If The Feds Won't Enforce Immigration Laws, Ohio Will
They've revoked the vehicle registration of anyone who can't prove they are a legal U.S. resident, writes Randy Ludlow in the Columbus Dispatch:
Beginning early Wednesday, it will be illegal for thousands of immigrants to drive Ohio's roads. The BMV is canceling their vehicle registrations for failing to prove they are legal U.S. residents.Police can stop those driving with revoked registrations and issue tickets and seize license plates. Drivers who cannot provide adequate identification risk going to jail, with undocumented immigrants potentially facing deportation.
Browning ruled that there was no evidence of "unjustifiable harm" to immigrants and that BMV had a compelling public-safety interest in canceling the questioned registrations.
The state is properly enforcing registration laws and the agency is not demanding anything different from Latinos than is demanded from all Ohioans who register vehicles, Browning found.
...Investigators' findings suggest that thousands of vehicles may have been registered fraudulently through so-called "runners" -- legal U.S. residents who collected fees from undocumented immigrants to register vehicles on their behalf.
BMV changes to weed out fraudulent registrations began on Aug. 24. The reforms were delayed for more than a year after former Public Safety Director Henry Guzman met with Latino business owners and then asked for improvements to the policy.
"Improvements" in the policy, such as looking the other way like the Feds do? If you're a U.S. citizen, it's a little disturbing if you're on the side of lawbreaking...lawbreaking which costs Californians an estimated $10.5 billion yearly, in health care, schooling, and incarceration costs for illegal immigrants.
Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald testified before Congress:
--A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations. It commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.-- The L.A. County Sheriff reported in 2000 that 23% of inmates in county jails were deportable, according to the New York Times.
--The leadership of the Columbia Lil' Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around Los Angeles's MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation.
-- In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide in the first half of 2004 (which totaled 1,200 to 1,500) targeted illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) were for illegal aliens.
...The idea that sanctuary laws are "pro-immigrant" is perhaps the greatest myth of all. Keeping illegal criminals in the community subjects all immigrants to the thrall of crime and impedes economic growth in immigrant communities.
Thank you, Ohio! May the rest of the nation follow suit. Both political parties have their own reasons for ignoring the immigration problem, but past they learned that we're not going to stand for it.
Patrick at December 14, 2009 2:45 AM
I struggle in conversations like this to come to a clear decision on where I stand.
My gut feeling, though, says the problem with illegal immigration is that we even have the concept of immigrants. Borders and boundaries and controls and rules and regulations and laws flummox me.
Why is nationalism and territorial pride a good thing? Why should it matter who's living in what part of the world? What harm is caused by letting people freely migrate as they choose?
Surely the problem of immigration isn't that these people are crossing borders; the problem is that they aren't being fully intergrated. It seems to me that there should be a requirement for full integration into a society that someone wants to be part of and the answer to immigration problems lies in finding ways of improving that integration.
Sure, problems are caused by people moving and not integrating themselves - I'm not saying the solution is purely on the heads of the country immigrants move to; rather, immigrants themselves should have a responsibility to acclimatise themselves to the customs of the country they move to. It's just good manners and simple common sense.
I'm not convinced that the solution lies in making it harder for immigrants to get into the country - but that, perhaps, the solution might be to either make their own country more of a viable option (tricky and arguably not really our responsibility) or to make full integration in our society easier and more beneficial than remaining on the fringes. Benefits for being able to speak the language, for example. Increased minimum wage to encourage more people to work and pay taxes. Things like that would encourage everyone - not just the immigrants, but also the people who currently sit on welfare and benefits and refuse to work out of sheer laziness - to get off their butts, fit into the world around them and start contributing to their own and everyone else's lives.
donald at December 14, 2009 4:54 AM
Because those who "freely migrate" carry their culture with them and attempt to alter their new home to suit their whims.
And then there's simply a numbers problem - too many too quickly, and there's no opportunity to assimilate.
The end result of not assimilating new arrivals is balkanization.
And we've got it in bushel baskets, brother.
brian at December 14, 2009 5:33 AM
This is why I say the problem isn't in the immigration itself, but rather in the integration that happens thereafter.
