I thought the Constitution protected the rights of U.S. citizens, legal immigrants – temporary and permanent. Not illegal immigrants.
Lawyers for 10 Latino men arrested in Danbury in the past year filed a civil rights lawsuit accusing city and federal officials of a plot to harass immigrants through illegal arrests and intimidation.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New Haven, alleges authorities violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free speech, free association and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
In my neck of the woods, I’d say, “Hispanic” of course. The whole East Coast “Latino” semantics jive makes my Hispanic neighbors giggle because – under the accepted urbane collegiate definition – I qualify as “Latino” since half my genes come from the Mediterranean.
Nine of the men were day laborers arrested in a sting operation on Sept. 19, 2006. They were waiting at a park and got into a vehicle driven by a man who they thought had hired them to demolish a fence, but who was actually an undercover Danbury police officer, according to the lawsuit.
When the men arrived at the purported work site, they were arrested and shipped to detention centers around the country. All nine are free on bond and their immigration cases are pending.
Essentially, the role of the Danbury PD was with – and on behalf of – ICE conducting federal arrests for illegal immigration. The 10th man arrested has already been deported.
#67 Mister Mustard
Re: wtf planet are you from, S&B? Please cite a source for that absurd claim.
Doubt my words, phone the IRS. They can’t process a return if there is no social security number. If you have children, they don’t qualify as a deduction unless you provide the child’s social security number.
BTW please cite the source, “law”, not an IRS code, where I’m or you for that matter are required to pay income tax to the IRS.
Re: wtf planet – Same planet, different location. You are living in a FEDERAL ZONE claiming to be a U.S. Citizen and using your social security number. I on the other hand am not a U.S. Citizen. I am a Citizen of a single State and not legally required to pay income tax to the IRS.
The IRS is not part of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. It is a privately held corporation and every cent you pay to that corporation goes to another privately held corporation, THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
#66
“There is no job an American won’t do – if the price is right.”
Have you heard of something called competition? Oh yeah, that word doesn’t exist in the vocabulary of a Mac user because they live in a Monopoly.
“and overqualified Americans now take jobs and salaries beneath them to survive, and the middle- and long-term prospects of yet another American industry is given away to foreigners.”
BooHoo, If the qualified Americans can’t get a job at their country then they should do what the rest of the world is doing: “GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE.” After all, that’s what the job stealing, brown skinned illegal immigrants are doing AND; if they (the skilled American workers) are so damn good as they brag about then they shouldn’t have to worry about getting a job overseas.
#69
“I am a Citizen of a single State and not legally required to pay income tax to the IRS.”
Are you hiding in a hole and living off rabbits like the Unabomber?
Another ‘golden oldie.’ Caught in an indefensible postion, squirt a cloud of rhetorical ink and disappear.
So brainwashed are you that you’re totally oblivious to the bigger picture.
In 1970, a person making minimum wage ($2.10, IIRC) full-time could afford food, clothing and shelter – and still be able to buy a new car (A new VW beetle was about $1600).
But that was when the top tax rate was 70% – didn’t prevent us from having millionaires. Just fewer of them – and a considerablly better-off middle class, as most of what they had was bought and paid for, unlike today’s couple-paychecks-from-insolvency consumers who owe for everything they have, carrying a half-dozen maxed-out credit cards.
But that was before Ronald Rayguns and the onset of irreversable widening income inequality.
Like a properly-conditioned sheeple, you take it as a given that paying Americans what they need to survive in the country they live in, for doing work that must be done, inside U.S. borders, will automatically result in absurd price increases. And it WOULD, as long as the people at the top continue to be given an astronomically disproportionate share of the proceeds of the labor of those below them on the totem pole.
But it never even occurs to you that Americans CAN be paid fair wages WITHOUT significant price inflation.
The consumer should not have to pay more. Instead, the parasitic investor class should be compelled to forego what they have fooled millions of sheeple like you into believing is their God-given right – their obscene windfall profits.
