Rasmussen Poll: Most Democrats Think Illegal Immigrants Should Vote

The borrowed SS is simply for the employer, they file with an ITIN.

The only required documentation for the W-7 would be in box 6d, to which they could check other and provide an ID such as a matricuar consul card. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...lize-illegal-aliens-ended-paying-illegals-42b
and
https://www.google.com/search?q=illegals+file+tax+forms+itin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

Not really, the moderate part refers to my economics, while the collective anarchist refers to what my role of government should be.

- - - Updated - - -

The little anarchist in me says why not? Violence doesn't solve anything, rather it is the lack of power that does. Treat everyone the same and then we can have that sort of society.

 

Ok, fair enough logic. Mind if I keep prodding at it?

 

So it finally dawned on you I'm left handed? Congrats.

 

Let's look at after, that's easier for me to conceptualize. A company hires an illegal worker (but now won't be deported). The company says they paid that worker. They report that to the IRS. The worker doesn't report his earnings. Then the IRS comes after him. There's no real reason not to pay taxes or hide if there is no reason to be scared of law enforcement. Think of it like this, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit a crime because they're scared of attracting law enforcement. What would happen if they didn't fear that? Same thing here, they're not going to pay their taxes if they fear deportation. No fear of deportation, then they'll be more likely to pay taxes.

 

No just the word salad diagnosis.

 

We're just arguing hypotheticals right now. Who knows what the future does hold?

I don't think strawman as much as it is just pointing out his argument. So how is it a strawman?

I'm not too sure what you mean. Could you rephrase?

Ok. While I go do that, tell me, will an illegal immigrant working for a company wants to speak out, what's going to happen to him when he does?

 

Are we talking US "basic human rights" or UN basic human rights? We have that right yes, but we also have the right to welcome them in with open arms. There's no reason to discriminate against them simply because of where they come from.

Welcome to society, where this is how it works. Look at economic policy that says that if people had more money to spend then they will spend it and thus stimulate the economy.

 

So screw all facts in there?

And the age comes up. Usually a sign that there you have no argument. So then why do I know what you're saying doesn't matter? Because it's all about perception of the truth, regardless of what rights the person has do you think the employer will let them know that? Think about all the rights a person has and that they won't use because of fear that they will lose something more tangible. A person has the right to say bad things about his wife, but is he? Unless he likes sleeping in the do house, there is no reason to. The law is just a sentence or paragraph on a piece of paper. Belief that there is force behind it matters more in the end. So I'm not arguing employee's rights, at least not per say. I'm arguing faith in the government. Your counter argument is moot.

- - - Updated - - -

You know most of that was rhetorical right?

 

Please excuse my counter argument if it seemed like I was being rude to you, a simple mix up in names is why.

Do you know what gerrymandering is? What point is there in voting when it won't do anything? What good will voting do when there is no faith in it working? The problem is that it doesn't matter what is offered, it still won't deal with the underlying problem of why crime exists.

Basic rights? How about the right to be happy, to live a free and worthwhile life? Shouldn't that be a basic right? The reason why everyone has rights is because they're supposed to be the basic building blocks for all citizens. A citizen in New York has the same rights as a citizen in California. There is no experimentation with basic rights, because they are needed by every citizen.

We tried that approach before Gideon v Wainwright. It doesn't work that well, that's why there are lawyers for the people. So everyone has a chance to be defended equally in front of the law. The people don't know the law, that's why they use lawyers to defend themselves.

And if they go to trial, what then? Do they have a right to explain why they had those drugs, do they know how to explain it to convince a jury? Just because a crime might be illegal doesn't mean it's universally illegal. There could be circumstances that make it legal or not illegal. Take for example a bicyclist over 18 who uses sidewalks instead of the road. In New York State that's illegal. But if the road is dangerous, then the sidewalk is the better place to be. Or what if instead of arresting them for drugs, which is not clear they will know it's illegal, they instead decide to ticket them for selling without a license? What then? Are you saying that by the time of their court date they're going to become experts on vendor laws and court room appearances?

Poor phrasing, I was still referring to ex felons. Though I do support 16 year olds voting if they pass a test showing they understand the basics of US politics and what's going on. But anyways, police can be there for "crimes" but what if they start punishing too hard? A classroom gets disturbed and instead of giving them detention they get suspended. Someone walks without a pass in the hall, suspension. Give those that need the support a voice and it will get better.

So wouldn't that make your original point moot?

Self defense isn't an emergency? If a person is threatening your life, most people would assume that is an emergency. The point still stands, even if society says that something is wrong, there are exceptions to that rule.

Not advocating, just not responding to trolling.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize left handed people are more likely to be diagnosed with mental disorders right?

 

Not all people fit into "no violence", everybody to a degree has a streak in them. Your utopia is just that.

 

Before/after, doesn't matter.IRS can still go after the employee for not reporting his taxes earned whether the employee is legal or not. IRS is not law enforcement. Illegals file their tax forms to get back their money paid in and then some. There are roughly 6M illegals working, there are almost 8M filing tax forms.

They don't pay taxes, they get back more than they had with held, they receive what is known as a negative tax rate due to their income and deductions.

 

Nobody knows for certain, but judging by past actions and words, not likely in the future to change.

You stated they would need to prove they were living in the US, or laws state that illegal immigrants are not recognized as living here by the federal govt, nor any state govt. Even though they are here, how would they prove they live here, they are not recognized.

Same as any other employee, depends on what he speaks out about and for. To join a union? safe working conditions? Illegals, employed, are covered by the state in which they are working, employee protections. They only need to prove they are working for the employer to be protected.