And integration doesn't lie 100% on the shoulders of the immigrants - it needs to be encouraged, aided and supported by the country the immigrants have moved to.
I think a large part of this problem lies in the same area as the gay-marriage debate from earlier.
People seem determined to think that 'different' people shouldn't be allowed the opportunities or rights or whatever that they themselves have got. What effort is made on the part of Americans generally to encourage integration? So far as I know, very little. It's mostly all about muttering into your coffee and occasionally attending white-power rallies.
As you say, brian: "The end result of not assimilating new arrivals is balkanization."
The key to that sentence is you have said "not assimilating new arrivals", rather than "new arrivals not assimilating". I think too few people have that attitude.
donald at December 14, 2009 5:50 AM
"Because those who "freely migrate" carry their culture with them and attempt to alter their new home to suit their whims."
Hell, we can see this problem in spades with all the Californians migrating away from their state's stagnant left-liberal economy. These people invariably start voting in their new red state homes to reproduce the exact same conditions -- the smothering economic restrictions, Orwellian political correctness, unionism, and lawyerism -- that crushed California's viability as a place to live.
Maybe we should make it a condition of residency that all Texans should have to obtain and keep current a concealed-carry license. That would be enough to scare away the flakiest of the Left Coasters, and assimilate the rest. :-)
craig at December 14, 2009 7:33 AM
brian writes: Because those who "freely migrate" carry their culture with them and attempt to alter their new home to suit their whims.
Not only that, but the problem lies also in that people who don't belong in this country take jobs that should rightfully go to American citizens. Since they are not here legally, they aren't bound by such niceties as minimum wage and all that happy nonsense.
Patrick at December 14, 2009 8:33 AM
Why is nationalism and territorial pride a good thing? Why should it matter who's living in what part of the world?
Because it's a large part of what makes a country's character, which in turn is what makes living there pleasant for its residents. Furthermore, pride in town, city, country is part of what makes people take responsibility for where they live, to ensure it functions well, to beautify it, to be considerate of and care about their neighbors etc. Why should our way and quality of life have to change to suit people who sneak in here and care nothing for the country? I see nothing wrong in caring for our own before others, and that means we put countrymen before outsiders.
kishke at December 14, 2009 9:12 AM
Donald writes: "What effort is made on the part of Americans generally to encourage integration? So far as I know, very little. It's mostly all about muttering into your coffee and occasionally attending white-power rallies."
You've got to be kidding, right? America is by far the most welcoming nation in the world for immigrants. We more or less invented the concept of the melting pot. No, there aren't a lot of assimilation government programs -- we don't do it that way. It's a societal function. Admittedly, it's not perfect. But over the centuries, America has assimilated immigrants from an incredible variety of countries, many of whom were regarded as disreputable by most of the rest of the world at the time: Irish, Italians, Poles, Jews, Chinese, Vietnamese.
Actually, government not only isn't the solution, it's currently part of the problem: a wide variety of laws, regulations, and government programs discourage assimilation. From dual-language instruction in schools, to multi-language street signs, to courts requiring that police officers be able to cite Miranda rights in 10 different languages, government goes out of the way to make it easy for immigrants to not assimilate. Fix that, and you've got a pretty good way towards fixing the problem.
There's another aspect of it which you didn't touch on: security. There is a reason countries have borders that has nothing to do with keeping out "unwanted" cultures. It has everything to do with keeping out saboteurs and terrorists. Not everybody in the world is happy about the fact that a place like America exists. Some of these people would like very much for America to disappear, and one way they will try to make that happen is to create chaos and demoralize the citizenry with violence. These people need to be kept out, at any cost.
Cousin Dave at December 14, 2009 9:24 AM
As a foreigner living in the US, I have to say that all of these immigration checks being added to different parts of US law are a complete pain in the butt. My wife had a lot of trouble getting a drivers license because of the crazy ID requirements (she needed SIX peices of ID to get a drivers license).
Worse yet, this anti illegal immigration histeria has caused us to have other nicities, like last year's stimulus credit, however ill advised it was as a policy issue, excluded my family just because my wife doesn't have an SSN. She's here legally on H-4 status, but she's not eligable to work, so she can't get an SSN. No stimulus credit for our family; we in effect paid $1500 more tax than a US citizen family would in 2008. Thanks, congress.