If Bob Nardelli didn’t get handed a large fraction of a billion dollars for doing basically Jack Shit – you would be able to go to Home Depot and, with the help of a knowledgable full-timer who actually knows something about the merchandise, buy higher-quality, more durable and therefore more cost-effective American-made products – for the same as you’re paying now or a little more.
THAT’S how it works, chum. The people doing the actual work, not the parasites at the top, get a fair share of the profit. So, paying better gets better employees at the bottom. Paying less to the drones at the top means better merchandise can be sold at a lower margin, keeping prices down.
But you just loooove that GOP Kool-Aid that never, ever suggests that the grossly overpaid accept less – you just buy their bullshit story that prices’ll soar – which they WILL. as long as people like you do nothing to demand that the thieves in the executive suite give up some of their mostly-undeserved riches. You’re scared shitless they’ll call you a Communist.
Sucker.
#71 Angel
Are you hiding in a hole and living off rabbits like the Unabomber?
Nope, I know the laws and use them to preserve my liberty. I’m not the property of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, you are property, a slave of the corporation.
This is why the government is not stopping the tide of “illegals”, the corporation want more slaves/property. Every slave has a value of $70,000 to the FEDERAL RESERVE.
I live in Mexico and frankly, this attitude is not from other countries. In Mexico they deport illegal Guatemalans without any fanfare or “rights”. This is what the liberal (ACLU types) and the Democratic crowd have been promoting to get voted into office. They use the latinos to get into office by catering to their issues. Well, the birds have come home to roost, and now you have to pay the fiddler.
I would point out that there is a legal road to entering the country to live. This is the same legal road that a US citizen has to take to live in these foreign countries. The system is exactly the same in our country as in their countries. All of these foreign countries deport exactly the same way when US citizens enter their country illegally, or come in on a tourist visa and then work.
So what is so different here? (1) in the US, you can fake a right, blast it all over the press, and people actually believe you. (2) You can bribe the border patrol (which is very common) and walk across the bridge with no ID even! After drug smuggling, the number 1 money producer is taking illegals across the borders. 1 night, they can pass 20-30 people, at 2-4,000 us dollars a pop! The drug dealers can make more and faster by the illegal people traffic than the drug traffic.
The US people have no stomach for stopping this. Forget about terrorists and drugs, these people are making a killing off of people traffic and are undermining our entire society.
How to stop it:
(1) slap them (illegals) in jail. Even a 1 week, 1 month or preferably several months in a hot jail at the border with few creature comforts will make people think twice. Hold them, then release them. Above all, at least photograph them, finger print them, and get any picture ID they have (that will be fake anyway). 1st time (5 day hold), 2nd offense (2 week), 3rd offense (1 month) etc. A lot of them are caught and released in Mexico the same night and recaptured etc up to 4-5 times in the same night! Ridiculous!
Moreover there needs to be road blocks and ID checks at irregular points to surprise these people. Make every policeman have the right to check a person’s nationality/US citizenship. Every traffic stop and traffic accident should be standard procedure.
(2) Get the FBI into thing by slamming the crooked Border Patrol into the slammer. They are corrupt and will start with illegals, go to drugs, and end up with terrorists.
(3) Make all people in the US prove citizenship (birth certificate or proper papers) for all basic stuff: that means to get a job, to get a loan, to buy or sell a house or car, to move any large sum of money, to have a bank account, to rent a house. Doing this will close down the freedom of the illegals and restrict their living conditions.
In addition, it should be extremely clear and watched that NO ILLEGAL ALIEN has right to free medical treatment, nor any government program (like welfare). Without legal entry into the country, they cannot go into an Hispanic slum and live off of welfare. That has to stop. There isn’t enough money for the legal Americans, and the illegals working the system is overtaxing it, causing the legal Americans to not get their fair share.
