End Exploitation: Illegal Immigration, Tax Credits, ID Theft, And The Border Crisis

I was tipped off to a 2015 KSL article in the comments (thanks Jen). The report is super as it has several illustrations for today: Republicans say Obama giving immigrants ‘amnesty bonuses’

Armed with new Social Security numbers, many of these immigrants who were living in the U.S. illegally will now be able to claim up to four years’ worth of tax credits designed to benefit the working poor. For big families, that’s a maximum of nearly $24,000, as long as they can document their earnings during those years.

Obama has issued executive orders shielding about 4 million immigrants from deportation. Some were brought to the U.S. as children; others are parents of children who are either U.S. citizens or legal residents.

They’re referring to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). It’s something that should sound familiar if you’ve read this blog. It involves illegal aliens not only engaging in identity fraud but tax fraud as well and the IRS basically doesn’t care. To catch up, read the posts on WTHR’s Bob Segall’s outstanding investigative reporting on this issue. Better yet, check out all his reports from the source: WTHR Tax loophole investigation.

Based on the above, it may be possible for one of the illegal aliens who used a fake ID to ‘game the system’ and get a huge EITC for ineligible family members to turn around and file again (thanks to Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty) but under the new social security number they were assigned. Thus, they could double their take of taxpayer funds.

One means that this may be prevented is if the IRS flags their earnings documentation as having already been reported under a different SSN but, given Segall’s findings, that appears unlikely.

Then there’s the identity theft aspect that goes hand-in-hand with illegal immigration:

How does Social Security know when it receives taxes from immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally? There is no foolproof method, Goss said. One way is by tracking reported wages in which the Social Security number does not match the name the agency has on file.

Some of these are clerical errors or unreported name changes, But Goss estimates that a majority of these wages come from immigrants who have made up Social Security numbers or used someone else’s.

The numbers are huge.

It’s well known and well documented that illegal aliens engage in identity theft (along with credit fraud and medical ID theft) and leave plenty of innocent victims in their wake (besides those murdered, drunk/other vehicular deaths, and sexual assault and decades long humanitarian/drug border crisis). Amnesty, HB116 and/or cheap labor proponents like the media, Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints prefer to ignore it and hope no one notices the one-sided compassion for the perpetrators and blind eye to victims. But so does the Federal Government.

The IRS upper echelon obviously doesn’t care. Even before Obama’s amnesty, Segall found frustrated IRS officials upset at the abuse and blind eye to the identity theft. The Treasury Inspector General wasn’t happy either. With Obama’s amnesty, the “supporting documentation” they provide will clearly, again, indicate earnings via a fraudulent social security number. Fortunately, you can count of IRS chief, Koskinen, to thumb his nose at victims, citizens/legal immigrants, IRS workers and the IG.

The IRS accepts these tax returns without reporting the taxpayers to immigration authorities, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said. That encourages the workers to pay taxes.

“We don’t enforce the Social Security laws, we don’t enforce the immigration laws,” Koskinen said of his agency. “In fact, the reason illegal immigrants file taxes with us is they know we aren’t sharing that data with anybody. We treat it as taxpayer-protected information.”

The IRS was supposed to finally take action with a rule change but I have no idea if it was ever implemented (Segall’s investigation ends there).

Finally, the article ends with a line that unwittingly exposes and condemns the Chamber of Commerce:

“Let’s not forget that these workers receive the lowest wages for what they contribute to their communities and local economies,” said Ellen Sittenfeld Battistelli, policy analyst at the National Immigration Law Center. “What do we as a nation gain by further impoverishing them?”

This is an admission that points that illegal aliens are getting paid below market rates (thereby likely artificially depressing wages and innovation) and underpaid employees are dependent on these credits. Unscrupulous employers (and the Chamber of Crony Capitalists) are quite happy to have taxpayers subsidize their lust for cheap labor.

This exploitation of various victims needs to end. The wall must be built and it is essential that E-Verify be implemented to turn off the magnet and perverse incentive to hire underpaid, illegal labor for competitive advantage.

