The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

PS - America has a myth of the 'melting pot' where all people become 'one nationality' and take on a common identity, most other cultures see their societies as a mosaic where there are different patterns but they all fit together as an integrated whole.

Specific to your melting pot comment, I agree that term is not valid. I've used the below in prior dialogs.

Don't disagree. I've always used "salad bowl" vs melting pot which means there are cultural, ethnic etc. stuff that says separated but we're all one happy family mixed in a bowl, overlaid by the American "special salad dressing".

However, I do believe there are those that won't get into the salad bowl with the rest of us so let's not waste our time.

EDIT: Maybe this adds context to what I mean by assimilate (but maybe not).

[ISiddiqui]

Well, shit.

[Thomkal]

Trump gets his travel ban:


https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/polit...&utm_term=link

[larrymcg421]

Jill Stein and everyone who voted for her can fuck off.

Forever.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

As far as the term 'illegals' is concerned, I use it and the reason why has nothing to do with dehumanization. It's not the slightest bit dehumanizing, it is simply accurate. We label people often based on where they live(New Englander, Westerner, Southerner, etc.). An illegal is simply someone who is here without the legal right to be. It does not mean they are in any way, shape, or form less of a person or less deserving of basic human dignity than anyone else. It says nothing about their potential to contribute to society. It says simply that they are here illegally - period. And it's a lot more accurate than 'undocumented' ever could be.

Why don't you refer to people who speed as illegal drivers, or simply, illegals? Also accurate. I mean, after all, depending on the situation, crossing the border, like speeding, is a misdemeanor violation. Let's get all the illegals off the road.

I don't think you can argue with a straight face the word isn't dehumanizing. It's very use, accurate or not, is local to immigration and meant to segregate by status. As we've seen historically, over and over again, that is and becomes dehumanizing.

[PilotMan]

What he said. The idiots who decided that losing the supreme court was worth their protest vote can fuck off.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by digamma

Why don't you refer to people who speed as illegal drivers, or simply, illegals? Also accurate. I mean, after all, depending on the situation, crossing the border, like speeding, is a misdemeanor violation. Let's get all the illegals off the road.

Speeders would be more accurate in this case. They aren't illegal drivers; it's not illegal for them to drive if they have a license. It IS illegal for illegal immigrants to be here. There's a big difference. And I'm all for prosecuting speeders. 'Getting them all off the road' is ridiculous, as the penalty for their crime does not involve them not being able to drive(unless it's repeated, egregious offenses, then they might lose their license).

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Jill Stein and everyone who voted for her can fuck off.

Forever.

I think a lot of the third party voters PREFER chaos. Once Sanders was out a lot of them were rooting for Trump. Same thing with going back to Nader/Gore, I think it's a misconception that the 3rd party far left voter would prefer the Dem to the Republican but just didn't realize that their vote could actually matter. I think more of them want to see everything burn if things don't go their way, because to them, the country being further right brings us closer to a revolution than the country being moderate left. (I've seen that view expressed at this board over the years - people on the left rooting for the craziest Republican candidates for state offices as if this is some big game and no lives are actually impacted)

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Speeders would be more accurate in this case. They aren't illegal drivers; it's not illegal for them to drive if they have a license. It IS illegal for illegal immigrants to be here. There's a big difference. And I'm all for prosecuting speeders. 'Getting them all off the road' is ridiculous, as the penalty for their crime does not involve them not being able to drive(unless it's repeated, egregious offenses, then they might lose their license).

THis is not always the case in immigration either, and I think you know that. I admit that my example was hyperbole, but you're breaking this down too simply as well. There may be avenues of relief that do not involve not being here.

[Brian Swartz]

I don't think I am breaking it down too simply. If you are referring to cases such as people seeking asylum, they are not by definition illegal immigrants. I wouldn't refer to them as such. If you present yourself to the authorities and request asylum, you aren't one, period. If you try to sneak cross the border, aren't an asylum-seeker, and don't go through the required immigration process, then it does apply. It literally is like calling a felon a felon or calling a tall person tall. I don't call illegal immigrants felons(because they aren't), I'm not trying to make it worse than it is, etc. It is what it is. No more, and no less.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

I think a lot of the third party voters PREFER chaos. Once Sanders was out a lot of them were rooting for Trump. Same thing with going back to Nader/Gore, I think it's a misconception that the 3rd party far left voter would prefer the Dem to the Republican but just didn't realize that their vote could actually matter. I think more of them want to see everything burn if things don't go their way, because to them, the country being further right brings us closer to a revolution than the country being moderate left. (I've seen that view expressed at this board over the years - people on the left rooting for the craziest Republican candidates for state offices as if this is some big game and no lives are actually impacted)

I think it's more a mixture of the two, but what you're describing is even worse to me, as it comes largely from a place of privilege. Most of these people wanting everything to be blown up are not in the blast radius.