(4) No amnesty. Every illegal is hiding out in the US waiting for the next presidential election. Lynch all presidential or congressional candidates that want to offer amnesty. That should be an immediate vote out of office instead of a free ticket in. There is no reason for it except for them to get the latino vote. It does nothing good for real American citizens.
(5) Investigate all resident aliens now. A large percentage of them have submitted forged papers to get their citizenship, which means they should be placed in jail (as per the US instructions on such paperwork). They have to swear that all their papers submitted are true. Many are not even using their real names. Penalty is jail (law already on the books). Once this goes back to their country of origin for investigation and these fake papers are causing them grief, then the illegal system will fall.
(6) Open the borders wider. This sounds contradictory but it is not. The reason so many people come is because the US has such a screwy immigration policy. If you open the door to honest skilled labor, that type of person will come. Look for people who better the US, professionals who pay their taxes, are civilized in their relation to our culture, and already speak English and know our history. That shows at least some real desire to come in. Let them in easier so that the rest will shoot for this “easy” way in. You still have to do all the rest because the scum will always swim the river.
To address the farm migrate workers, open it wider. Any illegal found in the US especially working without papers should be permanently blocked from the US. Let them come in, work 6 months, and then they have to leave the country for 1.5 years, and report to the US embassy in their country every 3 months to prove they are not in the US. After 1.5 years they can come in and work another 6 months. These workers need to be legalized and controlled so that they pay taxes. They should be made to pay Social Security taxes but won’t get any benefits. They also should pay $2000 dollars for the privilege to come work. That is what the illegals pay to cross the border, and that should go 50% border patrol, 50% social security, deduced monthly from their salaries. After entering leaving correctly over 15 years, they should maybe get a chance at immigration and citizenship.
Understand the system. These people lie, cheat, steal, bribe, etc i.e. do anything to get into the US and work. That means if you are there using a false Identity, then any law problems you have, you pick up, move 2 states away, and reestablish a new identify. This makes a culture that is highly prone to crime and disrespects all laws. (They group immigration laws with all laws, and they are not good citizens.) If they (being “honest”) did this to get in the country, then they will do it again to get out of legal trouble.
The absolutely worse thing you can do is bury your head in the sand, do nothing, or even worse, grant amnesty!
Mister Mustard
Here’s your source. It’s a 2636 KB pdf file.
http://tinyurl.com/2gjsgg
I have a neighbor. His name is known to many people and has been for many years. He is a very prominent Republican. He and his family are extremely wealthy and powerful.
And at his family compound on the next block over, his gardening and landscaping is done by illegals. His words to me on the subject, from years ago, are exactly what one should expect from a flag-waving, patriotic American conservative with enough money to afford anything that money can buy: “Why should I pay an American 15 dollars an hour when these guys are happy to take 10?”
That he could, with zero impact on his lifestyle, or that of his descendants for the next 500 years, afford to pay them $100 an hour means nothing to him. Giving the work to a citizen of his allegedly-beloved country would entail – literally – less sacrifice to him than tossing a penny into the street would to me – this is something that would never occur to him. So greedy – so insane – is he, that he would sooner let a fellow American starve than part with a few hundred dollars out of his family’s billions.
That is the Repulican thought process, and it is totally inhuman and insane.
#69;
Income Tax Law
#74;
You’re nucking futs.
#58
First, illegal immigrants are by definition not honest. Second, what about the hardworking, honest people that immigrate legally? Do we just laugh at them for taking the long road instead of just sneaking into the country? You keep ignoring the core question: Should there be *any* consequence for subverting the system? If not, then why have a system of any kind at all?
You simply cannot get past your hatred of Bush to see that your entire position is empty. You are putting the cart before the horse. You must first decide whether anything should be done with people that circumvent the system. Answer that question and then a discussion be had about the merits of the various solutions.
>>then let’s get rid of minimum wage.
