Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How did they get 16 exemptions?I thought you hated how they take our jobs. Now you claim they don't work.
They work, they don't pay taxes.
The truth is that they use fake IDs & work & have income taxes deducted.
If they claim 16 exemptions, how much would they pay?
16 exemptions? So now you just make up shit. Oh wait, that is all you ever do.
16 exemptions?
Yes. How much would they pay?
You know you don't actually have to prove you qualify to claim them, right?
E Child tax credit. See Pub. 972, Child Tax Credit, for more information. • If your total income will be less than $71,201 ($103,351 if married filing jointly), enter “4” for each eligible child. • If your total income will be from $71,201 to $179,050 ($103,351 to $345,850 if married filing jointly), enter “2” for each eligible child. • If your total income will be from $179,051 to $200,000 ($345,851 to $400,000 if married filing jointly), enter “1” for each eligible child.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf (page 3)
So, you have nothing to show that working illegals claim 16 dependents.
The Constitution covers people on our soil, citizens or not. The police cannot just go up to a legal immigrant and arrest them for no reason, they cannot search them without plausible cause and they cannot deny them a trial.
Here, try this. Go find a legal immigrant and shoot them and see if they are covered.
BECAUSE..........
They "might" be a US citizen. A Police officer cannot just assume they are not. Once it is ESTABLISHED that they are here ILLEGALLY, they CAN BE DETAINED.
Again, the Constitution is protecting AMERICANS. That means they cannot just arbitrarily arrest people on suspicion.
You are terribly confused or willfully agreeable with the invasion apparently.
As always, arguing with Communists and America haters is pointless at the end of the day.
HuhSo, you are saying being a straight male means you get to assault women, cheat on your wives? Wait, you can't help yourselves?Are you gay?Evidently you have no problem with this racist pervert with 3 wives, cheating on them all, paying off porn stars to not give him up ?? Which of those you mentioned was as great a slime as Trump?JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Trump.......When did the president need to be moral? Trump?No the liar is far worse than that Our President should be a moral leader too ,one the young could be proud of You republicans love him because he IS a scumbag In my "twisted"" mind that's badJust say orange man bad,, it sounds a lot better lol
lol o didn’t say that I said the democrat run education system is extremely racist and that is what voter suppression is.. if you can’t understand civics you are oppressedYour post claimed black people were uneducated & stupid. If you assfucks are going to make racist posts, man the fuck up & stand behind it. Quit squealing like little girls when you get caught.Calling out racismSpoken like a true racist.A democrat education is the only thing that suppresses the black voteWith your gerrymandering bullshit you call us cheaters?? With all repub efforts to suppress our votes you call us cheaters??you nailed it. thats the only reason the dems don't want that question, because they see illegals as their way to more seats in the house, and some redistricting. They know they cannot win without cheating, thats why they keep doing it.
Is racist? Interesting lol
Your post claimed black people were uneducated & stupid. If you assfucks are going to make racist posts, man the fuck up & stand behind it. Quit squealing like little girls when you get caught.Calling out racismSpoken like a true racist.A democrat education is the only thing that suppresses the black voteWith your gerrymandering bullshit you call us cheaters?? With all repub efforts to suppress our votes you call us cheaters??you nailed it. thats the only reason the dems don't want that question, because they see illegals as their way to more seats in the house, and some redistricting. They know they cannot win without cheating, thats why they keep doing it.
Is racist? Interesting lol
IF they come up with another reason it'll be admitting they lied with their 1st reasonMaybe his confusion...but Justice Roberts kept this confusion going by siding with the left once again.The SCOTUS agreed that states had a basis to claim damages, but that saying that illegals or 3rd parties won't respond is a valid reason to remove the citizenship question isn't a valid reason. Pg 10 paragraph 2:Department of Commerce v. New York - SCOTUSblog
Of course they heard the case, and issued a 5-4 decision. Your ignorance led you to wrongly accuse someone of lying.
That's why Trump loves the uneducated.
Did you even bother to read what you posted?
", but the district court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary’s explanation for his decision."
exactly what do you think that means?
I think it means you're confused. You maintained the USSC refused to hear the case. They heard it, and they issued a 5-4 decision. From my link:
Jun 27 2019 Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III, IV–B, and IV–C, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined; with respect to Part IV–A, in which Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined; and with respect to Part V, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Breyer, J.,
filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED means they heard the case. If they had refused to hear it, they would not have issued a Writ of Certiorari. The oral arguments at the time they heard the case were in all the papers. I'm surprised you missed it.
