And Republican controlled states are doing their best to make it harder for poor citizens to vote, since they vote Democratic.
I think you’re mistaken, at least in Presidential elections.
Hispanic vote:
1976 - Carter (82%)
1980 - Carter (56%)
1984 - Mondale (66%)
1988 - Dukakis (70%)
1992 - Clinton (61%)
1996 - Clinton (72%)
2000 - Gore (65%)
2004 - Kerry (55%)
2008 - Obama (67%)
Seconded. I’ve worked in the immigration arena in various capacities for 20+ years, and I’ve seen thousands upon thousands of W-2 forms showing wage deductions for FICA, etc. for people with no legal immigration status. Even if they would otherwise be eligible for tax refunds based on income, they can’t get a refund with no SS#. And they can’t get a SS# without documenting U.S. work authorization.
Eva Luna, U.S. Immigration Paralegal
What, to you, would following the principles and precepts of democracy itself, not just the perceived advantage of a particular party, entail?
So just curious, in these “thousands upon thousands” of W-2s from illegals
what does it say in box (a)?
Come on. There is plenty of “taxation without representation” in the U.S. and everywhere else. Tourists pay them too. I am very much anti illegal-immigration but I don’t think illegal immigrants are terrible people. I would be one of the first ones swimming the Rio Grande if I was a poor person in Mexico but it still doesn’t make it right. We shouldn’t just grant rights to illegal aliens ad-hoc and piecemeal. It sends the wrong message and doesn’t address the underlying issues. Illegal immigration is a root cause of many problems in this country with lots of different groups that are culpable including some businesses and politicians. There is nothing good about it compared to setting a reasonable policy in the first place and sticking to it.
Right now, illegal immigrants face some degree of risks by doing what they do. We shouldn’t suddenly start mass imprisoning and deporting them as a whole but we shouldn’t do anything further to encourage the behavior either. The whole idea needs to rebuilt and rethought from scratch and this time everyone really has to play by the clearly defined rules.
I think the clue is in the word illegal.
So do you care if non citizen legal immigrants vote?
So do you think cities shouldn’t decide that for themselves?
I don’t believe that people should violate voting laws.
However I do believe that voting laws should be changed to let all people who are legal residents vote. I believe the distinction between “citizen” and “(non-citizen) legal resident” is largely an obsolete one.
I also believe that pretty much anyone who wants to should be able to become legal residents should, with fairly narrow exceptions, be able ti do it easily and quickly.
Summing up, while I don’t believe that it’s okay for illegal aliens to vote, I do believe that the laws should be changed so that many if not most of the people who are currently classified as illegal aliens be granted a change in status that would allow them to vote legally.
So I assume the following two conditions are considered bad:
- Someone who is not a citizen casts a vote.
- Someone who is a citizen is prevented from casting a vote.
In practice, putting in barriers in an effort to stop (1) leads to a higher incidence of (2), known as a “false positive”. Personally, I find (2) to be far worse than (1), and I’d even tolerate a lot of (1) to keep the rate of (2) to a minimum. After all, (1) isn’t that bad - if the illegal cares enough to cast a vote (and risk exposure in doing so), they’re probably working toward citizenship anyway, as well as probably already employed and paying (at the very least) sales taxes and whatnot - while I’d hate personally to get caught on the wrong side of (2).
Do people who make a big deal about (1) ever mention (2) ?
No, that isn’t an issue for me at the city or state level. They shouldn’t get that right everywhere automatically just because we feel sorry for them either. There should be special rights and privileges given to actual citizens otherwise what is the point of citizenship and the people that go through the real process until the end?
As far as legal non-citizens voting… unless this is a special odd case, what are the odds there are enough resident alients to make a difference? Exceptions might be the diplomatic quarter in DC, some prominent universities that appeal to a large number of foreign students, a silicon-valley area with a number of Visa students - or an ethnic neighbourhood full of recent immigrants. If someone has a long term vested interest in their new home, but have not yet met the requirements for citizenship, but plan to soon, what’s wrong with them voting if the state or city chooses so?
(IIRC, Canada in its colonial patronizing way, used to allow “Canadian citizens and British citizens” to vote in elections.)
As for illegals - some are migrants, some are long term residents more permanent than the citizens around them. However, IMHO they are there because the country lets them be; because of employers who contribute to politicians campaigns and who need this cheap labour. If you banned hiring illegals and actually fined the employer, they’d be gone tomorrow. To fine the employer, they would need a system to validate employee status. I see no incentive, with all the invective on both sides, to create such a process. Everyone wants to make noises, nobody wants to solve the problem.
(My other suggestion would be to create a series of migrant worker visas; you can come in and work, but only for, say, 6 months a year. You must provide proof you went home. If you are caught illegal, you will never be allowed in again. After 10 years of honest migrant work, you can apply to become a legal immigrant on a fast track.)
In Canada, there was a problem mostly attributed to Atlantic province workers - they would register for multiple Social Insurance Numbers so they could work under 1 SIN while collecting Unemployment Insurance under the other(s). About 15 years ago when I worked on HR software, our company’s HR department started getting letters instructing us that “this employee will use this SIN and only this one.” SIN and wages earned were reported monthly to Revenue Canada and the Unemployment Insurance Commission. It has become progressively harder to work with a phony SIN, to use improper SIN (i.e. share with several others) or play any other such games. The incentive at the time was a public dissatisfaction with UI leeches.
If the Americans cared to create a similar system to sort out SSN’s and their improper use they probably could reduce illegal and improper use fairly quickly. They obviously do ont have the political will.
As you sow, … etc.
That varies from state to state. Many cities and counties have nonpartisan elections. Where I live, Tampa city elections are nonpartisan but Hillsborough County elections are partisan. But all state legislatures are partisan.
I imagine it has a) a SS# that doesn’t belong to the employee, or b) a SS# that belongs to the employee (obtained legally while he/she was previously in an employment-authorized status, which happens more often than you might think), but the employee no longer has work authorization.
What’s your point? You don’t need a SS# to file a tax return - you just need an ITIN. But you need a SS# in order to, for example, claim the Earned Income Tax Credit. And you certainly need one to apply for Social Security benefits.
You should have attained citizenship first.
I live in Texas and have had the pleasure of working with illegal aliens. They are excellent workers. I know they were illegal aliens because they told me they bought their ssc from someone who was returning back to the homeland. I had one lad from Mexico working with a last name Gundolfson. He said the guy looked like him.Hey, it could happen. Right? When I became a hiring manager, that crap stopped. After all, it was my butt on the line. On the other hand, if they showed me ‘legal papers’ I had to accept it at face value. HR told me I was not a document expert, they would process the paperwork (i.e., background check), and let me know if everything was ok. Bottom line, these people are not paying tax under their real identity, so they are not being taxed and should get no right of representation.
Your split infinitives make it very difficult, if you know what I mean, to read.
If they are having taxes withheld from their paychecks, how do you figure they aren’t paying taxes? The dude working is the dude whose taxes are being withheld.
A lot of elections at local and state levels are nominally partisan, but the vast majority of candidates to any important office at the local or municipal level has some kind of known affiliation with a major political party. The only real exception I can think of is school board elections and a lot of them have connections with a party, even if it isn’t very well known.
For example, the unicameral Nebraska legislature is nominally nonpartisan, but a huge majority of the candidates running for office have known major party affiliations. The same is true, for example, of Ohio state judges – even though the ballot won’t list a party affiliation, in most races, the major parties endorse candidates.
I have some news for you - the “to you” above isn’t an infinitive.