For those who insist upon the rule of law, and who therefore find it abominable that any legislator would support a program of amnesty, it’s impossible to understand how they don’t see the real danger of their immigration proposals. If those who have violated our laws will not be held accountable, forced to leave the country, to be placed in a position at the end of the line, behind all those who have followed the law, why would any person follow the law from the moment some sort of amnesty is enacted? Since legislators are generally a thick-skulled, treacherous, intransigent lot, I thought it would be better to place this in terms they might understand somewhat more readily. Among the things representatives, senators and presidents love best is to spend tax-payers’ money. We have every conceivable evidence to demonstrate this is true, to the outlandish extent that they are willing to spend money they first must ask the Federal Reserve to lend into existence. Their willingness to borrow notwithstanding, I wonder what would happen if some crafty Senator like Ted Cruz(R-TX)(ahem, hint, hint) were to introduce a bill that would provide for a blanket tax-payer amnesty on an indefinite basis, much like has been passed in the Senate for illegals under the Gang-of-Tr8ors Senate Amnesty bill.
How hard could it be, after all? If giving away a pathway to citizenship to scofflaws is expected to ultimately attract some forty-five million new voters, just imagine how many voters our politicians could attract with this plan, and without any worries about messy citizenship paperwork. Of course, you needn’t concern yourselves with the fact that every person in the country would thereafter decide to stop paying their taxes, because we all know how thoroughly serious a matter it is to elected Democrats and Republicans alike to ensure they send the money they owe to Uncle Sam. Think of the cost-savings!
If you think it sounds a bit far-fetched, it’s only because you know politicians would never offer to you, their citizen captives, what they will offer to the new class of wage-slaves they hope to import. Still, I believe this is an important point of order to be raised among the intelligentsia in Washington DC: If amnesty is good for the goose, should it not be likewise good for the gander? I’m not talking about some petty amnesty that will let tax-payers walk on a portion of their bill, one time, for all time. I am describing here an amnesty that would apply across the board to all tax-payers, each and every time they owe taxes, and for the full amount. Why not? Will legislators insist that this is impossible, in part because it will encourage lawlessness, driving tax receipts for the Treasury inexorably downward? Pish-posh, that’s not going to happen, because we have as an example the Senate’s Gang-of-Tr8ors bill that they assure us will have no such effect on the subject of immigration.
Do they want safeguards? Perhaps we should offer such safeguards as they’ve delivered in their Gang-of-Tr8ors bill. On the second Tuesday of next week, we will promise to pay our full tax bills in exchange for amnesty now. We can authorize an “electronic fence” around the US treasury that will be funded by all the new tax-payers this amnesty will provide, right Senator Scrubio(RINO-FL)? I think we could provide assurances to the members of the House and Senate that such an amnesty would never create an empty Treasury, and that legalized anarchy in revenue would not prevail. Indeed, in order to cut government costs of administration, we should hire 10,000 additional IRS bureaucrats to assist with the amnesty. It seems they need more staff, being tied-up as they are with all of those audits of Tea Party and Conservative groups.
Wouldn’t it create vast new economic growth? Imagine all the new economic activity born of such an amnesty! Except for the part that we would be assuring the Congress that tax-bills would naturally continue to be paid on time, and in the full amounts owed, [wink-wink,] we know that the tax-payers who were granted amnesty under such a plan would plow the money into new business endeavors, hire more of those illegal aliens who won’t be illegal any longer, and otherwise create an economic boom! Just imagine: We will have permanently eliminated all tax-cheating!
This all seems too sweet for politicians to pass-up, but I suspect that they’re a bit more realistic about dollars and cents than they are about handing out citizenship, work visas, and “green cards.” It is for precisely the reasons that such a plan is unworkable with taxation and revenue that it is equally preposterous in the field of immigration and border security: Having destroyed all legal barriers, there is no longer any reason to comply with the law, and not a single soul with the minimal sense nature gave to a starfish will be inclined to comply. Why comply when non-compliance carries no penalties and no downside?
I think some enterprising Representative ought to raise this as an amendment to any House bill, (which should be roundly defeated in any case, even absent such provisions,) because I would simply like to see the look on some dim-witted representative’s face, perhaps the budget committee chairman’s, as he tries to explain why amnesty would be great for illegal aliens but horrible for the US tax-payer. I would like to see any of these people justify this in virtually any other context. Sadly, they will avoid this question like the plague, but you should not. Ask them:
“Senator Maverick McLame, can we get some of that blanket amnesty for tax-payers?”
In the House:
“Chairman Ryan, wouldn’t your argument about economic growth apply even more thoroughly to tax-payer amnesty?”
Rubio, in the corridor:
“Senator [SC]Rubio, is it true that you said “tax-payer amnesty” isn’t simply code for “tax-cuts?”
In a hurry to get to a “We like
Weiner Anthony” rally, Schmuckie Schumer(Dementocrat-NY) is caught on the run:
“Senator Schmuckie, does the proposed tax-payer amnesty bill steam your Weiner?”
They’ll be in a hurry to get somewhere, so talk fast. I guarantee they will.