Advertisements

Annual Warning: LDS Church Publicly Announces Soft Target Status, Demonstrates Some Lives More Valuable Than Others

Each January, I check to see if the LDS Church has renewed it’s firearm ban and publicly announced itself to be a soft target for terror and/or other violent crimes (and, yes, islamic terrorists have specifically named the LDS Church as a target). The trend continues this year. However, there is something else I picked up on during the last year and I was reminded of when reading their January 9, 2019 legal notice:

NOTICE OF FIREARMS PROHIBITION Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Section 76-10-530 of the Utah Code Annotated, firearms are prohibited in all houses of worship, including temples, meetinghouses, chapels, stake centers, tabernacles, the Assembly Hall, the Tabernacle and the Conference Center, of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”), except for firearms in the possession and control of individuals who (a) are specified in Section 76-10-523(1)(a)-(e) of the Utah Code Annotated or (b) are otherwise engaged in the protection of Church members, visitors, personnel or facilities and hold a written authorization issued by the Managing Director of the Church’s Security Department. This notice is effective upon publication and shall remain in effect until revoked or the first anniversary of the publication of this notice, whichever first occurs. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 1238909 UPAXLP [Emphasis added]

First, “members” with “written authorization” does not apply to general membership. Trust me, if you’re not in upper church leadership that bold section doesn’t apply to you. You’re expendable.

Earlier this year, I attended a couple of meetings where the church’s president was in attendance. Both were in a church facility where the gun ban applied. In both instances he had an armed security detail. They either were advertising to potential trouble makers that they were armed or didn’t do a very good job concealing their weapons. It’s another instance of “good for me but not for thee”.

Members should be aware of three things:

1. Upper leadership is afforded protection that you and innocent members (particularly children) are not. Apparently, their lives aren’t as valuable as others (‘some lives are more equal than others’?…). As far as I’m concerned a child’s, middle-aged mother’s, or sleepy 75-year-old member’s life is just as important as the Prophet’s or other General Authority’s life. If they refuse to let members protect themselves, they should at least either provide security or active shooter (and first aid) training.

2. Just because an armed security detail is in a meeting you attend, do not count on them protecting you or your family. Their priority is the individual(s) they’re assigned to. If crap hits the fan, they’ll get them out of the danger which may mean neutralizing the threat (if you’re lucky) but more likely, just getting out to safety. It’s possible they’ll come back to engage the threat but there will be a long delay (they have to secure their client) and most of the damage will be done. Basically, you’re on your own.

3. Given the two items above, you need to plan for your own security, reaction and egress. You should hold a family home evening on it. I would also suggest looking into some sort of trauma first aid training to help in the aftermath if you survive. Here are a few resources to start off:

Everything You Think You Know About an Active Shooter Situation Is Wrong
Recognizing 8 Signs of Terrorism
How Situational Awareness Can Save Your Life In A Terror Attack

Notes on the videos:  In Auburn’s you’ll notice everyone concentrate in one corner of the room. That isn’t best practice IMO (see the Ohio video where they mention spacing out). Also in Ohio University’s video, note the “…bring along a weapon in case you encounter the shooter along the way” comment. The best weapon (IMO) has been denied to you so grab what you can quickly (don’t waste time evaluating/looking for something, however). Remember, ALICE  means Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate.

There are plenty of other resources so check them out but be sure to apply them to your situation as each method will have deficiencies for different scenarios (e.g. differing room type, size, configuration, obstacles, number of shooters, etc.). Try to play out realistic scenarios in your mind (don’t get into fantasy where you come out the hero). Plan on casualties and steel yourself mentally for the screaming, gore and likely death you will encounter.

Finally, The LDS Church remains one of only two churches in Utah with this dangerous policy. I hope the LDS Church will reconsider their policy just as another congregation did when faced with a threat. It should also be noted that prior to the change a few years ago, concealed carry had been allowed for decades in LDS facilities without incident.

