Slashdot Mirror


Congress Debating "No-Work" Database

grag writes "Cnet is reporting that the US Congress, in their quest for immigration reform, seeks to force employers to utilize a database to determine a person's eligibility for employment. The Department of Homeland Security would operate the database and would be given access to IRS records for this purpose. The article mentions similarities between this proposal and the no-fly list — and the expectation of similar difficulties the proposed database could pose to valid people seeking employment."

438 comments

  1. Across the border... by danbert8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This won't affect illegal immigrants working. Employers know they aren't elligible to work, they choose to employ them not just because they are cheaper labor, but because they do better work than the unionized workers here in the states.

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    1. Re:Across the border... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This won't affect illegal immigrants working. Employers know they aren't elligible to work, they choose to employ them not just because they are cheaper labor, but because they do better work than the unionized workers here in the states.

      Mod parent up. Does anyone with half a clue think that the workers hanging around a street corner at 6am looking for construction bosses to pick them up are LEGAL? Who's kidding whom here?! They're not checking documents now, and that's a legal requirement already. They think that the existence of a database will somehow make people care any more?

      -b.

    2. Re:Across the border... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      They think that the existence of a database will somehow make people care any more?

      It will, once they've extraordinarily renditioned the first couple of offenders, or shipped them to Gitmo, or just disappeared them.

    3. Re:Across the border... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It will, once they've extraordinarily renditioned the first couple of offenders, or shipped them to Gitmo, or just disappeared them.

      If that ever happened, it would be time to start voting with the rope and lamppost rather than with the ballot box.

      -b.

    4. Re:Across the border... by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This won't affect illegal immigrants working
       
      Exactly; this is like gun control laws. People determined to disobey this law will do so just as they ignore current employment laws.
       
        they choose to employ them not just because they are cheaper labor
       
      And everyone always gets wrong WHY they're cheaper: payroll taxes. The face value of illegal labor is only a little lower than the legal labor but behind the scenes not having to pay the additional taxes an employer has to pick up makes the difference HUGE. Yet another reason to go to the Fair Tax. Tax reform would go a LONG way toward taking care of the illegal worker problem all by itself without this half baked database idea.
       
        because they do better work than the unionized workers here in the states
       
      Oh no, not at all true all the time. The illegal workers the my HOA's maintenance contractor picks up at the day labor pool do extremely shoddy work. It all comes down to being ultra cheap which is how he undercuts all the other bids by at least half. Now if only the board would listen to the complaints more and look at the numbers less but that's another rant...

    5. Re:Across the border... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Am I supposed to "get it"? *confused*

    6. Re:Across the border... by Opportunist · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hmm... let's see... cheap labour, meaning cheap production, meaning lower imports, meaning more money generated in the country, meaning higher exports, meaning better trade balance...

      I wouldn't hold my breath for that happening.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Across the border... by ronadams · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I second your disagreement with the GP about illegals doing better work. This is the sort of P.C. warm feel-good sentiments that spread amongst the populace like a propaganda virus; the idea that illegal immigrants must be diligent industrious folks who have come here to do the jobs no one else will do, and work extra hard for the American Dream. The fact is, they have come here because they know there's free health care, housing and damn near everything else to be had. Are many hard-working? You bet. That doesn't change the fact that they're here, not paying taxes, drawing their benefits off of your paycheck. The usual claim is that these illegals would really like to become citizens, but the system is too inefficient, difficult, unreasonable, etc. to allow it. Tell me, if you could have nearly all the benefits of being an American citizen without paying taxes, would becoming a tax-paying citizen be your first priority? For this reason and more, I really hope something like a "no-work" database will be instituted, and not quietly murdered in a back alley in D.C. because of the many potential complications involved. It is high time for all of us to defend the infrastructure of this nation; it's strained, nearly broken back can not hold all this weight forever.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    8. Re:Across the border... by jaweekes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm amazed that the politicians are talking about illegal workers and not the companies that employ them. Hold on... Nope, I'm not amazed!

      If they actually investigated the companies that employ illegal workers, and imposed a decent fine and/or prison for the CEO, and then had some high profile cases, then we wouldn't have a problem with it.

      The other problem is Americans. No matter how bad off people are, they will not go out in the mid-day sun and pick cotton or build houses for the pennies illegal people will do it for.

      Also, the excuse used is cost, but I don't think that it would increase that much by using legal people and paying them min wage if they could get them.

    9. Re:Across the border... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      I'm amazed that the politicians are talking about illegal workers and not the companies that employ them. Hold on... Nope, I'm not amazed!

      I wonder how many politicians or their spouses employ illegal household help. As they say about glass houses and stones...

      -b.

    10. Re:Across the border... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Or congress could just change the current tax code so that pay stubs had to show 'employer contributions' to FICA. I'm pretty sure the accountant that decided that employer contributions were different than employee contributions was a bigger asshole than any lawyer ever.

      A pre/rebated sales tax is a nice idea, but I'm not real convinced that the problems that come with a consumptive tax(black markets, massive incentive to make(and hide) purchases elsewhere) are really an improvement over the current situation. It also favors the people with the most, most highly disposable income, which is the rich(that is, people who already don't care about money get to care even less, as their yearly 'account surplus' grows faster under such a system).

      As it is, the Fair Tax is more than hopeless, time would be better spent agitating for simplifying and adding transparency to the current tax code.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    11. Re:Across the border... by melstav · · Score: 1

      And everyone always gets wrong WHY they're cheaper: payroll taxes.


      Abso-freakin'-lutely.

      My wife and I run a small business in addition to our day jobs. We have one full-time employee.

      Between his state and federal withholdings and all of the taxes that are levied against us, the employer, for every $1.00 net that I write his paycheck for, I have to send almost $0.50 to one government agency or another.

      Payroll taxes suck ass.
    12. Re:Across the border... by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      The quality argument has less to do with unions per se, and more with the state of competition. North of the Mason Dixon, and in some other locations, the unions have a lock on construction work. In some trades, there ARE no non-union shops. If a GC tries to contract with a non-union shop for part of the work, the other union trades (remember, they are guaranteed to be on site, do to teh aforementioned lock on some trades) will ensure that "bad things" happen on the project, ranging from slow work, sabotage, to violence and intimidation.

      South of the Mason Dixon, there are no trades where the unions have a lock. Since the unions can't compete on labor cost, they compete on quality. And they are reasonably successful - if there is a tight schedule, a GC can't afford NOT to take the subcontractor that will do it right the first time.

      In other areas, were there is little union presence at all (say, landscaping and drywall)there is only competition on cost, and quality is abyssmal.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    13. Re:Across the border... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that I wouldn't go and build houses, it's that I won't do it for the pennies that the illegals do it for. The problem is employers won't pay a fair wage for jobs like that cause they get away with paying very little to the aliens. Of course, if they did not, their price would go up and they couldn't compete with "jobs'r'us" down the street.

    14. Re:Across the border... by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 0

      Please ! my wife works in a hopsital they caught one of the cleaning people stealing money , they watched her for a week. Every day she would western union the money to her family in Brazil. And on pay day she sent 1/2 of her checks there. You really think that the money stays in the US ? If so I have some land in Florida for sale, it's right on the everglades and has lots of green plants around!

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    15. Re:Across the border... by HostAdmin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But it creates such a wonderful opportunity for another government data base. If you're really lucky you can get on both the NO FLY list and the NO WORK list.

      We need to re-boot government instead of adding more programs trying to fix the corrupted ones. Go back to the source code (Articles of Confederation), recompile our operating system and re-install it without 200+ years of bloatware.

    16. Re:Across the border... by kalirion · · Score: 1

      So what happens if you share a name with an illegal immigrant? It's not like they'll have a social security number to differentiate with. We know that with the no fly list even sharing a part of your name is enough to be kicked out of the airport.

    17. Re:Across the border... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh, certainly not the pennies paid to the workers. But you generate, essentially, the value of "Made in the USA" for the price of "Made in China".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Across the border... by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 0

      You forgot the US Citizen she replaced.

      And the fact she's a liar. All border jumping criminals are liars, do you want to hire a liar?

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    19. Re:Across the border... by idontgno · · Score: 1

      It's not like they'll have a social security number to differentiate with.

      Nonsense, they'll have your social security number.

      OK, probably not, but I'd imagine many illegals have bogus SS numbers. (Made up, borrowed, whatever.)

      As to the issue of sharing a name with some one who is "legitimately" on the list... well... it's one of the little sacrifices the great American people must make. Ok, I guess technically it's just you and the other innocents with that particular name that are making that sacrifice, but I mean, it's certainly worth it if I can feel good about kicking those unsavory illegals out of our lily white nation, like God intended.

      Ooops, forgot the <sarcasm> tags. Sorry folks.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    20. Re:Across the border... by magarity · · Score: 1

      change the current tax code so that pay stubs had to show 'employer contributions' to FICA
       
      Yeah, so all the people (almost everyone I know) who think they didn't pay taxes last year because they got a refund in April will suddenly start looking at their pay stubs? The only thing people care about at paycheck time is the part that says 'Pay the amount of ...'
       
        It also favors the people with the most, most highly disposable income
       
      'Disposable income' is income you have extra to go out and buy new stuff with... what else does a sales tax target??? You have it perfectly backwards. The ONLY people the Fair Tax benefits are people who choose to put some money in a savings account and not buy a new stuff this week - whether that's $20 or $2000 they both benefit. Don't resort to class warfare to argue against an idea that's good for everyone.

    21. Re:Across the border... by alta · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Agreed on the shoddy work. My father-in-law runs a temp to perm labor service. He doesn't promote any of the workers, they are hired out based on their performance. He actually prefers NOT to have them hired out because it cuts his labor pool. Because of the poor work habits, the immigrants make up nearly the entire temp staff, and everyone else makes up the 'to perm' guys. And his customers are willing to pay more for non-immigrants because they get more work done in a day. It's not because they CAN work harder, it's because they DO work harder. Maybe this isn't the case everywhere, but it is here.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    22. Re:Across the border... by The+Warlock · · Score: 1

      "Free health care"? You must be thinking of that country to the north of us.

      Anyway.

      By your logic, we should support a bill to make all the illegal immigrants legal, taxpaying citizens, and then enforce tax laws with deportation.

      Actually, that doesn't sound like too bad an idea.

      --
      I've upped my standards, so up yours.
    23. Re:Across the border... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      'Disposable income' is income you have extra to go out and buy new stuff with...

      Disposable income is what's left after the basic necessities of life are paid for (most of these necessities, being things you consume like food/electricity/etc, would be taxed under the system you advocate). If you use all of your disposable income to go out and buy new stuff which, you shouldn't be lecturing people about different tax system, but take care of your own personal finances yet. There's this thing called investing, and smart people with disposable income will allocate a lot of the latter for it (morons won't, but that can't be helped). And as far as I see, in that "Fair Tax" system there's no tax on money you invest, right ? Therefore, under this system you pay less and less taxes (percentage-wise) the more disposable income you have and invest - i.e. is is a big tax break for people who don't really need one, and it puts the squeeze on people who need to spend most of their income on those basic necessities of life.

    24. Re:Across the border... by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      It will make it so that if they want to put a legal worker on the list, it immediately becomes challenging for them to get work among people who do hire within the bounds of the law...

      Red Scare bring up memories?

      He's a commun... terrorist. Lets keep him from working ever again.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    25. Re:Across the border... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normally I wouldn't bother to reply but... since when does cheap labour equal cheap products and services? Certainly not in my lifetime, and I'm a couple of decades out of Uni.

    26. Re:Across the border... by ronadams · · Score: 2, Informative

      Free health care? Guess what happens when an illegal immigrant goes to the emergency room. They don't let them die. Guess what happens when they go to the "free clinics" intended for the economically depressed American citizens? No, my logic states all illegal immigrants are criminals, and should be treated thusly.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    27. Re:Across the border... by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Seconded and I'm a USA born and raised construction worker. I've had plenty of immigrant co-workers and my HOA does similar.

      --
      C|N>K
    28. Re:Across the border... by jae471 · · Score: 1
      I wonder how many politicians or their spouses employ illegal household help. As they say about glass houses and stones...

      Alot of them. If I recall correctly, that's why we ended up with Janet Reno as AG. The first two nominees got caught for having hired illegal nannies.

    29. Re:Across the border... by Jaguar777 · · Score: 1

      it puts the squeeze on people who need to spend most of their income on those basic necessities of life.

      No, there is a prebate for the necessities of life. See the details.

      "Under the FairTax, all Americans consume what they see as their necessities of life free of tax. While permitting no exemptions, the FairTax (HR 25) provides a monthly universal prebate to ensure that each family unit can consume tax free at or beyond the poverty level, with the overall effect of making the FairTax progressive in application."

      --
      Maybe you should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow. - Dogbert
    30. Re:Across the border... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It depends on the work, but anyone running a crew doing any kind of heavy labor will tell you they'd rather hire Mexicans. They do better in the sun, too; many's the day I drive past a vineyard (I live amongst a number of them) and see some Mexicans out in the sun wearing hooded sweatshirts because 80 degrees ain't hot enough for 'em or something. I shit you not. I'm not one to believe in racial superiority or anything (in spite of being a quarter mexican myself) but different peoples are definitely better- or worse-suited for individual climates etc. I do much much better in the cold (and I'm a quarter Norwegian too, which bloodline seems to have won out since I am pale as a whitefish.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:Across the border... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The other problem is Americans. No matter how bad off people are, they will not go out in the mid-day sun and pick cotton or build houses for the pennies illegal people will do it for.

      I think it's that last part that really needs to be emphasized. There are a lot of people running around -- usually politicians, but I've seen some newspaper editorials where it was said -- claiming that illegals do work that "Americans won't do." This is false.

      Anyone who doesn't believe it's false, can just turn on the Discovery Channel the next time they're running that "Dirty Jobs" program. There are people who do pretty unbelievable stuff for a living; shoveling garbage, standing waist-deep in feces, working ridiculous hours in uncomfortable conditions, dodging machinery that could crush or tear you in half if you're not quick. But they don't do it for cheap. There's a reason why sanitation workers in NYC get paid more than cops -- otherwise, there wouldn't be any sanitation workers.

      There isn't anything that somebody in this country won't do, for the right compensation. All illegal workers do is allow big companies to get away with paying workers less than they ought to get, for dangerous/uncomfortable/unsafe/unsavory jobs. Ultimately, this hurts all legitimate workers, across the board: low-skilled workers are impacted the most, because it directly depresses their wages, but higher-skilled workers are hurt, too, because of the increased labor pool being pushed up from below, and also the increased tax burden (which is shouldered mostly by high-skilled, high-income workers) of supporting a surplus of low-skilled workers and their attendant medical/educational/social costs.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    32. Re:Across the border... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess who the unions own?

    33. Re:Across the border... by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      There are 303 people in the U.S. named Brad Harris. Well shoot, that's almost enough of us to create a small well-regulated militia. HowManyOfMe.com

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    34. Re:Across the border... by mpe · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many politicians or their spouses employ illegal household help. As they say about glass houses and stones...

      It would probably save quite a lot of money just to put they all of the list.

    35. Re:Across the border... by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      I've seen enough legal immigrants to know that they also work very hard at low cost compared to natural born Americans (i'm talking about US citizens by birth, BTW, not the people who were here prior to European colonization). That has been the situation almost since the beginning of this country.

      My top requirement for a reformed immigration system is that legal immigration be increased by a sizable amout and allow provisions for unskilled workers with clean character. That includes respect for US immigration law. Our economy and our geography have room for a lot more good people. Reducing illegals in the country will not create a huge vacuum if they are immediately replaced with people willing to play by the rules. Even if the laws are changed to retroactively legalize overstaying a visa or crossing the border, the fact that it was illegal at the time still indicates a character flaw that remains. And do we really want to legalize overstaying a visa or crossing the border without one?

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    36. Re:Across the border... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Rebates are one of the things wrong with the current income tax system. People shouldn't be waiting for their government check, even if it's money they loaned to the government (interest free).

      I hesitate to give my money to somebody who gets to decide how and when they pay me back.

    37. Re:Across the border... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Right, but people who earn enough income to meet their basic needs, their level one luxury needs and their level two luxury needs and their level three luxury needs and their level four luxury needs end up getting a tax break, a tax break on the money that they, by definition, need the least, because they couldn't even find a way to spend it. And they have a huge reason not to tell the government about that $50 million yacht that they are keeping in South Africa or Barbados or whatever. There are good reasons to incentivize capital investment(job creation, wealth creation, etc.), but let's not pretend that those incentives are not generally regressive(I'm not making a moral argument here, just stating that rewarding investment rewards people who are actually able to invest -- if government spending were under control, all taxes wouldn't be equal, but until the balance sheet is positive, all taxes are equal).

      It's only 'class warfare' if you accept(or insist) that paying a CEO $100 million a year and a janitor $9 an hour is a result of a well functioning market(and some difference in pay there is certainly justified in a market analysis, the question is whether *all* of it is), and not a result of poor regulation and over regulation. There is a shortage of people who are considered qualified to be CEO(whether this is an actual shortage, or simply a perceived shortage is a huge question), and a surplus of people willing to mop floors. To the extent that the regulatory climate creates that difference, labeling attempts to correct the situation as class warfare is just class warfare working in the other direction.

      If the world always had been fair, the question of wealth distribution would be a lot less complicated, but the world hasn't always been fair. Arguing from the position that people with wealth have it simply because they deserve it and have earned it, and those without wealth do not have it simply because they have failed to earn it and do not deserve it completely ignores the fact that, in many cases, it is not deserved and earned, and in many cases, external forces dominated any personal efforts. Much attention needs to be paid to making things as equitable as possible, in both directions.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    38. Re:Across the border... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      If you don't know that type of behavior only strengthens the sterortype of the elitist Mac user, GTFO.
      If you aren't sick to death of seeing this stupid message in every discussion, GTFO.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    39. Re:Across the border... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a misinformed white man.

    40. Re:Across the border... by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      My logic is all illegal immigrants should be made legal, that way they get to pay taxes like we do.

    41. Re:Across the border... by Zonekeeper · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Hmm. And so you have a problem with enforcing the law? You have a problem with getting rid of people who are here illegally and quite often are accompanied by those who aren't here for the jobs, but for the drug trade they can run/supply? F*** YOU. I have intimate knowledge of the kind of subhuman garbage that comes across the border who aren't here looking to pick lettuce or sweep office buildings. You think black gangs like the Crips and the Bloods are bad? You don't know JACK SHIT about the kind of people we are letting in here. As an aside, a close acquaintance, ex-black ops military, who REALLY does know many ways to kill you with no weapons, knows even more than I do (or WANT to know) about these people, and this guy who isn't afraid of ANYONE is afraid of THESE folks. I only hope they get you before the get me or someone close to me. It will be one less sycophant MORON out there defending the rights of people who would disappear you and your family in a second if it suited them.

    42. Re:Across the border... by Jaguar777 · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you misunderstood what I wrote.

      It is a prebate, not a rebate. It has nothing to do with how much you pay in taxes. It is a set amount sent at the beginning of the month.

      "The monthly prebate check is calculated by multiplying the annual poverty level spending published each year by the Department of Health and Human Services times the FairTax rate and dividing by twelve. Poverty level spending represents what it costs families of varying household size and composition to buy their necessities."
      Source

      --
      Maybe you should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow. - Dogbert
    43. Re:Across the border... by ronadams · · Score: 1

      And my logic is that I don't want someone having the same rights as me as a citizen who doesn't deserve it.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    44. Re:Across the border... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It will, once they've extraordinarily renditioned the first couple of offenders

      Do you really think that someone doing an impressive imitation of the first offenders is going to dissuade others?

    45. Re:Across the border... by Asklepius+M.D. · · Score: 1

      Oh boy, "they don't let them die" sure is a good deal - especially considering the potential risk of discovery. The ER in most of America is a triage center for the hospital. They provide "free" emergent and trauma care by law, but if you require a prescription that lasts longer than a few days or follow up treatment of any kind, you can and will be referred elsewhere if you don't have insurance. Having worked in many different healthcare settings, I speak from experience when I say that for all but the most dire conditions and when all other options (including non-traditional medicine) have been exhausted, most illegal immigrants will avoid presenting at the ER for fear of discovery. I've had some very interesting nights working in free medical clinics for this very reason.

      Since this is slashdot, here's the disclaimer: I am not a doctor, lawyer, hospital administrator, sanitation engineer, teacher, microsoft employee, SCO stockholder, congressional lobbyist, thetan, flying meatball, or spawn of satan. My only expertise is due to the fact that an anagram of my name spells "is tiny jesus".

      --
      He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
    46. Re:Across the border... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Anti union flamebaiting to the MAX!!! There are no words to describe such simplistic, Newscorp pap! It has all been said already. UGH! And outright bigotry besides... Shame on you! and the moderators who agree! That's all that really can be said anymore. My god! If that's insightful, then I'm Socrates.

      --
      What?
    47. Re:Across the border... by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      Some of the illegals crossed miles and miles of desert risking dehydration and heat stroke just to pick crops all day long so they could make some money to support their families. Certainly they deserve rights at least as much as a person who just happened to be born to the right parents.

    48. Re:Across the border... by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      You are taking the same easy route as the Bush administration by labeling "ALL" people who immigrate to the U.S as worse than Bloods and Crips. You need to think on a regional if not individual level.

      This unemployment thing is important. I don't want to leave my job to know that I am ineligible because some gang forced the government to piss billions of dollars on some no-work database.

    49. Re:Across the border... by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      They're not checking documents now, and that's a legal requirement already. They think that the existence of a database will somehow make people care any more?

      This will only be compounded by the general ineffectiveness of the database solution. As somebody whose name (Ben Smith) is suspiciously similar to somebody else who was a bad boy enough to get them on the do-not-fly list, it just doesn't work.

      I've spent years having to go through additional security checks at airports - fingerprinting, etc - because somebody, somewhere, has a name or alias that sounds an awful lot like (ahem) Ben Smith. A system like this is a recipe for a disastrous sea of false positives!

      I can just see it now, at the side of the road:

      Guy drives up in a truck. "You looking for work?"

      "Si, senor!"

      "Wutcher name? Lemme lookit up..."

      "Jose Jiminez, senor".

      "Hmmm... Says here on my newfangled wireless cellular wifi laptop thang that you could be one of about 35,000 people with your name who are here illegally! Any of thems is you?"

      "No senor!"

      "Hop in the back o'da truck - get down under the tarp so nobody sees ye"...

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    50. Re:Across the border... by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      "You forgot the US Citizen she replaced."

      I'm not disagreeing with you by saying this, just asking a question. For 99% of the illegals employed in the USA, how many of those jobs would ever be done by a legal citizen?

      It ends up being a circular argument. The jobs are low paying and labor intensive, few "legals" want to do them. So the illegals gobble them up, live together as cheaply as possible, and send the money to their families back in mexico.

      But, the wages are low BECAUSE there are illegals to do them.

      If all of the illegals disappeared overnight there would be pandemonium in the construction and agricultural industries. Prices would go up (I presume), and if you believe the arguments of the Pro-Illegal camp, the US economy would collapse.

      So which came first: the hard, low paying jobs or the illegal immigrants to do them?

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    51. Re:Across the border... by chachacha · · Score: 1

      That's only partially true. Many immigrants fill the role of "complementary labor" - jobs that /won't/ be filled by eligible, able-body Americans simply because they feel the work is not appropriate for their social status. Also, when you talk about quality of work you have to include a price component - they provide better work for the price. In the case of jobs where wages are depressed relative to the rest of the market the overhead and uncertainty (vis-a-vis organized strikes) that a union brings with it vastly outweighs any benefit of "easy access to labor force" that they purportedly provide.

      http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2007-1/immigration/ 2007-1-11.htm

      --
      I do like programming things that work super quickly, especially when they work super quickly, super quickly.
    52. Re:Across the border... by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      I worked for a small construction company for a few years. So all theoretical nonsense about tax burden and such aside, here's how the industry works:

      Construction companies hire an estimator to cost out the job ahead of time and submit a bid on a project.
      That estimate is then sent to the general contractor who takes bids from all similar sub-contractors.
      The General contractor then takes the lowest complete bid for the work.

      In order for the sub contractor to make any money, they have to be able to underbid all the other guys.
      Now, the company I worked for, paid the workers the same whether they were Americans, Mexicans on a Visa, resident aliens, or "other" average of $18-22 an hour. Certainly not "pennies" Union scale for the same work is $25-52 per hour.

      In general, Americans are lazy compared to those from down south. The company paid standard 1.5x for overtime, but generally didn't have workers work overtime.

      For Concrete foundations, non union work puts a commercial foundation at approx. $6-8 per square foot. Union jobs bump that to $9-13 per square foot. your average Walmart is built with non union labor and runs 30,000-ish square foot. They also run at the high end of the cost spectrum due to pretty exacting specifications for level, flatness, etc. So:
      non-union Walmart foundation: $240,000.00 +
      Union foudation: $390,000.00+
      for the same thing. where does that extra $150,000.00 come from? That's just the foundation and floor. Add to that all the other trades to build the building.

      Illegal immigrants work here because the Standard of living that Americans expect is a lot higher than in Mexico. You can live like a king in Mexico for half of what we would consider middle class.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    53. Re:Across the border... by gobbo · · Score: 1

      "Free health care"? You must be thinking of that country to the north of us.

      You mean Canuckistan? TANSTAAFL. I pay the provincial government for health insurance indexed to my income. Some provinces collect the health money through income tax, so there's no monthly fee, just a bundled annual tax.

      The really poor have ways of not paying, but that's mainly through other support programs, and it isn't free health care so much as socialized support across the board, such as tax breaks and clinics or welfare. For my part, I'm glad they pay less to none, and I pay more, because a bunch of people not getting health care when they need it is fiscally irresponsible for society... we wind up paying way more to solve serious problems than little ones. What's the point in being relatively rich if you're surrounded by social disaster? (Not that the social net here is adequate to prevent expensive problems, like it used to be in, e.g. Finland, but it could be worse.)

    54. Re:Across the border... by magarity · · Score: 1

      FairTax has no bearing on income distribution; people rish and poor are going to continue to spend the same amount of money on the same items they buy right now. And you're ignoring that every time a low income person who has fallen off the official IRS tax rolls buys something retail they are paying all the corporate taxes embedded in the price - they just don't know it. Ask those people and they'll tell you they pay no taxes. They're being conned by the current system. The greatest power of the FairTax is to arm everyone, low income to high, with the knowledge of the taxes they are already paying .