This is double-speak. It says that independent action by illegals who will refuse to respond to the census is not a valid reason to demand that the citizenship question stay off the census. Then it goes back on this by saying it is highly predictable that illegals won't fill out a census....so that's a good enough reason not to put the question on the form. Total horseshit. This is their opinion....still they sent this back to the Commerce Dept to decide what they're going to do.The Government contends, however, that any harm to respondents is not fairly traceable to the Secretary’s deci-sion, because such harm depends on the independent action of third parties choosing to violate their legal duty to respond to the census. The chain of causation is made even more tenuous, the Government argues, by the fact that such intervening, unlawful third-party action would be motivated by unfounded fears that the Federal Gov-ernment will itself break the law by using noncitizens’ answers against them for law enforcement purposes. The Government invokes our steady refusal to “endorse stand-ing theories that rest on speculation about the decisions of independent actors,” Clapperv. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 414 (2013), particularly speculation aboutfuture unlawful conduct, Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 105 (1983).
But we are satisfied that, in these circumstances, re-spondents have met their burden of showing that third parties will likely react in predictable ways to the citizen-ship question, even if they do so unlawfully and despite the requirement that the Government keep individual answers confidential. The evidence at trial established that noncitizen households have historically responded to the census at lower rates than other groups, and the Dis-trict Court did not clearly err in crediting the Census Bureau’s theory that the discrepancy is likely attributable at least in part to noncitizens’ reluctance to answer a citizenship question. Respondents’ theory of standing Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 11 Opinion of the Courtthus does not rest on mere speculation about the decisions of third parties; it relies instead on the predictable effect of Government action on the decisions of third parties. Cf.Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 169–170 (1997); Davis, 554 U. S., at 734–735. Because Article III “requires no more than de facto causality,” Block v. Meese, 793 F. 2d 1303, 1309 (CADC 1986) (Scalia, J.), traceability is satis-fied here. We may therefore consider the merits of re-spondents’ claims, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
You may not have noticed, but redfish wasn't arguing the merits or details of the decision, he was maintaining the USSC refused to hear the case. Your quotes may end his confusion.
I don't think that it's a valid point to say that illegals will avoid filling out the forms and using that as a reason not to have the question on the form.
The same could be said if you claimed that illegals would simply lie on the form.
So Justice Roberts is trying to make a claim that has no logic.
At any rate.....this is a delay tactic by sending it back to be hashed over at a lower court.
IF they come up with another reason it'll be admitting they lied with their 1st reasonMaybe his confusion...but Justice Roberts kept this confusion going by siding with the left once again.The SCOTUS agreed that states had a basis to claim damages, but that saying that illegals or 3rd parties won't respond is a valid reason to remove the citizenship question isn't a valid reason. Pg 10 paragraph 2:Did you even bother to read what you posted?
", but the district court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary’s explanation for his decision."
exactly what do you think that means?
I think it means you're confused. You maintained the USSC refused to hear the case. They heard it, and they issued a 5-4 decision. From my link:
Jun 27 2019 Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III, IV–B, and IV–C, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined; with respect to Part IV–A, in which Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined; and with respect to Part V, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Breyer, J.,
filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED means they heard the case. If they had refused to hear it, they would not have issued a Writ of Certiorari. The oral arguments at the time they heard the case were in all the papers. I'm surprised you missed it.
This is double-speak. It says that independent action by illegals who will refuse to respond to the census is not a valid reason to demand that the citizenship question stay off the census. Then it goes back on this by saying it is highly predictable that illegals won't fill out a census....so that's a good enough reason not to put the question on the form. Total horseshit. This is their opinion....still they sent this back to the Commerce Dept to decide what they're going to do.The Government contends, however, that any harm to respondents is not fairly traceable to the Secretary’s deci-sion, because such harm depends on the independent action of third parties choosing to violate their legal duty to respond to the census. The chain of causation is made even more tenuous, the Government argues, by the fact that such intervening, unlawful third-party action would be motivated by unfounded fears that the Federal Gov-ernment will itself break the law by using noncitizens’ answers against them for law enforcement purposes. The Government invokes our steady refusal to “endorse stand-ing theories that rest on speculation about the decisions of independent actors,” Clapperv. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 414 (2013), particularly speculation aboutfuture unlawful conduct, Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 105 (1983).
But we are satisfied that, in these circumstances, re-spondents have met their burden of showing that third parties will likely react in predictable ways to the citizen-ship question, even if they do so unlawfully and despite the requirement that the Government keep individual answers confidential. The evidence at trial established that noncitizen households have historically responded to the census at lower rates than other groups, and the Dis-trict Court did not clearly err in crediting the Census Bureau’s theory that the discrepancy is likely attributable at least in part to noncitizens’ reluctance to answer a citizenship question. Respondents’ theory of standing Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 11 Opinion of the Courtthus does not rest on mere speculation about the decisions of third parties; it relies instead on the predictable effect of Government action on the decisions of third parties. Cf.Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 169–170 (1997); Davis, 554 U. S., at 734–735. Because Article III “requires no more than de facto causality,” Block v. Meese, 793 F. 2d 1303, 1309 (CADC 1986) (Scalia, J.), traceability is satis-fied here. We may therefore consider the merits of re-spondents’ claims, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
You may not have noticed, but redfish wasn't arguing the merits or details of the decision, he was maintaining the USSC refused to hear the case. Your quotes may end his confusion.
