May 18, 2012 | Immigration, Take Action, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
An atomic bomb like story dropped April 27, when Channel 13 Eyewitness News, an NBC affiliate in Indiana opened with “Millions of illegal immigrants are getting a bigger tax refund than you. Eyewitness News shows a massive tax loophole that provides billions of dollars in tax credits to undocumented workers and, in many cases, people who have never stepped foot in the United States. And you are paying for it!” Bob Segall, narrator of the news segment 13 Investigates, begins with the disclosure of a longtime tax consultant, who produced thousands of tax returns easily documenting his claims, from illegal immigrants.
Everyone employed in the U.S. is required to pay taxes. Because illegal immigrants do not possess a social security number the IRS gives them an individual taxpayer identification number, or ITIN. The tax loophole deals with the Additional Child Tax Credit “meant to help U.S. working families who have children living at home” by giving them a credit of up to $1000 per child. The problem is that illegal immigrants have learned that they too can claim this and are doing so for kids in Mexico who have never lived here—lots of them. The whistle blower showed the television station refunds of $10,300 for nieces and nephews of one filer, yet another $11,000 for his nieces and nephews. “I can bring out stacks and stacks,” the tax consultant said.
Eyewitness News selected one of the cases and found multiple adult illegals even using the same filing address. “One of the workers, who was interviewed at his home in southern Indiana, admitted his address was used this year to file tax returns by four other undocumented workers who don’t even live there. Those four workers claimed 20 children live inside the one residence and, as a result, the IRS sent the illegal immigrants tax refunds totaling $29,608.” The reporters found only one child actually living in the mobile home. When they asked were the others were they were told that they live in Mexico. In fact, they had never lived here. An interview of other illegals revealed that both, filing under false address and listing children who had never been in the U.S., was not uncommon.
The reporters next interviewed Russell George, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Inspector General for Tax Administration and learned that “the IRS has known about the problem for years,” that he himself has repeatedly warned them and still they have done nothing about it. Last year the Inspector General “released a new report showing the problem now costs American tax-payers more than $4.2 billion.” He added, “Millions of people are seeking this tax credit who, we believe, are not entitled to it.” How big is the problem? The Inspector General continued, “undocumented workers filed 3.02 million tax returns in 2010. Seventy-two percent of those returns (2.18 million) claimed the additional child tax credit.” And then he added another bombshell. “In 2010, the IRS owed undocumented workers more in claimed additional child tax credits than it collected from those workers in taxes.” You might want to read that last sentence again.
The reporters were rebuffed at every attempt to interview the IRS. “Despite repeated phone calls, e-mails and a visit to IRS headquarters in Washington, the agency said none of its 100,000 employees had time to meet.” Finally, in an email the IRS did admit that this practice was known to them for over a decade but that they were only following the law “as it is written.”
This explanation did not satisfy the tax consultant either, who said that he repeatedly informed the IRS of other discretions practiced as well, such as the filing of “phony documents and false income to claim tax credits.” They did not care about that either. “These were fraudulent, 100% fraudulent tax returns, but I got no response; absolutely none. We never heard a thing.”
Obviously the IRS does not care and is an accomplice in fraud to the tune of $4.2 billion a year. The next question is does Congress care enough to investigate, and reign in its unruly 1913 creation, or is it corrupt as well? Why not ask your congressman if he will take the lead in this investigation.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 28, 2012 | Immigration
Dr. Harold Pease
Most know that the Dream Act came to us in two phases, the first many years ago, and the second initiated into law just last January. The initial process was to allow illegals to enter U. S. colleges, after high school graduation, even if they had only been in the country a few months, without paying fees required of foreign students or even out of state students. The argument made by out of state students was that illegals had more assistance than they. The argument made by foreign students, who seek to be educated in the United States, is why does one country get free assistance and not another. It is certainly a double standard.
A powerful argument against equal funding of everyone is that it is not equal. The huge education expenses necessary are subsidized by the long-term taxpayer and should benefit his children first. This is why we have extra fees for out of state or foreign students—to make the process fair to our own. New immigrants, whether legal or not, could not contribute enough on a short-term basis to make this fair. Certainly Mexico would not even try to subsidize Americans sneaking into their country.
The second phase of the Dream Act became law in California January I, 2012. It authorized illegals to compete for state grants, fee waivers and university scholarships—about 40 million dollars in public funds—with those of legal residents.