    55. Re:Across the border... by PPH · · Score: 1

      So they'll just offer their services as sole proprietor businesses. Are you going to require every potential customer who hires a contractor or walks into a store to verify that they have a current valid business license?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    56. Re:Across the border... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Does anyone with half a clue think that the workers hanging around a street corner at 6am looking for construction bosses to pick them up are LEGAL?


      Lots of illegal immigrants have fraudulent documentation that passes at least rudimentary scrutiny, and don't hang around street corners at 6am looking for construction bosses to pick them up: they work in more regular jobs, pay taxes, etc.

    57. Re:Across the border... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but I have to reply to ronadams' ignorant post. I happen to work in a preschool where a number of students might be considered "illegal". In my experience working with these families, they come here for generally one reason: work. Last time I checked, housing here in the U.S. isn't "free" at all. In fact, some families in this type of situation are more suceptible to abuse due to having to settle for unwritten and informal rental contracts. As for health care, more than a few families from Mexico, if possible, return to have medical procedures done because of lower cost. In terms of taxes, ronadams also conveniently leaves out taxes paid on things like food, clothing, and services. Of course, by not being citizens they have no say at all on how they are taxed or how such dollars are used. Really, some people should actually have some experience or knowledge of the issues involved before making such bigoted posts. BTW, do you ever notice how every so often issues are brought forth in popular American discussion regarding groups with little or no voice in politics (immigration, same sex marriage, issues of race and class). Kinda makes you think...

      Pete

    58. Re:Across the border... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      I think part of the problem you're describing is attributable to the unions here in the 'States. In fact I think a substantial part of the economic drivers for illegal immigration can be laid more or less at their doorstep, because of their high costs (above and beyond what legitimate U.S. workers would do the job for in a non-union labor market scenario).

      I'm not arguing that companies should be locked into exorbitant union rates, but they should have to pay whatever the labor market demands for the job, when the labor market is comprised only of people who are legally eligible to work in this country.

      As you point out, people from Mexico, El Salvador, and other places "down south" have lower costs of living (at home) and expect lower standards of living (while they're here). So they're always going to be cheaper. Which is precisely why if we want to retain our standards of living here in the U.S., and not push the lower classes here in America into the same sort of conditions that are common in Mexico, we don't want people from down there competing in our labor market. Our costs are higher, because our standard of living -- even at th bottom of the socioeconomic ladder -- is higher. If, as a society, we want to retain that (and I think we do), then we need to realize that we can't allow workers from low-cost areas to enter the labor market and compete with domestic workers.

      Would this push up costs versus using illegals? Certainly. But I don't think it would push it up quite to the level of the union workers in the U.S. currently. There's three distinct categories of workers here: there's non-union illegal workers from low-cost areas (cheapest), non-union domestic workers (somewhere in the middle), and unionized domestic workers (most expensive). I'm proposing that we eliminate the first category -- since by law it shouldn't exist anyway -- but that doesn't say anything about the latter two. It would be up to the demands of the market whether unions were tenable in various areas. (Tighter job market, unions become more powerful; loose market, less so.)

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    59. Re:Across the border... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want someone having the same rights as me as a citizen who doesn't deserve it.

      The right to the American version of free health care you cite has nothing to do with being a citizen and it is not subsidized by the government. The "right" to show up at an ER and not be sent packing is really the obligation of the physicians in that ER not to kill people. Everyone who shows up at the ER gets billed. If they don't pay that bill, the hospital eats the cost.

      If your claim is just that "poor people ought to die," then let's say that, but let's not imagine that emergency medical care is a line item in the state or federal budget.

    60. Re:Across the border... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you want to pay $5 a pound for oranges, then go right ahead and get rid of all those darn illegal immigrants and make sure that good American workers get at least minimum wage. Of course, as you rightly point out... jobs that suck typically pay over minimum wage (barring flipping burgers, of course)... so maybe it'll be $10 a pound.

      The REAL reason that there are illegal immigrants working the fields of California is that the system works... for everyone. Consumers want cheap produce, growers want cheap labor, illegal immigrants want better pay than "back home", politicians want a cause celébrè. I don't see the problem. It's win/win/win/win.

    61. Re:Across the border... by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      I would love nothing more than eliminating both the illegals and the unions across the board. (Why are Hyundais cheaper than Chevys?) This is, however, not likely to happen. Federal construction jobs, for instance, are done at "prevailing wage". For example see here

      These wages are based largely on union wages. Based on a law from 1931

      Lawmakers need to see the benefit, or the status quo would continue. The Labor Unions still have a lot of political clout.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    62. Re:Across the border... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So which came first: the hard, low paying jobs or the illegal immigrants to do them?

      Neither. The wages gradually decreased (relative to inflation) as the number of illegal immigrants gradually increased.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    63. Re:Across the border... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      That's still breeding dependency on a government check. It is logically different then welfare, but functionally too similar.

      This is also a means of increasing government overhead. Fair Tax is like Death Tax, it's all in the name.

    64. Re:Across the border... by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      If all of the illegals disappeared overnight there would be pandemonium in the construction and agricultural industries. Prices would go up (I presume), and if you believe the arguments of the Pro-Illegal camp, the US economy would collapse.

      The problem is I don't believe the pro-criminal camp. I don't believe them because of what I learned in my middle school social studies class. Its called "Supply and Demand". When there are more jobs than workers to fill them wages will go up. With a significant reduction of the criminal-employee class, the demand for low priced goods will go down leading to a market shift toward goods that are a little more expensive as opposed to the goods that are as cheap as possible. It will also lead to a drop in insurance rates for motor vehicles because there will be a huge reduction in the uninsured. A drop in medical costs because the criminals who are stiffing the doctors and hospitals will move back home; giving their home country the same economic benefits they're giving us.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    65. Re:Across the border... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      By your logic, we should support a bill to make all the illegal immigrants legal, taxpaying citizens, and then enforce tax laws with deportation.

      No, we should deport all illegal immigrants (hint: the word "illegal" is there to indicate that they've already broken the law!), tighten the borders so that they can't get back in illegally, and loosen immigration quotas so that more people can get here legally. Of course, the people who got deported should be ineligable for legal immigration under the new regulations for a period of several years, as a punishment for coming illegally before.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    66. Re:Across the border... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      No, all illegal immigrants should be immediately deported because they broke the law. Then the quotas should be relaxed so that we can allow more people (other than the ones that just got deported) to immigrate legally.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    67. Re:Across the border... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      They do better in the sun, too; many's the day I drive past a vineyard (I live amongst a number of them) and see some Mexicans out in the sun wearing hooded sweatshirts because 80 degrees ain't hot enough for 'em or something. I shit you not.

      They do that to prevent sunburn: opaque fabric works much better than sunblock, especially when you're sweating. And it's not only Mexicans that do this; I recently visited a construction site here in Atlanta (with 80+ degree heat) and all the construction workers (of which the majority were white) were wearing long-sleeve shrits and jeans. I imagine they didn't wear hoods because they had hard hats instead.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    68. Re:Across the border... by megaditto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not allow them to enter the labor market with the same rights as the American workers? This way they would not underbid the Native Americans and everybody wins.

      It's precisely because they are "illegal" that the employer can get away with paying slave-level wages, skip on the insurance and taxes, etc.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    69. Re:Across the border... by GigG · · Score: 1

      Two of you that don't have a clue and you both get modded up for Insightful. What is /. coming to?

      In the real world only a small percentage of the illegal workers are standing on the corner out in front of the Home Depot. A large number have completely legit looking driver's licenses and social security cards. Employers are barred by law from asking for anything more than is required by the I9 form.

      Now how a database is going to help this? The only way you make itwork is to create an OK to work list and have everyone in the country who is legal to work listed along with photo.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    70. Re:Across the border... by randall_burns · · Score: 1

      The reason illegal aliens come to the US is to get a green card-which has considerable economic value. If Green Cards were available at auction, they'd sell for around $100K or more.

      It costs an employer nothing to provide a green card-so of course they can get a better employee by faciliating illegal immigration than hiring legal Americans for whom they have to pay a market wage.

      That said, the reason for the database is in part to cover up the fact that the Bush administration has refused to enforce any laws against employers that are now on the books. They can use creation of a database as an excuse to ramp up enforcement a bit.

    71. Re:Across the border... by maxume · · Score: 1

      I'm all for removing corporate income taxes from the current system(and for making the majority of regulatory taxes revenue neutral).

      The point still remains that the Fair Tax is regressive against the merely rich, in favor of the obscenely rich. That simply doesn't make very much sense. [and the truly poor will pay about the same either way, next to nothing]. Someone with a billion dollar income(admittedly, the stratosphere), makes more money than they can even begin to figure out how to spend; the several hundred million dollars in taxes that they currently pay on that income would come out of the pockets of people with much less money than they have. The same sort of effect would likely apply to people who made hundreds(and possibly tens) of millions of dollars. We can disagree about whether that's a serious flaw, but I'm pretty sure it is.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    72. Re:Across the border... by randall_burns · · Score: 1

      Before I became a software engineer, I worked as a construction worker and on a farm. I've worked side by side with illegal aliens. The simple fact is that the US got along just fine with low levels of immigration-and would again. I suspect some rich folks wouldn't be getting richer as fast as they are now, but for the average american, the economy would be much better with lower levels of immigration. Just look at Japan and Korea. They have no immigration-and their economies are not in shambles-and they don't have the capacity to borrow or the natural resource base the US has.

    73. Re:Across the border... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WGA for people?! You mean It's supposed to be helping me?

    74. Re:Across the border... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Dude, I'm talking about sweatshirt material. If I wore a sweatshirt on a 90 degree day I'd get heatstroke. Long-sleeved is one thing, wrapping yourself up like you're sweating to the oldies is another.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    75. Re:Across the border... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      And my logic is that you are the offspring of immigrant ancestors and haven't got a rational leg to stand on. You're simply greedy and/or afraid of competition with people who don't share your current social goal-seeking behavior.

      Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!
      Give me your tired, your poor,
      Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
      Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
      I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

      Immigration is a threat to bigotry and entitlement. Bigotry and entitlement are a threat to the underlying rationale that formed the work-based industrial economy of this country. Arbitrarily high wages for relatively unskilled jobs are the fruits of the labor unions, operating at the behest of those who have no sense of relative value except when it suits them. Those people created the opportunity for immigrants and willing citizens to undercut them. The idea that such people have a right not to be undercut is a disease that has done more harm to this country than any set of immigrants could possibly lay claim to.

      The current hysteria is fueled by a constant harping on immigration, global warming, drugs, pedophilia, and terrorism. When people dance to the pulling of those strings, they're just doing exactly what the power-base wants them to do, which is ignore the real problems, the erosion of meaning from the constitution, and the consolidation of all powers into the federal government.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    76. Re:Across the border... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why not allow them to enter the labor market with the same rights as the American workers? This way they would not underbid the Native Americans and everybody wins.

      Because then you're basically guaranteeing a labor surplus.

      If there are 10 guys standing around, all trying to get hired for one job, then that job isn't going to pay very much. As soon as the guy who gets hired asks for a raise, or anything else, he'll just be fired and quickly replaced.

      In a tighter job market, where there are fewer potential employees standing around looking for work, then the workers (individually or collectively, although personally I think collective bargaining can quickly become a scam as well) are in a much better negotiating position and can get paid more.

      That's just basic supply and demand; what you're proposing would basically make the 'supply' of labor near-infinite. That's not what we want; we need a balance between the two, one that gets as close to full employment within the U.S. as possible, without driving inflation out of control. That's the goal -- not to act as some sort of employment agency for the rest of the world.

      And on a more practical level, people who have just stepped off the proverbial boat from a poor country are always going to expect less in terms of pay and standards of living. Particularly if they aren't planning on actually living here, and are either saving up to go home and live like a king, or sending their money home while living in a hovel themselves (not uncommon; it's unbelievable how many people you can pack into a one-bedroom apartment if you try, I've seen it), they'll always be able to underbid a domestic worker who wants to have a typical American lifestyle (own a house, car, major appliances, etc.).

      In essence, if you do what you propose, and just open the floodgates, you'll have lots of people coming in and working, who aren't really interested in the typical American lifestyle, which is pretty expensive. Since I think we want to promote that type of lifestyle -- not necessarily blatant consumerism, but a culture of ownership and individual self-sufficiency, where it's not ridiculous for a person to aspire to own a house, car, etc. -- we flat-out can't do that. To put it perfectly bluntly: if you allow a lot of people who are comfortable (or at least used to) living in Third World conditions into the labor market, we're going to reduce the working class here in the U.S. to Third World conditions, in order to compete. I don't think that's a good thing.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    77. Re:Across the border... by ronadams · · Score: 1

      We have a system for those who want to come to America and become citizens. It's a great system; it works pretty well. By the way, my car isn't working, and there's no food in my fridge. My kids keep bothering me about being hungry. What I'm asking is... is it cool if I come over? Never mind, I'll just wait until you're not looking and raid the kitchen. Thanks.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    78. Re:Across the border... by AYEq · · Score: 1

      Actually I know the reflex is to think that the bush administraon and the genisis of all evil but on this issue they WANT illegal immigrants to keep comming over. In this administration profit is a larger motivation than the usuall xenophobia.

    79. Re:Across the border... by ronadams · · Score: 1
      So, it's okay with you if I take the next job you apply for, pay no taxes while putting a tax burden on you, and operate as a criminal in your country?

      I don't belive in "arbitrarily high wages for relatively unskilled jobs". Sorry, you guessed wrongly; I do not belong to or support any union. I work my ass off and frankly, get paid less to do many jobs that persons/companies in my field get a hell of a lot more for. Do I whine and moan when I have to knock off money from a proposal because some consultant's firm or web services provider undercuts me, and try to force out their competition? No; I either lower my prices, improve my offerings, or back out.

      So before you jump on an arrogant soapbox and rally against someone you don't know, try to understand the actual point of my statements, instead of projecting your agendas on my words. I'm from a family with immigrants on both sides as recent as four generations from me, and well aware of it. But guess what? They all came here legally, worked hard, and contributed to society. I will never be one to voice against legal immigration. I swear, if I hear the beautiful words of Emma Lazurs' beautiful poem wrongly applied to illegals one more time, I'm going to scream. Give me the huddled masses of people who are here to work hard, build a dream, and participate in this society. America cannot bear the dead weight of illegals and continue to nurture the legal immigrants she loves; she is crumbling and eroding under the pressure as we speak.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    80. Re:Across the border... by Plekto · · Score: 1

      Combined with the immigration bill, it would create a massive work-visa sub-class, because you can't get workers except by the program(as opposed to it being optional.

      This is going to be a horrendous mess as entire sectors of our economy start to use offshore workers and just do business via cash/not bother with the rules at all.

      Imagine the following scenario:
      You need a new mechanic for your small muffler shop. Either you pay the government fees and tons of rules - and now MORE rules and checks and such... or you pay this guy $100 a day cash under the table. It's exactly like the internet radio fees - all mor rules and regulations do is turn honest people into dishonest ones.

    81. Re:Across the border... by mrbooze · · Score: 1

      just turn on the Discovery Channel the next time they're running that "Dirty Jobs" program. There are people who do pretty unbelievable stuff for a living; shoveling garbage, standing waist-deep in feces, working ridiculous hours in uncomfortable conditions, dodging machinery that could crush or tear you in half if you're not quick. But they don't do it for cheap.


      Isn't it also usually true that those "dirty jobs" are full-time jobs? That's another factor, it isn't just that the immigrants will work for cheaper, it's that they'll happily take a job for a day, or a week, or whatever. They're willing to get up every morning not knowing if they will get work that day. Relatively few Americans are going to be comfortable with that scenario.
    82. Re:Across the border... by Jaguar777 · · Score: 1

      That's still breeding dependency on a government check. It is logically different then welfare, but functionally too similar.

      I agree, but the prebate needs to be in there for this to go through. With no prebate there will be cries of "taxing the poor". The poor don't pay into the system now so this will be no different. The important thing is to get the Fair Tax in place since it fixes so many things. In the future if people recognize the dependency issues of the prebate maybe it can be removed.

      --
      Maybe you should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow. - Dogbert
    83. Re:Across the border... by dobestpossible · · Score: 1

      I would like to add, if I may, that I don't see Americans anxious to run over Mexico's border to pick up drugs and run back here, even though they could make alot of money doing so.
        Seeing alot of people doing or not doing something is hardly a leg to stand on. Why would I work construction for much less so that contractor can keep more for himself? An illegal has limited options because he is a lawbreaker. The contractors are exploiting the United States of America by defying to abide by our laws for a greater profit. It is on the same basis as cheating on your taxes, selling prescription drugs without a pharmaceutical license, or filling up on gas at the pump and driving off without paying. Someone benefits greatly at the cost of everyone else. The Mexicans win, the employer wins, the American people loses...
        I think we, the American people, should surrender. Surrender now to ALL and EVERY criminal in the world. Let drugs be legal, let any national into our country and pass laws over us, give away what ever money we have in the Treasury, stop paying for programs (including healthcare, social security, highway repairs, police and military, foreign aid, etc.). Completely welcome Iranians, Iraqis, Venezuelans, who ever else wishes to modify America to their appeasement. Why shouldn't we? We want to be leaders to demonstrate equality, don't we? Why should we persecute others with laws, anyway? We should especially treat foreigners kinder than Americans because they are more important (naturally and inherently).
        What is good for big business is good for America. What is kind for immigrants is stepping on Americans...uh, wait, I didn't say that, did I?

    84. Re:Across the border... by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      Cheaper I'll give you, but harder working? Sure some are probably harder working than the average but please save the "Mexicans do the jobs that Americans don't want/are too lazy to do."

      Take fruit pickers as a fairly standard example of a job illegal Mexican aliens do. They probably are not putting too many American, er US(I am trying to break myself of the habit of referring to United States citizens as "Americans" because there are many other Americans out there) fruit pickers out of work because most people who grow up in America will never even dream of wanting to pick fruit for a living. However there are other alternatives such as automated fruit picking machines which are passed up, and new invention is arguably one of the greater motivating forces in the historical American economy.

      Furthermore, the idea of allowing a large group of people into this country with the stipulation that they as a whole work cheaper, harder and do the jobs US citizens don't want to do, is basically a way to form a new underclass. Mexican serfdom.

    85. Re:Across the border... by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Current immigration crisis resulted from our borders being closed to the skilled people while open to the low-skill illiterate border-crossers. Hence, we have a surplus of cheap dirtfarmers placing a huge strain on our teachers, doctors, policemen. If you let high-skilled people immigrate proportionately to the low-skilled Mexicans (at least one doctor, teacher, policeman, scientist per 100 immigrants, for example), it will all even out.

      As long as the overall skilled/unskilled ratio remains good, then more laborers also means more demand for housing, food, appliances, and transportation, which means more jobs for everybody. Consider that since 1900's we have trippled the population of America (from 100M to 300M), but we also live a hell of a lot better than 100 years ago. So, more workers does not have to mean less prosperity...

      I get your argument about scores of people living in the same apartment, but the only reason they do is because they are saving money to send to their kids locked up back home by the visa restrictions and whatnot. Otherwise, minimum wage, workplace safety, maximum occupancy and delapidated (sp?) housing laws are already in place to take care of the few abberant nutcases. Don't you think the immigrants are trying to come here exactly because they do not want to live in "Third World" conditions?

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    86. Re:Across the border... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accidentally being born here makes you magically "deserve" it more?

    87. Re:Across the border... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The guys I saw were wearing thick flannel or sweatshirts too. Don't get me wrong, I can't imagine how any sane person could deal with it either, but it's really not just Mexicans who dress like that.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    88. Re:Across the border... by Pentavirate · · Score: 1

      If there's an easy to search database, it eliminates the excuse that an employer "didn't know" they were illegal. An employer won't be able to look at some bad photocopy of a SSN card and with a wink and a nod claim, "Well he showed me a SSN card. How was I to know?"

    89. Re:Across the border... by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      A large number have completely legit looking driver's licenses and social security cards. IF you can get a real social security number and card issued (hard but not impossible) and get a real DMV issued Drivers license based on that (and whatever forged documents used to get the SSN and card), you are for virtually all intents an purposes a real full fledged American citizen.
      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    90. Re:Across the border... by GigG · · Score: 1

      Until the SSA sends a letter to the employer saying that the SSN of the employee is someone else's SSN. They even sent me a picture of the real holder of the SSN and asked if that was my employee.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    91. Re:Across the border... by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      I take issue with your statement that our forefathers wanted us to be "on top". If you recall america's isolationist tenancies for the better part of the last 200 odd years, and the fact that they were fierce individualists, they most likely would have been saying something along the lines of "Fuck everyone else, let's just do our own thing."

      Note that I'm not addressing the rest of your points - seeing blatant misattribution kind of pisses me off.

    92. Re:Across the border... by ronadams · · Score: 1

      Being an American citizen makes me deserve the rights of an American citizen more than someone who is not an American citizen, yes. Is that difficult to understand?

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    93. Re:Across the border... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      So, it's okay with you if I take the next job you apply for

      If you can undercut my wages/costs or outperform me with your skills, why should I object? Clearly, you're the better person for the job. I should — and would — be looking for work elsewhere, or at a different level of recompense.

      pay no taxes while putting a tax burden on you

      Oh, you'll pay taxes (going along and assuming you're avoiding payroll taxes.) Taxes are mostly hidden. You pay taxes over and over again on everything you buy. When you buy groceries for example, you're paying not just for the bread, but for the taxes of the guy who delivered the bread, the taxes of the store where the bread was on the shelf, the taxes of the guy who rode the combine, the taxes for the people who made the combine, the taxes for the plant that holds the people that made the combine, the taxes on the fuel that powers the combine, the taxes for the guy who delivered the fuel that made the combine run, the taxes on the refinery that refined the fuel, the taxes for the people who run the refinery that made the fuel... and so it goes.

      You pay taxes on everything you do or buy, at level after level after level, no matter if your employer taxes your wages, or not. You'll pay direct taxes, in full, on things like your own fuel and alcohol as well. You can't get out of road use taxes, they're built into every gallon of fuel you buy (and that is most of what the government does for the average citizen in any case — roads.) You'll pay the land taxes for the place you are living by paying rent to your landholder. You can't get out of paying taxes no matter how much you try, because a great deal of what you pay for any one item is taxes. In the USA, 42% of the GDP is collected as taxes by the federal government alone; you think the 5% tax (if they don't get an outright refund) paid by a fieldworker makes an impact? Hell no, they're still paying the rest every time they put a dollar into the economy for any purpose whatsoever. They have more in pocket, but then they spend more in the economy. They can't get out of taxes. No one can. It's a myth.

      The fact that you may get out of direct taxes concerns me not at all; that's just a fraction of your contribution. This "getting out of taxes" thing results from a complete lack of understanding of where your money goes in the first place. Could you have a slight advantage? Sure. But so does Bill Gates. So does anyone who can afford to hire an accountant. So do religious and charitable and "not for profit" (and yes, those quotes are sarcasm) organizations.

      This, on top of the fact that a great deal of tax money is wasted, and even more is channeled into activities that the government has no constitutionally derived authority to be involved in. So do I care that you get around some taxes? No. You'll just spend that money in the mainstream system anyway, and they'll take a great deal of it from you there. All the more because you'll have a little more to spend (taxes at immigrant field laborer rates aren't very significant, by the way.) Just because these costs aren't obvious to you, doesn't mean that they aren't just as real as the taxes your employer smacks you with on behalf of the leeches in Washington and your state capital.

      operate as a criminal in your country?

      Criminal, shriminal. Look: In the USA, "crime" doesn't mean "bad." Crime means "against the law", and the fact is, a great deal of our law — including the areas affecting immigration — are what is actually bad. When people act against unjust law, we call that "civil disobedience" and to be perfectly frank, we need more of it. No, doesn't bother me even the slightest if you are breaking one of these stupid laws. They should never have been made in the first place.

      Sorry, you guessed wrongly; I do not belong to or su

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    94. Re:Across the border... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Current immigration crisis resulted from our borders being closed to the skilled people while open to the low-skill illiterate border-crossers. Hence, we have a surplus of cheap dirtfarmers placing a huge strain on our teachers, doctors, policemen. If you let high-skilled people immigrate proportionately to the low-skilled Mexicans (at least one doctor, teacher, policeman, scientist per 100 immigrants, for example), it will all even out.

      I agree with you in part, in that there is a certain proportion that needs to be maintained, but the idea that we can 'solve' the current problem by simply allowing more high-skilled immigration (not sure if that's what you were suggesting or not) won't work -- it assumes that there is some infinite number of jobs in the U.S., and there's clearly not true. If you just try to fix the proportionality problem by allowing lots and lots of high-skilled immigration, eventually you'll end up with the whole country looking like post-dot-bomb Silicon Valley, where you've got people with PhDs delivering pizza, because that's the only work they can get.

      You need proportionality, and not just have unskilled immigration without skilled people that are going to pay the taxes that will fund all the services that low-skilled workers consume, but you can't just increase the numerator on that fraction until it lines up -- there's only a certain number of high-skilled jobs available, too.

      While the size of the economic "pie" isn't necessarily fixed and constant, it's not infinite either at any given time. It's entirely possible to flood a market with too much labor, which will result in wages crashing ... and that means foreclosures, increased debt, and eventually, social unrest. The amount of available labor needs to be carefully balanced against demand, in order to keep unemployment low and inflation controlled.

      I think you're missing the point slightly about working conditions -- I didn't mean to imply that those workers necessarily "want" to live in Third World conditions, but the fact that someone has just moved from a very poor, low-cost area, and is used to living without a lot of amenities that we take for granted here, means that when there's a job shortage, they're going to be a lot more willing to take a pay cut, then someone who's established here, and has a mortgage and car payments and the rest. In a labor market with more restrictive immigration rules, the job market is allowed to tighten, and workers have leverage to increase their wages.

      As long as you are continuously allowing new immigrants in from low-cost areas, they're always going to be able to underbid anyone who's established themselves here, and that undermines the very social fabric we're trying to construct. You could theoretically alleviate the wage deflation by rigorously enforcing a high minimum wage, but then I think you just run into problems like France -- you end up with immigrants still coming in, far in excess of the available jobs, so that you end up with high unemployment and all the social problems that entails. The solution is to balance immigration closely against only those needs that are clearly and desperately not being met domestically.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    95. Re:Across the border... by ronadams · · Score: 1
      Precursor: They are ILLEGAL immigrants. Do you understand what the word "illegal" means? Look, I'm sorry that children suffer because of their criminal parents. Very sorry. It's very sad when innocent children are harmed because of the crimes of their family.

