Jared Bernstein, a fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, told me that these are also areas in which low-educated workers are most likely to face stiff competition from immigrants. It’s no wonder why so much political furor comes from these regions.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/02/1...-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html


And in the article, low wage salaries for legal residents are depressed by as much as 7%.

There is a cost targeted to certain regions and groups.

-T

 

[Deleted member 159002]

There are regional issues with illegals... aND Obama's policy is hurting states with large snd/or dense illegal populations.

The problem, though, is that undocumented workers are not evenly distributed. In areas like southern Texas and Arizona and even parts of Brooklyn, undocumented immigrants impose a substantial net cost to local and state governments, Shierholz says. Immigrants use public assistance, medical care and schools. Some immigrant neighborhoods have particularly high crime rates. Jared Bernstein, a fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, told me that these are also areas in which low-educated workers are most likely to face stiff competition from immigrants. It’s no wonder why so much political furor comes from these regions.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/02/1...-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html


And in the article, low wage salaries for legal residents are depressed by as much as 7%.

There is a cost targeted to certain regions and groups.

-T

Wouldn't legalizing them lead to them paying more taxes, and thus not straining governments as much?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Well, the obvious distinction is that enforcing (presumably, cannot confirm) deportation laws has greater costs than benefits, whereas not enforcing tax laws is costly to revenue than the cost to enforce them. Not sure if the former is true or not, but the latter most certainly is.

That's a good point. Would you say the preference to not deport is utilitarian?

 

[Higus]

That's a good point. Would you say the preference to not deport is utilitarian?

That's probably fair to say, although I don't know if it is actually utilitarian in practice

 

[T-Bone]

That's probably fair to say, although I don't know if it is actually utilitarian in practice

No. The sad fact that the government doesn't like to tell us, but many of us already know, is America takes in many more poor people than people with skills... we need skills so that we can help America grow. By making them legal, I'm sure the Democrats will find a way to get them even more benefits that they have now.

Once legal, and poor, and have kids, they can file tax returns and qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. And they can go back several years.. That is a lot of freaking money. And as long as it poor with kids they will always qualify for that tax credit.

So there are disadvantages to making them legal first of all. Because that would be a greater drain.

-T

 

[Rod1]

I said a similar thing a while ago in some thread. I said if enforcing immigration laws is so inflammatory and unreasonable to dems, how could they mind if I just decided to treat the IRS the same way?

So assume you are an illegal with 10 years residency and a family, how do you regularize your status?

 

[T-Bone]

So assume you are an illegal with 10 years residency and a family, how do you regularize your status?

Oh, the infamous subject change.


Pretty much off topic. We know the immigration policy that's in place. Who cares if someone's been here for 10 years as a law breaker.

Imagine if we stop prosecuting people who underpay their taxes . That would actually boost the economy. It puts money in the hands of people that earned it and will spend it. The government will waste it. We know they will waste it because they are not smart enough to spend wisely that's why they spend way more than they take in.

-T

 

[nostradumbass]

So assume you are an illegal with 10 years residency and a family, how do you regularize your status?

What if I have 10 years of back taxes? I can't pay all that shit, so let's just let bygones be bygones.

Seriously though, they can apply for citizenship, work visas, and green cards the same as anyone else. Their having lived here illegally should not factor into their application, other than the benefit of having made money for however long they've been here. If they were here illegally for financial reasons and they've been working here, they should have enough saved to pay for the application process by now.

 

[Diamond Jim]

So the scenario is Donald Trump, who under pays his federal taxes if he pays anything, says everyone else can be like him?

 

[T-Bone]

So the scenario is Donald Trump, who under pays his federal taxes if he pays anything, says everyone else can be like him?

The scenario is the Obama scenario where known law breakers are not prosecuted.

-T

 

[Rod1]

Oh, the infamous subject change.


Pretty much off topic. We know the immigration policy that's in place. Who cares if someone's been here for 10 years as a law breaker.

Imagine if we stop prosecuting people who underpay their taxes . That would actually boost the economy. It puts money in the hands of people that earned it and will spend it. The government will waste it. We know they will waste it because they are not smart enough to spend wisely that's why they spend way more than they take in.

-T

You are drawing an analogy, im poking holes at said analogy.

 

[Rod1]

What if I have 10 years of back taxes? I can't pay all that shit, so let's just let bygones be bygones.

Seriously though, they can apply for citizenship, work visas, and green cards the same as anyone else. Their having lived here illegally should not factor into their application, other than the benefit of having made money for however long they've been here. If they were here illegally for financial reasons and they've been working here, they should have enough saved to pay for the application process by now.

Actually yes, you can pay for taxes no matter how much you owe, you simply enter a payment agreement. And no, its not that easy to get citizenship, work visas or green cards, so the analogy doesnt stands.

 

[Rod1]

I said a similar thing a while ago in some thread. I said if enforcing immigration laws is so inflammatory and unreasonable to dems, how could they mind if I just decided to treat the IRS the same way?

Dems are not the ones blocking immigration reform.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

That's probably fair to say, although I don't know if it is actually utilitarian in practice

That's how amnesty supporters should frame it. T bone is an awful poster, but he brings up a good point in this thread: Not wanting to break up families is not a good reason to exonerate law breakers.