Meet Jennifer (name changed as she fears repercussion from our government for her views), a Canadian student in the college where I work. She shared her story of the multi-levels of hoops that she has had to endure to go to college in the U. S. and still without any subsidized assistance as is readily available to illegals. “Before my mother and I could move here from Canada my mother had to have a secure job awaiting her, along with a visa sponsored by that job. She also had to take several exams and become licensed as a nurse here in California.” She was already a nurse in Canada. This process took about a year. Visas had to be renewed annually at a cost of $50.00 each. After five years of visa renewal we “were eligible to apply for permanent residency at a cost of about $10,000.”
She continued, “During this process you have to go through a lot of paper work and appointments at the local immigration office. We had all of our fingerprints taken, background checks, along with all of our immunizations that we have had throughout our lifetime. We were also tested for various diseases such as TB, HIV, etc. and even had to take a urine test. After all of that was cleared, after a waiting period, we received our social security card and a work authorization card. My mother was already allowed to work in the U. S. with her visa, but since I was her dependent, I was not. So I was not able to work, or obtain my drivers license until I had my social and work authorization documentation.”
After four years of this they still await their green card approval and were told, “it could take up to five more years, if not longer, due to the back log. I was told that only now are they reviewing applications for permanent residency from 2005. So who knows, maybe in a few years we will have our approval. After this, we can apply for citizenship which, in itself, will be another long process.”
She spoke of her difficulty getting into college, even as a 2006 California high school graduate, because she was a legal immigrant. She was told that she could not attend college without a green card (which she could not provide because she was in the application process) or a student visa (which one does not have to renew annually once you apply for the green card)—bureaucratic run-around at its best. Finally, after four years of failed attempts to get into college, she learned of AB 540 which enabled her to attend by paying out of state tuition, although, “I still do not qualify for any assistance such as fasfa, etc. [Federal Student Aid] due to the fact that I am awaiting my green card.” Even so, although otherwise qualified, she still cannot get into the universities nursing program without the green card. “There are no exceptions.”
Contrast her story with those who sneak across our southern border illegally, run from law enforcement, and easily find work in the U.S., without all the testing and preconditions, because employers and government look the other way and reward their children with incentives and now scholarships not available to those who are honest and open in their entry. Her response, “The Dream Act upsets me greatly, I could have been finished with school.”
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Sep 16, 2011 | Constitution, Healthcare, Immigration, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold W. Pease
Concerned that the GOP presidential debates were not focusing upon issues close to the Tea Party Movement, more especially the candidates’ views on the U. S. Constitution, from which we have drifted in recent decades, and the Federal Reserve, a non-governmental private organization which determines the value of every dollar in our pocket, the movement teamed up with CNN for yet another debate, this one in Orlando, Florida on September 12. CNN commentator, Wolf Bitzer, narrated taking questions from the audience, the Internet, and from Tea Party groups assembled in parts scattered throughout the nation. All questions and questionnaires appeared to be pre-selected by CNN except for those of Mr. Bitzer, which were at least a third of those asked.
If these two areas were to be more thoroughly covered Tea Party members had to be sorely disappointed. With respect to the Federal Reserve created by Congress in 1913 allowing the Central Bankers to regulate the economy in order to prevent recessions and depressions in the future, the only question asked was with respect to auditing the Federal Reserve. All seemed at least luke-warm to doing so with Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann having the strongest positions toward doing so. These two alone were for returning the power to Congress as designated by the Constitution, and where it was before giving in to the bankers. Rick Santorum wanted the bankers to remain in control but spoke of returning to “an earlier version” of how it was run. Rick Perry was the most dubious on the subject calling it “treason” if “you are allowing the Federal Reserve to be used for political purposes…” but he was not for eliminating it. Mitt Romney made the strongest case for leaving it with the bankers, as “Congress cannot possibly do it.” It is very unlikely that we will get back to the Constitution on this issue from anyone other than Bachmann or Paul.
There were no specific questions on getting back to the Constitution itself. Bachmann used the word constitution twice as much as did anyone else with Paul second and Perry third. Most made no mention of such a need. Perry, however, had clarity on the 10th Amendment and spoke of it as state’s rights yet, as governor, he had no problem forcing, by executive order, the inoculation of young girls 12 years and older with a vaccine against cervical cancer without any attempt to go through the state legislature for approval. He now admits that it was wrong to do so without legislative authorization. Bachmann denied even state government the right to force such action with or without legislative approval.