As I've said before, as much as I dislike Trump and those who put him in power, at least many of them actually had real problems. They just chose a bad solution. The Jill Stein/Ralph Nader/Stay home crowd are mostly privileged, elitist assholes who can survive the 4-8 years of Trump rule much more easily than the minorities and the poor they're supposedly fighting for.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't think I am breaking it down too simply. If you are referring to cases such as people seeking asylum, they are not by definition illegal immigrants. I wouldn't refer to them as such. If you present yourself to the authorities and request asylum, you aren't one, period. If you try to sneak cross the border, aren't an asylum-seeker, and don't go through the required immigration process, then it does apply. It literally is like calling a felon a felon or calling a tall person tall. I don't call illegal immigrants felons(because they aren't), I'm not trying to make it worse than it is, etc. It is what it is. No more, and no less.

It's not just asylum seekers--there are more than a handful of ways to avoid deportation and remain in the US. Again, you know this. If you want to make the comparison to an convicted felon, that person has been through a trial. Most often the use is not limited to someone who has been through a removal hearing, and no longer entitled to stay in the US. Maybe you are.

The point is illegal is an adjective that can be used to describe many things. The use of the word as a noun is local to immigration and typically used in a way to segregate, regardless of where that individual is in the justice system.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by digamma

he use of the word as a noun is local to immigration and typically used in a way to segregate,

I get that point, I just don't agree that such usage is either inappropriate or dehumanizing. The other nouns I mentioned also segregate. Any label at all segregates. That's literally their purpose, to describe those who are part of that group and not part of another. I don't see how one can say anything meaningful about things and not use labels of some kind or another.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Hmmm. They broke the law and the are "breaking the law" by continuing to be in country. I did not imply the continue to break new laws? I thought #10569 was clear on that.

Yes, that is true, the problem is we have illegals in the country, they have broken the law and continue to break the law by being in the country illegally.

Thank you, your approach and problem with immigration makes much more sense to me now.

I would argue that your believe that undocumented people are continuously breaking the law is un-American. I mean, your problem is not recognized by the supreme court, law enforcement, or the justice department. Here is a link to AZ v US decision that basically said undocumented people are not considered trespassers:Is living as an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. a crime? | PolitiFact New York

So this was why I was having so much confusion with your problem. It really is just your problem and because your holistic approach did not first include overturning AZ v US, it just seem like a personal grudge.

I disagree then with your description of assimilation. Your notion of American ideals and principles is fundamentally different than the one defined by the government and courts. Categorizing undocumented people as trespassers continuously breaking the law is an arbitrary barrier you are personally creating to prevent assimilation.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I get that point, I just don't agree that such usage is either inappropriate or dehumanizing. The other nouns I mentioned also segregate. Any label at all segregates. That's literally their purpose, to describe those who are part of that group and not part of another. I don't see how one can say anything meaningful about things and not use labels of some kind or another.

You absolutely can make the argument that to you it is not dehumanizing, however I don't think you have the right to tell the recipient that they cannot feel dehumanized by that term.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The fact that such a question can be asked with a straight face, that it isn't immediately obvious that a sovereign nation routinely having it's immigration laws broken and not really trying to do much of anything about it is in the midst of a national crisis/embarrassment/scandal that vastly overwhelms whatever economic benefit accrues from it demonstrates how misguided the approach is.

So the problem is feeling of embarrassment? Other countries are making fun of us and that doesn't feel good?

The urgency you are implying suggests that things must be fundamentally different now. Which is not true, unless the "national crisis" started decades ago. It seems more likely that your current anger and embarrassment are the result of media and politicians banging the drum.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Thank you, your approach and problem with immigration makes much more sense to me now.

I would argue that your believe that undocumented people are continuously breaking the law is un-American. I mean, your problem is not recognized by the supreme court, law enforcement, or the justice department. Here is a link to AZ v US decision that basically said undocumented people are not considered trespassers:Is living as an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. a crime? | PolitiFact New York

So this was why I was having so much confusion with your problem. It really is just your problem and because your holistic approach did not first include overturning AZ v US, it just seem like a personal grudge.