      Show me a legal immigrant to this country, someone who has gone through the proper channels, who is being deprived of their rights and I'll be outraged.

      I'm sorry, but I have to reply to ronadams' ignorant post. I happen to work in a preschool where a number of students might be considered "illegal". In my experience working with these families, they come here for generally one reason: work. I never said they didn't come here to work. I argued they came here to work and receive benefits not due them. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

      Last time I checked, housing here in the U.S. isn't "free" at all. In fact, some families in this type of situation are more suceptible to abuse due to having to settle for unwritten and informal rental contracts. If you go to the right organizations, tell the right lies, or know the right people, you get section 8 housing at no cost for 6 months, and very little cost after that. Don't believe me? I'd love to take you on a drive near downtown Cincinnati, where I can show you illegal immigrants living in section 8 housing. (And no, I don't just think they're illegal because they're Mexicans.)

      As for health care, more than a few families from Mexico, if possible, return to have medical procedures done because of lower cost. And many of them go to emergency rooms (forcing hospitals to eat the costs) and free gov't funded clinics (forcing Americans to eat the costs)

      In terms of taxes, ronadams also conveniently leaves out taxes paid on things like food, clothing, and services. I'm sorry. They pay no income taxes; which are by far the largest share of taxes which support the infrastructure they burden. Happy now?

      Of course, by not being citizens they have no say at all on how they are taxed or how such dollars are used. Please, for the sake of my sanity, don't tell me you really believe people who enter this country illegally should be allowed to vote.

      Really, some people should actually have some experience or knowledge of the issues involved before making such bigoted posts. I consult for a home rehab company that has to compete with companies that use illegal labor and pay no payroll tax costs (meaning their total cost of employment is less than minimum wage). So yes, I know a little something about the unfairness of illegal immigration. Also, as an American citizen paying taxes I gain a little more experience each April 14th.

      BTW, do you ever notice how every so often issues are brought forth in popular American discussion regarding groups with little or no voice in politics (immigration, same sex marriage, issues of race and class). Kinda makes you think... About what? Do other countries not talk about people in the minority? Also, a homosexual, LEGAL immigrant, or any other LEGAL citizen gets (or should get) the same vote I do. As an American, it's my pleasure and responsibility to mutually uphold that freedom.
      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    96. Re:Across the border... by ronadams · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think poor people ought to die. And you're only partially correct. You're missing the thousands of free clinics and gov't programs that are exploited every day by illegals.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    97. Re:Across the border... by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you said this, because I was going to say it if you didn't.

      In heavy labor, Mexicans work extremely hard. Way harder than your average American.

      So you know, I am 0% Mexican, so no self-back-patting from me. But I'm not blind. I know backbreaking work when I see it.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    98. Re:Across the border... by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      The fact is, they have come here because they know there's free health care, housing and damn near everything else to be had.

      How do you know that 'fact'? You can state that as a fact, but that does not make it true. You really don't know for sure why anyone else does anything. (If you are married, do you ever wonder why your spouse does some things? Don't we all. . .)

      If you really want to not worry that immigrants are coming to your country to get government handouts, stop giving handouts -- to everyone. That means we get rid of welfare, social security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. Can you imagine? Everyone would pay less in taxes. It does not matter where you were born or which citizenship(s) you have, you are not entitled to anything from the government.

      That doesn't change the fact that they're here, not paying taxes, drawing their benefits off of your paycheck.

      That sounds like another unsubstantiated 'fact'. Who is not paying taxes?

      All US employers (outside of the black market, UN, IMF, and World Bank) withhold a portion of your pay and hand it to the IRS. Every employee has to file a return in order to get anything back. Do you know a single working person in the US who does not pay taxes? If so, please tell me where that person works. I might be interested in a tax-free job.

  2. Life Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for that silly "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" concept.

    1. Re:Life Liberty by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      Give me your tired, your poor,
      Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
      Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
      I lift my lamp beside the golden door

    2. Re:Life Liberty by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      So much for that silly "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" concept.



      Huh ? Did you find that in some outdated g******d piece of paper or what ?

    3. Re:Life Liberty by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

      My ancestors came here via Ellis Island, legally. The statue of liberty was speaking to those people. There's a good reason it doesn't say, "legal or not, y'all come on over!"

      --
      stuff |
    4. Re:Life Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      goatherd?

      This is the internet. We can handle grownup words.

    5. Re:Life Liberty by paeanblack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My ancestors came here via Ellis Island, legally.

      I'm sure all Native Americans would agree that European settlement in the US was always done by the book, right?

      I cannot condemn a person for breaking a law that I, in their position, would break myself. This country was founded by those who believed that unjust law was no law at all. "It's the law" is a empty position if you cannot justify the law itself.

    6. Re:Life Liberty by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Give me your tired, your poor,
      Your coyotes, filled with illegal Mestizos,
      All yearning to earn American greenbacks.
      Send these, the migrant workers, to work for me,
      So long as they don't get shot while crossing.

    7. Re:Life Liberty by clydemaxwell · · Score: 1

      I don't see the word legal anywhere in parent. Could it be that...she doesn't care?

      --
      Browsing with classic discussion, noscript, at -1 and nested
      no hidden comments and I only mod UP
    8. Re:Life Liberty by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure all Native Americans would agree that European settlement in the US was always done by the book, right?

      By the book of the day it was. But that's kinda not part of this debate is it?

      I cannot condemn a person for breaking a law that I, in their position, would break myself.

      I may not condemn them but I don't condone them either.

      "It's the law" is a empty position if you cannot justify the law itself.

      I think of all sorts of reasons to justify why illegal immigration is bad. It strains our social infrastructure, our health care infrastructure and our law enforcement agencies. It creates an entire class of people that depend on the services of the nation but don't contribute toward those services (taxes). It creates an entire class of people that can be exploited by businesses and criminals alike with no protection from either.

      It's also blatantly unfair to those who decided to come here legally. A Canadian friend of mine has been waiting to come here for months. She has going through a paperwork nightmare from hell to get her green card. This is in spite of the fact that she has a masters degree and speaks three languages. We make her wait even though she is well educated, has family and a job waiting for her but we are willing to give amnesty to those that break our laws? What kind of message does that send?

      This is the one issue that you would find agreement on across most sections of the political spectrum. Ask the common man on the street if this is a problem that needs to stop and he will say yes. It doesn't matter if he is a Republican or a Democrat. Unfortunately our political leaders have failed us miserably on this issue. The Republicans are owned by big business that likes cheap labor and the Democrats are owned by the PC crowd that feels bad for them and is afraid of being labeled racists. Both parties want the Hispanic vote.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:Life Liberty by paeanblack · · Score: 1

      It's also blatantly unfair to those who decided to come here legally. A Canadian friend of mine has been waiting to come here for months. She has going through a paperwork nightmare from hell to get her green card. This is in spite of the fact that she has a masters degree and speaks three languages. We make her wait even though she is well educated, has family and a job waiting for her but we are willing to give amnesty to those that break our laws?

      The essence of your argument is revenge, not the betterment of society.

      The belief of "I had to go through this ordeal so it's only fair that they have to endure it" is nothing more than juvenile hazing. Your friend's "paperwork nightmare from hell" only supports the claim that current immigration laws are ill-conceived, ill-purposed, and ineffective. You only wish to inflict bad laws on others because they were previously inflicted upon someone you know.

      What kind of message does that send?

      The message it sends is that you don't understand what true justice is.

    10. Re:Life Liberty by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Much respect towards your sentiment (Upstate NY dutch here, of 300 yrs descent)

      --
      C|N>K
    11. Re:Life Liberty by Guppy06 · · Score: 1
      "By the book of the day it was."
      1. US government establishes treaty with Indian tribe
      2. US Constitution describes such treaties as the "supreme law of the land"
      3. Somehow, white settlers end up on lands guaranteed to the Indians by said treaty
      4. ???
      5. New state!
      No, not by the book. Not by the book at all.

      "It strains our social infrastructure,"

      We have a social infrastructure worth mention?

      "our health care infrastructure"

      It's not like they're insured, so do you have any indication that a non-negligible percentage of those seeking care in an emergency room aren't citizens?

      "and our law enforcement agencies."

      Agencies we choose to task with enforcing victimless crimes.

      "It creates an entire class of people that depend on the services of the nation but don't contribute toward those services (taxes)."

      When did they get sales tax and property tax exemptions?

      "It creates an entire class of people that can be exploited by businesses and criminals alike with no protection from either."

      "Creates?" More like "expands upon a pre-existing class." One doesn't have to be an illegal immigrant to live in a neighborhood where 911 calls go unanswered.

      "What kind of message does that send?"

      What kind of message does it send that we have immigration caps and entering the country is more a matter of winning a lottery than any real desire to become a productive US citizen?

      "Ask the common man on the street if this is a problem that needs to stop and he will say yes."

      Then ask him how to stop it and see what kind of a consensus you can build.

      "The Republicans are owned by big business that likes cheap labor and the Democrats are owned by the PC crowd that feels bad for them and is afraid of being labeled racists."

      The Republicans are backed by the "law and order" type with a xenophobic streak (folks at Free Republic are calling for Bush's impeachment over immigration) while the Democrats are owned by labor unions who don't like non-unionized cheap labor. Congress is together in opposing Bush's proposals on this one.

      "Both parties want the Hispanic vote."

      If they were truly being pandered to, where are these 1 May protests coming from? Of course, not even Hispanic voters agree on what to do about illegal immigration, so nothing can be done either way without alienating some.
    12. Re:Life Liberty by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The essence of your argument is revenge, not the betterment of society.

      No, it's about respect for the rule of law and the basic fact that no nation can absorb a limitless number of immigrants without ill effects. If you accept that basic fact then you accept the fact that we need control over immigration. Ergo, the concept of immigration law (if not our current ineffective system) is a just one.

      The belief of "I had to go through this ordeal so it's only fair that they have to endure it" is nothing more than juvenile hazing. Your friend's "paperwork nightmare from hell" only supports the claim that current immigration laws are ill-conceived, ill-purposed, and ineffective. You only wish to inflict bad laws on others because they were previously inflicted upon someone you know.

      You making pretty big assumptions about me. I want to "inflict bad laws" on others because of the issues my friend is going through? No, I want an effective immigration system. And I want the people who violate the rules of that system dealt with accordingly.

      The message it sends is that you don't understand what true justice is.

      And just what are you advocating? Completely open borders? No controls on immigration at all? Anybody allowed to work? It's easy to take your aging hippie liberal douche position on this issue and assume that I'm the pissed off white trash redneck conservative. Give me some actual policy suggestions. If you could change the immigration system what would you do with it?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:Life Liberty by Kennon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It creates an entire class of people that depend on the services of the nation but don't contribute toward those services (taxes). It creates an entire class of people that can be exploited by businesses and criminals alike with no protection from either.

      I live in a very "poor" community in central California and I am not Hispanic. The paternal side of my family came to this country a little over 100 years ago and the maternal side is documented back to the colonial times. Having lived about 30 years in this place has taught me that your argument is flawed on many levels. But it is not your fault because you are just regurgitating the BS fed to you by the usual suspects. Lets start with the huge misconception about how undocumented workers don't contribute to the tax pool. Just because someone does not pay payroll taxes doesn't mean that they do not contribute to the tax system. These people live in a very cash based society. They pay sales taxes, gas taxes, luxury taxes, just to name a few. And their business has an enormous impact on the well being of our local economy. And I love the whole "It's for their own good" argument like you use by complaining about how they are exploited. Jesus if you could spend a week where most of these people grew up and lived most of their lives you would know that almost any amount of exploitation they could possibly face here is almost completely insignificant. Show me a time in history when an ethnic group came to this country legally and didn't face those same issues.

      It's also blatantly unfair to those who decided to come here legally. A Canadian friend of mine has been waiting to come here for months. She has going through a paperwork nightmare from hell to get her green card. This is in spite of the fact that she has a masters degree and speaks three languages. We make her wait even though she is well educated, has family and a job waiting for her but we are willing to give amnesty to those that break our laws? What kind of message does that send?

      The message is sends is...Bring us your poor, your tired etc...Your friend with a Masters degree doesn't NEED to come to the U.S. from another first world country. The people who flee the the U.S. are literally fleeing some of the worst conditions imaginable to come live in ramshackle little buildings here in the U.S. The fact that they are willing to live in the kind of conditions that they live in once they are here is a testament to the horrible shit they are running from. Tell your well educated, probably well paid, probably fictitious Canadian friend to go hire herself a decent immigration lawyer and she could have a visa inside of 6 months.

      This is the one issue that you would find agreement on across most sections of the political spectrum. Ask the common man on the street if this is a problem that needs to stop and he will say yes. It doesn't matter if he is a Republican or a Democrat. Unfortunately our political leaders have failed us miserably on this issue. The Republicans are owned by big business that likes cheap labor and the Democrats are owned by the PC crowd that feels bad for them and is afraid of being labeled racists. Both parties want the Hispanic vote.

      This is the best part of your post, by best I mean most flawed. If illegal immigration was a real issue that was so bi-partisan in nature it would be dealt with by now. In my opinion this issue is just a bunch of hype to keep us distracted from real issues. Illegal immigration is just like the war on drugs. It is a huge money-pit, an awesome excuse for our government to restrict it's citizen's civil liberties, and a great way to distract a population so disillusioned by it's political system that it is considered a success when half the eligible population turns up to vote on something. This issue is like abortion, kind of emotional for a lot of people but in the end it is all kind of meaningless because people are going to do what they believe is right

      --
      "All those moments, will be lost in time...like tears in rain..."
    14. Re:Life Liberty by masterhibb · · Score: 1

      It's not like they're insured, so do you have any indication that a non-negligible percentage of those seeking care in an emergency room aren't citizens?

      You're right, they're usually not insured. So you're asking the wrong question. It's not how many illegal immigrants are using the emergency rooms, it's how much it costs. When someone insured uses the emergency room, the insurance company pays for it. When someone uninsured uses the emergency room and cannot pay, the hospital gets jack. Oh, and before you try and say "Socialized health care would fix it!" well, that would just go back to the very first point that they're a drain on the social infrastructure, wouldn't it?

      When did they get sales tax and property tax exemptions?

      Let's do a quick breakdown using myself as an example. Up until recently, I did not pay property taxes, because I owned no property. I think most illegal immigrants would fit into this category. Where I live, I pay around 8% sales tax, only on the money I spend, and even then only for non-food items.

      My income tax, however, was closer to 30%, and that was on the money I earned. That means the money I save and the money I invest, aside from my 401k, is taxed before I even see it, and will be taxed again if my investments pay off. And this leaves out the taxes my employer pays for the privilege of employing me; I'm sure this is a not insubstantial amount. So let's say I spend 60% of the money I make in a year on non-food items that same year, and pay no property tax because I own no property. I am paying roughly 5% of my income in sales tax. The illegal immigrant would pay this same 5% in the same situation, but that's sure a far cry from the 35% I am actually paying once you take the income tax off the top.

      It's an overly-simplified calculation, to be sure, but even that illustrates that no, illegal immigrants are not paying into the system like the rest of us. To insinuate otherwise by bringing up sales, property, or even gas taxes is disingenuous at best.

    15. Re:Life Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an overly-simplified calculation, to be sure, but even that illustrates that no, illegal immigrants are not paying into the system like the rest of us. To insinuate otherwise by bringing up sales, property, or even gas taxes is disingenuous at best.

      I can't find the links right now, but some recent studies disprove this quite thoroughly. The majority of illegal workers in the US work on fake papers, with phony social security numbers, etc., and their employers don't know (though they probably suspect) that they're illegal. These workers have income taxes withheld just like anyone else does, but they don't file income tax returns because they're afraid of being caught. The net result is that these workers pay *more* than their share of income taxes because they can't file for a refund.

      It's also worth pointing out that illegal immigrants use fewer social services than legal immigrants, who in turn use less per capita than native-born citizens.

      Face it, you're just a xenophobe.

    16. Re:Life Liberty by koreth · · Score: 1

      It strains our social infrastructure, our health care infrastructure and our law enforcement agencies.

      Are you absolutely sure about that last point? The actual numbers suggest that if we want a low crime rate, we should kick the non-immigrants out of the country.

    17. Re:Life Liberty by Pandare · · Score: 0

      Unless your ancestors were here more recently than 1921 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act, or 1882 for people of Asian descent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act _(United_States) There was no legal way to enter the country. There wasn't any procedure or anything, just documentation of who came in, and if the immigration guy liked you, you got in. Any historical point on this sort of thing has little bearing unless the proposal is to revert to the old system or claiming that the new way is the same as the old way. So I guess the policy was: "Hell, come on in the water's fine! Unless you're Chinese, Jewish, Eastern European, Italian, and especially not if you're Irish, they're pricks!" Though it does seem that there is nothing more American than hating immigrants...

    18. Re:Life Liberty by Copid · · Score: 1

      The message it sends is that you don't understand what true justice is.
      Now we're definitely getting into philosophy, so let's do a thought experiment and make actions universal. What would happen if nobody went through normal immigration procedures and everybody just came and moved in without any immigration rules at all? I put it to you that the results would be nasty by most objective measures. So which is more just, rewarding a person for circumventing rules designed to promote an orderly society or rewarding a person who follows those rules?

      Taken that way, I don't see much difference between this issue and the question of whether it's "just" for an individual to opt not to pay taxes. We all pay taxes in order to produce a healthy society. If one person doesn't pay taxes, it's only a few thousand dollars out of trillions, but it's obviously not the right thing to do. It's not "hazing" to want other people to pay taxes because I pay taxes. It's wanting people to do their fair share to keep our society healthy. Not following rules simply because they inconvenience you is typically regarded as a bad thing, especially when it's not a victimless crime. Circumventing immigration laws contributes to a "free rider" problem, which is definitely not just treatment of your fellow immigrants.
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    19. Re:Life Liberty by Copid · · Score: 1

      Let's do a quick breakdown using myself as an example. Up until recently, I did not pay property taxes, because I owned no property. I think most illegal immigrants would fit into this category.
      I think that there's a correction that needs to be made on this point: You were paying your landlord's property taxes as part of your rent. It's no different from claiming that employees don't pay the "employer contribution" in social security taxes. They do, but it's taken out of their pay package before they even get the offer.
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    20. Re:Life Liberty by amper · · Score: 1

      This is the one issue that you would find agreement on across most sections of the political spectrum. Ask the common man on the street if this is a problem that needs to stop and he will say yes. It doesn't matter if he is a Republican or a Democrat. Unfortunately our political leaders have failed us miserably on this issue. The Republicans are owned by big business that likes cheap labor and the Democrats are owned by the PC crowd that feels bad for them and is afraid of being labeled racists. Both parties want the Hispanic vote.

      and from Guppy06 (410832):

      The Republicans are backed by the "law and order" type with a xenophobic streak (folks at Free Republic are calling for Bush's impeachment over immigration) while the Democrats are owned by labor unions who don't like non-unionized cheap labor. Congress is together in opposing Bush's proposals on this one.

      And now you see why nothing substantial will ever be done to fix this issue in a positive manner. There are no voices with sufficient access to the legislature that can articulate these issues in a rational fashion without ulterior motives.

    21. Re:Life Liberty by masterhibb · · Score: 1

      True, but I was mostly centering on direct taxation. If you don't own property, it's your landlord's responsibility to take care of the property tax--they just generally pass the cost onto you. Plus, in most cases, your landlord will be paying that tax whether you occupy the building or not--he's the one being taxed, not you. It's all really a matter of semantics; you're subsidizing your landlord's property taxes, but you're not paying them, and those taxes would be paid even if you were out of the equation.

      Though for the employer taxation it'd be a bit different, because if you're working off the books, they're probably not paying those taxes.

    22. Re:Life Liberty by Copid · · Score: 1

      Well, the point is that property tax is just that--it's a tax on property. If we really meant for it to be a tax on people, we'd be taxing something other than property. As long as the tax on the property gets paid, there's really no reason to debate the semantics of who is paying it because the government's coffers are being filled the same amount either way. To me, property tax isn't a particularly useful measure of a person's contribution to the taxes because unless the property you're living on is owned by absolutely nobody, that tax will be paid by somebody somewhere as a necessary part of that property's existence.

      The upshot of all of this is that we do really stupid things with property tax. We provide services whose costs are proportional to population (e.g. schools) and tie their revenue stream to something other than the size and productivity of the population--the value of a fixed amount of property in a fixed area. The way we use property taxes doesn't make a whole lot of sense from that perspective, but I suppose that government fiscal policies rarely do. How many times have you seen bonds floated to pay for recurring costs?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  3. And They'll Start With... by imikem · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...a list of 535 people who do no work.

    --
    Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    1. Re:And They'll Start With... by The+Woodworker · · Score: 1

      535 who do no work....

      OK, I give up. Which government office are you referring to?

      --
      Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll wipe out the species.
    2. Re:And They'll Start With... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If only they didn't, man, if only they didn't.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:And They'll Start With... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      OK, I give up. Which government office are you referring to?


      The U.S. Congress = 435 Representatives + 100 Senators
    4. Re:And They'll Start With... by chaidawg · · Score: 0, Redundant

      435 Congressmen + 100 Senators

    5. Re:And They'll Start With... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Now that's completely unfair.

      I have many colleagues who know enough about their limitations to know that they're better off not doing anything at all than "trying" and screwing things up, creating more work for the rest of us. The problem is none of them are in our government's legislatures or executives.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:And They'll Start With... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A wise man once said: It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for.

      I couldn't agree more.

  4. Land of the Free, Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, essentially, if the gubermint don't approve of you, you get to starve?

    1. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Yes lets get rid of immigration policy and let anyone go to America. I'm sure it won't become overpopulated. Nope. That's crazy talk. Next you'll be saying global warming actually exists.

    2. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Interesting
      So, essentially, if the gubermint don't approve of you, you get to starve?

      As much as I abhor illegal immigration, I might be more likely to hire someone who fails the database. Just pay cash, off the books. The guy might have a family, and I couldn't be an instrument of punishing them, honestly.

      -b.

    3. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by spamking · · Score: 1

      Ummm no.

      You enter this country illegally, pay little or no taxes, obtain low cost or free health care services you theoretically get put on some "list".

      Personally, I don't mind immigration. However, I do have a problem with illegal immigration.

    4. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by svendsen · · Score: 1

      And if you are caught then it's your family who is punished....either way someone is screwed.

    5. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And if you are caught then it's your family who is punished....either way someone is screwed.

      This didn't stop the Catholic part of my family from hiding Jews from the Nazis during WW II. And the stakes for that were much higher -- probably shot to death or sent to a camp along with your family if you got caught.

      Stupid laws should be broken. Just try hard not to get caught.

      -b.

    6. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by polar+red · · Score: 1

      "free health care services" I suggest you go see the lastest film of Michael Moore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    7. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      erm, well, yeah, if you can't earn money, you don't pay tax. If, when you do earn money, your employer can't record it properly because you exist illegally, you don't pay tax. This leaves two options: illegal immigrants not allowed to earn or illegal immigrants need to be unillegalised if they're earning. Seeing as, in order to eat, they need to work, the ONLY available (humane) option (if you want to collect taxes, which governments do) is to let them work.
      If someone is earning and contributing to society, why would you NOT want them to work and continue to do so?
      The United States is NOT short of space - there's no good reason why people who will contribute to society should not be allowed to immigrate and do so.

      --
      FGD 135
    8. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like it.

      The amount of abuse this database would be open to... urgh. Off the top of my head:

      1. Government departments hire a lot of people who have write access to these databases.
      2. It is SOP that a record added to the database is not automatically brought to the attention of someone else to check.
      3. It is also common for the procedures to get off the database are substantially more complicated than the procedures to get on it.
      4. The people mentioned in 1. above are humans. They're corruptible, they have emotions.
      5. So, all I need to do to really screw you over is bribe such a person to add your name to the "do not work" list. It may not affect you now, but in 6 months/a year/5 years time...

      At least when you're issued papers, they generally suffice and it's pretty hard for someone to take them off you.

      I'm sure others can come up with more imaginative abuses of the system.

    9. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by svendsen · · Score: 1

      I don't see how don't hire people who came to this country illegally as a dumb law....

      Legal immigration = good
      Illegal immigration = bad


      An in-law of mine came from a country torn by war and genocide (and lost immediate family to the war), they got here through the legal process. They have a job, pay full taxes, etc.

      It's the illegal ones that I have issues with.

    10. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Yea Mr Objective Ballanced Truthfull Michael Moore. Now theres one guy who is 100% honest and would never ever misrepresent anything right.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    11. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      I don't see how don't hire people who came to this country illegally as a dumb law...

      First of all, this database could be used to punish LEGAL workers as well -- add false information? Don't like it? Ok, you can appeal, but you'll have to wait 6 months without a job in the meantime. As far as illegal immigration -- the guy (or girl) is in the US already. Do we visit the sins of the father upon the wife or children by not allowing him to work and make money?

      -b.

    12. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by svendsen · · Score: 1

      Not sure what the GP was referring to but...

      In Texas and other states near Mexico a lot of hospitals have been shut down due to costs incurred from treating illegal immigrants. A hospital may not turn away someone who is at deaths door. They must at min. stabilize the person.

      Now when the person can't/won't pay the hospital eats the cost (they may raise their rates but then people will go else where).

      I'm in no way saying let a person die but at the same time what is the cost to the rest of society has hospitals and such close?

      We could expand this further by looking at schools where the kids of illegal immigrants come in but the parents aren't paying taxes to support the schools. Etc. Etc.

    13. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by spamking · · Score: 1

      Low cost or free . . . which could also be translated as "low cost or bills not being paid". Nothing is ever really free. Someone has to pay for it.

      Do we really need to open the debate about the strain illegal immigration puts on the US health care system?

    14. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So make it legal. Problem solved. That's why we have a Congress -- to change the laws. Mexicans have been crossing the US border since there was one. We don't need laws about who can live where.

      Tax evasion is a serious crime regardless of your residency status or nationality. I certainly support the prosecution of those who make wages without paying taxes. I don't see why I would care where they were born.