Illegal Immigration, Govt Mission Creep Claim New Victim: Utah County Law Enforcement

This report is really a two pronged argument against illegal immigration and government creeping outside core functions. Here’s the headline from the Daily Herald:

Utah County Sheriff resigns during commission meeting over funding shortfalls

So what caused the funding shortfall? Read down to the 3rd paragraph:

The Utah County Sheriff’s Office is short on funds by about $800,000 to $1 million, Tracy told Commissioners Ivie and Bill Lee during Tuesday’s commission meeting. Commissioner Greg Graves was not in attendance. That shortage is due, in part, to large medical needs by one patient that Tracy said he couldn’t discuss because of medical privacy laws..

But keep reading…all the way buried in the 15th paragraph:

Ivie said the person whose medical bills had caused the crisis is in the country illegally, and the county is also looking into finding funding from federal partners.

The county clearly needs to address funding shortfalls. Sticking to core government functions would be a start (forget the rec centers, art stuff, among other hobbies). An illegal alien tipping the balance is simply unacceptable. Either way, the Sheriff had enough of the fiscal mess and quit.

This brought to you by the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce and other associated open-border lobbying groups and special interests demanding government fund their business/hobbies.

Once Soft Target For Terror In Utah Hardens Itself

At the beginning of the year, I put up my (now) annual post warning of the dangers of feel-good gun bans by churches, particularly related to terrorism or mass shooting/casualty situations. As I noted then, the LDS Church was only one of two religious organizations in Utah that advertise they ban lawful citizens from carrying guns. At the time, the only other church to do so was Congregation Kol Ami.

They are now off BCI’s list of those banning a lawful and effective defensive means. It may have something to do with this (Congregation Kol Ami in SLC heightens security after three anti-Semitic incidents):

Congregation Kol Ami says they are increasing security measures in response to several incidents of anti-Semitism that occurred within a short period of time.

I won’t pretend to know much about them, but there appear to be plenty of their faith who advocate for individual defensive means in the face of bigoted threats.

LDS Church Wants One Sided Blind Trust, Open Borders

LDS Church public affairs came out with this:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long expressed its position that immigration reform should strengthen families and keep them together. The forced separation of children from their parents now occurring at the U.S.-Mexico border is harmful to families, especially to young children. We are deeply troubled by the aggressive and insensitive treatment of these families. While we recognize the right of all nations to enforce their laws and secure their borders, we encourage our national leaders to take swift action to correct this situation and seek for rational, compassionate solutions.”

Oh really? They put the blame completely on the US. No where did they state that people should not violate a nation’s laws and sovereignty if they do not want to face the possibility of separation and other legal actions. No where did the church acknowledge the fact that separation occurs precisely to protect children if they are believed to be in danger or travelling with a non family member (a red flag for human trafficking). Nor did the church acknowledge that when an adult is arrested trying to enter the United States illegally that their children can not be with them in adult jail. And finally, the church did not acknowledge that the only option to keep parents and children together is to release them into the United States which means that anyone with a child can ignore United States borders and simply tell the United States that they are coming in, like it or not (ie the previous failed/destructive ‘catch-and-release’ policy).

Instead, the church seems to expect us to just blindly trust everybody who walks in with a child, no questions asked and to effectively have an open border. Are they seriously unaware of human trafficking and sex trafficking in minors? Evidently, they prefer we do believe the alien and release the minor and potential criminal into our population with no investigation. If we did follow such a path and see a wave a child abuse, the same people would be outraged and demanding consequences for those who enacted such a negligent and cruel policy.

The church has long tacitly encouraged illegal immigration and looked the other way as victims and citizens bear the costs. Does anyone have any recollection of the church being “deeply troubled” at the incentivization of unaccompanied minors (separated families) turning up in droves at the border during Obama’s tenure? I don’t.

Then there’s the one sided concern. Apparently, they couldn’t care less about separated families of citizens or legal immigrants accused of a crime who are incarcerated pending their trial (many of the kids end up under the care of social services). Does this mean they oppose that law? What about after a conviction, especially for a non-violent crime? How about CPS abuses?….No, ‘those people’ don’t matter and don’t get you social justice media brownie points.