As a policy issue, I don't particularly mind checking that people are here legally. As a practical issue, it is actually very difficult to look at someones documents and determine if they're here legitimately. There simply is not a "I'm here legally" card. People can be in the US with seemingly expired documents; and in one case they might be here legally because of a filed (but unprocessed and unreceipted) application, and in another they're here illegally. How can the BMV/DMV/RMV or whatnot deal with this?
Until it is dealt with, these sorts of attempts at state immigration checks will end up being uneven, unfair and difficult to deal with.
I
Gavin Peters at December 14, 2009 9:24 AM
The problem with the laws it that they assume hispanics are guilty. You will be locked up until you prove you are a legal citizen - trying doing that from jail.
I do not have a copy of my birth certificate or Social Security card. How could I prove my citizenship? Of course, since I am not hispanic, I do not have to fear jail.
Curtis at December 14, 2009 11:03 AM
Curtis,
Indeed. I don't carry around all the documents I'm required to at all times to prove I'm here legally; they're fragile, important, and difficult to replace if lost. Instead, I just carry a state driver's license for my state, and don't invite immigration queries from cops etc... by not volunteering that I'm a foreigner.
But of course someone who looked more obviously foreign would be in more trouble. Sucks.
Gavin Peters at December 14, 2009 11:08 AM
Why is nationalism and territorial pride a good thing? Why should it matter who's living in what part of the world? What harm is caused by letting people freely migrate as they choose?
It isn't an issue until the citizens of one country are forced to pay for the welfare of another country without an equal level financial benefit.
-Julie
JulieW at December 14, 2009 11:27 AM
I'm confused that there is confusion about what citizenship means, what national boundries and so forth mean. Living in a place where you accept and intend to uphold the laws of that place, and intend to live there and be a part of that place. Paying taxes and beind part of the government by voting ar big things.
The flip side of the coin is that you have to abide by the rules of living in that place, especially if you were born somewhere else. If a place is better economically than the place you are from, you can believe that they will need to be selective on who they allow in to participate in their place.
Kinda like a house party where you invite guest is cool, but when people you don't know show up... how many can you take before the party isn't fun anymore. Let's say some of them get kinda rowdy, and you ask them to leave. Let's say they come back with guns. This actually happens a lot. It's a perfect analogy because it shows EXACTLY why you want to be choosy who comes in to your place.
the only way to not have countries and yet still have a functioning goverment would be to have a single world government. That way worldwide everyone had to pay taxes and follow the same set of laws and so forth. To BELONG to a place called the world. Downsides include lack of understanding of other societies and generic dilution of individual society. Corruption in a government that big is a given, and relative stagnation in living conditions is guaranteed...
So, the question is, do you want to come home someday to find a stranger with no connection or interest in you, rumaging in your fridge? This is what having no country boarders is. It's a simple hierarchy. Home, Town, County [Canton, Prefecture] State[etc.] Country. Each a step away in understanding what the individual or family needs to make life work. Each responsible to the next. Pretty fundamental civics, I thought.
SwissArmyD at December 14, 2009 11:27 AM
Los Angeles floats on top of a huge pool of cheap labor. Nannies, housecleaners, janitors, auto repair, factory hands etc. Almost every non fast-food restaurant in the city would close w/o illegal labor.
Amy Alkon's lifestyle would collapse! Imagine her dining at Burger King, holding forth to her entranced fellow cafe society'ers! "Number 92, Pick up your order!" would blare out, as Alkon tries to convince a beefy tow truck driver to shut up already on his damn cell phone.
And then, after the Burger King episode ended poorly, Alkon would have to set to cleaning her toilet and stove when she got home. Does Mop'n'Glo go into the john?
American industry wants the cheap labor, and so does Alkon.
But the border will never close--the plutocrats want open borders and cheap labor.
So much for national security. Anybody can just walk across the border, and buy any weaponery they want.
Mr BS in the Sky at December 14, 2009 1:54 PM
Wow. Reading these comments, I guess the idea of nationalism is out the window. I am very attached to my country, which makes it very difficult to live in France, but, ironically, I am more attached to France than most French people, who consider themselves citizens of the world. La dee dah.