All seemed opposed to Obamacare but only Bachmann on clear constitutional grounds. “No state has the constitutional right to force a person, as a condition of citizenship, to buy a product or service against their will. It’s unconstitutional whether it’s the state government (referring to Romneycare in Massachusetts) or whether the federal government. The only way to eradicate Obamacare is to pull it out by the root and branch, to fully repeal it…! Because 2012 is it!!!” She added amid great applause, “This is the election that is going to decide if we have socialized medicine or not!!” Romney and Newt Gingrich would end the “threat” by executive order exempting every state, which itself is a constitutionally questionable solution as executive orders are not to be legislative in nature. Bachmann reminded them that the president after them could again, by executive order, restore the unpopular legislation. Romney’s only reference to something being unconstitutional was with respect to Obamacare but he quickly followed that he “favored a health savings account,” which ironically, on the federal level is just as unconstitutional.
On illegal immigration none of them were convincing that they would end it. Perry, with the most practical real life experience with the issue, seemed willing to “put boots on the ground” as president because Constitutionally it was the federal governments first responsibility to protect its people but he as governor encouraged illegal immigration with tax-payer money to illegals for college expenses. Jon Huntsman gave driving permits to illegals in Utah. Romney and Bachmann opposed any money going to “those who broke the law” but neither stated constitutional reasons. Paul was not given opportunity to respond on this question nor was Herman Cain.
On the basis of the Tea Party Presidential Debate, which was to emphasize constitutional themes in dealing with the realities of our time, Bachmann and Paul were the clear winners with Perry a distant, but dubious third; Bachmann even promising to return the Constitution to the White House as her last comment. I could detect no reason to believe that the other five candidates for president would be any better than George W. Bush in getting us back to this document or even seriously reigning in the Federal Reserve. It is your liberty. Pass this along.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Feb 27, 2011 | Constitution, Immigration
Dr. Harold W. Pease
The renewal of the USA Patriot Act, initiated by President George W. Bush within just six weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, would extend the greatest threat to the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution since World War II. On February 8, 2011, the House of Representatives unsuccessfully sought a further extension of the Act through the end of 2011, failing largely because Tea Party House support was not there. This surprised Republican Party leadership; avid supporters of the Act, but Tea Party Patriots are dedicated to the Constitution first. Without an extension, the Act is set to expire on February 28, 2011.
The Fourth Amendment reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
This was placed in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution because of the tendency of the British government to simply walk the streets arresting anyone who looked the least bit guilty of something, invade their premises, and draw up accusations based upon what they found. The Founders saw this as harassment and invasion of privacy and did not want our government empowered to do the same thing.
Among other things, the USA Patriot Act allows searches without notice to the suspect; grants roving wiretap warrants that allow government eavesdropping on any telephones used by suspects; and allows the interception of email. So much for the right to be secure in one’s “houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches.” All of this is Constitutionally permitted only with a search warrant that emanates only upon probable cause (a real definable reason). Reasonable is determined, not by the secret agent snooping through your papers or eavesdropping on your conversations, but upon probable cause determined by someone disassociated from the accusing party, a judge, who holds his position by his sworn oath to preserve the Constitution. Even then such a Warrant must describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. All of this must precede governments disturbing your house, papers, and effects.
The USA Patriot Act also allows investigators to obtain information from credit card companies, banks, libraries, and other businesses; authorizes the seizure of properties used to commit or facilitate terrorism; and allows the indefinite detention of non-citizens whom the “Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act,” all clear and major violations of the Fourth Amendment. How could the Constitutional language “not be violated” be any stronger? The American Library Association objected and issued a statement that the Act “allows the government to secretly request and obtain library records for large numbers of individuals without any reason to believe they are involved in illegal activity (USA Patriot Act, Wikipedia).”
With the word terrorist poorly defined one wonders why the government was/is more interested in internal terrorists (fellow Americans) than external “terrorists” (foreigners). The same government appears unconcerned about our very porous southern border even knowing that many come across from terrorist countries—even Hezbollah (See “A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border,” House Committee on Homeland Security, 2006).
