Two ‘I’ agencies, one Democratic double standard



Two three-letter agencies beginning with “I” show how differently Democrats view enforcement. When it comes to ICE, any enforcement is too much. When it comes to the IRS, no amount can be too much.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement administers U.S. immigration law. The Internal Revenue Service administers U.S. federal tax law. In neither case do these agencies make the law. Congress writes the laws, and the president signs them. The agencies simply enforce what has been enacted.

Democrats act as if illegal entry earns indefinite permission to stay. No one would tell tax evaders they can stop paying indefinitely.

Yet Democrats want to abolish ICE for enforcing immigration law and to bolster the IRS for enforcing tax law.

Consider the contrast. A growing chorus of Democrats now demands ICE be abolished, just as these Democrats called for defunding the police. Meanwhile, just months into his term, President Biden proposed doubling the size of the IRS, increasing its funding by $80 billion, and hiring 87,000 new IRS agents. Democrats delivered much of that in the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, with almost 60% of the nearly $80 billion aimed at audits.

ICE targets those breaking U.S. immigration law. Everyone with income is subject to IRS review, and many are audited. The first group is a subset of the population; the second is essentially the entire adult population. Democrats oppose scrutinizing noncitizens living here illegally, but they welcome more scrutiny of U.S. citizens.

The penalties differ just as sharply. The Department of Homeland Security currently offers to pay for a flight home and $2,600 for those in the country illegally who choose to self-deport. If they refuse and are found to be here illegally, ICE deports them. The duration of illegal presence does not add penalties. In fact, the longer someone has been here illegally, the more Democrats argue he should be allowed to stay.

The IRS treats duration very differently. Unpaid taxes accrue penalties and interest that multiply over time. The IRS can garnish wages and seize assets, including homes, cars, and businesses. It also has imprisonment in its arsenal.

Families factor in differently too. Democrats routinely argue that deportations are wrong because they hurt families. Yet IRS prosecution and punishment also hurt families, often severely, and that fact does not seem to trouble Democrats.

Intent is another difference. Many people here illegally know they are here illegally, and many fail to show for immigration hearings. By contrast, many tax problems begin as mistakes. Yet the money is still owed, and the IRS will move to collect when it discovers the error.

RELATED: The new activism looks a lot like mental illness

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Democrats also argue that illegal immigrants bolster the economy because they work and add value to GDP, even if they are not paying taxes. But the same is true of someone who evades taxes: He works, adds value, and withholds what he owes.

No one argues that tax evaders should be left alone. They broke the law. If they did so deliberately, they deserve little sympathy. Allowing tax dodging encourages more of it.

Yet Democrats say almost exactly the opposite about those who break immigration law, including those who break other U.S. laws as well. They have gone to great lengths to defend them, even traveling to El Salvador in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an accused gang member and human trafficker.

Democrats act as if illegal entry earns indefinite permission to stay. No one would tell tax evaders they can stop paying indefinitely.

Imagine sanctuary jurisdictions shielding taxpayers from the IRS. Imagine local authorities refusing to cooperate with federal tax collectors. Imagine Republicans storming federal prisons holding those convicted of tax fraud. Imagine conservatives building databases to track IRS agents. The backlash would be immediate and rightly so.

Tax evasion is not treated as a persuasive argument about tax policy. Illegal immigration, however, gets treated by Democrats and the establishment press as if lawbreaking itself settles the immigration debate.

On enforcement, Democrats apply two standards: one for immigration law and one for tax law. That is what hypocrisy looks like.

Trump Should Pardon Victims Of Dems’ J6 Lawfare On Day One

Trump could and should pardon the J6 political prisoners as one of his first acts in office, or at least commute sentences.

Hunter Biden tries to change plea to no contest in tax evasion case — but judge may not accept it



First son Hunter Biden tried to change his plea to no contest in the tax evasion charges against him, but the judge on the case deferred ruling on the matter.

Jury selection for the case was scheduled to begin on Thursday morning at a federal courthouse in Los Angeles. Biden, 54, had previously pled not guilty to three felony charges and six misdemeanor charges related to tax evasion.

'A plea such as this should not be used to obfuscate the truth.'

However, once the hearing began, his attorneys suddenly announced that Biden intended to change his plea to an Alford plea. An Alford plea is technically a guilty plea in which defendants admit that prosecutors could likely secure a conviction without also having to admit that the allegations against them are true.

Defense attorney Abbe Lowell acknowledged on Thursday that the evidence against Biden is "overwhelming" and claimed that in an effort to bring the case to a quick resolution, Biden has offered to change his plea.

Prosecutors, caught off guard by the sudden turn of events, balked at the offer of an Alford plea.

"Hunter Biden is not innocent. Hunter Biden is guilty," prosecutor Leo Wise told the court. "He is not entitled to plead guilty on special terms that apply only to him."

District Judge Mark Scarsi, appointed by Donald Trump, then declared a short recess, asking all parties to return later that morning.

After court reconvened, Wise reiterated that "the U.S. opposes an Alford plea" in Biden's case.

Lowell argued that "the court is required to accept the plea" and that all the details "can be resolved today," NBC News reported.

Judge Scarsi seemed doubtful. "I haven’t seen a case that tells me I have to accept an Alford plea," he stated.

Scarsi ultimately decided to delay his decision on the matter, asking attorneys for both sides to file briefs to make their case.

"The public justifiably expects the court to seek truth in transparent proceeding," he said during the hearing, per CNN. "A plea such as this should not be used to obfuscate the truth."

According to the DOJ, Hunter Biden willfully neglected to pay at least $1.4 million in federal taxes between 2016 and 2019, using the money to support his "extravagant lifestyle" instead of "paying his tax bills." He also allegedly filed false returns in 2018.

If convicted, he could face up to 17 years behind bars.

In June, a federal jury in Delaware found Hunter Biden guilty of three gun-related charges. He has yet to be sentenced in that case but faces up to 25 years. As it was his first official criminal offense, he is unlikely to receive the maximum penalty.

President Joe Biden has repeatedly insisted he will not pardon his son in either the gun- or the tax-related case. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reiterated on Thursday that the president will not pardon Hunter. She declined to comment on Hunter Biden's attempted plea change, the AP reported.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Hunter Biden Trial Prosecutors Tried Not To Bring Is More Proof Our Justice System Is A Joke

Hunter Biden is on trial for lying on paperwork, and even then, it's a trial the Justice Department never wanted to happen.