I disagree then with your description of assimilation. Your notion of American ideals and principles is fundamentally different than the one defined by the government and courts. Categorizing undocumented people as trespassers continuously breaking the law is an arbitrary barrier you are personally creating to prevent assimilation.

This is a bit of a semantics argument. The US court system is for penalizing US citizens. Since illegals/undocumenteds arent citizens they arent subject to US laws.


It began being treated as a civil matter in the 70s simply because it was easier and cheaper to deport civaly than to convict criminally and then deport a criminal. (2 court cases vs 1 AND most importantly civil matters do not trigger a right to representation) It was a way to get illegal immigrants out of the country quicker. Precedent was set and now it is viewed as exclusively a civil matter.


Its akin to the college stoner argument that its not illegal to smoke pot. Its illegal to buy it, sell it, or possess it. But once I break those laws it isnt illegal to smoke it.


I mena the alternate is we start treating illegal immigration as a crime and fill the prison system up more. That sounds like a great solution, no?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Thank you, your approach and problem with immigration makes much more sense to me now.

I would argue that your believe that undocumented people are continuously breaking the law is un-American. I mean, your problem is not recognized by the supreme court, law enforcement, or the justice department. Here is a link to AZ v US decision that basically said undocumented people are not considered trespassers:Is living as an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. a crime? | PolitiFact New York

So this was why I was having so much confusion with your problem. It really is just your problem and because your holistic approach did not first include overturning AZ v US, it just seem like a personal grudge.

Respectfully, you expecting me to know about this ruling is pretty weird. If you thought I was wrong based on this ruling, you should have been transparent and shared it in the past 2-3 pages.

I don't get personal grudge but okay, just different interpretation I guess.

I'm waiting for your holistic approach, feel free to put something out there in detail for folks to react to it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

This is a bit of a semantics argument. The US court system is for penalizing US citizens. Since illegals/undocumenteds arent citizens they arent subject to US laws.


It began being treated as a civil matter in the 70s simply because it was easier and cheaper to deport civaly than to convict criminally and then deport a criminal. (2 court cases vs 1 AND most importantly civil matters do not trigger a right to representation) It was a way to get illegal immigrants out of the country quicker. Precedent was set and now it is viewed as exclusively a civil matter.


Its akin to the college stoner argument that its not illegal to smoke pot. Its illegal to buy it, sell it, or possess it. But once I break those laws it isnt illegal to smoke it.


I mena the alternate is we start treating illegal immigration as a crime and fill the prison system up more. That sounds like a great solution, no?

Oh good, I wasn't going to research all the legalese and nuances. This will be an interesting dialog so thanks.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

don't think you have the right to tell the recipient that they cannot feel dehumanized by that term.

Of course not. People have every right to feel however they wish about anything.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Which is not true, unless the "national crisis" started decades ago. It seems more likely that your current anger and embarrassment are the result of media and politicians banging the drum.

It mostly definitely started decades ago. It's getting worse, and covers far more secondary issues than just immigration, but it's definitely not something new that started last year or something. It's been a horrifyingly egregious issue for at least 50 years now, longer than I've been alive.

[Edward64]

Hmmm. Couldn't resist to look at it a little more.

It probably is semantics, tricky wording. Any immigration lawyers here?

Is being in the United States unlawfully a 'crime'? | PolitiFact Florida

For instance, an undocumented immigrant who entered the United States improperly would have committed a crime. However, once that person is here, the simple act of being in the United States unlawfully is not by itself a crime.

"It is a crime to cross the border other than as designated by immigration officials, but there is no separate crime for being unlawfully present in the United States," Chin said.

Another example of illegal entry would be if an individual is found in the United States after previously having been deported.

"Unlawful re-entry after a deportation order can be a federal crime, depending on circumstances," Taylor said.
:
:
It is generally accurate that the simple act of being in the United States illegally is not, by itself, a crime. Rather, it’s a civil violation that puts the individual at risk for deportation, but not for criminal prosecution. However, it’s worth noting that someone who is unlawfully present might still have committed a related crime by entering the United States after having been deported, for instance, or entering in an illegal manner.

So maybe as a happy compromise there are 2 categories specific to "south of the border".

