Tom Tancredo Hired Illegal Laborers to Renovate His McMansion

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sorry, Steven, it is not forward thinking, it is defeatism at its most rank. And to think that you come here pushing the immigration issue when you feel that way. Your vision is not one of a leader or an ethical member, it is that of a submissive, acceded to the unethical. That's no "alliance". Wow, the ways you can rewrap that old fish in tinsel, but it still stinks.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Wow! I am speaking to a colleague of mine who worked in the welfare office. And boy is he telling me how it all works, and I'm getting sooo frickin angry!

He told me he also worked for a tax preparation firm for a bit....the supervisor of a group of illegals would come in with a truckload of illegal workers. The workers would all have ss#s. He said one guy came in, gave a social, was claiming 5 children, and wound up paying $700 throughout the year in taxes. He said the guy qualified for the earned income credit, then the guy gave him receipts from a federally approved daycare, so he got the child care credit. The RETURN amounted to $3,800. My colleague, in passing, asked the guy where the guy's kids went to school, and the guy rattled off a school in Mexico. My colleague then told the guy that he couldn't get the credits for the kids if they lived in Mexico....and readjusted the return which then turned out to him owing $100. The guy got up, and actually went to another location of the franchise and got his $3800 credit, and my colleague got chewed out by the supervisor, as it was not his place to verify any information, and they were only in the biz of doing the actual return.

Whoa.

Relax, Lisa. This is just more example of what is to come through our grand alliance and forward thinking future. You can't argue against it without being rude, ya know.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sorry, Steven, it is not forward thinking, it is defeatism at its most rank. And to think that you come here pushing the immigration issue when you feel that way. Your vision is not one of a leader or an ethical member, it is that of a submissive, acceded to the unethical. That's no "alliance". Wow, the ways you can rewrap that old fish in tinsel, but it still stinks.

Like I said, myopia is a dreadful disease.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sorry, Steven, it is not forward thinking, it is defeatism at its most rank. And to think that you come here pushing the immigration issue when you feel that way. Your vision is not one of a leader or an ethical member, it is that of a submissive, acceded to the unethical. That's no "alliance". Wow, the ways you can rewrap that old fish in tinsel, but it still stinks.

Like I said, myopia is a dreadful disease.

And like I said, you have a dreadful disease.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Seriously, Steven, your position is like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". There were those who advised that we all just relax and allow ourselves to be taken over and replaced, by something that even you admitted was not a good thing. Is this the best you can do? Call someone who disagrees with you myopic because they have more stamina and energy for the fight than you do?

Edited December 2, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[GabachaYucateca 0]

Lisa: how did they get around the issue of needing actual social security cards for all dependents?

I coordinate a Volunteer Income Tax Assistance site for work, and we're not able to list anyone on a return, legal or illegal, who can't produce back up documentation, be it a SS# or ITIN.

I know that you mentioned the other tax preparer said they they're not in the business of checking anyone's documentation...is that how they got around it?

[Fandango 1,439]

Absolutely a hit piece....no details whatsoever.

As far as this goes - Tancredo doesn't really need help to disparage him; as he seems to do a pretty good job of doing it himself. Isn't that the guy who suggested that it might be a nice idea if muslim holy sites were nuked in retaliation for a terrorist attack?

I don't support the article or indeed the way it is written - but Tancredo seems to be a pretty ridiculous figure.

Whether or not he's ridiculous in other areas doesn't add credit to this piece.

Agreed. But I think Steven had a point there when he said that some of the comments in this thread appear to have been taken as a slur on their position on illegal immigration.

The article, flawed as it is - is about Tancredo, not about what different people here believe with regards to the illegal immigration debate. As to why Steven posted it - well... that's a bit different.

Given how nuts Tancredo appears to be - I don't understand why anyone would take ownership of him and his views any more than I would of Al Gore - re: environmental issues. Flaws/contradictions in the alleged beliefs and behaviour of a public official don't extend to flaws in yours or mine.

But IS it a bit different, 6? Are you saying it's impossible to think that it was a 'neener neener look, your guy got caught!' thread? I think that happens (on both sides) more often than not.

[Caladan 19]

Absolutely a hit piece....no details whatsoever.

As far as this goes - Tancredo doesn't really need help to disparage him; as he seems to do a pretty good job of doing it himself. Isn't that the guy who suggested that it might be a nice idea if muslim holy sites were nuked in retaliation for a terrorist attack?

I don't support the article or indeed the way it is written - but Tancredo seems to be a pretty ridiculous figure.

Tancredo admitted in a recent article (about three weeks ago, blanking on the site, but a mainstream publication) that he knows his views are extreme and unworkable but he sees himself as setting the extreme boundaries of the debate, not representing what he actually thinks is good policy. It's a pretty well-known tactic. If you passionately argue that Tehran should be nuked in a pre-emptive strike, you look crazy, but you've made using conventional warfare look like the reasonable compromise position. If you argue that all Muslims should be shot on sight, you make the guy arguing for concentration camps look merciful. It's a way to push the debate in your direction by dishonestly representing your real position.

[Fandango 1,439]

Lisa: how did they get around the issue of needing actual social security cards for all dependents?

I coordinate a Volunteer Income Tax Assistance site for work, and we're not able to list anyone on a return, legal or illegal, who can't produce back up documentation, be it a SS# or ITIN.