    15. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by spamking · · Score: 1

      Like I said, I'm all for legal immigration. Enter the US legally, contribute to society via working, paying taxes, or whatever. That's fine. I'm not denying the huge impact the immigrant workforce has on the US economy at all. I'm also not saying that people should be denied opportunities to better themselves either.

    16. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by svendsen · · Score: 1

      Do we visit the sins of the father upon the wife or children by not allowing him to work and make money?

      if you are catholic you believe in sins of the father...dumb joke back on topic

      Well I think we aren't all on the same page here. The DB itself is a dumbass idea I agree. But the DB != illegal immigration problem.

      There is no answer to this issue which will make anyone happy. On one side you can say well kids born here are citizens and you don't want to separate families. True. On the other hand the law was broken and we just can't let people get away with that BECAUSE it will only encourage more illegals. And then 5 - 10 years from now the exact same situation again and going through this same argument on Slashdot.

      If nothing is down wages will continue to be driven next to nothing for low skilled jobs (if one illegal will work for $2/hr I bet I can find one for $1.95/hr, etc, etc), much more burdens on hospitals, schools, etc, and everyone will have a bad taste in their mouth.

      Again I have family that went through he legal way leaving from a situation that makes Mexico look like Disney land so the legal way does work.

    17. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      On the other hand the law was broken and we just can't let people get away with that BECAUSE it will only encourage more illegals.

      I have no problem with checking documents/passports/visas at the borders, along with strict physical border security. Basically, we should have a free country with a strong perimeter around it. Yes: some "leakage" will invariably occur, but it can certainly be minimized.

      -b.

    18. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by svendsen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Which I agree with. Wow a thread ending in agreement on Slashdot with no insults thrown. Is this really Slashdot?

      *shudder*

    19. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by spamking · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure there are legal means by which a person can enter the US. Countries have immigration laws for a reason. In a post 9/11 world you can pretty much count on there always being laws about who can live where in the US.

    20. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 0

      Around here they don't close them , instead they take government money to stay open. There goes my taxes towards paying for illegals to have healthcare when I myself can barely afford the insurance rates for medical !

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    21. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In Texas and other states near Mexico a lot of hospitals have been shut down due to costs incurred from treating illegal immigrants. A hospital may not turn away someone who is at deaths door. They must at min. stabilize the person.

      So the argument here, if I may simplify it, is that millions of Mexicans are swamping the borders because they want free emergency healthcare.

      Not free "I know what I need well in advance, I'm going to spend a few months planning a trip across the border" healthcare, but free "I've just been hit by a truck. Quick! Let's travel 500 miles to a hospital in Texas because that's much better than going to the nearest hospital in Mexico City".

      I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the argument is bullshit from start to finish. It may be that illegal immigrants are suffering more accidents than the national average, and end up in ERs as a result: this is plausible, as illegals suffering employment by an employer who has no more reason to obey basic OSHA laws than they do laws on immigration; but the idea they're here for the free healthcare (free as in "You can download music for free on Kazaa" incidentally) is so ludicrous, it needs to be forcibly taken out of the debate, and shot.

      The solution isn't to limit immigration if this is the problem, the solution is to penalize the employers.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    22. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow a thread ending in agreement on Slashdot with no insults thrown.
      asshole.
    23. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Countries have immigration laws for a reason.

      And countries have censorship for a reason. And people commit murder for a reason (by definition, in fact).

      The reasons for immigration law are that people are stupid, racist, short-sighted, and selfish. Only difference in the "post 9/11 world" is that people are now stupid, racist, short-sighted, selfish, and scared. Immigration laws don't help prevent terrorism. Consider the UK as an example; the two stories of the UK in the last 10 years is that immigration has gone up while terrorism has gone down.

    24. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by svendsen · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying they are coming here for free emergency care. However the fact is when here, and when injured, they do use emergency services but won't/can't pay for them, in turn putting huge financial strain on hospitals and in more and more cases causing hospitals to close.

      Which means more people going to fewer places, in turn making the situation get worse. It would not surprise me one bit to see in the future hospitals fighting the law which says we must try to save everyone's life who walks through the door to only those who can pay via credit card or health insurance or govt. give us money.

      You can say well it's because companies don't follow OSHA, or reason B, or reason C, but in the meantime the strain on the systems is real and right now. We need to fix the reason for the strains (ex. make people follow OSHA no matter the legal status) but if we don't look at the effects of illegal immigration themselves we may find certain services (school, healthcare, etc) bursting before the overall fix can be put into place.

    25. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      Are you for increasing the number of green cards to at least the number of illegal + legal immigrants per year? Because I think thats where the real debate is. Many people are afraid of what all those Mexicans would do if they came here legally instead of illegally. I don't know why. Some kind of deep rooted racism (although not quite exactly since ones already legally here seem to be ok) or psychological thing that is making them fear increased legal numbers.

    26. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by spamking · · Score: 1

      Are you for increasing the number of green cards to at least the number of illegal + legal immigrants per year?

      I wouldn't have a problem with it. The current situation is definitely not working.

    27. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same deal here in Los Angeles. Illegals use the emergency room as their personal medical service. From minor cuts to allergies to alcohol intoxication. It's a really disgusting situation.

    28. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by Jon_Hanson · · Score: 1

      It's not emergency healthcare that they're after. I'm in Arizona and we have the same problem as Texas. Emergency rooms are required to treat anyone without regard to their ability to pay or if they have insurance or not. In an emergency this is a good thing, but go into any emergency room in Arizona (and Texas as well, I presume) and you'll see all kinds of people there for non-emergency things like colds. The majority of these people are not here legally and, of course, can't pay for services so they go to the emergency room. This puts a strain on the hospital's emergency room staff and their budget since they aren't going to get paid for the services they have provided. Then there is the opportunity cost of someone without an actual emergency taking up resources when someone does come in with a real emergency. I know of at least one hospital here that had to close its emergency room (in violation of state and possibly federal law) because it was overrun with too many people that didn't have the need for real emergency treatment.

    29. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by notamisfit · · Score: 1

      I say keep criminals out, keep people with infectious diseases out, and other than that, don't worry about it. Employers should be free to contract with whoever they please; no one has a "right" to an exclusive market for their labor. I don't care about the tax issue because I feel no pride in money being taken from me at the risk of imprisonment or being shot in a police standoff. I don't care about healthcare because the government has no business in what should be a matter of contract between provider and patient. "Border security" is by and large a false issue; when the next wave of hijackers arrives, they'll probably be here with student visas like the last wave.

      --
      Jesus is coming -- look busy!
    30. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by dwpro · · Score: 1

      So the argument here, if I may simplify it, is that millions of Mexicans are swamping the borders because they want free emergency healthcare. I think you oversimplified and and totally went off on a tangent. Regardless of their motives for coming, the reality is that hospitals are shutting down because they cannot afford to treat people who do not pay and that they cannot turn away. Illegal workers will have no health coverage, and so they either pay out of their own pocket or the bill goes unpaid.
      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    31. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by megaditto · · Score: 1

      If you move 3 billion people to the United States, it will still have a lower population density than most European countries (except Norway).

      And really, only about 1 billion would move in here if you let them, the rest are pretty happy where they are.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    32. Re:Land of the Free, Indeed by Evolt's+RonL. · · Score: 1
      You mean like hacking in and adding W's name and SSN? ... Or merging in a database of every lawyer, politician, police officer in the country?

      Hell, just merging in the phone books for major metropolitan areas ... Nope. Can't think of anything like that ever happening.

  5. So what's going to be worse? by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 1

    The false negatives, in which valid people are denied the oh-so-exciting opportunity of working for the DHS (cough, cough) or the false positives, in which lazy bums are given cushy jobs at said department because of, say, political allegiances?
     
    What is the link between employment and national security anyway?

    --
    I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
    1. Re:So what's going to be worse? by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      The false negatives, in which valid people are denied the oh-so-exciting opportunity of working for the DHS (cough, cough) or the false positives, in which lazy bums are given cushy jobs at said department because of, say, political allegiances?
      You either misread or didn't read the story; this isn't about a database for working AT the DHS, this is about a database of eligible workers maintained BY the DHS.
      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
  6. Well that's neat.... by LordPhantom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, this may be being implemented with the best of intentions (stopping illegal workers, etc), but do we really want to give the government an easy way to "flip a switch" (or bit) and make it impossible for any one person to earn a living?

    This isn't just a "don't fly" list, and I suspect that in its initial incarnation it wouldn't have the same .... due process that the local police arresting someone would.

    If not this government what about the one that is elected five years from now? Nine? What about the (admittedly hypothetical) government that is elected in 2020 that wants to prevent convicted felons from holding certain classes of jobs (more so than stigma already does?) Political dissidents?

    1. Re:Well that's neat.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What about the (admittedly hypothetical) government that is elected in 2020 that wants to prevent convicted felons from holding certain classes of jobs (more so than stigma already does?)

      Feature creep, anyone? Will this database just do a yes/no answer, or will employers be able to eventually request a background report, list of previous checks and jobs, etc... If this is merely a yes/no answer, it's somewhat acceptable, but anything more is not ok. Furthermore, will this just increase the use of fake documents and stolen SS numbers? It's not like employers (especially small ones) have the time nor desire to check IDs and determine whether they're real or not.

      AFAIK, I don't think any employer has asked my for a driver's license or passport anyway for my I-9 -- they just said fill it out with your SS#, etc and trusted me not to be illegal.

      -b.

    2. Re:Well that's neat.... by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know, this may be being implemented with the best of intentions (stopping illegal workers, etc), but do we really want to give the government an easy way to "flip a switch" (or bit) and make it impossible for any one person to earn a living?

      It's funny you should say that because according to the book I'm reading at the moment, this was precisely the method used to control low-level thought criminals by the Stasi in the former East Germany.

      Say something indiscreet in public? Mysteriously you'd lose your job and no matter how hard you tried you just couldn't get past an interview for even the most unskilled job.

      Rich.

    3. Re:Well that's neat.... by polar+red · · Score: 1

      "stopping illegal workers" Tell me again how the US would look like if this sort of thing would have been implemented 200 years ago ? a big poor country with a lot less people in it. There have been published a some studies that indicate that stopping immigration would wreck one's economy. This is of course not even mentioning the ethical considerations of building high walls around a country. (letting copper,oil, .. in but not people ??? that's saying : matter is valued higher than people)

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    4. Re:Well that's neat.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      matter is valued higher than people

      Umm... yes? Didn't you get the memo?

      What do you think? Putting human beings in the center of considerations? You ARE aware that this was the catch phrase of the Communists, yes? What are you, a Commie?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Well that's neat.... by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      This is total bullshit. Someone hiring illegal immigrants is committing a crime, if the immigrants are in the database, what's the difference?

      If the government was serious about stopping immigration they would crack down not on the immigrants but on the companies hiring them, but of course, they don't want to stop their friends from making big bucks. The immigrants wouldn't come if nobody could hire them.

      The same hypocrisy happens here in the EU. The right-wing politicians score big time with the public opinion yelling against immigration, but the fact is, the ones that benefit the most from illegally hiring immigrants are the supporters of those parties, I mean corporations. It's not that they hire them directly, but they outsource to small companies employing people with low wages, no labor rights and that can be deported at any time if they become "inconvenient". And, let's face it, they do the dirty jobs that European or American citizens don't want to do.

      One thing makes me shiver, if our rulers are so incompetent to stop illegal immigration and (apparently) can't find and punish the companies that break the law by hiring illegal immigrants, how are we supposed to believe they will be more competent at stopping terrorists from entering our countries and do whatever they please? Why is it that this "war on terror" sounds like bullshit to me?

    6. Re:Well that's neat.... by mh1997 · · Score: 1
      As someone that is married to a Naturalized US Citizen, I am for legal immigration (otherwise I'd be having sex alone). However, illegal immigrants are not the same as legal immigrants as far as skill and productivity are concerned.

      Check out http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/uploa d/SR_14.pdf for one side of the story.

      Secondly, the Stasiland example is what happens when government is given (or illegally takes) too much power.

    7. Re:Well that's neat.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a ban on American immigration had been implemented 200 years ago maybe there would never have been the genocide of the Indians?

    8. Re:Well that's neat.... by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      You know, this may be being implemented with the best of intentions So they'll claim. I'm quite certain that the intentions are anything but good.

      This isn't just a "don't fly" list, and I suspect that in its initial incarnation it wouldn't have the same .... due process that the local police arresting someone would. There's one of your "intentions" right there. The Bush administration has never regarded due process as anything but a bothersome obstacle in its quest for unfettered power.

      If not this government what about the one that is elected five years from now? Nine? Elected?

    9. Re:Well that's neat.... by LilGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The war on terror is every bit as much bullshit as the war on drugs. You cannot win a war against an idea. Ideas do not die, they merely fade from consciousness if given the opportunity. When you drag it out into a public war, you keep that idea alive and give it many more followers. This defeats the purpose of having the war, assuming the purpose was to disperse the idea and get rid of it.

      All I see are wagons circling these days. War on guns, war on terror, war on drugs, war on immigration, war on this and that. Every last one of these "wars" has restricted personal freedoms and brought massive powers to the federal government over state governments. If these trends continue, which I foresee no slowing down, but only a quickening of the pace, our country and government will no longer even be recognizable, much less as the last bastion of freedom in the world.

      We, the citizens, will become the state's slaves and we will be assigned our life-duties and carry them out or be disposed of. Progress in the robotics field will only serve to complete this future reality. When people are no longer needed to do menial tasks and even some of the more elevated tasks, they will become a friction to the economy rather than the grease. The scales of wealth will tip immensely.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    10. Re:Well that's neat.... by mpfife · · Score: 1

      do we really want to give the government an easy way to "flip a switch" (or bit) and make it impossible for any one person to earn a living? Precisely. And a good number of those illegal immigrants are using stolen identities. So, now YOU are the one that cannot work - and imagine getting THAT sorted out with this government agency.
    11. Re:Well that's neat.... by multiOSfreak · · Score: 1

      The war on terror is every bit as much bullshit as the war on drugs. You cannot win a war against an idea.

      Amen! I've been saying this same thing for years now, and people just don't seem to understand that you cannot defeat a concept with a gun or with economic sanctions.

      And since it seems that we are determined to continue these foolish crusades against ideas, I propose that we launch a global "War on War."
    12. Re:Well that's neat.... by notamisfit · · Score: 1

      No, because the main factor in the Indian "genocide" was smallpox, which was brought here by the Spanish 400 years ago.

      --
      Jesus is coming -- look busy!
    13. Re:Well that's neat.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly where I was going with this...can you say "Big Brother". Man, does anyone besides me think this is really Orwellian.

    14. Re:Well that's neat.... by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      "The Politics of Failure have failed. We can make them work."

      --Kang (or possibly Kodos)

  7. Next up.... by woolio · · Score: 3, Funny

    DHS will attempt to create national a database of irrational numbers....

    After all, computer security could be improved if we keep these pesky numbers out of our calculations. By Federal Law, all numerical calculations will require verifification with the National Irrational Number Database (NIHD) to ensure these numbers do not penetrate our borders.

  8. Oh Lovely! by jfade · · Score: 1

    Just what we need! Another list that people can mistakenly get put on for no particular reason other than having done nothing wrong.

  9. wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where the hell has this idea that a government's roll includes compiling lists of people that their citizens are not to do business with come from?

    1. Re:wtf? by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      The Golden Age had a similar system called the College of Hortators (from the root word 'exhort') that dealt with people the government didn't have laws for, such as those who store WMDs with the minimum legal protections and pray for an accident. If you want to see how such a system sucks, go read the trilogy.

  10. Several of these already exist by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a variety of "no work" databases out there. As a healthcare organization, we're required to check them or else we'll lose our Medicare status. For example, there's one that lists people who have been convicted of fraud. If we employ them, we could lose our Medicare reimbursement.

    From a database perspective, the problem is making some automated process to make this work. Most lists I've seen don't have SSN, so you have to do crazy name matches. Of course, people convicted of fraud always use their real name, right?

    Putting civil liberties aside, from a straight technical standpoint it would be great if everyone had a unique identifier and people would give lists that have these unique identifiers. I realize people have heart attacks over SSN, but there's nothing else out there at the moment (and it drives me nuts when banks use knowing SSN as proof-of-identity).

    I'm not advocating we switch to some "everyone gets a number" society, but it's equally silly to pass laws requiring us to check lists of names and not expect it to be wildly inaccurate.

    1. Re:Several of these already exist by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      It's a bad time to be named John Smith, in today's America.

      Terrorist, Tax Dodger, Fraud Artist, Unemployed Worker...

      Parents, save your kids and give them unique names! Who cares if they get picked on in school? There sure as hell won't be any Fibonacci Martel Williams Fourier Johnsons on any of these database lists!

    2. Re:Several of these already exist by supersnail · · Score: 1

      " There sure as hell won't be any Fibonacci Martel Williams Fourier Johnsons on any of these database lists! "

      There is now! Hell never work on this planet again.

      --
      Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
    3. Re:Several of these already exist by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Fibonacci? Doesn't that sound a tad bit foreign? Or ... Arab?

      Huh? Italian? Italian, Arab, heck, from somewhere in that shady corner of the world over there, who cares?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Several of these already exist by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

      we have this "everyone gets a number" here in in brasil and it works great. it's CPF, short for "Cadastro de Pessoas Fisicas" (Natural Persons Registration).

      other than the ocasional fraud for identity theft (nothing of the epidemic scale of ID theft i heard is happening in US), it's not used by the government to spy on people or opress the population. but it helps a great deal to find out who has bad credit without risking flaging the wrong person, plus it helps identifying a particular person where common names (like "maria josé da silva". more than 8 thousand registered voters with that name in sao paulo city alone) are concerned.

      granted, it's kinda abused by employers as a sort of "no-employ" list. a friend o'mine was denied at least one job, that i know of, because his CPF number was listed in a credit protection agency. but i still think the benefits of having this unique number outweights the drawbacks.

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    5. Re:Several of these already exist by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Ask yourself why people don't like sharing their SSN, then ask yourself in what way a "unique identifier" would be better.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    6. Re:Several of these already exist by mightybaldking · · Score: 1

      Fibonacci was an Italian. He is known as the man who advocated the use of the ARABIC number system in Europe. This makes him a terrorist in my books.

    7. Re:Several of these already exist by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hah! I knew that guy was suspicious! He has middle east connections and tries to instill the values from there into our system!

      Hang him!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Several of these already exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are welcome to switch over to Roman Numerals.

      What is LXVII times XII?
      --
      AC

    9. Re:Several of these already exist by mightybaldking · · Score: 1

      If they were good enough for Moses and Jesus, then they're good enough for me.

    10. Re:Several of these already exist by mightybaldking · · Score: 1

      lxvii xii ----- lxvii lxvii dclxx ----- DCLLLXXXXVVIIII DCCCIV -- Final Answer Lameness filter doesn't like Roman Math in caps.

    11. Re:Several of these already exist by mightybaldking · · Score: 1

      Apparently it doesn't like ascii line breaks either.
      lxvii
      xii
      ------
      lxvii
      lxvii
      dclxx
      -----
      DCLLLXXXXVVIIII (add them up)
      DCCCIV simplify

  11. Use microsofts SQL server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It never works!!!

  12. A good thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, so I can go to jail for hiring someone that isn't a citizen, but right now I have no way to find-out if they are a citizen. The only thing I have is a copy John Smith's SS card that may or may not be real along with his W-4 that I have no way of verifying. I'm in NC and any illegal can get a drivers license here so every illegal I hire has a photo ID with a name that matches their usually bogus paperwork. I've probably found five dozen guys that couldn't spell the name on their NC driver's license. If they happen to reuse the same SSN as an existing employee then I'll know an existing employee is illegal so I can fire them and not hire the new guy, but that doesn't happen often. Again, I have no legal way to tell the difference. So if the Federal government finally gives me an additional tool then that helps protect myself and my wife when the feds eventually return to arrest me again for hiring illegals. Even if the tool doesn't help in reality, it at least gives me an additional defense to use in court. "But I did everything I possibly could to verify their status before hiring them. I even checked against the no-work database."

    It just sucks being held criminally liable to verify something that I can't verify. I want to do the right thing.

    PS: Before some racist person claims I shouldn't hire Mexicans, I'm not. I'm hiring mostly white or SE Asian guys that speak good English for retail jobs. Most of them are from eastern Europe or India. I live about equidistant from UNC, NC State, and Duke so there are a lot of foreigners here legally.

    1. Re:A good thing! by smurfsurf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To me, it looks like you already do everything you possibly could to verify their status. Make copies of their documents, document what you checked and the results. What can be held against you in court? An additional thing to check does not change your current position of having done the things that can reasonably be expected of you.

    2. Re:A good thing! by Fifty+Points · · Score: 1

      So if an illegal immigrant goes out and gets a fake ID, SS card, and overall a complete fake identity as in your example, how exactly will some database help? If the identity is fake anyway, and it's a blacklist database, they still won't show up.

      --
      I'm in between insightful sigs right now...
    3. Re:A good thing! by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only thing I have is a copy John Smith's SS card that may or may not be real along with his W-4 that I have no way of verifying

      It just sucks being held criminally liable to verify something that I can't verify

      You know that you CAN verify if an SSN is ligit and if it belongs to that person right? You also know that you are supposed to have a new employee fill out a I-9 form, which includes instructions on verifying employment eligibility, right? Look at it and hit page 3. Assuming all you have is an SSN card and a drivers license (typical for new hires) then you can verify that the SSN is ligit through the SSA. If your new hire thinks ahead (I did) they will bring their passport and save you the trouble.

      Either way, it's pretty easy to verify that somebodies SSN isn't fake and that they can legally work. The tools are there for those that want to use them. The problem is that the people hiring illegals don't care.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:A good thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are just low-life or foreigners, yes?

      What I suggest you do is brand each one that you find safe with your own ID, and then you can tell them apart in the morning drive. All these chinks look alike anyway.

    5. Re:A good thing! by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you have copies of there ID, then you are protected. Even if itnturns out to be false, you did your due dilegence.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:A good thing! by broller · · Score: 1

      > OK, so I can go to jail for hiring someone that isn't a citizen
      That's not true. There are plenty of people in the U.S. that aren't citizens that are legally allowed to work. This blurring of the line between citizenship and illegal immigration is a large part of the problem with the current and proposed laws.

      > I've probably found five dozen guys that couldn't spell the name on their NC driver's license
      If you are hiring asians, it's very likely that the name on their driver's license isn't their name in the first place. If it was, you likely wouldn't be able to read it.

    7. Re:A good thing! by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      It just sucks being held criminally liable to verify something that I can't verify. I want to do the right thing.

      They used to call that innocent until proven guilty.

      OK, so I can go to jail for hiring someone that isn't a citizen, but right now I have no way to find-out if they are a citizen....Again, I have no legal way to tell the difference. So if the Federal government finally gives me an additional tool then that helps protect myself and my wife when the feds eventually return to arrest me again for hiring illegals. Even if the tool doesn't help in reality, it at least gives me an additional defense to use in court.

      Stuff like this makes me wonder what kind of country you live in.

      Its really sad that the government has discredited itself with its citizens with stupid laws and scare tactics. Its sad, because most people actually want to do "the right thing", but its almost impossible.

    8. Re:A good thing! by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 0

      No but it can stop the use of SSN's that belong to dead people ! Or even people that are working 8 jobs in different corners of the countries.

      The thing is lots of people use dead peoples SSN and when they use none dead peoples SSN they use ones from id theft circles. So if the ID has been stolen they can track where it is used. Maybe take down the little fish who can lead us to the big fish.

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
  13. Get mo' Gitmo! by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 2

    The only way employers will care of such a database is when the government decides to enforce the law with regards to illegal workers. And of course right now that enforcement is next to nothing. I suspect that our business friendly (read profit loving) Congress is not about to mess up the current system which makes so many big-whig donors a lot of money. As someone who served two years in commercial construction I can assure you that the fellas that had questionable immigration status sure worked their ass off compared to the born and raised guys... Try getting a Delta Minus to work overtime... then offer that to an illegal. I've watched those guys pull 7 day work weeks for long stretches of time. Cheaper, and often (not always) the same if not better labor? No profit loving company would EVER pass up on that... especially with the government knowingly allowing it to happen.

    --
    Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
    1. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The only way employers will care of such a database is when the government decides to enforce the law with regards to illegal workers.

      But white-collar and legal workers will be more likely to be checked through the database. And in the wrong hands, the database could be used to enforce a blacklist of people not allowed to work for various reasons.

      -b.

    2. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the real purpose of the bill is something else then.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    3. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      Quiting a job because of a nasty boss would probably rank #1 cause for getting on that list.

    4. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by ElBeano · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is already such a blacklist in Pennsylvania. I have a neighbor is on it and battling this through the courts. It was clearly abused in his case (though whether he will obtain remediation his is seeking through the courts is still an open question). No reason to think the same thing couldn't or wouldn't happen if this were national.

    5. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Quiting a job because of a nasty boss would probably rank #1 cause for getting on that list.

      Unlikely to be that extreme -- then 90% of all Americans would be on the list and employers would have to hire illegals to take up the slack!

      -b.

    6. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by G27+Radio · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But white-collar and legal workers will be more likely to be checked through the database. And in the wrong hands, the database could be used to enforce a blacklist of people not allowed to work for various reasons.

      I wonder what else will be in this database besides "not allowed" to work. I'd be afraid that eventually it'll turn into something where you have a "work score" similar to a credit score. Maybe I'm just paranoid because I spent five years unable to get a decent job before finding out the government has me listed as a felon. A year after notifying them of their error I'm still listed as a felon. I don't trust a database like this one bit. This is a bad idea.

    7. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      A year after notifying them of their error I'm still listed as a felon. I don't trust a database like this one bit. This is a bad idea.

      Assuming your story is verifiably true, I'd hire you up in NYC.

      -b.

    8. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by JasonTik · · Score: 1

      Welcome back, Mr. McCarthy!

    9. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't that potentially make that more likely, since then the labor cost would go down?

    10. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      I see your logic, but also your lack of common sense. If someone spends hours every week making your life miserable, I don't see how higher economical interests can compete with the joy of putting one last big nail on your coffin, the temptation will just be too high and there doesn't seem to be any real safeguard against abuses.

      Of course, when most of the unemployed people will be on that list, everyone will stop consulting it and it will simply become one more DHS complete failure, but you can't prevent the initial abuse.