1) People who came to the US legally but overstayed should not be called "illegals" (e.g asylum seekers) but "undocumented"
2) People who came to the US illegally (e.g. crossing the border illegally) can be called "illegals"

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I mena the alternate is we start treating illegal immigration as a crime and fill the prison system up more. That sounds like a great solution, no?

That's exactly what Trump's zero tolerance policy is doing. The law gives the option of a fine, jail time, or both. The directive from DOJ is to apply the harshest punishment.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Of course not. People have every right to feel however they wish about anything.



It mostly definitely started decades ago. It's getting worse, and covers far more secondary issues than just immigration, but it's definitely not something new that started last year or something. It's been a horrifyingly egregious issue for at least 50 years now, longer than I've been alive.

I feel like you are saying the issue is white American identity has been unfairly diluted over the last 50 years because of an illegal invasion?

Still have no idea why you think undocumented people do more harm than good (over last 50 years) other then your feeling of embarrassment. It seems that it is merely the existence of an arbitrary law that is cause of your anguish. I say arbitrary because the very people against it are also the ones benefiting from it. Directly in politics, media and industry and indirectly (probably you) from increase tax revenue and lower cost of living.

When the economy crashed there was a net loss in immigration, no wall or extra laws needed. Thus, if we want to stop it, stop the hiring and most importantly change our expectation that things will be more expensive and less efficient. ONLY blaming the person willing to work, take the risk and support their family, and not the society that is begging to exploit them, is, I think, racist.

100 years ago, there was almost no laws against most people coming here. The “invasion” was more massive and in many more cases than today, did more harm than good. But that was the good old days?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I feel like you are saying the issue is white American identity has been unfairly diluted over the last 50 years because of an illegal invasion?

Not at all. I could care less about 'white American identity'. Literally. I'm not saying it's a minor issue, I place zero importance on it whatsoever. I'm an anti-patriot, which means I place no greater allegiance to the United States than I do to, say, Liechtenstein. I believe ardently that every human has the same value, regardless of birthplace.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

It seems that it is merely the existence of the arbitrary law that is cause of your anguish. I say arbitrary because the very people against it are also the ones benefiting from it. Directly in politics, media and industry and indirectly (probably you) from increase tax revenue and lower cost of living.

I may well be benefiting in all the ways you describe. That's completely besides the point IMO and truly irrelevant. It is indeed '
merely' the arbitrary law. Let's assume it is arbitrary. It's not important to me whether it's arbitrary, brilliant, heinous, or anything in between. It's the assault on the rule of the law, cornerstone of modern civilization that it is, which bothers me. Immigration is but one symptom, but as I originally said a particularly clear-cut and clearly illustrative example.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

if we want to stop it, stop the hiring and most importantly change our expectation that things will be more expensive and less efficient.

I agree. I've said it before but perhaps not recently; things are much easier on the border end of things if we attack the employment end with harsh penalties against those who don't fulfill their responsibilities to verify those they hire. Of course, increasing legal immigration would also help. Preferably both.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

100 years ago, there was almost no laws against most people coming here. The “invasion” was more massive and in many more cases than today, did more harm than good.

Just to repeat, I'm not against immigration per se. But I totally reject this definition of doing more harm than good. There is a massive inherent harm in a nation disregarding, deciding not to enforce, etc. its laws. This is much worse when it affects their relations with other nations, because then they hurt not only themselves but others. That's a lot more important than tweaks in our standard of living or whathaveyou.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It mostly definitely started decades ago. It's getting worse, and covers far more secondary issues than just immigration, but it's definitely not something new that started last year or something. It's been a horrifyingly egregious issue for at least 50 years now, longer than I've been alive.

All the statistics I've seen indicated there is absolutely NO crisis, even with Trumps increased employment of people on the border apprehensions are down hugely from back in 2000 ...

Stats on Border Apprehensions

PS - What reasoning is behind the belief that immigrants are a net negative? ... they commit crime at a lower rate than citizens and create jobs at a higher rate than citizens etc.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I agree. I've said it before but perhaps not recently; things are much easier on the border end of things if we attack the employment end with harsh penalties against those who don't fulfill their responsibilities to verify those they hire. Of course, increasing legal immigration would also help. Preferably both.

I should point out that on the employment end, it is currently a very low hurdle to cross. I know because I did it for years. If the applicant shows you documentation (I-9 form spells out exactly what the docs need to be) and you do the proper tax withholding, there's no violation of law. Back when I was still employing, ICE could have raided my farm and hauled every single worker away and I would've been in the clear after I showed them all the documentation for my employees I had on file. My employees would've been in trouble for using false documents which are easily obtained on the black market for a few hundred dollars.