Community means a lot. People mean a lot. Fuck the abstractions.
There is a grand debate in France about National Identity, and all the français de souche are so marginalized that they keep their mouths shut!!! Because you can actually be brought up on charges for saying the things that I am saying now. The splendid irony is is that you can trip up a leftist retard concerning indigenous people with the simple observation that, "the celts are the indigenous people here, not the africans, not the orientals, not the arabs". Can you believe that affirmative action is starting in France, who has had no history of slavery on the mainland????? GAH!
Me growing up with the Indians and Eskimos of Alaska, I respect the indigenous people, and am sick of the third world attack that the people of Europe are suffering. It is grim and getting grimmer.
liz at December 14, 2009 2:39 PM
"Worse yet, this anti illegal immigration histeria has caused us to have other nicities, like last year's stimulus credit, however ill advised it was as a policy issue, excluded my family just because my wife doesn't have an SSN."
Am I mistaken here, or did you just complain because a non-citizen didn't get a piece of the American taxpayer?!
Radwaste at December 14, 2009 3:31 PM
Rad I think his point was that because his wife is not yet a citizen and leagally barred from work that he as an american taxpayer lost his share
lujlp at December 14, 2009 3:55 PM
dunno lujlp, I read it too as that he isn't a citizen, talking about all the papers he needs to have. Even if he's an H1A should he get the supposed stimulas? Perhaps he will come back and enlighten us.
SwissArmyD at December 14, 2009 4:16 PM
I'm at the point that it would be prudent to create a "gray" card. They are issued at the point that the illegal is caught. They have a choice -- immediate deportation with no hearing; or a process to get legal. They are finger & retina printed. They have to prove legal income every 60 days. Drug tests as well. If they are caught again w/o complying, instant deportation.
After five years they are granted a stringent green card. That is when they can get in line to being a citizen.
Jim P. at December 14, 2009 5:38 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/14/if_the_feds_won.html#comment-1682434">comment from Mr BS in the SkyUm, I cleaned my toilet and stove yesterday. Can't you find some other way to avoid feeling small? People have been begging me to ban you. I'd rather not, but it's becoming increasingly tempting. Your comments never add anything -- they're merely about you and how you feel about you, disguised as attacks on other people or the counterpoint of whatever seems to make sense. I'm tired of it.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2009 6:10 PM
What effort is made on the part of Americans generally to encourage integration? So far as I know, very little. It's mostly all about muttering into your coffee and occasionally attending white-power rallies.
I would just as cheerfully deport any white illegal immigrant as I would an illegal immigrant of any other race. Who says anybody should be allowed to break into our country just because they're white?
Now, excuse me while I go get my white hood and robe from the cleaners. /s
mpetrie98 at December 14, 2009 6:47 PM
As obnoxious as Mr. BS Butthole is, his statement that "Los Angeles floats on top of a huge pool of cheap labor" is, too tragically, true. Also true for a lot of other places.
Instead of turning the words that followed into yet another ad hominem attack, he should have stated the reason his first statement was true: Democrats like illegals for the votes, Republicans for the cheap labor. Both parties are complicit in creating the situation we're in, and honestly, they're just pleased as punch about it. No one in power on the national level has any intention of changing this status quo.
It's gotten to the point that I'm frankly stunned when anyone, like the DMV or the judge in Ohio, even tries any more to restore any sanity to his corner of the country. Reason is, anyone who tries is usually branded a racist or worse by the race hustlers out there, and, goodness knows everyone is super-sensitive about being called those kind of names.
So we just continue to let everyone stream across the border -- decent people, men, women, children, criminals, terrorists -- we don't really know who. I'd be in favor of some process like Jim P. suggests. But, sadly, that is a complete pipe dream at this point.
cpabroker at December 14, 2009 6:57 PM
Um, I cleaned my toilet and stove yesterday...
I say, just relax, point, and laugh at this idiot, Amy, whatever his name of the moment is.
mpetrie98 at December 14, 2009 7:00 PM
"What harm is caused by letting people freely migrate as they choose?"