I know that you mentioned the other tax preparer said they they're not in the business of checking anyone's documentation...is that how they got around it?

According to my colleague, if you go into a neighboring town, for $100 'you can come out with a food stamp card, ss#, dl, etc'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Absolutely a hit piece....no details whatsoever.

As far as this goes - Tancredo doesn't really need help to disparage him; as he seems to do a pretty good job of doing it himself. Isn't that the guy who suggested that it might be a nice idea if muslim holy sites were nuked in retaliation for a terrorist attack?

I don't support the article or indeed the way it is written - but Tancredo seems to be a pretty ridiculous figure.

Whether or not he's ridiculous in other areas doesn't add credit to this piece.

Agreed. But I think Steven had a point there when he said that some of the comments in this thread appear to have been taken as a slur on their position on illegal immigration.

The article, flawed as it is - is about Tancredo, not about what different people here believe with regards to the illegal immigration debate. As to why Steven posted it - well... that's a bit different.

Given how nuts Tancredo appears to be - I don't understand why anyone would take ownership of him and his views any more than I would of Al Gore - re: environmental issues. Flaws/contradictions in the alleged beliefs and behaviour of a public official don't extend to flaws in yours or mine.

But IS it a bit different, 6? Are you saying it's impossible to think that it was a 'neener neener look, your guy got caught!' thread? I think that happens (on both sides) more often than not.

I don't think its impossible, and yes articles have been posted on here before for the purposes of baiting. But even if that were the reason here - what is served by rising to it?

I'm sure Tancredo doesn't represent the views of everyone who opposes illegal immigration.

[Caladan 19]

Lisa: how did they get around the issue of needing actual social security cards for all dependents?

I coordinate a Volunteer Income Tax Assistance site for work, and we're not able to list anyone on a return, legal or illegal, who can't produce back up documentation, be it a SS# or ITIN.

I know that you mentioned the other tax preparer said they they're not in the business of checking anyone's documentation...is that how they got around it?

This is a good point, and not to say that Lisa's friend is lying, but the story doesn't add up completely. You can't just claim the tax credit; you have to prove the dependents exist. Maybe the tax service isn't checking papers, but that's not to say the guy will actually get the refund for the kids if they don't have social security cards.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Absolutely a hit piece....no details whatsoever.

As far as this goes - Tancredo doesn't really need help to disparage him; as he seems to do a pretty good job of doing it himself. Isn't that the guy who suggested that it might be a nice idea if muslim holy sites were nuked in retaliation for a terrorist attack?

I don't support the article or indeed the way it is written - but Tancredo seems to be a pretty ridiculous figure.

Tancredo admitted in a recent article (about three weeks ago, blanking on the site, but a mainstream publication) that he knows his views are extreme and unworkable but he sees himself as setting the extreme boundaries of the debate, not representing what he actually thinks is good policy. It's a pretty well-known tactic. If you passionately argue that Tehran should be nuked in a pre-emptive strike, you look crazy, but you've made using conventional warfare look like the reasonable compromise position. If you argue that all Muslims should be shot on sight, you make the guy arguing for concentration camps look merciful. It's a way to push the debate in your direction by dishonestly representing your real position.

An agitator, in other words.

From what you say the guy sounds rather like the elected official equivalent of one of those radio "shock-jocks". I always wonder with those guys whether they genuinely believe in the extreme stuff they say, or if their goal is to put them out there and watch the $hit fly.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Number 6

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Absolutely a hit piece....no details whatsoever.

As far as this goes - Tancredo doesn't really need help to disparage him; as he seems to do a pretty good job of doing it himself. Isn't that the guy who suggested that it might be a nice idea if muslim holy sites were nuked in retaliation for a terrorist attack?

I don't support the article or indeed the way it is written - but Tancredo seems to be a pretty ridiculous figure.

Tancredo admitted in a recent article (about three weeks ago, blanking on the site, but a mainstream publication) that he knows his views are extreme and unworkable but he sees himself as setting the extreme boundaries of the debate, not representing what he actually thinks is good policy. It's a pretty well-known tactic. If you passionately argue that Tehran should be nuked in a pre-emptive strike, you look crazy, but you've made using conventional warfare look like the reasonable compromise position. If you argue that all Muslims should be shot on sight, you make the guy arguing for concentration camps look merciful. It's a way to push the debate in your direction by dishonestly representing your real position.

Very interesting.

[Fandango 1,439]

Lisa: how did they get around the issue of needing actual social security cards for all dependents?

I coordinate a Volunteer Income Tax Assistance site for work, and we're not able to list anyone on a return, legal or illegal, who can't produce back up documentation, be it a SS# or ITIN.

I know that you mentioned the other tax preparer said they they're not in the business of checking anyone's documentation...is that how they got around it?

This is a good point, and not to say that Lisa's friend is lying, but the story doesn't add up completely. You can't just claim the tax credit; you have to prove the dependents exist. Maybe the tax service isn't checking papers, but that's not to say the guy will actually get the refund for the kids if they don't have social security cards.

The tax service place (which shall not be named), said they are not in the biz of checking numbers as it's not their responsibility. He also had receipts for the daycare service.

This person I'm talking about is of the most reputable person around, he's not lying.

[Fandango 1,439]

And furthermore, getting a duff social doesn't prove the kids are with you anyways!