TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/10/immigr ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kind of a good news story!

Bye. Have a good trip.

Not trying to be rude, but a criminal leaving the USA

When I say "criminal" I refer to illegally entering the USA

Don't believe it.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/10/immigr ... index.html

kind of a good news story!

Now if we could just remember to close the gate behind them and lock the border down.

I don't remember where I read it but I saw a proposal somewhere to change the tax code. Instead of having four categories for single, married, etc. the categories would be based on immigration status. The lowest tax rate would be citizens, followed by permanent residents. People on visas (H1B, student, gues worker, etc.) would pay an even higher rate, like 1.25x to 1.5x the citizen rate. Finally, illegals would have to pay 90%.

There's obviously no constitutional issue with equal protection because it doesn't discriminate any more than the current tax code with different rates for married, single, etc. Actually, there's seems to be much more constitutional authority to discriminate based on immigration status than on family status.

Even if illegals pay 100% income tax they would still be here illegally, just like the marijuana tax stamps in some states don't make pot legal. It just gives the police another way to crack down on crime. Like Al Capone getting nabbed for tax evasion.

I bet Pablo's familia will miss the tax free income he sent home more than having him back...

Captain Matt wrote:Even if illegals pay 100% income tax they would still be here illegally, just like the marijuana tax stamps in some states don't make pot legal. It just gives the police another way to crack down on crime. Like Al Capone getting nabbed for tax evasion.

I really don't see any problem with applying civil forfeiture to the possessions of illegal aliens. If an illegal is caught with a house, car, wristwatch, cash, a bicycle, ANYTHING, then it is logical and reasonable to conclude that he came by it illegally, so it becomes the property of the state.

He gets sent home ONLY with the clothes on his back.

Period.

(Maybe we can bill him for transportation costs, too?)