Steve King: It’s Not Perfect, But Trump Immigration Document ‘Bold,’ Strong,’ ‘Positi

Steve King: It’s Not Perfect, But Trump Immigration Document ‘Bold,’ Strong,’ ‘Positive’

by Ian Hanchett
17 Aug 2015
208 comments

Representative Rep. Steve King (R-IA) argued that GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s position paper on immigration is “bold,” “strong,” and “positive,” although he added, “I’d like to plug a couple more things in there” on Monday’s broadcast of CNN’s “New Day.”

King said, “Well, when I read through that document, in the end, I thought it’s a very, very positive document. It’s bold. It’s strong. It’s broad. It covers most of the things that you’d want to cover. I’d like to plug a couple more things in there.”

He continued, “But with regard to birthright citizenship, for example, it is — has constitutional underpinnings, yes, but the way you start that is, as you pass the legislation that puts an end to birthright citizenship, I happen to be the author of that legislation. And then it will be litigated, there isn’t any doubt about it, but there’s a clause in there that says, ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ ‘All persons born [or naturalized] in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are American citizens, and — or are United States citizens, to be more technically correct. So, we have to start the legislation, I think it’s constitutionally sound to pass the legislation, and end birthright citizenship. There aren’t very many countries in the world that have that policy. But I was curious, for some time, about how Donald Trump would get Mexico to pay for the wall. As you know, I’ve advocated for a long time for a fence — a wall and a fence on the southern border. I’m optimistic about this. I think the tactics that he uses are legitimate, and he’ll use more leverage in that. … I think that he can get to that place, but whether they do or whether they don’t pay for the wall, as he says in his document, the cost of that wall pales in comparison to the cost of not building it.”

King was then asked why he isn’t pushing for criminal sanctions for employers who hire illegal immigrants. He answered, “I’m supportive of doing those things. The reason we haven’t pushed this harder in the last six and a half years is because, there’s no way that one can imagine that this administration is going to enforce any of that. I mean, they’ve gone to court to block local jurisdictions from even mirroring federal immigration law, let alone…how they’re accepting sanctuary cities, which I’m grateful that Donald Trump has in his document, he’s going to end that.” And “if you’re going to punish and fine employers, you have to have a Justice Department and an Obama [administration] — a presidential administration that’ll follow through. I would do that. But I think I have a better idea, and I was hopeful that it would be in this document. There’s room for it within the language that’s there, it’s not specified, it’s called the New IDEA Act. And that’s a piece of legislation that I offered, several cycles ago, that does this. It brings the IRS into play, and it tell — and it says this, ‘If you’re an employer, and you use E-Verify, you get safe harbor for those that you hire. But, you cannot be left the wages and benefits paid to illegals under this legislation.’ And so, the IRS would go through, under a normal audit of a business, and they would run the Social Security numbers of the employees through. If E-Verify kicks them out, and says, ‘Sorry, they can’t work in the United States,’ then the employer would lose his business deduction. So, your $10 an hour illegal, after there’s interest, penalty, and taxes charged on that, becomes a $16 an hour illegal. And we would — and there’s a six year statute of limitations on it. So, we would clean up this workforce, and we’d do so with the IRS. And we require the IRS to cooperate with the Social Security Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security. I know that’s within the — I’ll say within the list of things that Donald Trump would be looking at to support, but I don’t — but it’s not in the document. So, that’s what I would do. I think it’s actually — it enhances our revenue stream. It’s a — it would score out a plus by billions of dollars, and clean up our workforce.”