> Bet you’d love that
No you clueless idiot. The fact that China and India have no minimum wage is major reason that they also have no immigration issue and thus why they are not comparable to the situation in the US. No one is clamoring to immigrate to China and work for a yuan a day. Whereas in the US, even legal immigrants must be paid minimum wage. Supply and demand applies to labor markets in China and India as well as they do in the US.
#66
I agree. If we are going to place *any* restrictions on incoming immigrants, then anyone that subverts that system, however altrustic the reason, must be sent back and people employing those people must be punished in a manner sufficiently severe as to change their behavior. If you stop illegal immigration and let the free market work, amazingly you will find Americans willing to do “shit jobs.” Hell, even if we increase the levels of legal immigration and they are the ones doing that job, they still have to be paid reasonable wages and thus those wages will rise until someone takes the job.
#67
If you have no SSN, then you are incapable of paying social security or incomes taxes; only consumption taxes (e.g. gas, sales tax). How much more obvious can that be?
#69
Technically, it is more accurate to say that you cannot process an IRS return without a tax identification number which includes SSNs as well as immigration visas for legal immigrants.
The law that allows the Federal government to collect income taxes would be the 16th Amendment:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
Congress can delegate to a secondary authority to do the actual collecting.
#76
Sounds as if the American is charging too much. One solution would be to get the illegal immigrant that won the bid deported and the guy that hired them arrested because an illegal immigrant is competing unfairly. However, if the immigrant were legal, why *should* the guy pay five dollars more? Why should not the American worker charge less? If the American cannot compete on price, then he/she needs to add value to the transaction in some other way to make it worth the extra cost (higher quality, faster completion etc). That is how competition works.
#2.
No more welfare = people that would HAVE to get off their asses and take THOSE jobs.
End of story.
#82 Thomas, lets look a little closer shall we.
The Supreme Court ruled in Stanton v. Baltic Mining that there was no enlargement to the taxation authority of Congress by the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment.
Congress did not modify the direct taxation clauses of the Constitution by the construction of the 16th Amendment. Therefore, the 16th Amendment does not provide authority for a direct tax on sources of income which enjoy constitutional protection. (Some sources of income do not enjoy constitutional protection, like income derived from sources without (outside) the several States of the Union.) Therefore, there is no authority for Congress to tax one of the several States of the Union, unless that tax is apportioned.
2 out of 10 illegal Mexican immigrants say “suck my d*ck” and “f*ck you”.
#85
Remember that the Constitution is not a static document. Its interpretation can change over the years. Amendments can change the core powers in the Constitution. Without the 16th Amendment, I would agree that Congress does not have authority to tax people directly. However, if the 16 Amendment was meant to only apply to indirect taxes, it was really, really poorly written. Most people reading the 16th Amendment would presume that it *does* change the original powers in the Constitution. In addition, it is possible for one Court to contradict the ruling of a previous Court. Thus, all that is needed is for one Court to state that in fact the 16th Amendment does give the power to Congress to tax people directly and the issue is moot.
BTW, it is the height of lunacy that the US government thinks it can tax US citizens on money made outside the US. The US is pretty much alone in this regard and should simply drop the idea.
#85, Confederate Traitor,
You are just effen crazy. Believing a screed from someone like Thomas Freed shows your lack of intelligence. Go get a passport from your local State.
*
The only way to avoid paying federal income tax is to earn less than the minimum required, even though filing a return is usually recommended. If you do not have a TAX NUMBER than you are not allowed to work in the US. That usually includes everyone here on a visitor’s visa, student visa or a diplomatic passport. Among other conditions, if you violate that term of your visa and work, you are subject to cancellation of the visa and deportment. No visa? You will still be deported.
easy way.
1. Are they citizen’s
if no then NO RIGHTS
#1 Correct
What is so difficult to understand, or is this an “American thing”?
Cheers
Many people are confused about the language used by the Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), that the 16th Amendment created no new taxing power.
The Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), that the income tax enacted by Congress in 1894 was a direct tax, the act passed by congress wasn’t apportioned, and therefore the tax was unconstitutional. The decision wasn’t unanimous. The court was split five to four. Those in the minority believed a tax on income was not a direct tax, but an indirect, excise tax. One of the dissenters was associate justice White.
Notwithstanding the decision was split five to four, the result was that the constitutional requirement that direct taxes be apportioned was upheld. To overcome the holding of Pollock, Congress proposed the 16th Amendment. It was allegedly ratified in 1913.
Subsequent to the alleged ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court does not agree on exactly what the 16th Amendment did:
* According to the Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the Sixteenth Amendment removed the requirement of apportionment for the direct income tax. That is, direct taxes still had to be apportioned except the direct tax on income.
* According to Brushaber, written by Justice White, who by that time had become the chief justice, the 16th Amendment prevented courts from doing what he claimed the Pollock court did–consider the source of the income to take the tax on that income out of the class of excises, to which he claimed it belonged, and placing it in the class of direct taxes. That is, a tax on income, regardless of the source, is an indirect tax; because the tax is not a direct tax, it does not have to be apportioned.
Whether you agree with Brushaber that the tax is an excise tax that doesn’t have to be apportioned, or agree with Eisner that the tax is a direct tax that doesn’t have to be apportioned, without the 16th Amendment, the law reverts back to Pollock.
If you follow the Brushaber language, it makes no sense to argue that an income tax on wages is a constitutionally protected direct tax because Brushaber clearly holds all income taxes, regardless of the souce (such as labor or wages/property) are excise taxes. A tax cannot be both an excise tax and a direct tax; it is one or the other.
There is current litigation pending in the Federal District Court in Chicago on whether the 16th Amendment was in fact ratified. The case is United States v. Benson, Case No. 1:04-cv-07403 (N.D.Ill.E.D. 2004). The nature of the case and the pleadings are on my web site: http://jeffdickstein.com
Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law
92. Thanks for clearing that up, (sort of). Thats the best explanation of this boondoggle I have seen yet. Guess we’ll have to wait for the ruling.
Republicans would never stand for having illegals sent back or having them unavailable. They were in power for what, 8 years without doing a single thing about the problem. Why? Because the presence of illegals helps to drive down wages for everyone else, which the powers that be really, really like. I had a friend whose father raised three kids in a modest house while working pumping gas at a gas station. The G.I. bill helped, but mostly he lived on his wages. Possible today? Not very likely. Why? Globalization of labor, be it illegal or outsourcing.
#89 Mr. Confused
Go get a passport from your local State.
Passport are issued by the department of State. I applied for and received a U.S. Passport as a non-citizen national under 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and as not a “U.S. citizen” under 8 USC 1401.
The only way to avoid paying federal income tax is to earn less than the minimum required, even though filing a return is usually recommended. That is if you have a TIN or SSN.
If you do not have a TAX NUMBER than you are not allowed to work in the US.
Now you’re just making thing up as you go along. You can show a State issued drivers license and social security card or you can trump both of those and show a U.S. Passport. You can not be denied a job for failure to provide a SSN. Federal Law, Section 7 of Public Law 93-579 provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security account number.” Federal courts have ruled the Privacy Act applies equally to the private sector.
There is no law requiring an individual to obtain or use a social security number.
#88 Thomas
Remember that the Constitution is not a static document. Its interpretation can change over the years.
You heard this from a liberal. It is entirely false. The Constitution was written to be a static document. Through the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, we know exactly what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution. Dig a little deeper into history and you’ll find that a living document is a main reason those who settled this country left England. The English constitution was being twisted and used to manipulate their system of government. The founding fathers wanted no such document and gave us no such document.
Amendments can change the core powers in the Constitution.
True, consider the 18th and 21st amendments. The 18th amendment established Prohibition in the United States. It was necessary for the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th Amendment before the 21st Amendment could have any effect.