    11. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by G27+Radio · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I appreciate the offer, but I've since started my own business and I'm going to stick with it for a while and see if it pans out. As far as verification, I'm still leery about giving out all the related information publicly. If I'm contacted by a respectable journalist I'll be happy to walk them through finding all the data online. Also, background check on me in combination with the Department of Corrections photos of the criminal will provide them with all the evidence they need.

      If I were to apply for a job at a big company now, Human Resources would take one look at my record and hire someone else--even if I told them about the identity theft. The HR person probably wouldn't spend a couple hours verifying my story if they can just pick up the next resume and hire that person.

      I used to work as a contractor at several of the big financial institutions here in Jacksonville. Merrill Lynch, Chase Manhattan, Wachovia, and a couple others. Suddenly I couldn't get in anywhere. At first I thought it was the economy, then I thought it was because I'd been out of work too long. It took me five years to find out that the state had me listed as a felon--and I still wouldn't know if it wasn't for the cops harassing me.

      I can see it now. One more database managed by the government, containing inaccurate data, and no way to change it without paying a lawyer to force the issue. Read my blog and you'll see why I'm so cynical.

    12. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've been reading your blog (your situation is making me physically sick, by the way), and I've got a question: why did you pay (and thus plead guilty to) those bogus traffic tickets in the first place? Had you contested them, the worst-case scenario would have been to be found guilty, which you were anyway but you would have had at least a chance of winning. At the very least you would have been able to tell your story to a judge, and inconvenience the asshole cops.

      Also, by the way: if you're indigent, the state will appoint you an attourney for free (especially for felony offenses, like the license suspension). Regardless of what those clerks said "should" happen, you should take advantage of that oppertunity -- you might be able to get some free advice about your situation in general.

      Although I'm not a lawyer, I do have more experience in [traffic] court than I care to admit. So please, always fight your tickets! By pleading guilty, not only did you let the abusive cops win, cost yourself $300, and set yourself up for the license suspension trouble, you've also probably made it that much harder to clear your name (as the dichotomy between a convicted felon and a guy who's never had so much as a traffic ticket is mch wider than the felon and a guy who's been in enough trouble to get his license suspended, even if in error).

      Bottom line: you need competent legal representation, and you need it now. Suck up your pride, and get your parents and friends to help you pay for it.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by G27+Radio · · Score: 4, Interesting

      None of the bogus tickets were felonies, so I would not have been able to get a court-appointed attorney for that--at least that's my understanding. The attorney I did talk to about it wanted $500 to show up but said he couldn't guarantee anything. He also pointed out that the officers were unlikely to admit to writing the bogus tickets even if they were informed that I wasn't the guy they thought I was. By the time I was able to sell my car my only option was to pay them if I wanted to be sure to keep my license--which as you know they suspended anyway.

      I think maybe you're right that I should have swallowed my pride and accepted money from my friends when they offered. Several people that I don't even know have offered to give me money since I started the blog, but I keep turning it down because I keep thinking I'll be able to take care of it myself. I'm really going to have to think about it seriously but it's hard because I feel like such a loser. I can't explain why. I know logically that this wasn't my fault. But sometimes I think how I'm a 36 year old man that can't even take care of himself and has practically nothing to show for his life. I already feel like people have done too much for me.

      That last paragraph was probably the hardest thing I've had to write so far. I'm going to think about what you said. Thanks.

    14. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by bdjacobson · · Score: 1

      The way it's looking so far, it basically checks if that social security number is valid or if that person's visa/green card/whatever is still valid.

      By requiring the employers to use it for all their employees it becomes impossible for the government to not know exactly who is illegally being employed and where they are. Then all they have to do is send the employer a notice that xxyy employee is no longer a Legal US citizen.

      Look at it from the other side-- think of all the businessmen who will be afraid of lawsuits and legal repercussions for their business if the gov't looked their direction (this would be an easy way for the gov't to get some extra cash on the side-- fine employers of illegal immigrants). If somebody applies for a job and is turned down while the employer is currently paying illegals you could sue them.

      I see this as nothing but a good thing for all of us-- keep in mind government is government and sucks at doing just about everything (you should talk to the people my mother worked with in the county gov't...complete idiots...). Them building a database that checks for valid green card/social security number info of employees, and shoots out an email to employers employing illegals? Easy hat. This system, if I understand it correctly, is for the gov't to make sure employers are employing legal citizens. I don't see employers being able to view your work history through this tool (and it's not like you don't already have to tell them when you apply). Believing the gov't is capable of building such a database (when they can't even build a national database of state criminals) takes a much higher level of faith in conspiracy theories than I find rational (or even close to rational). Besides, at 10% (30 million illegal Mexicans in the US right now) and counting, such a population would be a (poor, unwealthy) political force our politicians would want to keep tabs on and under control. I see this as a concern to them that is much larger than us legal folk.

      As for the "being good for us" part-- when the government fines employers for employing illegals, this gives the employers less incentive to employ them, which increases our market power in our ability to command a fair salary. There's no reason our children shouldn't be able to work for more than minimum wage; except that they can't do that now because of the competing illegals. When I worked at McD 2 years ago I was paid $5.50/h. Worked there for a year, never showed up late, always did what was asked, and the store manager wouldn't give me a raise (some of you may say "you have to earn your raise"--> no, if you're doing what's asked of you then you need to get the 5% inflation raise regardless, more because you've been dedicated to that company for a year. Not getting that is your employer _taking_ money from you. More than 5%+delta, yes, you need to earn that). But why should he give me the raise? I quit, and he just hired the next person (for $5.50) that applied, because that person knew they couldn't ask for more. If half the people McD (and the rest of the fast food industry) employed weren't illegals, all us legal workers could ask for what we're really worth. Let me tell you, this $16/hour Co-op I have is 1234134x easier than working at McD was. But it pays 3x more. It pays 2x what my construction job paid.

      So what now? I'm not even done with my second year of schooling and I've already accumulated more than $35,000 in student loan debt. Working 25h/week (40 during summer) @$5.50/h starting when you turn 16 in high school gets you to ~$15000 for schooling in those two years you work. That's assuming you save all of it, that you're not paying for a car or gas or insurance to get you to your job. Guess how much one year expected out-of-state tuition + food + housing costs at Georgia Tech? $29,532. Yes, you can get scholarships, but not unless you have a 3+ GPA (you gotta be pretty smart here to have that from the get go); the freshman

    15. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by Old+Benjamin · · Score: 1

      The only solution to Illegal immigration is to remove minimum wage laws. This will generate more jobs, as a result reducing unemployment. Enforcing the law on immigration would be great too, because now all those people without jobs would be able to get one:)

      --
      "The quickest way to end a war is to lose it" -Orwell
    16. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I think maybe you're right that I should have swallowed my pride and accepted money from my friends when they offered. Several people that I don't even know have offered to give me money since I started the blog, but I keep turning it down because I keep thinking I'll be able to take care of it myself.

      Think of it this way: the longer you go without having this fixed, the deeper the hole you're digging yourself into in terms of retirement savings. Compound interest is working against you.

      Besides, think of the assistance as loans instead of charity: the sooner you fix things, the sooner you can pay it back. And the sooner you'll start feeling better about yourself.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    17. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by shaitand · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm giving up moderation but it has to be pointed out. You can get court appointed representation for ANY criminal offense, not just felonies.

      The quality of the attorney varies depending on where you are. In many locations they are regular defense attorneys that you would pay outrageous rates and they take turns or have a lottery for short terms as public defender. They will always try to get you to plea bargain because they don't want to invest the time but as an adult you can refuse (I know from experience that if you are a minor they can wrestle control from you and your guardian if you choose not to follow their recommendations).

    18. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By no means think that you are a loser who can't take care of himself, or that people have helped you too much. Humans are social creatures; we survive on this harsh planet because of the society we build and the connections we maintain with each other. The justice system is supposed to be a stabilizing influence to support that society; if it fails to function, as seems the case here, all the more reason to accept the help of others in pushing it back.

    19. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      the longer you go without having this fixed, the deeper the hole you're digging yourself into in terms of retirement savings
      There are several retirement vehicles for the self-employed. Some of them are better than what you can get when you are traditionally-employed.

      Just so you know.
      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    20. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So? Regardless of which kinds of investments are "better" (in terms of interest rate, I assume), the law of compound interest universally means it's better to start earlier rather than later.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    21. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Of course, all other things being equal, it's usually better to start earlier rather than later. (I say "usually", because there are no absolutes in this world. What if, instead of plunking the money into a Solo 401(k), he used it to grow his own business, which appreciated at a rate of 100% annually, instead of investing in the stock market, which averages only 8-10% annually? Then, he will be happier that he didn't lock that money away in a retirement account.)

      Anyhow, I wasn't aware that we were talking about whether to invest now vs. later. G27 Radio said that he was doing independent contracting, you responded that he couldn't save in retirement accounts, I responded that our retirement accounts are better than yours are. That's all. :)

      Oh, and not in terms of rate. Sorry, I forgot to address that. I can put, and you should sit down when you read this, $71,250.00 tax-deferred (i.e. I pay no tax on it until I withdraw it) into my 401(k) for '07. If you run the numbers, you'll see that my tax savings is probably worth more than your employer match. Also, I can invest in anything I want in my 401(k) (and I do mean anything--not just stocks/bonds/funds/options), whereas you can only invest in a handful of funds which often have high fees.

      Of course, we haven't yet scratched the surface. Google for defined-benefit plans if you want to see some more.

      Cheers!

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    22. Re:Get mo' Gitmo! by Hugopig · · Score: 1

      And in the wrong hands, the database could be used to enforce a blacklist of people not allowed to work for various reasons.
      There are right hands?
  14. Other uses of this list by giafly · · Score: 1
    • To McDonalds it's a no-fry list
    • To Hooters it's a no-guy list
    • To Walmart it's a no-buy list
    Stopping b4 I lose the will to live.
    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
    1. Re:Other uses of this list by HalifaxRage · · Score: 0

      versus stopping because it's, frankly, shit?

      --
      bomb the us up set someone
    2. Re:Other uses of this list by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      To the NSA, it's a no-spy list...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Other uses of this list by weighn · · Score: 1
      and to your friendly neighborhood dope dealer its a no fly list

      oh, i see...

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    4. Re:Other uses of this list by nytes · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was at the local Fry's one time, and I overheard one guy tell another that he had been told by Fry's that he could not purchase anything from that store for (something like) 90 days, because of excessive returns.

      So he was put on the "No-buy at Fry's" list.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  15. Love of freedom? by QuickFox · · Score: 5, Insightful
    FTA:

    "This bill brings us closer to an immigration system that enforces our laws and upholds the great American tradition of welcoming those who share our values and our love of freedom," President Bush said in his radio address on Saturday. (My emphasis.)

    Somehow I feel that "love of freedom" isn't quite the right term here.
    --
    Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    1. Re:Love of freedom? by weighn · · Score: 1

      Somehow I feel that "love of freedom" isn't quite the right term here. oh, I don't think so. Not being free to work implies that you're still free to consume
      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    2. Re:Love of freedom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you pay attention, you'll notice that the more oppressive a democratic government becomes, the more the ruling class talks about freedom, human rights, peace, and prosperity. They don't just tack it on the end of their speeches in a "by the way" fashion. They say it with force. They make it the centerpiece of their speeches. They demand that the subject class drink the kool-aid, and in the end, the skeptics and nay-sayers are shouted down. Not by the ruling class, in a perfect twist of irony -- but by the un-thinking subject class who parrot their rulers' words.

      This is a natural consequence of the continuous escalation of power. At some point, it becomes necessary to convince the subject class to un-learn the self-evident principles of human nature -- otherwise the escalation of power will come to a grinding halt.

      War is peace; injustice is justice; oppression is freedom. Does that sound familiar to anyone? It should, because that exact technique has been used to mold subject classes into submission throughout the entire history of organized coercion.

    3. Re:Love of freedom? by amper · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Slashdot Refererence

      Slashdot Readers Open Letter to George Walker Bush

      Dear Mr. Bush:

      You keep using the phrase "love of freedom". We do not think that that phrase means what you think it means.

      Sincerely,

      The Readers of Slashdot

  16. Buying our house by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1

    When we bought our house, our escrow company checked several variations of the owner's name. It turns out there was an unusual one and sure enough, there were liens against him from a previous court judgment. Soon ensued a wacky setup where the person selling the house didn't want to formally sell it until he could settle with the previous party (presumably for less money). We ended up living in our house for months without having clear title to the place.

    Though we didn't try the guy at all, our escrow guys were great, holding on to the cash necessary to pay off the loan and guaranteeing that we'd get the title by a certain date. When buying a house, most people think the money going to the escrow folks is just for show, but in this case they really earned their keep.

    It's funny that it required them to check odd name variations to find out the house wasn't really his to sell. If everyone had unique numbers and judgments and such were recorded under those numbers, it would be far more difficult to hide from your responsibilities.

    1. Re:Buying our house by maxume · · Score: 1

      You paid a(presumably) small percentage of the transaction cost to the escrow company to ensure that the transaction was what you thought it was. Would the reduction in that cost(so, the benefit..) by treating you as a number outweigh the costs of treating you as a number in a database? I'm asking because you have a direct personal experience where it would matter.

      My personal objections are hand wavy and not all that well developed, but I do not think I would prefer that my ability to do certain things in the world be mediated by entries in a database(more than it already is).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Buying our house by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1

      Well, my SSN is in lots of databases, so I don't worry about that too much. It isn't public, though, mostly because various institutions use SSN like a password (which I feel is crazy). The ideal from a "proof of identity" standpoint is to have a public identifier and some mechanism to prove that's who you are. Now, I wouldn't care about the proof aspect for most things. I'd just want a number to check against to see if person X is the same as entry Y. If it's just "John Smith", that's useless.

      I wouldn't mind having some unique identifier in some database somewhere. The main risk people mention is that it makes it difficult to "clear your name" (or number in this case) once the government sticks you on a list. Currently, though, the matching is so inaccurate that innocent people end up paying for the crimes of others.

    3. Re:Buying our house by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      I agree, and more so as we venture further into the 21st century. The more we absolutely rely on our networks and databases, the worse off we will be when something catastrophic like an all-out cyber-war takes place and destroys much of that information.

      If we can't have methods in place to deal with things in the real world, without NEEDING to rely on cyberspace, we're only going to last as long as our networks and databases. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if someone nefarious managed to get into some large systems housing credit information, criminal histories, or even DMV records, and destroyed or corrupted the data beyond repair?

      I'm sure all of that data is backed up constantly to off-site locations, but what if so many different databases that were intertwined were destroyed at the same time, that restoring it all was next to impossible? Imagine no one being able to get money out of the bank because that information was tied into some vital systems for verification that were no longer accessible.

      I know this is a totally doomsday scenario, but it could be possible. The more we rely on automated systems for everything the more likely something enormously catastrophic could happen and leave us with no recourse. There should always be a paper trail in my opinion. It not only provides a backup in case of any system failures, but it can also help track down criminals with something goes awry.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
  17. Slowly but surely... by kevinadi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ... the US government is treating citizens and non-citizens like criminals. If the no-job list gets through after the no-fly list, pretty soon there'll be more no-* lists created. Can you imagine? No-internet, no-insurance, no-buy-home, etc etc. What they don't realize is that they're practically discouraging people that WANTS to live and work LEGITIMATELY in the US to even go to the US by putting up so much red tape while solving none of the immigration problems in the first place.

    Imagine if one day the databases got corrupted, and suddenly you find yourself in the no-job list even though you've built your career legitimately for decades in the US as a foreigner. Not a scenario I'd like to live with, and something I'd rather not risk to happen. I just hope the Australian govt don't go along with this brain-dead scheme.

    How much you wanna bet that soon the politicians will help themselves to no-tax and no-small-income list. Or maybe they did that already? I know for sure that they're already in the no-brain list.

    "This bill brings us closer to an immigration system that enforces our laws and upholds the great American tradition of welcoming those who share our values and our love of freedom," President Bush said in his radio address on Saturday.

    Heh. Yeah. Definitely no-brain list.
    1. Re:Slowly but surely... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 0, Troll

      I think you can at least be sure the government will never have a "no-buy-home" list ... the closest thing they'd have would be "loser who still rents" list ... such is the government's fascination with promoting homedebtorship.

    2. Re:Slowly but surely... by iknownuttin · · Score: 1
      Imagine if one day the databases got corrupted, and suddenly you find yourself in the no-job list even though you've built your career legitimately for decades in the US as a foreigner. Not a scenario I'd like to live with, and something I'd rather not risk to happen. I just hope the Australian govt don't go along with this brain-dead scheme.

      It exists. It's call ChoicePoint and the Credit Bureaus. They're are others. I just opened a business account yesterday and they checked up on me with a bunch of private databases that the banks all report to. Oh, and guess why? That's right! The PATRIOT Act. Th Act that took America one more step away from Freedom.

      I once applied for a job a couple of years ago. There was a form authorizing a background through ChoicePoint. In big bold letters at the bottom of the form stated "Failure to sign will eliminate you from consideration for this employment opportunity."

      We have lost our choices. And, if you're not in the system, you're nobody and for all intents and purposes, a criminal - especially for employers.

      --
      I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    3. Re:Slowly but surely... by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      Sadly, in the past 10 or so jobs that I've applied for in the past 3 years this has been a part of each one. Even for a grocery bagging job at Kroger's or a desk guy at Blockbuster. It was nearly impossible for me to get a job when I lived in Houston and I believe it had to do with those background checks.

      Yes I was in a DUI accident 4 years ago. Yes I still have outstanding debts related to it. No I did not lie on my application about it. For some reason I never received so much as a single call back. Luckily I moved to Des Moines and though I was still required to sign my rights away to even be considered for a job, it doesn't appear that many businesses here actually DO the check.

      Or maybe no one wanted to hire a whitey knowing very little Spanish in Houston - I can't say for sure.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    4. Re:Slowly but surely... by iknownuttin · · Score: 1
      You know, you give a perfect example of why David Brin and anyone else who thinks that there should be no privacy, are taking out of their asses.

      I know that you made a one time mistake, because if you didn't, you'd be dead by your own hand. But in this information society and the way the liability laws are, your screwed.

      I, in the state of GA, USA was advised by a lawyer that I should NOT hire an alcoholic. I said, "He's got his act together, he's doing his rehab, his life is work, now. What a perfect employee!"

      Lawyer: "He has a relapse. He kills a kid in your truck.
      Let me ask you, would you rather be across the table (in court) being sued by him under the ADA (American's with Disabilities Act) or on the same side of the table (again in court) because your are being sued for the wrongful death of a child. You choose!

      You see, in the fucking American Legal system, you're fucked if you do, and fucked if you don't! Remember, everything above is based on the fact that I, as an employer, have run every background check on you, whether or not I can or not....it's a fucking mess!

      I really wish that our past can be our past, but in this day and age of databases and data mining and Google : it can't!

      Man, I am so sorry! I have alcoholism in my family so I can empathize! Unfortunately, in this Christian society, your cannot be forgiven. (I really wish there were a dripping satire contempt tag for "Christian" !!!!!)

      --
      I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    5. Re:Slowly but surely... by kevinadi · · Score: 1

      That is just goddamn sick. You're pretty much expected never ever to screw up even once from the moment you're born. What I can foresee happening in the next 50 or so years is the constantly increasing standard on what will be called a "screwup". What? You cheated on a test in high school? Sorry, no job for you. What? You're smoking? no job for you. In a manner of speaking, this scheme inadvertently (or advertently?) create a caste system like what Japan has hundreds of years ago. I'm not a Japanese, but IIRC some people are considered sub-human while the samurai class can kill anyone below their caste at whim. The US is slowly moving back to feudal age, it seems.

      What's disgusting is how some caste are immune to this so-called law. Take the celebrity caste, for instance. They can freely get rehab hundreds of times in their life and still have a job. For the rest of us, it'll be hopeless. I'm very sure that some in the politician caste also have gone to rehab, but somehow they can get exempted from this law.

      There will be effort to connect various countries databases, I'm sure. At that time, if you screwed up once, the only option you have is to move to another planet. Or, you can always enter politics.

  18. Yea, that is gonna work out well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at how well everyone benefits from the present system of looking at a persons criminal record.

    The people who have 'paid their debt to society' for their past actions are able to become productive, well paid members of that society.

    Mike Millkin, Gary North, G. Gordon Liddy - all make more money than you.

  19. The last box to vote with ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Informative
    If that ever happened, it would be time to start voting with the rope and lamppost rather than with the ballot box.

    ... is the ammo box. Rope isn't anywhere in the list of boxes to vote with (soap, ballot, jury, ammo - no rope).

    1. Re:The last box to vote with ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rope is not a box. No one said anything about boxes.

    2. Re:The last box to vote with ... by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      He means we should hang the bastards.

    3. Re:The last box to vote with ... by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Shame the government has a few million times more of them than you do. And rather a lot more people experienced in using them (and willing to do so), and better equipment to fire them and defend against them. And lots of pieces of paper which the majority of people think grants them more right to use their ammo against you than vice versa.

      So, uhm, what are you going to use that ammo for? Are you going to make like a slave uprising, kill a few people and then get put down and made out to be utterly crazy? Yes, I can really see that helping make an oppressive, paranoid government less so :/

    4. Re:The last box to vote with ... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Mussolini.

    5. Re:The last box to vote with ... by bigtangringo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Is that so? Quoth the wiki, from a cited source:

      About 59.1 million adults in the United States personally own a gun. Roughly 93 million adults, or 49% of the adult U.S. population, live in households with guns.[8] There is no national gun register in the USA, so it is impossible to know exactly how many guns are in circulation or who has them, but the FBI estimates there are more than 200 million guns in civilian hands. As for the US military:

      Active personnel: 1,426,713 (Ranked 2nd)
      Reserve personnel: 858,500 (List of countries by size of armed forces) Sounds like the civvies has a veritable shitload more guns, and likely ammo. That's what protects us from the oppressive gub'mint.

      Now, as far as more powerful firepower... an overwhelming guerrilla-style force, such as the "militia" of the United States will not go quitely into the night. Instead, it would trounce the US military if needed be. A fact that's vital to living in a free country; and if you ask me we're getting closer and closer to that dreaded day when the people must rise up once again.
      --
      Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
    6. Re:The last box to vote with ... by mastershake_phd · · Score: 1

      Shame the government has a few million times more of them than you do. And rather a lot more people experienced in using them (and willing to do so), and better equipment to fire them and defend against them. And lots of pieces of paper which the majority of people think grants them more right to use their ammo against you than vice versa.

      So, uhm, what are you going to use that ammo for? Are you going to make like a slave uprising, kill a few people and then get put down and made out to be utterly crazy? Yes, I can really see that helping make an oppressive, paranoid government less so :/


      The US Military's record when it comes to fighting against guerrilla forces in foreign countries is abysmal. Remember Vietnam, the current Iraq war, even Afghanistan could be going better. If the US Military cant handle these small countries how do you think it would do against millions of its own people?

    7. Re:The last box to vote with ... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Now, as far as more powerful firepower... an overwhelming guerrilla-style force, such as the "militia" of the United States will not go quitely into the night. Instead, it would trounce the US military if needed be.

      Also, who says that people in the military would fight their friends, neighbors, etc. Soldiers aren't raised in a vacuum, and if they're called upon to kill Americans, they probably would rebel.

      -b.

    8. Re:The last box to vote with ... by DoohickeyJones · · Score: 1

      See, this is something I perceive as a common fallacy.

      People that assume we need guns in the hands of civilians to ward off an oppressive government overlook a few things:
      1) I don't need to own a gun as long as the police\military have them. All I really need is a BigStickofRevolution(tm), a dark alley, and possibly my roommate flashing her breasts as a distraction. I am now armed in the event of an uprising. I can trade up from there.

      2) Being ex-military (like many people), I already know how to use those bigger guns and things that go 'Boom'. I even know common military strategy, the psychology of the average soldier, etc. The government was more than willing to train me in the things I need to know to overthrow it, should the need arise.

      3) That soldier\cop\government worker? He lived down the street from me before he joined the Oppressive Government Regime. If he didn't live down the street from me, he lived down the street from somebody. Chances are, if things got so bad that we, the civilian population, had to revolt against our government, we would be doing so with the active support of a large portion of it's military and police force. If I don't already have a gun, chances are one of them will hand me one. I probably won't even need my BigStickofRevolution(tm)

      Now, I actually have no problem with civilians owning guns, but using 'To keep us safe from the gubmint' as a reason for owning one never really flies with me.

    9. Re:The last box to vote with ... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Shame the government has a few million times more of them than you do. And rather a lot more people experienced in using them (and willing to do so), and better equipment to fire them and defend against them. And lots of pieces of paper which the majority of people think grants them more right to use their ammo against you than vice versa.

      If it ever got bad enough that civil war were justified, a big chunk of those people would break with the government themselves and fight with you.

      (Side note: it's getting close enough to that point that I made sure to phrase the previous statement as a hypothetical, for fear of being put on some kind of watch list. Now that's scary!)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    10. Re:The last box to vote with ... by bigtangringo · · Score: 1

      First off I hope you don't think I'm just some nutter who just hoping and waiting in earnest with a pallet of ammo under my pillow for the day when revolution comes knocking. I really hope we don't get there, but given the history of the world and the direction in which our country is headed, I don't doubt that day will come eventually.

      I think you, along with your sibling post are quite right in believing that many folks in the military would have a serious problem fighting their own countrymen. However, as evidenced by Lt. Ehren Watada's case I don't foresee many dissenters actively rejecting the influence of their superiors. I've occasionally wondered if such an Oppressive Government Regime (OGR) is possible today, given how connected we are today and how readily available communications are. What does concern me though, is that the Nuremberg Defense might actually be a problem with the human condition when you consider studies such as the Milgram Experiment.

      Because of how connected we are, I am concerned that the spread of state sponsored propaganda would be extremely easy. Censorship and propaganda in our lives already exists, it's just a matter of noticing it. It may not be forced and readily visible censorship; rather, coerced or orchestrated. Mass media has been largely concentrated in the hands of few, who seem reluctant to bring serious problems to light; eager to placate the masses.

      To directly address your points:

      1. If you are sufficiently confident in your ability to obtain guns using sticks and boobies, more power to you. I'd rather have the guns ahead of time, personally. To each his own.

      2. Not so much training in how to overthrow the government, rather training in how to fight for the government. The two just overlap.

