Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am sure that is true in all sanctuary cities, whether they call themselves sanctuaries or not. At some point, paperwork, or not, they kind of are "citizens" of at least the community that provides incentives for them to be there. Whether that is work or benefits.
If a local community wanted to have community ballots that dealt with leadership and issues of their community or region and they wanted to include those that lived and worked there as non- US citizens, more power to them.
What they don't get to do is vote in a national election.
Those that depend on the illegal vote to shore up their districts never admit that the voters are illegal, so a two tiered system would not work.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/hispanic-ca...g-shortly-after-the-election/?singlepage=trueWASHINGTON — It’s been more than a month since Attorney General Eric Holder announced his resignation, vowing to stay in office until his successor is confirmed.
That nominee hasn’t been named. But days before critical midterm elections for the president’s party, a lobbying bloc in Congress has made clear its pick for the job.
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has had President Obama’s ear to an extent, meeting every few months with the commander in chief behind closed doors to strategize on immigration reform. The caucus has ”long advocated for the use of executive action to bring immigrants out of the shadows,” as noted by Chairman Rubén Hinojosa (D-Texas) in a June statement.
This week, Hinojosa announced that the caucus “proudly endorses Secretary Tom Perez to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States.”
Why should non legals get to vote locally? Can you fly to Europe and vote in their elections?
Considering that is Pajamas Media, probably not.
I am not saying they should. Each state, or down to the smallest unit like a county or city or hamlet can choose to admit anyone that they want and to define the residency of any of those people.
If the people that live there want to let visitors vote themselves some benefits from their local treasury, they can.
They cannot vote to tax actual US citizens in another State.
As far as Immigration, Arizona has the right to close the border. Minnesota has the right to hire buses and transport non citizens across Arizona if they are enroute to Minnesota.
It hasn't been like that in a long while, but at one time each Soverign State decided who to admit, and who to let vote.
Take for example Chicago. TONS of illegals. They work for cash. Pay zero income tax or property tax. Yet it makes sense to let them vote in Chicago to perhaps increase benefits to illegals?
Doesn't work for me.
Can't speak for Chicago (thank you Jesus)...
...but where I live - perhaps as old-school-American-conservative as there is - those who administer government education, housing and social services are prohibited from inquiring if applicants legally reside in the USA - or not.
How's that work for you?
The moron above ^^^^ has finally made my ignore list.
One can only tolerate so many idiots in ones life and danny was just one too many.
Ishmael
Take for example Chicago. TONS of illegals. They work for cash. Pay zero income tax or property tax. Yet it makes sense to let them vote in Chicago to perhaps increase benefits to illegals?
Doesn't work for me.
Take for example Chicago. TONS of illegals. They work for cash. Pay zero income tax or property tax. Yet it makes sense to let them vote in Chicago to perhaps increase benefits to illegals?
Doesn't work for me.
Take for example Chicago. TONS of illegals. They work for cash. Pay zero income tax or property tax.
They pay property tax if they rent, just like any other renter, or if they own, just like any other owner; and they pay sales tax whenever they buy things; and, how do you really know they pay no income tax?
Because people that hire illegal aliens do so, in part, because even at par wages they save 15% by not paying FICA. You cannot withhold for income taxes and just skip the FICA part. Working for cash also means that the employer is willing to forgo deducting that expense, so he needs a wage low enough to make that worth it.
So in a small way the illegal wages do increase the employers taxable income.
When you work for cash you pay no income taxes.
AND ... the building owner pays the RE taxes not the tenant. Sort of like saying I pay Walgreens RE taxes when I buy make up there. I dont. How do I know? I dont get the tax deduction.
When you work for cash you pay no income taxes.
Kiddo, the rent includes the property taxes. No rental property owner is gong to eat the taxes.
Ishmael