Tell you what, hold a 2 week long open-house, and see if the people who wander in help keep the place clean and get to know you, or if they trash it, steal what they can, and leave. THEN you'll know why nations and borders. Plus, you lose local flavor. Why travel if every place becomes just like every other place?
"but she's not eligable to work, so she can't get an SSN. No stimulus credit for our family"
GEE, she's not working, or paying taxes, but wants OUR tax money anyway? Thanks for justifying keeping more immigrants out.
Amy, maybe instead of banning him, you could make his posts pop up in bright red, or something, so we're all warned not to bother reading, even so much as the 5 words it takes to realize it's him and move on?
momof4 at December 14, 2009 7:03 PM
Democrats like illegals for the votes, Republicans for the cheap labor.
And as long as we continue to have enablers like Jorge W. Bush, John McCain, and Miss Lindsey Grahamnesty in the GOP, things certainly won't change.
mpetrie98 at December 14, 2009 7:04 PM
I believe Gavin Peters's point was that he does pay taxes here, but is not eligible for the stimulus b/c his wife is not a citizen. He's arguing that his taxes should be no higher than those of Americans.
kishke at December 14, 2009 7:22 PM
I don't want to advocate for illegals, but to force them out of the gray and into the taxed market is to our advantage.
It also forces employers to be legal. So the slaughter house has illegals. They have no choice but to give the illegal job, or cut them. The illegal has to go back to the originating country, or find a legal job.
Jim P. at December 14, 2009 8:16 PM
"I'm at the point that it would be prudent to create a "gray" card."
Hey, look - another law!
That'll work!
And we could have a "peach" card for when the "gray" one is lost...
How do people get these ideas, anyway?
Don't be stupid. The operative syllable in the term, "law enforcement" is force. This is because the criminal element will not do things on their own.
Fact. get used to it.
Radwaste at December 15, 2009 2:07 AM
Jim writes: "I don't want to advocate for illegals, but to force them out of the gray and into the taxed market is to our advantage."
The better way to do that, right now, would be a drastic lowering of the minimum wage. The current U.S. minimum wage is about twice as high as the open-market value for unskilled labor. (Hence the reason that all future minimum wage increases should be named "The Illegal Aliens Full Employment Act".)
Cousin Dave at December 15, 2009 6:51 AM
from Mr. BS: And then, after the Burger King episode ended poorly, Alkon would have to set to cleaning her toilet and stove when she got home. Does Mop'n'Glo go into the john?
this is the usual argument against enforcing immigration laws and deport illegals. "Who will clean your house, who will mow your lawn, who will raise your children?" The same people who have done so all along, at least in our household...US!!!
still here at December 15, 2009 6:58 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/14/if_the_feds_won.html#comment-1682553">comment from still hereI favor bleach and Comet - more economical than Mop 'N Glo. And Murphy's Oil Soap, but the generic version, on the wood floors. I also like those dustrags made out of plastic milk bottles or something -- grab the dust right up. -Amy Do-Rag
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2009 7:05 AM
@Radwaste, lujlp, SwissArmyD & kishke,
My complaint is exactly as lujlp & kishke said, I am upset that my family (there's four of us, we all live in the US, two of us aren't American, me and my wife) didn't get the stimulus, which was formally a refundable tax credit. So, last year, I paid more tax than an American family would have, or even than we would have if we were a dual income family.
Radwaste, I'm sorry if it sounds whiney, but I work hard, I pay taxes, lots of taxes, and I guess I suggest that the amount I owe should be determined in the same way as it is for an American in the same situation.
The problem at its core there was that this stimulus credit was only available to filers in which everyone had a social security number. I have one, since I'm in the US on H-1b status, so I work and need an SSN (incidentally, I can collect SS when I retire anywhere in the world, in part due to a treaty between my country and the US). My children each have SSNs, since they are American. I got my SSN when I first lived in the US in the 90s. I had one for years when I lived abroad, and after I re-entered a few years ago on a new H-1b, I just continued using my (lawfully obtained) SSN.
My wife doesn't have an SSN. She's in the US on H-4 status, the "wife of a guy on H-1b." If she had EVER had a job in the US, say, if she'd worked for a year when we moved here, she would have had one since she'd have to have gotten a work permit and then she'd get an SSN. But she never has, and so we couldn't.