All of this initiated by a Republican President and approved by a Republican Congress with almost unanimous Democratic Party support, falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness, as it allows the Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion (see USA Patriot Act, Wikipedia). Where were the Constitutionalists from either party? Certainly, the times were drastic and unusual but the urgency was over-stated and is now largely gone thus mere renewal is not the proper course. We have time and another chance to do this right without distorting the Constitution. Hopefully the Republicans who gave us the USA Patriot Act will join their Tea Party and Democratic Party colleagues on preserving the Constitution instead.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
Nov 10, 2010 | Immigration
By Dr. Harold Pease
In November we think of Thanksgiving Day and how fast Christmas is coming. But something else, besides elections and Veterans Day, happened in November historically very important to us—The Mayflower Compact was signed November 11, 1620.
The pilgrims realized that some kind of governing document was needed, as human nature is prone to disunity and differences that could be disruptive of peace. Governor William Bradford described the circumstances under which the agreement came about:
“This day, before we came to harbour, observing some not well affected to unity and concord, but gave some appearance of faction, it was thought good there should be an association and agreement, that we should combine together in one body, and to submit to such government and governors as we should by common consent agree to make and choose, and set our hands to this that follows, word for word…”
In other words, they agreed to remain one body and to abide by common consent in deciding what is best for their community- even “word for word.” A democracy, if you will. That was a giant step for the time and a prelude for what would follow. The idea that the peoples’ vote even mattered was revolutionary. The Mayflower Compact follows:
“In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid: and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domine 1620.”
It is also instructive that God had a special binding place in the unity and in the three sentences that make up the Mayflower Compact appears four times. The promise to “solemnly and mutually … covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body“ with promise of “due submission and obedience” was treated as if made in the presence of God. It is said that this “covenant with God” made the document so lasting as it in affect incorporated the Ten Commandments and Beatitudes as the instruments of judging appropriate human behavior. This inner strength would be necessary for their survival.
The actual landing of the Pilgrims occurred December 21 and work began on building houses two days before Christmas in the harsh New England winter. Women, children and the infirm remained on the Mayflower for another two weeks. Scurvy and lack of adequate shelter took 45 of the 102 emigrants the first winter. Of the 18 adult women 13 died the first winter, another the following May leaving only four of these alive for the 1st Thanksgiving the following Fall.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
Oct 4, 2010 | Constitution, Immigration
By Dr. Harold Pease
The concept of “anchor babies” refers to those whose parents are illegal immigrants into the United States and have a baby on this soil. That baby then inherits full citizenship and even the right later, as an adult, to sponsor his/her own illegal parents in their quest for citizenship. Is this practice Constitutional?
For the casual reader the amendment seems to validate such: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The debate for or against the practice of allowing citizenship for babies of illegals born in the U.S. rages on with virtually no one going to the source of the alleged authority—the crafters of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, architect of the 14th Amendment, actually structured the Amendment (one of two defining the legal status of freed slaves after the Civil War, the other being the 13th which gave them freedom) to prevent that very interpretation. He said: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign minister accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” It was he who insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted into Section I. Those sneaking across our borders in the cover of darkness are clearly foreigners and thus specifically exempted from citizenship; the Constitution was not meant to protect those who are here illegally. Also notice the exclusion of babies born of ambassadors while here as well.
The record of the Senate deliberations on the 14th amendment shows this to be the view of the Senate. There is no such thing as automatic citizenship from this amendment without serious distortion of it. In fact, Lyman Trumbull, co-author of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery, addressing the definition of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” asked, “What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Those crossing our borders illegally have jurisdiction or allegiance elsewhere and thus cannot have citizenship. How can a child of such a parentage have what his parents clearly do not have? How many are born illegally in the United States per year? Statistics are difficult to validate but the Pew Hispanic Center study estimated 340,000 in 2008 alone. If they in turn are used as sponsors for their parents in their quest for citizenship, such could be a million per year.
Citizenship was denied some of my ancestors and yours. Native Americans owed allegiance to their Sioux or Apache or Blackfoot or whatever Indian nations, and thus were not yet “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the nation they sought citizenship in. Certainly one must cease to be at war or conflict with the newly embraced country. This was not granted until 1924 when this requirement was satisfied.
Many of our Mexican friends send portions of their checks home to Mexico and plan to return to their native land upon retirement with pensions and/or social security sent to their “first” country from the country they extracted the wealth- us. Some vote in Mexican elections from here. It is indeed hard to argue that they are not instead subject to the jurisdiction of another land other than the United States- and most admit it. Unfortunately for them, the U. S. Constitution specifically denies such citizenship.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