Going forward, if we are looking to fix things, the government needs a working database so the fake documents can instantly be weeded out. No, E-verify is not a solution because it has too many holes in it. Right now, there is no good system for employers.

[Warhammer]

Main issue is they need to enforce the laws. I have no problem with immigration. If we want to up limits, great. If we want to shut it down, whatever. But, whatever we decide on we need to enforce.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by lungs

I should point out that on the employment end, it is currently a very low hurdle to cross. I know because I did it for years. If the applicant shows you documentation (I-9 form spells out exactly what the docs need to be) and you do the proper tax withholding, there's no violation of law. Back when I was still employing, ICE could have raided my farm and hauled every single worker away and I would've been in the clear after I showed them all the documentation for my employees I had on file. My employees would've been in trouble for using false documents which are easily obtained on the black market for a few hundred dollars.

Going forward, if we are looking to fix things, the government needs a working database so the fake documents can instantly be weeded out. No, E-verify is not a solution because it has too many holes in it. Right now, there is no good system for employers.

Well the government could easily check for duplicate SSN numbers and other things. But, if more people are paying in, its all good in their eyes.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I agree. I've said it before but perhaps not recently; things are much easier on the border end of things if we attack the employment end with harsh penalties against those who don't fulfill their responsibilities to verify those they hire. Of course, increasing legal immigration would also help. Preferably both.

That will never happen. The party that wants to be tougher on immigration is also the party that would never punish companies or their wealthy owners.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Well the government could easily check for duplicate SSN numbers and other things. But, if more people are paying in, its all good in their eyes.

Exactly.... It can't be that hard. It is 2018, after all. I'm just saying that before we start throwing employers in jail, we need to have a working system to verify identity.

Then I'm all for executing everybody in violation.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

All the statistics I've seen indicated there is absolutely NO crisis, even with Trumps increased employment of people on the border apprehensions are down hugely from back in 2000 ...

Stats on Border Apprehensions
.

I agree, illegal crossing has been decreasing. Eyeballing it, it says 250K avg for the past several years.

Approx 11.3 - 11.5M illegals/undocumented or approx 3.4% of population.

5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

I'm not sure I would classify that as a crisis-crisis but I wouldn't consider it "no crisis".



EDIT: No idea how valid this is but did a quick google. Compared to 12 European countries, US ranks #1 of illegals as % of population.

https://immigration.procon.org/view....ourceID=005235

[Atocep]

I don't understand why the enforcement of laws is often the excuse to push for tougher immigration. There are a lot of federal crimes that are either poorly enforced or not enforced at all. Why is it a sticking point with immigration?

We have a lot of underfunded and understaffed federal departments. This issue has become far worse under the Trump administration, partly by design. These are the departments that enforce the law. Currently, the right wants to strictly enforce immigration laws because they exist. However, there's no push to force cooperations to follow EPA laws and regulations. Consumer protection laws are poorly enforced. We could go on and on.

We're more concerned about keeping the brown people out than enforcing the laws that actually protect citizens.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lungs

Exactly.... It can't be that hard. It is 2018, after all. I'm just saying that before we start throwing employers in jail, we need to have a working system to verify identity.

I think bigger corporations have done a better job here with their systems, processes, and e-verify. I remember a time when bogus SSN's could be put into systems. They have the deep pockets and public image to protect.

Not sure how well the small companies and mom-and-pops do thought, suspect not very well.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Well the government could easily check for duplicate SSN numbers and other things. But, if more people are paying in, its all good in their eyes.

But they dont.
"Mary9" is the word. Married and 9 dependents on your W4. No income tax is withheld beyond FICA.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Let's assume it is arbitrary. It's not important to me whether it's arbitrary, brilliant, heinous, or anything in between. It's the assault on the rule of the law, cornerstone of modern civilization that it is, which bothers me. Immigration is but one symptom, but as I originally said a particularly clear-cut and clearly illustrative example.

There is a massive inherent harm in a nation disregarding, deciding not to enforce, etc. its laws. This is much worse when it affects their relations with other nations, because then they hurt not only themselves but others. That's a lot more important than tweaks in our standard of living or whathaveyou.

I’ve got to assume that this assult is of the mild sort? Not really life altering. I do very much agree that disregard for the law is harmful. It’s just elevating immigration to near warlike invasion status is more demagoguery than reality.