I don't think that it's a valid point to say that illegals will avoid filling out the forms and using that as a reason not to have the question on the form.
The same could be said if you claimed that illegals would simply lie on the form.
So Justice Roberts is trying to make a claim that has no logic.
At any rate.....this is a delay tactic by sending it back to be hashed over at a lower court.
A breath of fresh air in a SC packed with republican AH's like ThomasMaybe his confusion...but Justice Roberts kept this confusion going by siding with the left once again.
I don't think that it's a valid point to say that illegals will avoid filling out the forms and using that as a reason not to have the question on the form.
The same could be said if you claimed that illegals would simply lie on the form.
So Justice Roberts is trying to make a claim that has no logic.
At any rate.....this is a delay tactic by sending it back to be hashed over at a lower court.
It's just an opinion....but I think Roberts presence on the Supreme Court is a travesty and the traitor is among the worst to ever be there.
IF they come up with another reason it'll be admitting they lied with their 1st reason
Olde My friends know me as a very generous guy Problem is they're all bartendersIF they come up with another reason it'll be admitting they lied with their 1st reason
I find your use of the word "admitting" overly, almost inexplicably, generous.
You said this, Ed, "Our President should be a moral leader too ,one the young could be proud of ." So you have stipulations as to what is 'moral'.Evidently you have no problem with this racist pervert with 3 wives, cheating on them all, paying off porn stars to not give him up ?? Which of those you mentioned was as great a slime as Trump?JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Trump.......When did the president need to be moral? Trump?No the liar is far worse than that Our President should be a moral leader too ,one the young could be proud of You republicans love him because he IS a scumbag In my "twisted"" mind that's badJust say orange man bad,, it sounds a lot better lolSo upon listening to Trump speak with all the lies spouting out of his crooked mouth it's my ears deceiving me ?? How many more times will he lie about Obama and his Presidency? Just because his lies about his citizenship brought him the presidency with all you obama haters joining in, he continues to bash a man 10x his better?can you truthful for just a few minutes? you hate Trump because he beat your wonderful crooked hillary when the lying media filled your head with bullshit about "she cannot lose" "Trump has no path to 270 EC votes" "hillary has a 95% chance of winning". They LIED to you, dude, and they keep lying to you and you are too dumb to understand that you are being played for a fool.
what did you expect? Trump never planned on winning the White House in the first place.
let's take one example, when appointing people, Trump was obsessed if those people were supportive of him or were for Hillary. when Rex Tillerson asked for Eliott Abrams to be his deputy, someone from the nationalist front of the west wing gave trump a piece by abrams in the weekly standard which was critical of trump and supportive of crooked hillary. abrams didn't get the job...
Trump favors chaos!what did you expect? Trump never planned on winning the White House in the first place.
let's take one example, when appointing people, Trump was obsessed if those people were supportive of him or were for Hillary. when Rex Tillerson asked for Eliott Abrams to be his deputy, someone from the nationalist front of the west wing gave trump a piece by abrams in the weekly standard which was critical of trump and supportive of crooked hillary. abrams didn't get the job...
Basque for you If you have the stomach
List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations - Wikipedia
Meister I can readily admit my financial condition would be nowhere near what it is today with Hill in office So I'm caught between a rock and a hard place ,,despising the man who brought me wealth I just might not vote in NovYou said this, Ed, "Our President should be a moral leader too ,one the young could be proud of ." So you have stipulations as to what is 'moral'.Evidently you have no problem with this racist pervert with 3 wives, cheating on them all, paying off porn stars to not give him up ?? Which of those you mentioned was as great a slime as Trump?JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Trump.......When did the president need to be moral? Trump?No the liar is far worse than that Our President should be a moral leader too ,one the young could be proud of You republicans love him because he IS a scumbag In my "twisted"" mind that's badJust say orange man bad,, it sounds a lot better lolSo upon listening to Trump speak with all the lies spouting out of his crooked mouth it's my ears deceiving me ?? How many more times will he lie about Obama and his Presidency? Just because his lies about his citizenship brought him the presidency with all you obama haters joining in, he continues to bash a man 10x his better?
I didn't even bring in Clinton on it, but now I guess I need to. You just don't like Trump, that I understand. I just don't think it's because of the morality
thing.
Hey enjoy this day, Ed, best to you.
[QUOTE="Jitss617, post: 22670681, member: /] you have absolutely NO GUARANTEE OF FREE SPEECH here if you are not a citizen.. ...
Are they battling for reduced gov't spending ? You know that fiscal responsibility thing??with their youth and ideological zeal, Trump's judges are carrying on the battle for conservative principles!