Interestingly, lots of illegal aliens have SSNs. Someone who was in the US legally to work (say an H-1a, or H-1b worker) might overstay their visa, become illegal, and keep their SSN. Those families would get their stimulus credits in 2008.
So, the US congress didn't want a headline to read "illegal aliens cash stimulus cheques" so they put this SSN requirement in (my wife files income tax using her ITIN, basically an SSN that starts with 9, issued by the IRS not the SSA, and not usable for work).
But lots of illegal aliens have SSNs, they can file and get the stimulus. And lots of families, like mine, are here totally legally, paying into the system, and got differential treatment because of this phobia. It's irritating, and I think that politicians pass these laws out of a desire to be seen fighting "illegal immigration." But there's no way on an income tax form to actually check if someone's in legally, so they passed something that doesn't really work, and is itself ultimately (I submit) unjust.
Gavin Peters at December 15, 2009 11:15 AM
But lots of illegal aliens have SSNs
In my observation it is more accurate to say "...lots of illegals have used identity theft to obtain SSNs that do not belong to them"
A solution to this problem would be to link the IRS/INS/SSA so that people here illegally would be much more easily identified.
-Julie
JulieW at December 15, 2009 11:32 AM
Julie,
No, lots of illegal aliens have lawfully obtained proper SSNs which are assigned to them.
That was my point.
However, it's also true that far more illegal aliens use SSNs improperly, sure.
- Gavin
Gavin Peters at December 15, 2009 11:38 AM
Dunno Gavin, conflating immigration law and taxlaw is dubious. You want unfair taxation? Get divorced. Then you get to watch the barely employed ex get all sorts of credits, refunds and such, while you pay as if you are single even though you are supporting 3 dependants. But that is just taxation. Are the tax laws totally fair where you come from? Doesn't have much to do with immigration or who can be allowed.
AND? The stimulus isn't free money. It is taxpayer money. Why should your wife who doesn't pay tax, get any? JUST BECAUSE there are people who shouldn't get any that are, doesn't mean the law is unfair to you or her.
SwissArmyD at December 15, 2009 11:57 AM
SwissArmyD, I guess my feeling is that the congress made the conflation, not me.
Note that joint filers with only one worker qualified.
Gavin Peters at December 15, 2009 12:39 PM
And also note: not only did my wife not get any, but I didn't, and nor did my dependants. If I'd been divorced filing separately, I'd have gotten it, and so would have my sons had I made them my dependants.
And all this because the congress wanted to check peoples immigration status at the IRS, where it's basically not possible to do so.
Gavin Peters at December 15, 2009 12:40 PM
And, err, a third followup: if my wife had gone to college in the US, worked on campus, then left the country and returned with me, of course we'd have gotten the credit.
I guess I have great trouble understanding the policy rational here other than as a poorly-thought out way to stop the headline "Illegal Alien Cashes Stimulus Cheque."
Gavin Peters at December 15, 2009 12:44 PM
I guess I have great trouble understanding the policy rational here other than as a poorly-thought out way to stop the headline "Illegal Alien Cashes Stimulus Cheque."
And the motivation may have been as simple as that. The US government is hell bent on ensuring that all permanent residents of the US (including minor children) have an SSN. Considering that most illegal aliens wouldn't have an SSN that may have been regarded as the litmus test even if it was an imperfect one.
The goal also might have been as simple as attempting to ensure that the stimulus money was spent in the US rather than sent outside the country. I'm just spit balling, but that would be another reason to attempt to exclude non-citizen residents.
-Julie
JulieW at December 15, 2009 1:38 PM
JulieW,
I think you're right. But I think a better solution is as you and others suggested, to make it relatively easy to figure out who's here legally and who isn't. Unless that's solved, any attempts to filter based on immigration status, either the real example I gave, or this Ohio measure Amy posted of (with which I'm not familiar at all) are going to have these kinds of minor injustices.
Another funny case that would have had us covered: if my wife's family had moved to the US when she was 1 week old on green cards; applied for her SSN, then shortly after, changed their mind about immigrating and left the country, then of course we'd have qualified for this credit.