      3. Perhaps, but see my reference to the Milgram Experiment above. Think about how ridiculed Lt. Watada has been, the hostile reaction he's sure to have received. The fascification (yeah, I'm inventing a new word) of the country has been and will probably continue to be a long slow process. Much of it done by those with no intention to do so, but rather with the intent of the betterment of the country in mind.

      To keep us prepared for revolution is the #1 reason for civilian gun ownership, #2 defense from foreign threat, #3 being self defense.

      --
      Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
    11. Re:The last box to vote with ... by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of something I sometimes wonder about - as a non-citizen Green-card-holder, am I entitled to own firearms?? I probably wouldn't, even if I could, so I haven't put much effort into finding out... :)

    12. Re:The last box to vote with ... by bigtangringo · · Score: 1

      Generally, yep.

      --
      Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
    13. Re:The last box to vote with ... by jfreaksho · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      I would just like to add that many soldiers take the oath of enlistment very seriously. That line "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" has been getting a little tricky lately for some of them. I would be surprised if the revolution came and there were not soldiers tearing off their patches. There are better predictors of which side a person might choose than the fact of being a soldier.

      In my state there are less than 10,000 National Guardsmen. Reservists are a bit harder to count because they are funded federally, so the state lines are mostly irrelevant. I'll pull a number from a really dark place and say 50,000, even though that is probably far too high.

      Last November there were over 600,000 licenses issued to residents for the 9-day regular deer season. That ends up being at least a 10:1 ratio of armed citizens to soldiers in the state.

      Granted, this is Wisconsin, and those numbers all probably shift noticeably for different areas of the country, but I sure as hell don't want to be issued live rounds for use around here.
      J.

    14. Re:The last box to vote with ... by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      They won't be called on to kill Americans, they'll be called on to kill "terrorists" and "Muslim extremists". And they would do it, like many soldiers have in the past. It's just a sad fact of human nature that you can use slogans and isolation to dehumanise a group and then get people to do whatever you want to them.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    15. Re:The last box to vote with ... by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      Active personnel: 1,426,713 (Ranked 2nd)
      Reserve personnel: 858,500 (List of countries by size of armed forces) You can count on a lot of those personnel defecting or going AWOL should the government go to war against its own people. So, yeah, that's why the government uses (or tries to use) the boiling frog techniqe of turning up the heat slowly enough that we think we are comfortable when we are on the verge of being boiled alive. The game is for them to keeping pushing on the limits to our civil liberties in the name of security, while those who risk sounding unpatriotic push back.
      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    16. Re:The last box to vote with ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      That reminds me of something I sometimes wonder about - as a non-citizen Green-card-holder, am I entitled to own firearms??



      Probably depends on the state you're in. If it's one that has virtually no checks (maybe residency) on "standard" hunting/home defense/sporting equipment, then it should be no problem.

    17. Re:The last box to vote with ... by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

      IIRC, every military recruit is asked the question concering firing upon US citizens should such a situation arise. Part of the oath includes the language "enemies foreign and domestic". That would make us no different than Hitler, Tojo, Saddam, Osama and their henchmen.

      If you ever wondered why major cities have spur interstate highways, it's not just for bypassing commercial traffic. Remember the primary purpose of interstate highways are for the quick mobility of military equimpment and personnel. Those spur highways will serve as ready made patrol perimeters to starve/germ/chem down insurrecting metro areas if need be.

      As for perhaps a notable percentage of us at /. , the task at hand, more likely that not, is how quickly can we get out? What I wonder about is: does there exist a reserved region in the memory (an ethnicity/religion byte) in the RFID chips in the new US passports? Dare I call it the 'yellow star bit'? So in our attempt to run to +972 (via Canada or Mexico) because the USA is going down the crapper, we find ourselves stopped at the border with commercial vehicles in unmarked warehouses waiting for us for 'relocation purposes'. Can't happen here? We're just one (Langley false-flag provided or otherwise) mushroom cloud away.

      I am a political Calvinist. That means that all aspects of the human condition are ill-affected and are especially manifested when people gather for the purposes of governance. Evil cannot be educated away; it must be restrained or destroyed. We see the reflection of this in the founding documents of the US of A. Dare I say we have strayed too far to return? We have learned from history is that trusting the govenrnment is perhaps the most civil (read: cowardly) form of suicide.

      Looking down at my equator^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hwaist, I would make one heck of a lampshade.

      --
      Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
    18. Re:The last box to vote with ... by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      "Sounds like the civvies has a veritable shitload more guns, and likely ammo. That's what protects us from the oppressive gub'mint."

      i think we should also give some credit to people within the government and military (from the middle down) with being basically good people. Many of your co-workers and neighbors are veterans or former/current gov't employees. Do they seem the brutal regime type or do they seem to be the people you invite over for barbecue? That, and that we *are* the government and military, they aren't the gov't of some other nation, nor are they selected from one part of the nation (Rome, it's empire) or one race/class. While there may be a few people so zealous that they would fire on their neighbors, the vast majority of our troops wouldn't follow orders to be oppressive. Things are rarely as good or bad as our politicians want us to think.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    19. Re:The last box to vote with ... by DoohickeyJones · · Score: 1

      In reverse order:

      3. Oh, to be sure, plenty would toe up and follow the Official Line. I have very little faith in my fellow man, sadly.
      Not all would, though. Enough would turn to make life...interesting for the Powers That Be.
      One interesting thought experiment I have been running and trying to get other people to run for themselves is, "What would it take to make you decide that Revolution was needed. Not just protests, but actual armed revolt. Once at that point, how do you go about it?"

      2. Exactly. Knowing the enemy is the key to victory. Once I know how 'he' operates, I can devise a working plan to defeat him. Without knowing how he operates, my plans are going to be somewhat ineffective.
      I don't need to know how to overthrow the government. My actions will be dictated by circumstances at the (hypothetical, I should note) time.

      1. By all means. Heck, I do own a shotgun, myself. I would use it, rather than the stick, since I happen to have it.
      I just don't see it as a needed component. It only takes a few people like me with sticks and available boobie-distractions to start arming everyone else.

    20. Re:The last box to vote with ... by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

      May 4 1970, Kent, Ohio.

      --
      You say you want a revolution....
    21. Re:The last box to vote with ... by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      The US Military's record when it comes to fighting against guerrilla forces in foreign countries is abysmal. Remember Vietnam, the current Iraq war, even Afghanistan could be going better

      Hey, that's just practice so they're actually good at it by the time teh terrorists (i.e. you) rise up ;)

      Thing is, the very nature of this sort of thing means it's going to need to get really, really, really bad to have more than a handful actually stand up and be prepared to start shooting -- I see it as more likely that it's just going to get bad enough to be merely really, really bad -- thus most of those millions of guns will likely remain on the side of people who will think you're either terrorist scum or hopelessly misguided. And, ultimately, while you might do plenty of damage, I have difficulty seeing it going far enough and in the right direction to avoid just making things even worse.

      (and yes, I clearly haven't been exposed to the weird gun culture of the US, er, "sufficiently")
    22. Re:The last box to vote with ... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      I think you have that backwards. The people would have rebelled against the government long ago, because the government is so abhorrently, unspeakably evil, malign and corrupt, were it not that they are disinclined to shoot the military, which is made of their friends, neighbors, and relatives (or so the people are taught to percieve, while in fact it is increasingly composed of alien applicants for citizenship -- foreign mercenaries), while, by contrast, the military is very intensively trained to kill people without the least trace of moral conscience. The fight, therefore, is very unequal, and everybody knows it, so they don't take it on.

      The result of course is that evil inexorably advances in triumph after triumph, with millions of dead bodies of its innocent victims piling up, decade after decade, as every last vestige of the glowing principles with which the populace is deluded into obsequience is dragged deeper and deeper into shit. And that's probably a good thing, because if people think they can get a positive outcome by means of human effort, they will invariably turn away from less comforting sources of strength.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  20. eventually... by cosmocain · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...in a few years we will need a list to list the lists.

    One List to rule them all, One List to find them, One List to bring them all, and in the illegality bind them.

  21. Sounds like a great way.... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To control political dissidents.

    "Al those people at the protest for the war, add them to the no work list. That will teach them to disagree with our glorious leader.

    Sorry, there is no other legitimate use for this list other than opression.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  22. Does anyone see the parallels? by ATestR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Roman Kingdom (753 BC - 510 BC) ............ Colonial America (1500's - 1776)

    Roman Republic (509 BC - 44 BC) ............ United States (1776 - ~1950's)

    Roman Empire (44 BC - 369 AD) .............. United States (~1950's - ???)

    I think an analogy can be made between the Roman Republic and the US up until the mid-50's or so. However, this also suggests that the current nation is more like the Roman Empire, where taxes are high, the rich get richer and the poor poorer (and the middle class being squeezed more and more into the later group), and the people have less and less input into the national government every year. The military gets squeezed, and will be unable to respond when it needs to.

    The decline of the Roman Empire was a gradual process. After thriving for hundreds of years, the Empire was begun to fail by 369 AD for a number of reasons.

    • The Government was running out of money.
      What is the US National Debt now? $3 Trillion? Someday in the not too distant future, this is going to come back and bite us.
    • The people had to pay up to a third of their money in taxes.
      I wish I had to pay only a third of my money in taxes. Between Federal, State, Local (Property Taxes), FICA, Medicare, etc., I figure that approximately 46% of my income never sees my wallet.
    • The rich were given grants of money and land.
      Can we say juicy government contracts? And it is becoming more and more common for States to try to attract large businesses by offering tax and other "incentives".
    • There was not enough money to pay for the army.
      See spending priorities.
    • The barbarian Vandals were invading the Empire from Germany.
      Well, at least the Vandals didn't fly a jet plane into the colosseum.
    • No one had decided on a good way to choose an Emperor
      And in the last few presidential elections, I have concluded that our system is almost defunct. BOTH sides tend to nominate candidates that cater to the most extreme elements of their respective party. We end up with a executive who doesn't represent the people.

    'Nuff said.

    --
    âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    1. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      The barbarian Vandals were invading the Empire from Germany. Well, at least the Vandals didn't fly a jet plane into the colosseum.

      The Christians set fire to Rome ... Emperor Nero said so, so it must be true ? At least he was also fairly good at organizing the relief effort after the disaster.

    2. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting
      No guys - you are no more heirs to the Roman Empire than the vandals were. You are really run by poorly educated barbarians with suprising amounts of superstition often following an extremely dumbed down religeon that has been perverted to focus a great deal on wealth. The remaining attempts to grab on to the last vestiges of slavery are both shocking and pathetic.

      Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry at my nation getting pushed around by your barbarian overlords. At least have some way to stop senile ex-wrestlers who never amounted to anything outside of the ring from running your military.

    3. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, the Roman Empire soon started to crack after the Republic was replaced by it. The begin of the downfall was already noticable (ok, hindsight...) in the late first and early second century (AD).

      The Empire has stretched to its utmost capabilities. Until then, the governors got rich by squeezing the occupied lands dry. They had to deliver a certain tax to Rome, and whatever they manage to squeeze out of the land and people beyond that was theirs. The logical consequence was that they squeezed as hard as they could, until it became impossible to even squeeze out what Rome wanted.

      More and more resources were wasted to keep the ruling class in power, with games and spectacles for the masses, as well as keeping them fed. The Romans were quite easy to appease, keep them fed and entertained, and nobody would even consider staging a revolt. That worked well in other parts of the empire, at least where the people were already thinking that Rome was the shiny pinnacle of human evolution and that they should be like Romans.

      Didn't work so well for those parts of the empire that weren't yet "converted".

      Personally, I'd say we're currently pretty much in that phase of the "US Empire". The Empire can't grow anymore, is struggling to keep its size, people are kept happy with games and food, "barbarians" are nibbling at its edges, testing its strength, its allies are pondering whether it makes sense to stay allied... next step would be to hire auxiliary troops 'cause it gets near impossible to keep the army at the necessary size, with those troops soon gaining not only military but also soon after political power.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by pi_rules · · Score: 2, Informative

      What is the US National Debt now? $3 Trillion?


      $8,808,953,574,476.61 and counting.
    5. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      And in the last few presidential elections, I have concluded that our system is almost defunct. BOTH sides tend to nominate candidates that cater to the most extreme elements of their respective party. We end up with a executive who doesn't represent the people.

      Actually, I think this is how things used to be rather than how they are now. You could make a strong argument that the Repulican Party's presidential victories in 1968, 1972, 1984 and 1988 were as a result of the Democratic candidate winning the primary with a platform that insured that he would lose a general election rather handily. However, as much as I disliked him a president, Jimmy Carter was, at the time, a bit of a centrist compared to McGovern who ran in 1972. Bill Clinton was shockingly centrist for a Democratic candidate, being a pro-death penalty kind of guy and in favor of reforming welfare benefits. I doubt that anyone who's objective would consider Al Gore to be anything but centrist. Even the current president, George W. Bush, was thought in the 2000 primary to maybe not be conservative enough to win. People today who hate him tend to think of him as an evil right winger, but in fact he was seriously considered by many Republicans to be maybe "too liberal" to win the primary in 2000. I think in recent years there has been a real tendency for candidates in both parties to move towards the center and the public has shown an interest in such candidates. Rudi Guillani, generally considered to be the front runner for the Repulican presidential candidates, is anything but a "Reagan conservative", holding positions on the issues of abortion and gay marriage that would be completely at home in a traditional liberal Democratic candidate. When I think of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the first thing that comes to mind for me is NOT that they are from the Teddy Kennedy-Nancy Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party.

    6. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I'd say we're currently pretty much in that phase of the "US Empire". The Empire can't grow anymore, is struggling to keep its size, people are kept happy with games and food, "barbarians" are nibbling at its edges, testing its strength, its allies are pondering whether it makes sense to stay allied... next step would be to hire auxiliary troops 'cause it gets near impossible to keep the army at the necessary size, with those troops soon gaining not only military but also soon after political power. Private military contractors? That is, the people making up a not insignificant part of the US forces in Iraq.
    7. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you should start taking your meds again.

      "religeon"

      And we're the dumb ones...

    8. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by durin · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The Government was running out of money.
      The Gov't is always out of money. Not just in the US. Wonder why that is...

      The people had to pay up to a third of their money in taxes.
      Currently, my income tax alone is 32%. I do not live in the US. The sales tax in my country is 25% (we have lots of other funny taxes, like the alcohol tax which is >200% and the petrol tax which is about 150%). Quit whining!

      The rich were given grants of money and land.
      This is probably true in many other countries besides the US.

      There was not enough money to pay for the army.
      Again, this is true for more countries besides the US.

      Well, at least the Vandals didn't fly a jet plane into the colosseum.
      Well, you certainly showed those pesky Iraqis never to do that again. Er...

      We end up with a executive who doesn't represent the people.
      No executive ever represents the people.

      Do I see parallels between the roman empire and the US? Yes, they were both big and intimidating (not much else).
      Do I think you're overreacting? Yes.

      --
      Why, yes! I AM new here.
    9. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      And if you use standard accrual accounting methods then some estimate the debt at $49 trillion. Which is why people all over the world are running from the dollar.

    10. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      You are really run by poorly educated barbarians with suprising amounts of superstition often following an extremely dumbed down religeon that has been perverted to focus a great deal on wealth.

      Don't confuse a few vocal morons with all American politicians (or, worse, Americans in general).

    11. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by maxume · · Score: 1

      There are tens of thousands of mercenaries and other military contractors in Iraq right now. It's hard to separate the soldiers from the laundry services, but there are lots of both.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ok, so we're past that point. Next stop, military taking over the government.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by Magada · · Score: 1

      When one of those vocal morons happens to be the elected leader of the country, the confusion is hard to avoid.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    14. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by sheldon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing about GW Bush, is that he isn't really liberal or conservative in the classic sense. He's basically taken the worst aspects from all ideologies and blended them together, or something like that. But you can't really blame him. His attitudes serve a generation of weirdness. Things that have come to be since the 1960s, combined with old-school attitudes, combined with mere confusion.

      Call it post-industrial or something. But it's like PETA meets Archie Bunker. It's very Bleeding Heart in so many ways, but yet not. It rails against something, and then promotes policies that undermine it. So it results in a very strange culture of defeatist victimhood. Like a kid who wears lead boots to play basketball and then complains when he loses.

      A couple of examples. If you listen to right-wing preachers, they complain endlessly about Hollywood, right? Well what's Hollywood really about? Simple, giving the consumers what they want. So they're lambasting consumerism from hollywood, but then on the otherside they are defending consumerism from say Wal-Mart. Hell, many of these preachers are nothing more than con artists, flying their church plane to their condo in florida, and then on sunday railing about narcissism and consumer excess.

      or right-wingers promote their absitinence only education, and it turns out the kids who get that training are more likely to have sex. In fact, they're more likely to have what they'd probably call "deviant sex", because the kids are more confused than anything. I knew a girl like this back say 10 years ago. Was just adament she was not going to have sex before marriage. Didn't stop her from performing BJ's though.

      It's not new. Consider Prohibition. Promoted by the Temperance movement to reduce alcohol consumption, but instead it increased alcohol consumption. or the war on drugs.

      Or the war on terrorism.

    15. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's an interesting parallel. Some issues though:

      Clinton, Bush I, Carter all defy description as 'extreme' elements. Reagan wasn't really all that extreme either, the party even reshaped itself around him.

      The relative level of wealth between then and now is laughable. The lower end of the middle class lives as Roman kings cold only dream. Separating recent actual increases in wealth from moral decay is a bit of a problem, but there have been significant increases in productivity and the like.

      There is no credible military threat to the United States(just like the U.S. is not a credible threat to the rest of NATO or China or even Russia). War is essentially too effective for large scale campaigns to actually occur(Iraq is an exercise in nation building, not warfare). A nuclear madman poses some issues, but that's pretty much a problem for everybody, not just the new American Empire. Terrorism sucks, but the current situation is already an overreaction - overall, it is tractable.

      National and personal debt are both problems. They are bigger problems for creditors than they are for debtors(because at least the debtor sees the benefits of spending the money). In the end, even if the dollar explodes, there is still a fairly well educated and experienced work force that can go ahead and produce; that production should mitigate the impact.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      Scribe Maximus: This is a momentous occasion! Rome is burning, the Emperor is doing nothing to help! We must record this for posterity!

      Scribe Minimus: Yes, but we'll have to lie about it.

      Scribe Maximus: What?! We are historians!

      Scribe Minimus: Well, we can't very well write Nero piddled while Rome burned, can we?

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    17. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      I see Ron Paul as a beacon of hope. The mere fact that this man has been in Congress for a number of years is amazing. He represents EVERYTHING I would expect from a leader of the free world. His voting record is nearly impeccable. He is what I would consider a true republican conservative, unlike our current administration. He has morals, he is completely for the constitution, and every time he speaks there is an earnest want to restore the country back to the constitution that we've strayed so far from.

      I've never been so impressed with a candidate for presidency in my life, though I am only 23 years old, when I compare his debates and his press coverage, I can't recall any other candidate or politician for that matter, that has ever seemed so American.

      I have the greatest hope that this man will lead this nation to restore some of it's former glory and morals. Realistically however, as I watch the media tear into him like rabid dogs, I can't see a majority of America forgoing the comfort of having the mass media tell them which candidate they need to pick. In fact, most people that I talk to on a day-to-day basis about politics would rather not even discuss the subject. On the rare occasion that someone seems to care, they only want to throw out lines from O'Reilly or CNN, and not debate it.

      I don't know what is going to happen in my lifetime, but with guys like Ron Paul out there, it gives me a glimmer of hope that things can be turned around.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    18. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by zegota · · Score: 1

      If we were surviving solely on military might, you would maybe have a point. But since we are prospering more because of economic wealth than anything else, you just come off as foolish.

    19. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      And then when you see news like this it starts to make you wonder just how close we really are.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    20. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by ShadyG · · Score: 1

      You're close with regard to the fall of the Republic, but more precisely I'd peg it to 1942.

    21. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by notamisfit · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, the thing that led to the erosion of the Republican Party of yore was the inherent contradiction between their mysticism, and the small-government, capitalist, rhetoric. The two just don't work. One is built upon the belief that men have inalienable rights and are an end in and of themselves, and the other is build upon the belief that we are simply chattel to some invisible guy in the sky who alternates between loving and vengeful when he isn't taking his lithium. So they've gone welfare-statist while still talking small government, while pushing "social" issues to swing the religious vote.

      And of course, there's nowhere to go between the mysticism of the right, and what amounts to little more than nihilism on the left.

      --
      Jesus is coming -- look busy!
    22. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by jellie · · Score: 1

      You bring up an interesting point about Bush. However, in a recent column, Prof. David Greenberg of Rutgers argues that he *is* a conservative, in that all the Republican presidents since Nixon (including Reagen and George HW Bush) publicly advocated for small government, low taxes, the military, etc. but pushed their own "operationally liberal" political agendas. For example, they all wanted to give out earmarks, spend lots of money on the military, and be more involved in foreign countries' politics - the large government that is generally considered to be "liberal".

      Religious preachers? Anyone who preaches a religion is by definition a con artist, because religion... yeah, you get my point. L. Ron Hubbard was the worst of them all.

    23. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by sheldon · · Score: 1

      The Greenberg article appears to be over on the nytimes, so i don't know what he really said.

      Generally, though, I'd have to say that Reagan and Bush the Greater were conservative, in a similar vein to even Bush the Lesser.

      The smaller government mantra is really just a ruse. The foundations of conservativism as it relates to politics is protecting the existing wealth/power structure. The talk about taxes, spending and so forth, is all about that.

      What does differentiate Bush the Lesser, though, and this is what I refer to as the 60's aspect... Is the Bleeding Heart language. I've never seen a Republican president use so many cliches of this sort. Like his attack that critics of his Iraq policy just don't want brown people to vote. I guess this is the Compassionate side of conservatism. Historically conservatism would say "Fuck 'em". But this Bleeding Heart language, is intended to sell to the 60's generation. Not necessarily the children of the 60's, but their children who have heard the sayings, but don't necessarily know the context or meaning.

      Bush is a product of our times.

    24. Re:Does anyone see the parallels? by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      No vocal moron leads by himself. When selecting our leaders, we should really pay more attention to the Cheneys, Roves, etc, that he is bringing with him.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  23. How Lazy can we get by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

    How is looking up someone in a database, run by the government, going to stop employers from hiring an illegal immigrant? If the employer actually cares then they will be doing enough background check to have a reasonable sense of the prospective's legal status. An employer who wants low cost help will not check, because they know enforcement is minimal and repercussions light.

    Instead of a database (which would take some time to establish and most likely be full of data holes) how about immigration officers doing the leg work and visit employers that are suspected of illegal hiring practices. How about fining or arresting employers that hire illegal immigrants, by actually investigating how they hire and who they hire.

    I am not a fan of illegal immigrants. To break the first law (illegal entry) indicates to me they have less respect for the countries rule of law and care first only for themselves. An illegal immigrant continues to turn a blind eye to other laws and regulations (driving, insurance, housing) as they continue to live outside the law. They could be good decent people, but they are living a lie. In doing so they mock the principle of what our country stands for in democracy, law, and justice. In one recent news piece the husband/father remarked how it would be cruel to send him back and leave his family. Yet, was it not as cruel to place his family (the wife is illegal as well) in jeopardy with the law?

    However, it is the employers in this country that provide the foundation for continued growth of people crossing the border without permission. Like the brainless war on drugs, going after the addict does nothing to stop more addicts getting into the system, yet we lock up pot smokers while the supply chain remains. it would be wonderful if the various branches of this comatose government worked together to research, investigate, arrest, and prosecute employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants instead of building some lackluster database that does nothing more then mess up people's lives who fall through the chasms in the data. We will spend billions in building a fence, but will not spend the same billions building investigative teams that reduce the incentive for illegal immigration...employment.

    Truly I hear faint fiddling behind the sound of pompous blowhards chewing on grapes while spewing innocuous mandates like "build a database", "we will have victory", or "it will make you feel safer". Same tune, different fiddler.

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  24. Off the books by n3tcat · · Score: 1

    Hey, I wonder if this sort of thing will actually hurt the illegal immigrant workforce, as these blacklisted folks will be competing for the same level jobs?

  25. You have to change the incentives by vrimj · · Score: 1

    Right now the empolyer and empolyee both have reason to keep an illegal status secrest and no real motivation to report it. They are also the two people best equipped to report it. If we were actaully serious about preventing illegal labor (which I personally think is silly) we would destroy the trust in the transaction by giving on party a reason to default. It this case it would be easy, give a green card to an illegal who reports an employer.

  26. Damned if they do and damned if they dont by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There are many real reasons why employers prefer illegal workers. Cheaper wages, lower payroll taxes, freedom from OSHA regulations, cheaper overtime and more control over the employees. But the most commonly stated official reason for hiring illegal workers is, it is impossible to find who is legal and who is not. Some would go so far as to suggest that checking the citizenship status of prospective employees would leave them open to discrimination lawsuits. This no-work database might be a badly compromised version of plugging this standard escape route.

    There is no way we can stop illegal immigration without finding and punishing employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Atleast for the immigrants you could say, they are poor, uneducated, they have nothing to lose and all they are trying to do is to feed their family by working instead of stealing. But most employers of illegals, are rich, educated, they have a lot to lose if caught, and they are undercutting their competitors who employ legal workers. They are the ones who trigger the race to the bottom.

    People who oppose such data bases should suggest alternatives by which this "race to the bottom" can be avoided and employers of legal status workers are not unfairly undercut by others who employ the illegals.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Damned if they do and damned if they dont by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Some would go so far as to suggest that checking the citizenship status of prospective employees would leave them open to discrimination lawsuits.

      Strawman argument. Check citizenship/work permit after the decision to hire has been made.

      People who oppose such data bases should suggest alternatives by which this "race to the bottom" can be avoided and employers of legal status workers are not unfairly undercut by others who employ the illegals.

      Report the competitors you suspect of using illegal labor to the appropriate authorities. They should be able to check who's legal and who's not, and they shouldn't need to fear discrimination lawsuits (since they're not the ones doing the hiring).

    2. Re:Damned if they do and damned if they dont by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 0

      Then the reporting can be used to "slow down" the competitor. Companies have no issues with doing this.

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    3. Re:Damned if they do and damned if they dont by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      Report the competitors you suspect of using illegal labor to the appropriate authorities.

      You skipped step one, which is "have appropriate authorities who will do something about it if it's reported to them."