The biggest violation of our rule of law is drug use. I would argue when it was minorities using and dying we declared war on them. All the while the urgency and embarrassment of immigration seem practically non existent. Now the drug users, I’ll call them illegals, are not mostly of color and all sudden we are creating a pathway to legitimatimacy (legalization, rehab not jail, new and cheaper methadone drugs, etc). And back goes the spotlight on brown people. It seems racist that we have made people coming here doing the jobs we are hiring them to do is somehow a worse example of flaunting the rule of law, than white people using drugs in a purely destructive way.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

But they dont.
"Mary9" is the word. Married and 9 dependents on your W4. No income tax is withheld beyond FICA.

I did have one guy run into trouble with the IRS. 21 years old, 6 dependents. When asked for documentation on his dependents, some shady tax accountant gave the IRS info on five kids all born within weeks of each other. He got hit with back taxes. To his credit, he did pay them.

Nicaraguans all put six because they never file a return. Most from Mexico that I dealt with were truthful.

[JPhillips]

Trump said that maybe we could replace the income tax with tariffs, the way it was when McKinley was President.

I think he's playing Victoria2.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

But they dont.
"Mary9" is the word. Married and 9 dependents on your W4. No income tax is withheld beyond FICA.

I've done a version of this for 20 years, from back when the advice was that you should keep your money in your pocket rather than giving the government an interest-free loan for a year. (Advice that I first heard from Rush Limbaugh, strangely enough.)

The idea isn't necessarily '9', but to get as close to tax-neutral as you can. No one ever asked me to prove that I had 7 kids when I was claiming 7 in my W-4, as long as I only claimed my actual kids on my 1040.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Drake

I've done a version of this for 20 years, from back when the advice was that you should keep your money in your pocket rather than giving the government an interest-free loan for a year. (Advice that I first heard from Rush Limbaugh, strangely enough.)

The idea isn't necessarily '9', but to get as close to tax-neutral as you can. No one ever asked me to prove that I had 7 kids when I was claiming 7 in my W-4, as long as I only claimed my actual kids on my 1040.

Yes and no.

What you are talking about I agree 100% with.

What I am talking about is maxing it at 9 so zero income tax is taken up until about $80k income. Then the folks im talking about dont file income tax returns at year end, so there is no settle up. They never pay the deficit they owe. They never file a 1040.

I've got 2 employees I know who claim M9. I know because my payroll service alerts me to this. Despite the fact that they don't speak much English, I can't deny their employment legally. I dont really think their names are Brian and Eric..but that's what their paperwork says. They dont have bank accounts, they still want hard checks. Only 2 guys I have who don't direct deposit. But you know what, they do a damn good job. Not the most technically knowledgeable team members but low maintenance, work hard, dependable and good guys. I can't hate on them for trying to improve their family situation.

[RainMaker]

In fairness, they likely would owe little to no federal income tax if they did file. And the FICA they pay into yet receive no benefit from more than makes up for it.

[Radii]

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...mounts-n886621

The Republican tax reform package that was supposed to raise wages and spur hiring has instead funded a record stock buyback and dividend spree, benefiting investors and company executives over workers.

I believe there was some discussion about this when the tax bill was passed. Whoever could have seen it coming, that the massive tax breaks for corporations would be used to make the already wealthy even wealthier.

[Edward64]

Pretty funny.

Colbert, Fallon and Conan team up to tease Trump

Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon and Conan O'Brien teamed up on Tuesday night to take some shots at President Donald Trump.

The late night hosts came together in a sketch that opened both CBS' "The Late Show" and NBC's "The Tonight Show." The short two-minute skit had the late night stars talking to each other via video-conferencing.

Here's the video.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/...-night-laughs/

[Edward64]

In our discussion about proper use of term illegal vs undocumented, I found it interesting that "brown" has been used in related discussions.

I don't know so I am asking - I would never use or thought to use the word "brown people" to describe Hispanics or Latinos. Is this acceptable?

I wouldn't have thought to use the term "brown" because, although not dehumanizing per the debate re: the word illegal, it seems akin to "black" vs African American or referring to a chinese person as "yellow".