 

Both, US and UN. We have the choice to welcome them or deny them. Remember they are the ones that chose to invite themselves, enter illegally, and take what they wanted for their own selves. Its not about where they come from, its about how they went about it.

Your talking economic theory, not economic policy. Look at simple supply and demand, more labor constitutes lower wages, lower wages reduces consumption as does inflation and world competition in labor and prodcution.

 

What facts? The facts were looked at and an opinion formed based on his interpretation of the facts.

Sp far you haven't demonstrated anything knowledgeable beyond your age. You don't seem to know labor laws/tax laws/immigration laws. You seem more inquisitive, which is always good, but you lack what comes with experience, and that is based on your age.

Its not the employers responsibility to inform the employee of his rights. The employer is responsible for only displaying certain state requirements, i.e. labor law poster, first aid poster, etc in employee area. It sis the responsibility of the employee to read them and understand them. Why would an employer put himself into a position to be sued?

Faith in the govt? The govt was created by and for the people, we gave ourselves and our posterity certain rights that the govt can not take away. Govt can be changed and voted in a new, laws are what remain and can also be changed by new Congress critters. The whole hypothetical is what is moot.

 

Crime exists because of numerous reasons, there will always be crime to some degree or another, at best all that can be done is lower the rates of it happening.

A person has the right to life, it is they that choose to be happy or not, to make it worthwhile or not. A citizen in NY does not have the same state rights as a citizen in CA, they may have the same federal rights and constitutional protections, but states rights do vary.

Lawyers are appointed if the person so chooses. The person must pay for his own lawyer, be his own lawyer, or have an appointed lawyer if financially insecure. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-legal-help/how-to-obtain-a-court-appointed-defense-lawyer.html

Have you never been in a court hearing or case? They can claim the 5th or they can give testimony, it is up to the person being convicted.

If the sidewalk is illegal to ride his bike, then he should be walking it on the sidewalk and not riding it until he gets to a pace that is safe to once again ride it. Your other argument doesn't even make since.

Police don't punish, police cite or take into custody based on the severity of the crime. Suspension is based on the schools rules, has nothing to do with the police.

How so?

Its only an emergency for the person, not society at large.

 

Since right handed people can also have mental illness why would I assume you are left handed without asking? Im not interested in studying left handed illness vs. right. Im just pointing out the symptoms to people in case they need to be reminded to take their meds.

 

Because left handed people are more likely to get mental illnesses and also have different thought processes. You say to take meds, but you forget, left handed people have more then a few tricks up their sleeves.

 

Do you know how the political spectrum works? It's left to right and up to down, it's a graph basically. In terms of left to right I'm in the center. But I'm down on the political spectrum because of my views on the role of government outside of the economy.

Sure, but I asked why does that streak emerge. I came to the conclusion that it had to do with lack of power. Give everyone liberty then they can have the power they so desire.

 

And here I thought it was round like a circle with quadrants.

Doesn't power denote, he with the most takes from he with the least? Whats stopping me from having more power than you and taking what I want from you through my power over you?

 

For the crime that is caused by a lack of faith in authority, they could be dealt with changes to the system.

All rights are something that is taken by a person wants them, sure. But that doesn't mean one citizen has more rights then another.

Ok. And this is what you said:
"Pretending people are that stupid that they don't know what the laws are is rather dishonest."
This is what we're arguing. Your response was nonresponsive.

Yes I have. Many times in fact. Your lack of response to Gideon V. Wainwright shows a lot. There is a reason why the accused need lawyers, because the law is very complicated. It's not something that just anyone can pick up or understand in a timely fashion.

Or he could use the dangerous road. Tell me, if you're biking, are you going to be using the sidewalk or the road? Bear in mind I did follow the law today and biked on the road. I almost got hit by a car. As for my second argument, why not?

The police are the ones that send the students to the office. This has everything to do with the police. It all starts with the police.

Your original point:
"Society has removed certain rights from certain groups simply because those groups, as CC stated, would vote to better themselves and not society. Who would you rather be in charge of the hen house, the rooster or the fox?"
Then you said this:
"Every group does, however democracy says he with the most votes wins, The USC says who is eligible to vote in federal elections, each individual State say who can vote in their elections based on prior votes as set by society."

So in other words, either you're saying that groups aren't being self interested or they are self interested.

Moving the goalposts. It's not about what is good or bad for an individual, but we're arguing whether or not society will allow the action in the first place.

 

So doesn't this prove what I've been saying all along? That the IRS can deal with illegal labor when it comes to taxes?

"The 50-state analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released on Thursday found that roughly 8.1 million of 11.4 million undocumented immigrants who work paid more than $11.8 billion in state and local taxes in 2012, even while they were living illegally in the country. - "See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/...mmigrants-Pay-118B-Taxes#sthash.S9E5Bte7.dpuf

 

If everyone has the right to food, then it doesn't matter what country they get it in, they still have that right. If you go to Country A, you will still have the same right to eat as in Country B. It's like states can make some more rights up for its citizens, but all citizens have the exact same basic rights.

And they don't use economic theory to make economic policy up?

 

So those facts that were looked at?

As said by the person who just supported my argument.

So what you're telling me is that because Employers are acting in their own self interest, they're going to be untrustworthy. That is the core of my argument, you just made my argument.

And what happens when the people feel like the government isn't defending their rights? There in lies the flaw of your argument, it is all about belief in the government, faith that it will work for them. It will defend them, but when the government can not do that the people have a right to create another.

 

The past that we see with our biased eyes isn't the past that will determine the future. It's happening, and it will happen soon. Mark my words on this.

How does a county prove where any individual lives in an election season? Why not take that approach?

Then we get to the actual problem. You need to show that there is faith that the system works.

- - - Updated - - -

The more you know.

What stops you right now?