Obama’s Executive Amnesty is Much, Much Worse than You Think

Unless you are one of Obama’s bootlickers in the Senate, you probably are under the impression that Obama’s executive amnesty is a bad idea even if, like me, you are somewhat squishy on the issue of immigration itself. But however bad you thought it was that Obama is seeking to unilaterally rewriting a law that is constitutionally within the exclusive purview of Congress, you will think this is much worse: the IRS has decided to allow illegal immigrants who receive social security numbers under the executive amnesty to get checks from the IRS for the earned income tax credit (EITC) for the last three years EVEN IF THEY DIDN’T FILE OR PAY TAXES FOR THOSE YEARS.

I am not kidding:

The IRS is defending its decision to let illegal immigrants claim up to three years’ refunds on income even if they never paid income taxes, telling Congress in a new letter last week that agency lawyers have concluded getting a Social Security number triggers the ability to go back and ask for previous refunds.

President Obama’s new deportation amnesty could grant Social Security numbers to as many as 4 million illegal immigrants, making many of them eligible for tax refunds under the Earned Income Tax Credit even for years when they cheated on their taxes, working off the books and refusing to file tax returns.

“Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code requires an SSN on the return, but a taxpayer claiming the EITC is not required to have an SSN before the close of the year for which the EITC is claimed,” IRS Commissioner John Koskinen wrote in his letter to Sen. Charles E. Grassley on Wednesday.

As Guy Benson noted at Townhall last month when IRS Commissioner and Crypt Keeper look-alike Koskinen first announced this program:

Step one: Violate the laws and sovereignty of the United States of America by entering the country illegally.

Step two: Find work and get paid (often off the books).

Step three: Receive “deportation relief,” a work permit and a Social Security Number, courtesy of the president’s unilateral policy decree.

Step four: Instantly become eligible for hefty future and back tax credits - ie, checks cut directly to people with no tax liability, in many cases - all courtesy of American taxpayers.

Even to a pro-DREAM Act, pro-reform squish like myself, this is completely indefensible. Our own Conn Carroll, it must be said, saw this coming a few months back. He noted at the time that even though illegal immigrants already collect smaller tax credits ($4 billion from the Additional Child Tax Credit in 2011 alone), the EITC is a much bigger program involving a much deeper pot of money. Some Republican Senators are blasting this scheme as tantamount to an “amnesty bonus,” and if you believe Koskinen, the White House apparently didn’t bother to ask how the president’s power grab might open a fire-hose of new benefits for illegal immigrants via the tax code. Think about that. Then again, they probably don’t see it as a problem at all. Remember, Obama’s Attorney General nominee recently asserted that non-citizens have the “right” to work in the US. The IRS can’t say how much this little wrinkle will cost taxpayers, but Conn’s back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest we could be looking at tens of billions in back payments over the past three years alone.

Click to expand...

The unnamed source told Breitbart, "This is not how it was before. Border Patrol used to arrest, process and turn the illegal alien over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the courts. Under this new program, the majority of illegal aliens will be released directly from the Border Patrol with no appointments or expectation that they ever have to show up for a hearing."

The anonymous agent indicated this is not how the Border Patrol operated in previous times. Illegal alien invaders were required to enter the deportation system "where they would be scheduled for a deportation hearing at a future date." Now, these invaders are not required to show up at a hearing ever and DHS is basically "forcing Border Patrol to prepare the initial paperwork for the illegals' work permits."

Any individual who enters this country illegally should be considered a threat to our national security, border security and public safety regardless of age, gender, physical or mental condition, family affiliation – real or makeshift. In other words, the immigration laws of this nation should be enforced to the fullest in the interest of preserving our sovereignty and loopholes in the law that have placed our nation at risk closed. Since the federal government is derelict in its duty and power to enforce the immigration laws and protect the states from invasion, the states and the people have every right and authority to protect themselves. But, one need not expect the states to protect their residents or territory as they have been reduced to subservience by the bribe of federal funds.

At this point, the federal and state governments are giving the finger to its citizens. As a citizen, you are expected to like it.

Click to expand...

Defnestor said:

So 5,000,000 illegal aliens divided into (for arguments sake) 5-person families, is 1,000,000 tax returns a year for 3 years totaling 3,000,000 tax returns for $25,000 each. That comes to $75,000,000,000 $75 billion dollars, or about 9 months worth of the osamas' vacations. I guess we'll have to print some more money.

Click to expand...

In 2013, ICE freed 36,007 convicted criminal aliens from detention who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings, according to a document obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies. This group included aliens convicted of hundreds of violent and serious crimes, including homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault. The list of crimes also includes more than 16,000 drunk or drugged driving convictions. The vast majority of these releases from ICE custody were discretionary, not required by law (in fact, in some instances, apparently contrary to law), nor the result of local sanctuary policies.

The document reveals that the 36,007 convicted criminal aliens freed from ICE custody in many instances had multiple convictions. Among them, the 36,007 had nearly 88,000 convictions, including:

193 homicide convictions (including one willful killing of a public official with gun)

426 sexual assault convictions

303 kidnapping convictions

1,075 aggravated assault convictions

1,160 stolen vehicle convictions

9,187 dangerous drug convictions

16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions

303 flight escape convictions

Click to expand...

While a federal judge’s injunction has halted the implementation of President Obama’s sweeping executive actions from November, it appears U.S. Customs and Border Protection never got the news. According to CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske, the relaxed border enforcement guidelines that accompanied Obama’s executive actions should continue apace, unaffected by the judge’s ruling. In an email sent to CBP agents on Wednesday and later obtained by NRO, Kerlikowske conceded that the federal judge’s action meant agents “should not consider” Obama’s new and expanded deferred action guidelines when processing illegal immigrants. But border protection and enforcement are apparently a different matter. Kerlikowske’s email expressed the belief that the judge’s decision has no impact on the border enforcement and protection directives issued at the same time as Obama’s executive actions by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, and that those directives remain in force. The November memo outlining Johnson’s directives required agents to exercise widespread discretion and restraint in a large number of their duties: prosecutorial discretion should apply not only to the decision to issue, serve, file, or cancel a Notice to Appear, but also to a broad range of other discretionary enforcement decisions, including deciding: whom to stop, question, and arrest; whom to detain or release; whether to settle, dismiss, appeal, or join in a motion on a case; and whether to grant deferred action, parole, or a stay of removal instead of pursuing removal in a case. Kerlikowske appears to believe that the relaxed protection and enforcement standards are unaffected by the judge’s injunction.

Click to expand...