Originally Posted by AENeuman

The biggest violation of our rule of law is drug use. I would argue when it was minorities using and dying we declared war on them. All the while the urgency and embarrassment of immigration seem practically non existent. Now the drug users, I’ll call them illegals, are not mostly of color and all sudden we are creating a pathway to legitimatimacy (legalization, rehab not jail, new and cheaper methadone drugs, etc). And back goes the spotlight on brown people. It seems racist that we have made people coming here doing the jobs we are hiring them to do is somehow a worse example of flaunting the rule of law, than white people using drugs in a purely destructive way.

Originally Posted by Atocep

We're more concerned about keeping the brown people out than enforcing the laws that actually protect citizens.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Radii

I believe there was some discussion about this when the tax bill was passed. Whoever could have seen it coming, that the massive tax breaks for corporations would be used to make the already wealthy even wealthier.

I think we knew that would inevitably happen. But let's be fair, the article said stock buybacks have helped shareholders, so its not just the rich, its anyone that have mutual funds in a 401k or IRA. Some wealth has been shared but agree that rich have become richer.

Unemployment is pretty low. It is debatable how much of that goes to Trump but some credit does go to him. True, much of that is lower-wage jobs but that trend existed in the Obama administration also.

(Somewhat related to our discussion on a holistic immigration reform, the low unemployment is more reason to encourage and fast-track the highly skilled immigrants and really ramp up the guest worker program).

I would have said US economy was doing well a couple weeks ago but now with the talks of trade wars, tariffs etc. I don't know. I've seen estimates for 2.9-3% of economic growth in 2018 and that's pretty good compared to since the Great Recession.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

PS - What reasoning is behind the belief that immigrants are a net negative? ... they commit crime at a lower rate than citizens and create jobs at a higher rate than citizens etc.

I don't think anyone has said its a "net negative" but it may have been inferred by some. I think there are several of us that believe -- if you have immigration laws, enforce them. If you don't like the immigration laws, change or reform them. But you can't have people "flaunting" the laws.

And I have not seen anyone say -- no more or greatly reduce "legal" immigration.

[Edward64]

I didn't really know what was in the ban other than the countries and the word "travel". CNN had a nice summary with more details below.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/polit...rnd/index.html

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In fairness, they likely would owe little to no federal income tax if they did file. And the FICA they pay into yet receive no benefit from more than makes up for it.

I'll agree and concede the second point regarding FICA. Its the first that I think most bury their head in the sand over.


Specifically in construction trades we are talking real money. Solid middle class. The 2 employees I referenced earlier- with a quick check one made 64k last year the other made 48k but he started in May.


In my area, at least, it isnt min wage jobs. It is unskilled or semi skilled labor (13-22)/hr and averaging 55 hours per week. In that case, depending of course on true numbers and scale, the dollars at play could be significant.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

And I have not seen anyone say -- no more or greatly reduce "legal" immigration.

Other than the Trump admin, which is why they killed the bipartisan immigration bill.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Other than the Trump admin, which is why they killed the bipartisan immigration bill.

Oh sorry. I was responding to Marc Vaughan thinking it was specific to FOFC members and our discussion.

Re-reading it I can see where it was more of an open question beyond the FOFC members that responded.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't think anyone has said its a "net negative" but it may have been inferred by some. I think there are several of us that believe -- if you have immigration laws, enforce them. If you don't like the immigration laws, change or reform them. But you can't have people "flaunting" the laws.

And I have not seen anyone say -- no more or greatly reduce "legal" immigration.

The administration has repeatedly indicated it intends to reduce 'legal' immigration - that is one of the reasons a lot of businesses are finding it hard to get casual labor in shrimping industry and such because the number of visa's allowed has been reduced drastically.

PS - There are a huge number of 'laws' to which lip-service is generally given within a society because they're seen as out dated or not constructive, heck even some very sensible laws are flouted or enforced incredibly liberally in many states.
In Florida for instance if you're driving and found to be driving badly/speeding chances are you'll get a warning or a ticket reduced from its 'real' penalty* ... I expect the reasoning is that without a car its near impossible to hold down a job because of the poor public transport, but I'm just using it to show that society doesn't stick to the letter of the law because its the law and routinely flexes them.

Examples - I was caught speeding at over 90mph going to visit my daughter in Tallahassee a few years ago (with my English sister in the car gleefully exclaiming 'hey he's got a gun' when the officer came up no less ) ... the ticket read 75mph because otherwise the penalty would have been far more severe.
I've also been rear ended while stopped at a traffic light by a lady who in her words 'didn't know why she didn't stop' - the officer didn't even give her a ticket because the damage to my vehicle was (cough) only $5,000 worth ...