King concluded, “There’s something he’s tapped into here, and we — nobody knows how long this’ll last. We’ve never seen anything like this before, but he has tapped into the discontent in America, the malaise within America, the people who are fed up. They’re fed up with political correctness, they’re fed up with the disrespect for the rule of law, they’re fed up with the dilution of Americanism, and they want cultural continuity, they want English as the official language, they want free enterprise to be something we can proud of again, and they want to be done with an administration that’s been punishing big business. It’s important for all business to be profitable. That’s the engine that drives the freedom that we have. And there’s a robust America there, that needs to be tapped into. And that’s why I think he’s got the support he has, and why that helicopter landed a little ways away from me the other day.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/...rong-positive/

Quote:

---

And “if you’re going to punish and fine employers, you have to have a Justice Department and an Obama [administration] — a presidential administration that’ll follow through. I would do that. But I think I have a better idea, and I was hopeful that it would be in this document. There’s room for it within the language that’s there, it’s not specified, it’s called the New IDEA Act. And that’s a piece of legislation that I offered, several cycles ago, that does this. It brings the IRS into play, and it tell — and it says this, ‘If you’re an employer, and you use E-Verify, you get safe harbor for those that you hire. But, you cannot be left the wages and benefits paid to illegals under this legislation.’ And so, the IRS would go through, under a normal audit of a business, and they would run the Social Security numbers of the employees through. If E-Verify kicks them out, and says, ‘Sorry, they can’t work in the United States,’ then the employer would lose his business deduction.

---

No, no, no. We're going to pass the FairTax and get rid of the IRS. The last thing we need is any legislation that gives the IRS any reason at all to do anything at all. The IRS needs to be abolished.

If we deport the illegal aliens, then they won't be here to be hired.

If we pass the FairTax, because of the comparative advantage the Rebate gives to US workers versus illegal aliens who aren't eligible.

Here's how it works:

Household Consumption Allowance for 2015 under the FairTax for Family of 4 = $31,860.

Annual FairTax Rebate = $7,328

Monthly Rebate = $611

An American couple that earns $40,000 a year and collects another $7,328 in FairTax Rebate for net income of $47,328.

An illegal alien family that earns $40,000 a year only has $40,000 a year and has to pay FairTax reducing their net to $40,000 less 23% = $30,800. American Couple on the other hand has $38,128, $7,328 more because they use their Rebate to pay the FairTax. How do illegal aliens undercut American Workers under this scenario with an almost 24% lower income out the gate with no EITC or other income tax fraud/gimmick refunds to supplement or complement? They can't. The numbers no longer work for them to undercut American Workers, because what little less they might tell an employer they would work for will be too small to make it worth the while or risk to the employer of getting caught. Furthermore, under the FairTax, employers no longer have the payroll tax incentive to hire illegal aliens, by hiring them illegally and saving Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, because those are eliminated by the FairTax as well and instead 8.09% of the 23% FairTax is earmarked to fund Social Security and Medicare and paid by consumers instead of workers and employers, for which American Workers accrue their benefits same as now, and of course illegal aliens don't, yet have to pay for it when they spend and pay FairTaxes.

It's just poetic justice all the way around.

So please, Steve King, FairTax supporter, do not introduce "to do" jobs for the IRS related to stopping illegal immigration that we need and intend to abolish.

Judy wrote:

Quote:

---

No, no, no. We're going to pass the FairTax and get rid of the IRS

---

.

No, no, no. We're not going to pass the unfair tax. Helping the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and poor is not helpful tax reform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:

.

No, no, no. We're not going to pass the unfair tax. Helping the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and poor is not helpful tax reform. [/COLOR]

---

The FairTax helps the poor and middle class by eliminating income-based taxes including payroll taxes, restores privacy, eliminates the worry, burden and cost of tax returns and reporting obligations, and protects their jobs and wages from the ravages of illegal immigration. Plus because everyone who is a citizen or legal permanent resident is eligible for a Rebate, the poor pay no FairTax and because of used goods and savings and investment exemptions, most of the middle class pays very little FairTax. The FairTax helps all businesses, large, small, profitable or not so profitable by eliminating income tax compliance costs both money and time, eliminates the cost of income-based taxes that increase the prices of goods and services, protects their business from free trade treason competition, and removes income tax implications from normal business decisions, plus all business to business transactions are exempt from the FairTax, so only retail final point of sale vendors even collect the FairTax which is paid by consumers as part of the price of the new goods or services.

The FairTax helps every American citizen and American business at the expense of no one, except illegal aliens and imported goods and services who are not now paying their fair or appropriate share but under the FairTax will be.