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    4. Re:Damned if they do and damned if they dont by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      You realize all of these problems go away if the illegals are made legitimate/legal right?

    5. Re:Damned if they do and damned if they dont by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      If you make the current set of illegals, legal, these employers will import a fresh set of 20 million illegals to do the job. As long as the incentives to employ illegals exist, making the current batch of illegals legal does nothing to mitigate the problem.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:Damned if they do and damned if they dont by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      There is no way we can stop illegal immigration without finding and punishing employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.


      Sure there is. For one, we could make all immigration, per se, legal.

      If your concern is controlling the overall level of immigration, not just stopping "illegal immigration", then the requirements are very different.
    7. Re:Damned if they do and damned if they dont by amper · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are not familiar with Form I-9?

      http://www.uscis.gov/i-9

      *All* US employers are required to keep a Form I-9 for *every* employee for three years from inital hire date to one year after termination, whichever is longer. All we really need to add to this is a requirement to file those forms with DHS and IRS, and a mechanism for reviewing the forms.

      This can be easily done at far lower expense to the public than this "no-work" database proposal.

    8. Re:Damned if they do and damned if they dont by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Then the reporting can be used to "slow down" the competitor.



      Hardly, unless you have really overzealous authorities. They won't go and check every other week, and once they've been there three times in a year without finding anything, they'll ignore any further "hints" for that year.

    9. Re:Damned if they do and damned if they dont by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      I was more thinking along the lines of either massively increasing the number of greencards awarded each year so legal immigration can replace illegal... or better yet forming an Economic Zone with Mexico and Canada (similar to the EU) where a citizen of any member country is free to live, work and own land in the other countries. More freedom seems like it would be beneficial to all of us (well, most of us anyway). I don't really see someone picking our crops at low wages as bad, even if they're not born in the same geographic location as I was and they disobeyed some outdated protectionism law to get here to find employment. But if they are here I DO want them to live under our system out of the shadows - with rights (ability to report exploitave employers, unsafe working conditions, pay below minimum wage, etcetera without risking deportation) and responsibilities (paying taxes, mandatory auto insurance, etc..) like the rest of us.

  27. FairTax? by BamZyth · · Score: 1

    FairTax sounds great, but can someone explain to me where the money will come from
    if everybody ends up paying less taxes? (that`s what I understand from fairtax.org)

    1. Re:FairTax? by magarity · · Score: 1

      No, the Fair Tax is revenue neutral: about the same amount of money should come to the Treasury as under the current system. Its not that everyone will pay less, its that it would make obvious to everyone how much taxes they pay. The theory is that this will make everyone more involved citizens (ie: voters). With all the hidden taxes we have now it isn't at all obvious how much taxes everyone pays. Right now people care less about the workings of government beyond what they can get for 'free' from it.

    2. Re:FairTax? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      The middle class.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  28. My predictions on how this will end up by itpr15061 · · Score: 1

    Call me a pessimist, call me practical, call me jaded. Here's what I think will happen: * Much wrangling will be had over where the data is going to come from * The project will be over budget by at least twice the original estimate * The database will be hacked within the first year, but the government won't detect it until much later And my biggest prediction: * Congress will wonder why there just aren't that many people using it This database totally ignores that many companies want illegal workers because they are cheap. Having a database isn't going to stem the demand.

    1. Re:My predictions on how this will end up by goaliemn · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, this also will open up the RealID debate. You'll have to prove who you are to the employer to get a job. Only accepted forms of ID will be RealID compatible licenses, or passport/birth certificate/etc to prove you're legal.

      RealID was needed to access federal buildings and airports at first.. People fought it.. Now it'll be required to get a job.

  29. Don't you already have a able to work list? by SillyMe · · Score: 1

    As a non-american, I must question why you would need this? Don't you already have an entire system setup to limit who can legally work? I seem to recall that there were SSNs in the american world. If an employee does not have a social security number, are they entitled to work? How does creating a second database of people -- those who most likely do not have an SSN -- fix the issue of employers employing those who are not supposed to be employed? Is this a late April Fools Joke?

    1. Re:Don't you already have a able to work list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such list, nor should there be. As a citizen it is my right to work here. I nor anybody else needs to prove that I am a citizen. It is up to the government to prove that I am not a citizen if they suspect I am not.

      At least that's how it should be, but rights and freedom have lost their meaning in this country.

    2. Re:Don't you already have a able to work list? by SillyMe · · Score: 1

      Your government does not have a list of all of the SSNs given out over the years? No wonder it can't figure out who should be allowed to work.

    3. Re:Don't you already have a able to work list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need a SSN to work. Your employer does need at the very least a taxpayer number in order to report your income to the government, but that can be gotten basically upon request. And neither the taxpayer number or the SSN determines eligibility to work.

  30. Yeah, but what's the point by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    if you give work visas to just about anybody who asks?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  31. Becoming UPSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon it will be called the United Police States of America...

  32. Read your Orwell by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Oh, in the light of 1984 and its definition of freedom (as in "the dog is free of fleas"), it makes sense. Maybe he meant the love of being free of illegal workers?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  33. Start billing Mexico for rounding up illegals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For every border-hopper that we round up, we should send Mexico a bill for the cost of detaining, holding, and returning them. Just the "usual and customary" charges, of course. They'd have some incentive to keep their people at home if it cost them a few thousand a pop.

    I mean, isn't that just free trade? NAFTA? Hello?

  34. How can we get ... by monstermagnet · · Score: 1

    "George W. Bush" added to the list?

  35. What database hasn't been misused? by btarval · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "And in the wrong hands, the database could be used to enforce a blacklist of people not allowed to work for various reasons."

    s/could be/would be/

    Has there ever been a case of a government database which hasn't been misused? If this law passes, it's only a question of how many are going to get burned, not whether it's going to happen.

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
    1. Re:What database hasn't been misused? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Has there ever been a case of a government database which hasn't been misused?

      It is possible there is something at the USGS or NOAH but if that is the case and its doubtful then its only because nobody remembered to make those organizations part of Homeland-Security yet.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  36. Blacklist by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

    ...that's what they called it back in the 50s, during the McCarthy era. I suppose if we just change the name, it'll be OK.

    1. Re:Blacklist by Wooky_linuxer · · Score: 1

      Today it would be called an African-American list.

      --
      Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
    2. Re:Blacklist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just 3/5 of the list anyway. The other 2/5 consists of people who aren't "other persons". And don't get me started about the Indians non-taxable (maybe that explains outsourcing!).

  37. Taco Bell has your order make a run for the border by August_zero · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Americans won't do it because we have a standard of living that is a lot higher than many of the illegals immigrants are used to. For the American worker, if they refuse the job they may lose it, but we have social support for the unemployed and there will be other jobs. Illegal immigrant workers on the other hand have no such luxury; all they have is poverty and death waiting for them if they refuse to work so they are a lot more motivated. Labor laws in this country are what keep children out of factories and (usually) limit the workday and job requirements to something that is not going to wear out and compromise the health of the worker in as little as 5 or 6 years*. Wealth and benefit given to the employee has to come from somewhere though, and thus it translates to less profit for the company. *I did say "usually" which means "not always"

    --
    On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
  38. Use Them as a Food Substitute by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

    As long as we're still paying farmers not to grow crops in our socialist programme to prop up their prices in a "free" market, we should pay immigrants salaries not to work, to keep American labor prices propped up.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  39. put congresscritters at the top of the list by swschrad · · Score: 1

    and frankly, local police officials, who don't arrest the open-secret workers.

    and all of the immigration guys, because they won't respond to the local cops unless there is a major crime involved.

    none of these pinheads should get work again until they fix the issues that already exist.

    congress: no money for DHS until they do what they've already got the authority to do.

    immigration: ship 'em back or sleep under a bridge.

    local cops: no donut for you unless you get the illegals off the streets.

    OTHERWISE, kwitch'er'bitchin. don't grandstand and create secret police files, work with what you have for once and do SOMETHING....

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:put congresscritters at the top of the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      immigration: ship 'em back or sleep under a bridge.

      Sorry, we need the bridges for registered sex offenders. The illegal immigrants will have to sleep under the slides on playgrounds.

  40. Use of social security numbers as identifiers by grandpa-geek · · Score: 5, Informative

    Social security numbers were designed in an era before modern concepts of error control had been developed. Shannon didn't do his work on information theory until World War II, and social security was set up before that.

    Social security numbers have no check digits. Any common error on a social security number (such as changing a digit or transposing digits) can result in another valid social security number.

    The system was set up to handle accounts for old-age retirement and for support of children after the death of the breadwinner ("survivors insurance"). It was never intended to serve as a national personal identifier, and does that job very poorly.

    This proposal will only compound the problems of using 70-year-old technology, originally designed for a limited purpose, for uses far beyond its originally intended use.

    The use of social security numbers as personal identifiers is an Achilles' heel of this proposal.

    1. Re:Use of social security numbers as identifiers by amper · · Score: 1

      I once received a strange call from an officer in the United States Air Force as part of an identity theft investigation. Needless to say, I was a little skeptical of the origin of the call, but the officer made an appointment with me for me to come out to his office on a nearby Air Force Base. It turns out that he was investigating the activities of an airman who was passing off bad checks and randomly changing a digit or two in his social security number in an attempt to get around some of the electronic check verification schemes. It just so happened that one of the iterations he used turned out to be *my* SSN. The activity in question all took place on the other side of the continent, and fortunately didn't result in any detrimental effects to myself. The officer did provide me with some helpful publications on how to discover any aberrant financial records that might affect me.

      On the other hand, I'd prefer that 70-year-old technology to something that can be more easily used to absolutely identify a particular individual. The possibilities for abuse are far too great.

      This "no-work" database idea needs to be shot down immediately, with prejudice. Thanks to ideas like this generated by non-intelligent governance and an apathetic populace, the terrorists of all derivations are winning. How much longer before we may as well light what's left of our practically gutted Constitution on fire and dance on the ashes? It is becoming more and more clear each passing year that the Great American Experiment has utterly failed.

    2. Re:Use of social security numbers as identifiers by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      Wanna bet that this "no-work" database will be used to promote the RealID card?? Not an SSN, more modern technology, etc...

  41. This isn't about "no-work" by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    The real issue is Homeland Security getting their grubby, dirty, little hands onto the IRS database.

    As it works right now, Only the IRS has access to income records.
    So, if the FBI wanted to catch someone, they oculd go to the IRS and ask "Has this person paid taxes." The IRS can say Yes or NO. Or the IRS can go to the FBI and say person X hasn't paid taxes, please go get them."

    That is how it works and should work.
    SO you could right down 50,000 income - Bank robbery. No investigation will happen.

    I know, some people will be like "No Way" but I dealt with this for years, and I am sure there are plenty of online sources that will coroberate.

    Homeland security needs to be done away with, now.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:This isn't about "no-work" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the IRS doesn't tell the FBI to "go get them". The IRS has their own enforcement department (ATF) that comes to kick down your door and haul you off for forgetting to file your 1040.

      Start tangent.

      Of course if you ask them to show you the exact law that you've been charged for violating, they won't be able to (because there isn't a law on the books because income taxes are legally voluntary - though you are obligated morally, you aren't legally). Of course they don't care because they use special courts full of judges that "will not allow the law in my courtroom".

      While tax revenue is required to run a government, our system has been bastardized by rich bankers since the 1930s. Our "national debt" is really just interest on money borrowed from the Federal Reserve (a PRIVATE non-government entity created by the Federal Reserve Act). The Federal Reserve "prints" money (nowadays really just creating electronic funds out of nothing) and then lends it to the government... so they (the rich bankers) are making interest on capital that they didn't actually have to begin with! We would be better off if the government would just print it's own money on budget overruns, at least we wouldn't pay interest on pretend money! It's better to have inflation than it is to have inflation PLUS debt!

      Rejoin thread.

      The DHS runs the no-fly list like a secret club. They decide who's on it secretly with no productive method of appeal (unless you know somebody). If you said something they don't like or their bosses (executive branch) don't like, you're on the list. If your name is similar to anyone on the list, you're on the list. Abuse is the rule, not the exception.

      To think that a no-work list would be any different would be an exercise in ignorance. Oh wait, "TERRORISM!". Send your blank checks to the following address for the DHS...

  42. You can't really call... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...what their doing "work".

  43. DON'T GET CAUGHT IN THE RUSH.... by quonsar · · Score: 1

    ...get YOUR '666' carved into your forehead today!

  44. Exactly the point I was going to make by benhocking · · Score: 1

    While one can debate whether this database is good or bad in theory, the one thing we should all be able to agree on is that the implementation will surely be poorly executed. The no-fly list is a perfect example of why the no-work list shouldn't even be considered. (OTOH, I doubt anyone would have complained if they accidentally got on the no-call list.)

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  45. Clever.. by k1e0x · · Score: 1

    They have mingled the immigration reform and the Real ID act together.. now *I* as a native need to give the government god knows what to work in this country too..

    Maybe we can get CCTV cameras like in the UK and hell.. why not just put automatic gun turrets on them too for our *safety*.

    --
    Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
  46. What ever happened to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What ever happened to "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"? IANAL, but doesn't this apply OUTSIDE the courtroom too?

  47. Re:FairTax? Explained by Minute+Work · · Score: 1

    This is one of the most misunderstood things about the FairTax. You don't pay less in taxes, it's just shifts the time that taxes are taken out from the day you get paid, to the time you purchase goods or services.

    The FairTax is not magical, it's a zero sum gain. It's not meant to alleviate your tax burden, it's just meant to change the way taxes are collected to something far less complicated than the current system. People who try to make it out to be more than that are doing it a disservices because most people know BS when they see it.

    Example:

    -Current System
    You make 50K /year.
    You take home 40K /year after income taxes.
    You effectively only make 40K a year, but your employer has to pay you 50.
    That extra 10 thousand has to be made up somewhere, so the cost of the product or service that your company provides has to be raised to make sure the company makes enough money to sustain itself.

    -FairTax
    You make 40K/year.
    You take home 40K year.
    The company that employs you doesn't have to spend thousands of dollars on overhead to have you work for them.
    The company that employs you can now lower it's prices to a rate lower than what they were charging you before.
    So if they were charging 2.50 for a widget, they now can charge 2.00 for a widget and be in the exact some position as they were before.
    Now you add a 23% tax to the 2.00 widget, which makes the widget cost about 2.50 right where it was before.

    Under the FairTax, everything will cost about the same, everyone will make about the same amount of money. There's nothing magical here, it just changes the way in which you are taxed. In my opinion to a much simpler system. The upside to illegal immigration being that when somebody buys a Coke for 1 dollar, they are paying taxes on it regardless of whether they are in the country legally or not.

  48. That's already happening with the no-fly list by soren100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Say something indiscreet in public? Mysteriously you'd lose your job and no matter how hard you tried you just couldn't get past an interview for even the most unskilled job.

    That's already happening with the no-fly list. A Princeton professor who gave a televised speech criticizing Bush's constitutional overreach found himself on the no-fly list afterwards. A guy who wrote a book called "Bush's Brain" about Karl Rove found himself on the no-fly list afterwards. 20 Wisconsin peace activists suddenly found themselves on the no-fly list .

    The no-fly list is even being used to harass opposition political party members. Senator Ted Kennedy suddenly found himself on the no-fly list and had a lot of trouble getting himself off the list. The head of the TSA had to call him personally and promise to take him off the list before his troubles ended. In the same article, it talks about employees of the ACLU also ending up on the list.

    Giving the government more secret and anonymous "lists" to deny people rights is not an invitation to abuse, it's a guarantee of it. The fact that systems like this from previous fascist governments are being implemented in modern-day America is one reason that people are arguing that America is on a well-planned transition to fascism.

    1. Re:That's already happening with the no-fly list by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 1
      > America is on a well-planned transition to fascism. [guardian.co.uk]


      Very interesting link! IOW, mod parent up... where are those mod points when you need them?!

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    2. Re:That's already happening with the no-fly list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 of the best posts ive ever read

    3. Re:That's already happening with the no-fly list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 minutes after posting this, suddenly soren100 was on the no-fly list.

    4. Re:That's already happening with the no-fly list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that, technically, Ted Kennedy wasn't ON the no-fly list, but rather had a similar name as someone who was. Similarly, Catherine Stevens, the wife of Sen. Ted "The internet is a series of tubes" Stevens was held up at an airport for the similarlarity in her name with the singer Cat Stevens.

      I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just saying how ridiculous the current situation is. Why TSA cares about US senators and senators' wives is beyond me - there are A LOT more serious things a senator can do than to blow up a plane. Even babies are being detained. What's the point of a no-fly/no-work list based off names anyway? If I'm an undocumented worker or a terrorist, I sure as hell am not going to use my real name. I'll use a random name. Perhaps "George W. Bush" is a good one.

  49. Re:FairTax? Explained by aegisalpha · · Score: 1

    It seems to assume that employers would actually lower the cost of their products instead of pocketing the increased revenue. Sure competition in some markets would weed them out, but I imagine most companies would try to keep their price points the same and pass the tax back to the consumers.

  50. We NEED this...here is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Right now, here's the sad story:

    -- You can only require employees fill out an I-9 employment eligibility form AFTER you hire someone. So you could go through the while hiring process, THEN sometimes find out that they aren't eligible to work in the U.S.

    -- You can't peridically REVIEW the information on the I-9 form and can't ever make the employee verify the form again!! (e.g. even if they have a work card that expires in 1 day, if they present it, you have to accept it and can never require them to show an updated one!)

    -- YOU have to be a document-forging expert to try and detect the fakes. Worse, if you are wrong, or if their "community" law clinic lawyers can convince a judge you were "discriminating" against them, you get hit with ridiculous penalties and fines.

    -- The I-9 form has a LONG LIST of easily faked "acceptable" forms of proof to live and work in the U.S. "Joe Employer" has never even heard of some of these forms, let alone be schooled in detecting fakes of them.

    Employers don't have to send the forms in to anyone!!! They just have to keep it at their company for 3 years, then they can destroy it. It just sits there in a file cabinet unless the rare chance that ICE or some other agency raids or requests it. There is NO spotchecking, no routine review, no nothing.

    Many employers WANT to do the right thing. Give us the tools to do so!!

  51. duplicate employment by PAjamian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "As currently structured, Basic Pilot does not detect duplicate active records in its database," John Shandley, the company's senior vice president of human resources, told politicians. "The same Social Security number could be in use at another employer, and potentially multiple employers, across the country."

    In a recent statement about the bill, the White House maintained that the proposal will allow for "unprecedented" information sharing among federal and state agencies, and that Homeland Security will be able to receive "information on multiple uses of the same Social Security number by more than one individual."

    I see a huge potential problem with this. In order to detect duplicate employment employers will have to report that an employee is working with them and also report when an employee quits or is fired. Imagine moving across the country to a new job only to find that they can't employ you because your previous employer forgot (either genuinely or maliciously) to report that you had stopped working for them, so the system sees you working on the other side of the country and determines that you must be using fraudulent credentials.

    Also, what about those people who simply need to maintain two jobs?

    --
    Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
    1. Re:duplicate employment by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Also, what about those people who simply need to maintain two jobs?


      Clearly, that will no longer be allowed. Anyway, its unChristian: the Bible says no man can serve two masters.

  52. And no downside by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Employers know they aren't elligible to work, they choose to employ them not just because they are cheaper labor, but because they do better work than the unionized workers here in the states.

    And there's really no downside to doing it. What, a small fine? Nothing compared to the money saved.

    If the corporations want Santa Clara to stand, then the corporate person also needs to be subject to jail, prison, and execution. Well, sure they want to have their cake and eat it too, but this is an issue that was legislated from the bench - never directly considered by the citizenry or its legislature. Justices as recently as Black and Douglas thought the whole thing was crap, so the opponents have some company, at least. It would be interesting to hear what the current crop of [purportedly] strict constructionists have to say about all this.

    Where area the rich freedom fighters?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:And no downside by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Where area the rich freedom fighters?

      Well, I didn't close that tag right.... [#include edit_rant.h]. once more, then:

      Where are the rich freedom fighters?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  53. Valid people?! by uradu · · Score: 1

    > difficulties the proposed database could pose to valid people seeking employment

    I'm curious to see what invalid people look like. Perhaps something from the Island of Dr. Moreau?

  54. Valid people??? by barutanseijin · · Score: 1

    What's this about "valid people"? Just who isn't valid?

    One isn't any less a person for not holding a US passport or a green card!

    I know it's probably a slip of some sorts, but the slip indicates that the writer unconciously considers those who would end up on this list to be "less equal".

  55. Of course... by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    Such a database would be completely unnecessary if they WEREN'T HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    Fix the problem. Don't just put another incredibly expensive and ineffective band-aid(tm) on it.

  56. Terrorism! by djasbestos · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just throw illegal immigrants onto the OFAC's SDN list and ship their asses to Guantanamo? I mean, if this is SUCH a big problem.

  57. Headline confusion by Syberghost · · Score: 1

    When I saw the headline I figured this was a database of people who DON'T work, and Congress would seed it by placing their own names in there.

  58. Penalties for illegal labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So answer is tighten penalties for using illegal immigrants so high and increase surveillance, that risk getting caught is simply too high. For example, $100 000 fines from each illegal immigrant.

  59. Brings new meaning by sheldon · · Score: 1

    to...

    You'll NEVER work in this town again!

    1. Re:Brings new meaning by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      No, it brings an old meaning back to the phrase.

      Flat-out blackballing used to be fairly commonplace before the fed.gov started trying to stop it from happening. Now they're just bringing it back into fashion, but with a New! and Improved! sticker on it.

      Sort of like bell bottoms.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
  60. Thought legal citizenship put you in No-Work lists by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    I thought we already had a few of these databases already - the database being a distributed list of all citizens by birth or naturalization. The way things are going now, citizenship itself seems to be a penalty compared to the H1-B/L1/Illegal Immigration hat trick. Maybe it's time some of the economists start learning about why their cold numbers seem to have no effect on people who have experienced this kind of "sealing off the bottom".

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  61. Re:FairTax? Explained by Minute+Work · · Score: 1

    There's nothing to prevent businesses from artificially raising their prices under our current tax system. Unless you count alienating your customers and going out of business as good reasons.

  62. Re:Taco Bell has your order make a run for the bor by RexRhino · · Score: 1

    Labor laws in this country are what keep children out of factories and (usually) limit the workday and job requirements to something that is not going to wear out and compromise the health of the worker in as little as 5 or 6 years*. No, this is not true at all. Child labor largely disappeared in the U.S. by the time child labor laws were passed... if children were actually a critical part of the U.S. labor force at the time, child labor laws would have caused an economic depression (but most likely would have never been passed). And there are many countries that have extremly strict child labor laws (India for example), that have plenty of exploitive child labor. Economic prosperity eliminates child labor - Countries rich enough not to need child labor and backbreaking labor to survive will not have that sort of labor, despite what the law says. A poverty stricken country will have back breaking labor, and child labor, despite what the law says.

    Social progress follows technological and economic forces... the government likes to come in after the fact and take credit for the social progress, and the government controlled manditory education further deifies the government in the minds of people. But it is clear: If child labor was legal, you would not send your child to work. And if child labor was illegal, but sending your child to work was the only way to keep him from starving to death, you would send him to work illegally.
  63. One Scenario by airship · · Score: 3, Funny

    At a concert venue somewhere in the USA:

    Guard: "What do you want?"
    Jennifer Lopez: "I have a concert here tonight. Let me in."
    Guard: "I don't know. You look Mexican to me."
    JLo: "I am HISPANIC!"
    Guard: "What's your name?"
    JLo: "What? Do you live in a box?? I am JENNIFER LOPEZ!!!!"
    Guard: "Uh... okay. Oh, here you are. I'm sorry I can't let you in."
    JLo: "WHAT! Why not???"
    Guard: "Your name is on the 'No Work' list."
    JLo: "@#$%^&*(!!!!! Jennifer Lopez is a VERY common Hispanic name! That's not me!!!"
    Guard: "Sorry. You're on the list, you don't work. It's the law."

    So what I'm trying to say is that at least ONE good thing would come out of this law. :)

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
  64. from tfa: identity documents by proadventurer · · Score: 1

    "would be required to verify identity documents provided by both existing employees and potential hires" Verify identity documents? Why do we even have them then? Oh maybe a national ID will fix that. JUST WHAT WE NEED MORE LAWS!

    --
    I hate slashdot
  65. You people are STILL discussing by unity100 · · Score: 1

    if these are good stuff or bad stuff.

    these are CONTROL mechanisms. and thats that.

    they cant declare a fascist dictatorship because military wouldnt comply with it, hence they are creating means to FORCE you into abiding by what they say.

    who ? you know who.

  66. bad news for everyone in the land of the free by proadventurer · · Score: 1
    We are on the way to being a police state!

    If if no one else has noticed, the price of ammunition is going up like mad, what does that mean? Really, the least expensive .223 I could find was 140 rounds of Federal for $90. A few months ago I got 400 rounds of .308 for $90 Do ya know how many bullets it takes to have (or stop) a "regime change" in a country the size of the US?

    --
    I hate slashdot
  67. A few adjustments needed... by bhmit1 · · Score: 1

    There are a few politicians that need to be added to this list as a start. I still ponder a world where the people really are treated as the boss of our elected officials.

    Now as a small business owner, I see the logic of such a list. Though I'd prefer to have it reversed, the allowed to work list, which you get on at birth or upon immigrating or with a visa, etc. Then we can give some new ID number that's only used for this database to each person (something like a ssn number, but different so it's more difficult to steal and easier to write laws to lock it down).

    But there needs to be one addition, either the government needs to be liable for any losses from not including someone on the list, or business owners should only be required to report people missing from the list and not responsible for enforcing it. I'd prefer the latter since you can then keep making an income and take your case to court when you're wrongly accused.

  68. Personal tragedy awaits if this goes live by gorbachev · · Score: 1

    There's a 100% chance false positives will occur with this list. Someone legal will get their name on this list, and be forever banned from working in the US again.

    You'd then be fighting against the United States Government, alone, with no job, to get your name off the list. Good luck with that.

    The million Jose Gonzales' who are legally in this country should be very afraid right about now.

    People's lives will be ruined. Just how many lives is the only question. The followup question is how are these people going to react to being outcast for no reason whatsoever. How many of them will do something drastic.