If they and their congressional cohorts are really serious about this, rather than virtue signalling, let’s see them change the laws for all accused of a crime and absorb the costs of housing as ‘family units’ and investigating these folks themselves. The church could also pay all medical, education and other costs associated with the new families. They would also assume the liability if any child abuse occurs and deportation costs when such a policy inevitably leads to another spike in illegal entries. Or is it more likely they’ll just pass something that pushes more costs to us and leaves victims in it’s wake while they pat themselves on the back for their piety?

UPDATE: Just thought of this – Speaking of children, I haven’t seen any press releases about being deeply troubled over abortion. Nor do I recall any expression of being deeply troubled during Obama’s detention centers during the incentivized unaccompanied minor fiasco.

Oh, and…Surprise! Or something:
Top Senate Democrat Shoots Down Cruz’s Proposal to End the Family Separation Democrats and the Media Supposedly Care So Much About, In Order to “Keep the Focus on Trump”

…and bingo (watch the video).

Do the families separated by illegal aliens not deserve any attention…and what about those dirty Canadians detaining kids and separating families?

Must Watch: I’m The Majority

Just watch, there’s not much I can add.

“We’re the first ones taxed, and the last ones considered, and the first ones punished when things like this happen. Because our rights are the ones being taken away.”

Enough with leftists blaming good citizens and treading on rights of the law-abiding. I too am fed up with all the politicians coddling to the “loonies from the left”. We must start to fight and “raise hell” with the schools, city councils, legislatures, and organizations who bow down to the leftist minority who are either ignorant to realities and God-given rights or malevolently seek to deny them for their own power. I’m done with unprincipled politicians and organizations (including churches) who say we always have to compromise our natural and constitutional rights to speech and defense (among others) to some squeamish leftist social justice warrior when we’ve done nothing wrong and obey the law. They can take their despotic social justice and shove it.

LDS President Nelson And Firearm Laws

Quick blurb: Fox13 caught some statement LDS President Nelson made about firearm laws and featured it for a bit on their website. The main part they focused on is:

“…Well, God allows us to have our agency, and men have passed laws that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them.”

A spokesman for the LDS Church said the quote speaks for itself.

I’ll be blunt. LDS Public Affairs is useless on this since the quote doesn’t really speak for itself. Without a specific example of a law, I have no idea whatsoever what he’s talking about. Besides the current State & Federal laws, Baker Act (and variants), NICS requirements, and ATF Form 4473, there are plenty of laws disqualifying people under various conditions (yes, including mental disorders) from possessing a firearm. So, quite contrary, men have passed laws to block guns going to people who shouldn’t have them (and respect constitutional due process requirements in stripping an individual of the right). Of course, criminals don’t really care about laws so they’ll always try their best to violate them but the law-abiding care and follow them.

Meanwhile, in terms of the Parkland shooting, it’s seems clearer that rather than a lack of laws, we’re seeing a lack of enforcement and due diligence based on the plethora of legal/school/social services interactions with the shooter and the subsequent (in)action by Broward County Sheriff Deputies. Should we look at tweaking laws and mental adjudication/commitment (which also respect constitutional rights) to avoid the failures we’re seeing? Sure. Same with hardening soft targets. But it seems like the first priority will be to address the causes of the failures and determine if priorities and processes rather than laws are what really need to be addressed.

Anyway, back to the statement. I’m basically left shrugging and finding he was expressing a personal opinion and may not have all the facts on hand (he also called the shooter a “sniper” which was not the case). That may well be why Public Affairs put out the statement they did – it was his opinion, what else can they say.

If, on the other hand, he was targeting the 2nd Amendment as a whole and plans on initiating a departure from church being stalwart defender of the US Constitution (including in doctrine), it would be a massive upheaval. Even with the recent weakness on individual rights, I don’t see that at all here, especially with Public Affairs’ quick punt.

Further reading:
Founders: Why the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) is pointless.
Yep, the right to bear arms was always clearly intended as a personal right.