Gavin Peters at December 15, 2009 1:51 PM
Hey Gavin, guess what? I didn't get any of the handouts either because the government considers me "rich". In any event, nobody should be getting handouts, specially people here on temporary work visas when so many American citizens are unemployed. Please go home and let an American take your job, they will not complain. The H1B program is just a sellout to lower American wages with cheap foreign labor, especially in IT
ron at December 15, 2009 3:46 PM
as a curiosity Gavin? Why should a non-citizen get a stim check? Not do they, or any of the other outliers. In addition if I went to your country would I qualify for such handouts? I realize that an ex-pat's tax issues are a problem in any country, but I'm speaking in theory.
SwissArmyD at December 15, 2009 4:14 PM
@ron,
You raise a good point. I am sorry to hear you didn't get the credit, though I envy your higher income! I'm paid well for my industry, but I'm just a lowly hacker in a single income family, so we weren't near the income cutoff. I agree with you that the stimulus credit was a bad policy decision, and I'd probably agree with you on many problems you mention about the H-1b program too (lots of which make life for people on H-1b status annoying). But all that aside, I'm just asking that my income tax filing be treated the same as the next guy's. The stimulus credit was an amendment to the income tax code, after all.
@SwissArmyD, I'm happy to say that my country's (Canada's) tax system would treat you quite fairly; although you might be taxed at higher rates than you are in the US. I'm not expert in it, but I know of no reason you'd pay more tax. Child tax credits, etc... in Canada turn on residency, so if you lived there with your family I think you'd be treated the same as any other Canadian resident. I'm not sure though; but I've known lots of expats in Canada over the years and never heard any complaints either.
You'd also get the best part about being a foreigner ever: no jury duty! Every time I mail back a US jury duty notice "sorry not a citizen" I kind of giggle at the scam I'm pulling. :)
Gavin Peters at December 15, 2009 5:38 PM
@SwissArmyD,
Also, to answer your other question: I don't think taxing lawfully present foreigners at a different rate than your citizens or locals is fundamentally unjust, but it is a weird decision.
Take Ron above, he complains that H1-b workers undercut american wages; there's maybe two reasons for that. One is that H-1b workers live in fear of layoffs. If an H-1b worker loses their job, it's time to leave the country. Of course, the poorer and the less pleasant that country you're from, and the more seriously you take this threat. That tends to depress wages; H-1b people work as a kind of quasi indentured servant of their employer.
The second issue is that maybe too many H-1b workers are being allowed in; hard to say what the right number is, of course Ricardo's law of comparative advantage suggests there's no amount that's too many. But that's small comfort to any rent-seekers.
So I guess to avoid these kinds of problems, I'd say best policy is to avoid treating foreigners worse or better than locals except on tightly bound, relevant issues (voting, jury service, holding office, being a cop...), because the first type of problem I talk about arises only because H-1bers can't change jobs as easily as locals; their inferior status depresses their wages which causes the supposed harm to locals looking for work.
Gavin Peters at December 15, 2009 5:58 PM
If an H-1b worker loses their job, it's time to leave the country. Of course, the poorer and the less pleasant that country you're from, and the more seriously you take this threat. That tends to depress wages; H-1b people work as a kind of quasi indentured servant of their employer.
This is why I've always thought of h-1b workers as better paid illegal aliens. In many ways they are treated the same by employers, and the prolific nature of them allows IT employers to treat all IT staff like chattel. However, better and more informed minds than mine continue to debate this topic. I just know that as things currently work, people on work visas aren't generally treated very well. My advice to all people I've encountered who are on work visas is to decide if you want to make America your permanent home. If so, start the process to get a green card, and hopefully citizenship. Otherwise you will always be first on the layoff list and subversively threatened with being 'sent back home'. It isn't right, but there isn't likely to be a movement to treat h-1b workers better anytime soon, especially when everyone knows a former IT person who is managing a Mickey-ds because they got laid off.
As far as the tax code, our taxation is very regressive and is used as a promotional tool to influence the decisions of families without becoming fascist. There are many imperfections in the code that leave many citizens feeling just what you are feeling now, that the code is random and unfair. I wish that I had good news for you...but we all feel fucked over by the IRS.
-Julie
JulieW at December 16, 2009 10:13 AM
Leave a comment