Congress did not modify the direct taxation clauses of the Constitution by creating the 16th Amendment. Therefore, the 16th Amendment does not provide authority for a direct tax on sources of income which enjoy constitutional protection. The 16th Amendment did not modifying the direct taxing clauses of the Constitution found at Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4. Thus no new taxing powers were created.
#97 – wow! you must have no social life at all!
#97
> The Constitution was written to be a static document.
Nonsense. Is information posted to the Internet protected by the First Amendment? Is abortion protected by the Constitution? Does the President have the authority to conduct domestic electronic surveillance during a time of war? None of these issues were specifically and directly handled by the Constitution. Were the Constitution static, one could argue that none of these things should be legal or you could just as easily argue they should all be legal. Hell, even the authority of the Supreme Court to evaluate the constitutionality of law is not specifically in the Constitution but was presumed to have been granted as decidded in Marbury v. Madison.
A better example of Amendments changing the Constitution is the 14th Amendment which not only overrides the 3/5 rule it is also allows the Federal government to force the States to uphold certain rights whereas the Constitution is all about protecteing the States from the Federal government imposing its will on the them.
First, it is not at all clear that the 16th Amendment did not in fact grant Congress the right to impose an income tax regardless of what the original Courts decided. The language is sufficiently vague that one could easily construe it to mean just that. However, if it is in fact discovered to not have been ratified, that is an entirely different story. Second, treaties have been used in other circumstances to do an end run around the Constitution. A perfect example are the drug laws. Did you ever wonder where the Federal government got the authority to impose restrictions on drugs to the States? From what I understand, the answer is that a series of treaties were used by Nixon and the Senate to create the drug laws we have now and impose them on the States.
#99 Thomas
Don’t forget Bush’s theft of your rights. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 suspended habeas corpus or the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007 which eliminates the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act and re-wrote the Insurrection Act.
Regarding your example of the 14th amendment.
Statutory taxable “privileges” “Invisible contract” with federal government to “buy” (bribe into existence) these statutory privileges through taxes. See 1748H48 U.S.C. §1421b: Bill of Rights. “The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.” Jones v. Temmer 829 F.Supp. 1226
Consider this:
FDR changed the meaning of The Trading with the Enemy Act of December 6, 1917 by changing the word “without” to citizens “within” the United States. “U.S. citizens” were declared enemies of the U.S. by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified by Congress on March 9, 1933.
“U.S. citizen” (Chattel Property of the government) are belligerents in the field and are “subject to its jurisdiction” (Washington, D.C.) Restricted by the Constitution to the 10 mile square area called Washington D.C., U.S. possessions, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and its enclaves for forts and arsenals. Through “word art” you are subject to the jurisdiction of the National Government. (Zip codes denote federal zones) (Two letter, capital, abbreviation for STATES denote a federal zone)
http://tinyurl.com/32x7ba
“National of the United States of America”
Unless rights are given up voluntarily, intentionally and knowingly “nationals” is “sovereign”, “Freemen”, and “Freeborn”.
http://tinyurl.com/2nhjfl
Let me spell it out for you. Because you have chosen to be a U.S. Citizen with a SSN, you fall within the jurisdiction of Washington, D.C., you are legally required to pay taxes.
You people are so concerned about illegals that you are not paying attention to the problem of LEGAL immigration.
Under current immigration laws the easiest way of getting in legally is if you have an immediate relative here.
That means, only people from countries where people have immigrated from recently have much chance of getting an immigrant visa.
So, one guy from China or India gets in, and then applies for his wife, his mother and father, his 4 children, his brothers and sisters. His brothers and sisters, then apply to bring their whole families in and so on down the line. I’ve heard of one single person applying for 64 other people.
One million immigrants per year. One entire large city’s worth of people flooding into the country every single year. (Anyone noticed how bad traffic is now?)
Meanwhile, somebody from an English-speaking country such as Canada, Britain and Australia — (exactly the kind of people we’d like to encourage to come here) — can’t get a visa to immigrate here because any relatives they may have had immigrated here too long ago.
Make any sense?