    This isn't just a bad idea, but a monumentally bad idea.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  69. Re:Taco Bell has your order make a run for the bor by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I remember reading, and seeing, that there's been a substantial decrease in the percentage of teens in the workforce(meaning 15-18), at least in my area.

    Parents are now prosperous enough that they can support their teen's needs and wants to the point that they don't want to go out and work part time for $5.15 or even $7/hour for extra spending money.

    I did it to help pay for my car and games.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  70. Re:FairTax? Explained by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1
    I'm not sure if it's on the FairTax website, but the book describes a time when that scenario actually happened. Back in the '90s when there was the government shutdown, there was a short period of time when a tax on airline tickets expired. Every airline initially kept ticket prices the same, and pocketed the increased revenue. Within days, ticket prices dropped to reflect the tax that was no longer being paid. Sure, airlines have tighter competition than some markets, but customers are very price-sensitive, and businesses know this. If you can drop your prices slightly without affecting your profits, you can get a major advantage by doing so. If your competition can drop their prices without affecting their profits, they probably will.

    Some products might not drop - particularly that have a very strong brand identity and customer loyalty. The first example that comes to mind for me is Apple. If you want to run Windows, you can get Dell or HP or any number of others. If you want to run OSX (without violating a license agreement), you have to buy an Apple. But even then you might see prices drop a bit because of savings at the retail levels. You would still have a choice to but your new Mac at an Apple Store, or Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, or you can order it online from CDW or NewEgg or any number of other retailers. (Disclaimer for the anal retentive: I don't know how many of my examples actually sell Apple) Any of those retailers will have their ongoing costs reduced by the FairTax, giving them leeway to cut prices without losing revenue.

    In my mind, the greatest advantage for business under the FairTax, is that they no longer have to try to look for tax loopholes and structure their business accordingly. For example, how many businesses have been buying Hummers because of the tax credits on vehicles over a certain weight? How many of those businesses would have bought something else without the tax benefits of the Hummer?

    I see the FairTax as a major boon for everyone except H&R Block, and criminals who aren't currently paying taxes.

    --
    Redundancy is good And also good.
  71. Yeah! by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

    This'll stop those god-damned commies...I mean terrorists.

    --
    Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
  72. A Play: Scene from a Slashdot Political Forum by Bananas · · Score: 1
    Openning Scene: Two commentators and a Troll under a bridge

    Commentator 1: "Oh! Look! Another nasty law and/or activity has been passed/been greenlighted!"

    Commentator 2: "Let's Debate It!"

    Commentator 1: "It's nasty, don't you think?"

    Forum Troll: "I'm a troll! Snarf gurgle gurgle!"

    Commentator 1: "STFU Troll, go back to your bridge."

    Commentator 2: "It's nasty but it has nuances to it."

    Commentator 1: "I disagree about the nuance, but we both agree it's nasty, right?"

    Commentator 2: "Agreed."

    Commentator 1: "Oh! Look! Shiny distraction made with AJAX! Erm, let's debate the market dominance of a convicted monopolist."

    (Exit Scene)

    Ok, folks, let's do a little recent history, given that our national attention spans rival hummingbirds. Lessee, things that HAVE passed and/or done:

    • No-Fly List
    • Patriot Act
    • Ability to declare anyone an enemy combatant
    • Detainment without a speedy trial for enemy combatant
    • Denial of existance of enemy combatant
    • (Documented) Torture of enemy comantants
    • Real ID Act

    Things that are pending and haven't passed - yet.

    • No-Work List

    Things likely to show up in our lifetimes (not necessarily in this order):

    • Compulsory Advertising Act - No advertisement can be blocked or unviewed. Penalties for ownership of old equipment, or any personal activity that "knowingly or with intent, engages in the criminal act of not viewing advertising that was paid for, regardless of venue or location."
    • Mandatory DRM Act - Originally written to "give more teeth" to the Compulsory Advertising Act and to do an end-run on Piracy by making it impossible to own an unlicensed recording device, like a movie camera, camcorder, camera, or digital camera. All equipment used for media playback must have built-in DRM. All existing equipment given a 3-year phaseout. After that time, ownership of non-DRM capable equipment is a felony. The net effect is to make independent documentation of atrocities impossible due to the ownership of "criminal camcorders", etc.
    • Retail Security Act - All purchases are tracked. Wording will be something like "All purchases not made by a licensed business will be electronically recorded and submitted to the DHS for permanent archives."
    • Homeland Credit Check Act - All purchases now made with electronic credit. End of cash as we know it. Merged with RealID card. Certain bank accounts mysteriously are depleted of funds through suspicious purchases. Said suspicious purchases are passed back under the Retail Security Act and recorded.
    • National Housing Protection Act - Another misnomer. "No individual or group shall be granted domicile access, or land ownership, if they fail to pass a national database check under the Consolidated Ban List of the DHS." If you land on this list, you're homeless.
    • Homeland Omnibus Ban List Act - Written as an extension to the No-Land-Ownership List"All no-access lists previously passed by Congress or created by DHS will be merged into a single list, for the express purpose of protecting the citizenry."
    • Consumer Mandatory Consumption Act - Passed as a way to regulate the economy. "All necessities will automatically be deducted from your National RealID credit account, regardless if they are used or not." No waivers for such purchases that are normally bocked under the No-Land-Ownership List, resulting in permanent poverty for anyone who lands on that list (or any other block list that deals with economic transactions)
    • National Birth Control Act - would made manditory sterilization for all citizens over the age of 25, "to prevent overpopulation", unless licensed by the Federal Government with a waiver. Contraception declared illegal; poss
  73. constitutional rights by Tiro · · Score: 1
    In the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court at one point interpreted the Constitution (Amendment XIV, privileges and immunities clause) as guaranteeing an inalienable "right to work" to all persons of the U.S. Many scholars today consider this to be the correct interpretation.

    Once you have an inalienable right to work, there is no constitutional way the government can put a burden on you to show ID or a Social Security card to your employer because any barrier to work is illegitimate. Of course that means illegal immigrants would have a de facto right to work as well, because if you harassed them, you would accidentally and unconstituionally interfere with legal U.S. persons' work.

    And I don't think my quality of live would be adversely affected if we lived in a world like that.

    1. Re:constitutional rights by dobestpossible · · Score: 1

      You idiot. Read what you wrote carefully..."Of course that means illegal immigrants would have a de facto right to work as well, because if you harassed them, you would accidentally and unconstituionally interfere with legal U.S. persons' work." How does an illegal alien (a criminal) go from outlaw to legal US citizen so quickly? By the Constitution, you say? You are not a thinking human, just a parrot brain that repeats what you heard someone else say. Your probably a smelly Mexican. Go cook me a taco, dumb bitch.

    2. Re:constitutional rights by makomk · · Score: 1

      You utter, utter moron. The whole point of the GP post is that the only way to tell if the person is an illegal alien or a legal US citizen is by forcing them to show national ID, and that this could violate the right to work of any US citizens who, for whatever reason, do not have national ID or who have been incorrectly blacklisted as illegal immigrants (due to identity theft, for example). Therefore, if you allow US citizens the right to work, it becomes hard to enforce an effective law against employing illegal immigrants once you deal with identity fraud, citizens without strong ID, etc...

  74. More then just working here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My rant...

    I have nothing against LEGAL documented immigrants. It takes responsibility to be a productive member of a society. You should do as much as that existing society does to support the society. I hear tons of stories along the lines of "I came here for a better life, I could not live in my home country", that is great but understand, the capacity of what you are doing here is not at the same level of what I and other people here LEGALLY are obligated to do. You need to have auto insurance, you need to pay for your medical care, you need to think about your retirement, you need to work towards learning English and not relying on my tax money to keep providing interpreters. I pay taxes to support bilingual teachers, bilingual training, increased school taxes, increased taxes and insurance to support the hospitals and medical facilities, increased police presence and a host of many other things I have to pay for now for you to get that better life for yourself. Yes, I pay for that translator you talk to at the DMV because you can not speak a single word of English, that comes directly out of my state tax payment I make every year. For people that have been here legally for years, there is almost no advantage to having a large influx of illegal immigrants come into the area. That is why there is a resistance.
    Try tracking down an illegal immigrant that is driving an F350 and takes off after plowing into you at a red light. Another commitment the citizens have to make is the military. It is nice to come here for a better life but realize that the people that have been here for years living this live have to maintain that for you. This "life" we have that you desire did not come without sacrifice. How many 18-25 year old illegal immigrants would be willing to go to Iraq? How many parents that are here illegally would want there born here legal children to join the US military when they turn 18? I could go on and on and on.

    Bottom line, there is a sacrifice to being a citizen of any country and living in that country. Things can be better for you if you do not have to pay taxes, for medical, for car insurance, for protection, for additional governmant services required to support you but realize, someone has to pay for that. When you leave the hospital after three days and delivering your baby, who do you think paid for all of that? It is not all about milking off of the others and sending your relatives the money you make, it should be about being a productive and responsible member of the society and supporting your weight.
    From my experience living in a large area with MANY illegal immigrants (northern VA), I do not see the weight and burden being taken on equally by everyone living around here.

  75. Eastern Roman Empire RIP 1461 by mveloso · · Score: 1

    The empire lasted for quite a while longer than 369:

    "Excluding these states claiming its heritage, the Roman state lasted (in some form) from the founding of Rome in 753 BC to the fall in 1461"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#Fall_of_ the_Roman_Empire.28395.E2.80.93476.29

  76. Wrong Title by happy*nix · · Score: 1

    The title should read: "Congress debating way to increase the crime rate".

    We are course not just talking about illegal/undocumented laborers here. That is important to remember. I realize that this is of course an important tool in the "War on terrorism", but it is VERY dangerous thing.
    Consider the following one-sided dialog: Sorry Mr. Smith you appear to be on the no work list. You say there's been a some kind of mistake? Not to worry Mr. Smith if indeed there was a mistake just submit these forms to Homeland Security. Once the FBI has completed an in depth background check, you will be able to interview with an agent of Homeland and that person can submit your name to be removed from the "do-not" work list. How long? the FBI background check generally takes 3-4 months, and again pending the results, the removal from the official list happens in 3-4 weeks. The law prohibits anyone from using the DNW list that is more than 3 months old, so you shouldn't have any more trouble at all 7-8 months. Pay your bills? Feed your family? I'm sorry Mr Smith but I can't help you with that. Next Please. I suppose you could get loans from your friends and family, Financial institutions of course won't touch you. And you should be aware that your Credit Cards will probably be suspended. Next PLEASE. Your children? Mr. Smith you should have thought of that before you got yourself on the list. I don't know what got you on the list, that information is classified otherwise it would make it easier for the criminals and terrorists to avoid. Now Mr. Smith there is nothing more I can do. You can print out the forms you need at the terminal by the waiting area. Please Mr. Smith you really don't need me to call security now do you? Next Please.

    Yes, this is FUD. Yes, there will be Mr.Smiths. No, Statistically speaking it is highly unlikely to be you. BTW statistically speaking it's unlikely that some terrorist gives a damn about trying to kill or ruin you. Statistically speaking it is probably even less likely that any given person (picked at random) on this planet is a terrorist.

    When it comes to the war on terrorism perhaps the best way to win is to not take part all. I cannot believe that there is an infinite supply of people so full of dispair to become suicide bombers (unless we help create people of hopelessness) There will always be criminals. But we can reduce those numbers by attacking poverty, and providing education. It probably would hurt if our "Justice" system was more about Justice than revenge and political gain.
    We are losing the War on terrorism because we are expanding it every day. Because we are gearing up to make it a perpetual war, is our "new reality". Because we are trying to increase our fear by looking for more enemies and treating new encounters as encounters with a potential enemy. Because we are creating the means of being able to quickly and legally classify anyone as a criminal. Because we are quietly moving to the faulty inductive reasoning that because all terrorists are criminals and/or political dissidents then all criminal suspects and political dissidents are potential terrorists. The true war on terrorism is ultimately a war of ideas and ideals. As we surrender our ideals (by ignoring the constitution, ignoring Geneva conventions, giving a grim nod to torture, and in this case committing to a trial without jury where you are guilty until proven innocent.). We are losing precious ground to terrorism. And when finally, we are as afraid of our own government as we are of theft, rape, murder, or bombs. Then we have truly lost.

    --
    Gone to my happy place.
  77. Why Not Use Patches Instead by SloWave · · Score: 1

    Seems like it would be easier to have everyone that George's government wants keep track of just sew on cloth patches on their clothes. We could have one style for suspected illegal immigrants, another style for suspect terrorists, another style for music pirates, and so on. That way good Americans would know at a glance who was an undesirable.

  78. How about a "no vote" database? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's time to make politicians work.

  79. Just playing "Feed the Base (corporations)"? by smchris · · Score: 1

    the government databases would provide a work authorization confirmation within three business days.

    "Government databases" my ass. This administration doesn't believe in government doing anything that can't be contracted. Presumably some info services are going to make multi-billions per year as intermediaries providing this service. THAT is where I would look for the motivation behind it.

    Sort of like IBM getting the contract to record the Jews. Could be the base for something big. Since it would almost certainly be done privately, it would be outside Freedom of Information restrictions and they would be "free" to note down whether your neighbor says you are gay, take drugs, are a known liberal or are seen at home on a Sunday morning instead of church.

    You just have to run queries that join the "black" servers and the "white" servers to get very useful lists, right?

  80. its a Whitelist; or useless graylist at best by bussdriver · · Score: 1
    I'm surprised they didn't do this (officially) on a large scale in the last 6 years. Perhaps it just came across too much like the inverse of having Jews wear stars for them to pass it, I don't see it passing.

    FAR more extreme than a blacklist, a whitelist is for allowing stuff; like a VIP list. In this case, this whitelist most likely will end up forcing employers to do checks if you are not on the list. Since employers often don't care to do much checking and have a stack of applications to process, many will have an unofficial policy of rejecting everybody not on the whitelist or at least some discrimination.

    A national blacklist may be added later under some excuse like they do with felons voters already (were not just talking Florida anymore..)

    Probably sex offenders and or felons would be first to be added and the defense will be that employers shall follow pre-database procedures on people not on the list (which we know most will not be fair, go ask a felon.)

  81. Hasn't anyone made the connection, yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all about control. Take a look at one dystopian vision of such a future...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

  82. In a word, by Limburgher · · Score: 1

    No. No. No. No. No. Not a good idea. The potential for misuse is astounding, and the potential benefit is miniscule.

    --

    You are not the customer.

  83. Aaah, the IRS by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    The other black spot...on America's soul.

    --
    What?
  84. how naive are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm standing in a rainstorm and I've gotten wet.

    How is toweling the water off of me going to make me dry?

  85. "Compelling Need" by JetScootr · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine how society can possibly benefit from a law mandating homelessness and employment for any group or individual. Sure, it'll start by checking ONLY immigration status - but how long will that limit last?
    It used be said that the way to make a terrorist is to kill a terrorist. Someone (or more than one) in the corpse's family will step up and take his place.
    This is a just a more humane way to make terrorists. If your children are hungry and people around you are fat, and it's illegal for you to get a job, what would you do?
    I can see absolutely no possible benefit to this. It's cruel and unusual punishment before the crime is even committed - and it will create the crime of employment - that is, if you don't have a job, it's a crime to give you one.

    --
    Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
  86. Papers please by isotope23 · · Score: 1

    This is not about illegals, it is about control. Have "questionable" views about the war or anything else and viola, you are now unemployable. I'm sure it won't be long until they try to tie the no-fly list into it. Then not only will you be unable to work, but unable to travel as well.

    If they hate us because we are free, pretty soon they won't have anything to hate us for.

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  87. you can only be taken off the list ... by patrikor_007 · · Score: 1

    by filling out a 27B-stroke-6. in triplicate, of course. get in that line over there. oh, and don't mind the police jumping down through a hole in your ceiling. they're just going to ask a few questions about your eligibility for employment.

  88. Knee-Jerk reaction.... by JimXugle · · Score: 1

    Yay! More Government! Woo-hoo!

    [/sarcasm]

    --
    -jX

    Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
  89. Unionized!!?? by MagikSlinger · · Score: 1

    Unionized workers are only 12% of the American workforce. In fact, most of them are government. For the private sector, it's 7.4%.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

    --
    The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
  90. That's not a question by Tony · · Score: 2, Funny

    If this law passes, it's only a question of how many are going to get burned, not whether it's going to happen.

    How many are going to get burned?

    All of us.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  91. Oh, great! A national blacklist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Joe McCarthy would have creamed his gabardines over this.

  92. Minor corrections by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    The CNet article authors didn't quite do all their homework. The bill is S. 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, and was first introduced by Harry Reid on May 9, including a form of the EEVS language. Its cosponsors are Kennedy, Leahy, Menendez, and Salazar.

    Kennedy offered a substitute amendment 1150 (the draft with the unofficial title "Secure Borders" etc. etc.), and that amendment includes EEVS language as well, although it has been heavily modified. Arlen Specter is listed as a cosponsor. However, this substitute is apparently the recent bipartisan compromise that's been abuzz in the media the past few days.

    Anyway, if you like or dislike this part of the bill - section 302 in the amendment, and section 301 in the original - complaining about it here won't help. Write (or better yet, call) your Senator.

  93. There's already such thing in place by guruevi · · Score: 1

    It's called form I-9, I have to fill it out every time I start working somewhere:

    http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf

    All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986, must complete Section 1 of this form at the time of hire, which is the actual beginning of employment. The employer is responsible for ensuring that Section 1 is timely and properly completed.

    And you thought you were not registered in whatever you do! You always need to be register to work at least by a SSN and a drivers license if nothing else.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  94. Re:Taco Bell has your order make a run for the bor by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    Parents are now prosperous enough that they can support their teen's needs and wants to the point that they don't want to go out and work part time for $5.15 or even $7/hour for extra spending money

    That's part of the reason; the other part is that the kind of unskilled labor jobs teens get are also getting filled by illegal immmigrants and older people that got laid off and were unable to find any job in their field due to the bad economy.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  95. Mod parent up. by milatchi · · Score: 0

    Nailed it.

    --
    Slashdot = -1 Redundant, Asperger, kdawson FUD, Libertarian, and Linux
  96. Re:FairTax? Explained by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative

    The difference between the FairTax and income tax is that income tax is highly progressive (higher-income people pay a larger percentage of their income) while the FairTax is highly regressive (lower-income people spend a higher percentage of their income, which would be taxed, while higher-income people would invest instead, which would not be taxed).

    Personally, I like the FairTax anyway, despite the fact that it would be harmful to me in the short run (as I'm a low-income college student), because it would encourage people to invest their money instead of drowning themselves in debt. The current savings rate is something like negative 3%, and that'll destroy the entire economy unless something is done about it.

    Plus, eliminating the IRS (and associated paperwork that every company and individual in the country has to fill out) would save a bunch of money by itself.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  97. This won't stop the "Day Workers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This won't stop the "Day Workers" where you just "hire" them for one day for below minimum wage prices. These workers are here illegally but the employers don't care if they have any form of identification since they just pay them cash at the end of the day and that is the end of it. The employers don't have the time or money to do the processing of these individuals for these simple jobs.
    This database will discriminate against the legitimate people that will big pain to get you name off the list. Who put this list together and what safeguards are there that just some nitwit list didn't like put your name on that list for no reason. How hard it is to get your name off that list if you got on it for no reason. Who is monitoring that list. The problems with these types of list names are too common (ie John Smith) and we need another method other than name or SSN since identity thief is so prevalent and we need to truly identify a person exactly before we can make this list. Just like the "No-Fly" list some legitimate people list Senator Edward Kennedy but my guess there is another Edward Kennedy that is on that list for a legimate reason and I know that Senator Edward Kennedy can get off that list easily but for us mere mortals I don't think it is that easy.

  98. No pay no work by thorkyl · · Score: 1

    If it put in force I see the following...

    Don't pay your Income tax on time - No Workie for you
    Don't pay that parking ticket - No Workie for you
    Don't vote for the incumbent - No Workie for you
    Join a protest - No Workie for you
    Don't pay child support - No Workie for you
    Don't buy gas - No Workie for you - I use Bio-Diesel that I make...
    get on the list - No Workie for you for at least a year while they loose your papers

    If it get implemented, Lets all go and file a small claims action for $1.00.
    Let the Fed defend 2.5 Million small claims actions a month and see it go away.

    --
    -- I am the NRA, enough said...
  99. MOD PARENT DOWN by mymaxx · · Score: 1

    He obviously hasn't been to a state with a serious illegal immigration problem. Here in AZ, illegals use the emergency room like it was their primary care physician. The only thing that should be taken out of the debate and shot is squiggleslash, for not doing basic research.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      He obviously hasn't been to a state with a serious illegal immigration problem. Here in AZ, illegals use the emergency room like it was their primary care physician.


      That's true of many poor people throughout the US. The fact that in some areas, the many of the poor people are also illegal immigrants is largely irrelevant to the fundamental problem, which is that our healthcare system is set up so that the an enormous portion of the population has no reasonable access to healthcare except the mandated access to emergency care, and therefore tends to burden emergency departments with issues that should not be handled there, or delay handling issues that could more cheaply (in terms of cost to the system) have been handled earlier until they become issues for the emergency department. That hospitals are generally essentially forced to eat the associated costs that come with that mandate further exacerbates the problem.

  100. NoLa Freeloaders... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will be at the top of the list

    No-Work - Professional Welfare Receipiant...

  101. What about a 'no buy' list too? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    If you are on the list, or remotely resemble someone who is, you cant be a consumer on Amercian soil.

    Make every fast food store, or gastation, or even walmart spend the extra manpower carding EVERYONE in the country for every purchase.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  102. Given the current state, ... by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    Any sort of federal level has to be an improvement.

    Today with the I-9 what we have a joke. Someone comes in and shows you a driver's license and hand-drawn social security card indicating they have the right to work in the US. Hand drawn? Sure - the I-9 specifically says the employer cannot attempt to validate the documents being presented as this would be unfair discrimination.

    So what we have today is anyone claiming they can work in the US can work in the US. Employer penalties are next to non-existent because of this. Only the most blatent of offenses would even be considered.

    Any attempt by an employer to actually hire Americans to work at American jobs can be met with lawsuits and potential sanctions. So nobody does any validation whatsoever.

    So how about a fax number that you send the documents to and an answer comes back yes or no? How about some half-hearted attempt to say to illegal immigrants that if you come here bypassing legal immigration you can't work? How about some attempt to reduce American unemployment levels without giving jobs away to people that will work for 50% of the current market? Might raise prices and give some local folks a way to stay off welfare.

    1. Re:Given the current state, ... by zoftie · · Score: 1

      You make valid points, however don't forget have two faces, while implementing this for ordinary citizen, mostly it will be used and abused to target people that aren't "in-line" with political views of the state. In soviet union, back in the day I remember parents had to be member of political party to be validated for certain kinds of work. You would be reviewed by communist review board, not related to your work whether you are politically clean and fit to work, say as in print media or a TV station.
      Thing to no-work database as a tool. They say they will use it for only designated list of things. How can you be sure that they will not use to enlist people in there - those who participated in peace protests?

      I think the whole immigrant issue is a mess, and USA will pay for it years to come.

  103. It will never happen by VinB · · Score: 0

    I work for a Retirement Planning firm and I have to tell you that there is no way this plan will work. Here are the reasons why.

    1. As someone else pointed out in another post, employers will have to send notification when an employee is hired and when they retire. Employers can't even send the proper notification of employment/termination to a firm which *they* hired to handle their retirement plans. What makes them magically start doing this for the government?
    2. How will the information be sent to the appropriate agencies? Not even in a dream world are all companies equipped to transmit information electronically. Send it through the mail and there will be delays.
    3. Who is going to oversee/validate the data? They'd better be using a good database because by virtue of it's existance, it'll have to hold twice as much data because everyone in the country will have to get a second or third job to support the inevitable increase in their taxes to support this moronic idea.

  104. why is it so hard to check citizenship? by z-j-y · · Score: 1

    does this mean there is no way to check citizenship of voters during elections?

    1. Re:why is it so hard to check citizenship? by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      Umm, you have to register to vote before hand. That's typically done through the
      Department of Motor Vehicles whom will require several forms of identification.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
  105. I thought they wanted a database of illegals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless they want to (cue Spock) calculate pi to the very last digit, that database will have a hard time. Really, I see them putting the illegal numbers in there, instead.

    You know, the SSNs of our political enemies, the 09F9 number, DeCSS, etc.

  106. The most frightening part of this... by vanyel · · Score: 1

    ...is that we've gotten to the point where they're even considering such a thing! Not too long ago, you would have had to be a lunatic to even propose it. Does anyone even *want* freedom any more?

  107. "valid people" by snarkbot · · Score: 1

    Okay, maybe I'm being a nitpicker, but it's what I do:

    Is anyone else bothered by the nomenclature here? The summary refers to "valid people seeking employment." One comment below mentions how little "illegal people" will work for.

    Okay, "illegal immigration" is fine. They're immigrating illegally. Even "illegal immigrant," while I don't love it, makes sense -- it's implicitely referring to the illegal act. But no matter how you feel about immigration, people who immigrate illegally are "valid people" and "legal people." The law cannot make your existence as a person invalid or illegal (death penalty notwithstanding). Using that language is just another way to dehumanize illegal immigrants to make the question of how to deal with immigration less messy than it actually is. But I'm curious: is anyone else bothered by it, or is this just me lawyering in the dark?

    -snarkbot

    p.s. I'm sure someone will disagree and say that they're invalid people or not legally allowed to be people, but someone is always at the far end of crazy.

  108. Correction by Jeff+Molby · · Score: 1

    Stupid laws should be broken.

    Unjust laws should be broken.

    If every law is just, it will always be within our power to correct the ill-advised laws. Only the unjust laws need to be subverted.
  109. Asimov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminds me an Issac Asimov tale about a hacker brain banned from computers as punishment for a pranck. Isnt this going from fear and panic to police state?

  110. That's a lame, cliched quote. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So don't criticize someone for not invoking it.

  111. Umm...Does anyone but me see smoke and mirrors? by HotGarbage · · Score: 1

    One problem is that this may actually pass. It is unfortunate for all the reasons listed above. They are all quite valid. But what bothers me is that Homeland Security will have unfettered access to IRS data on US CITIZENS. Sorry, but isn't Homeland Security supposed to protect the US? I thought it was the FBI's job to spy on us. They needing help that we haven't heard of? Could be because they have better computers with all the money that was poured into DHS over the last few years. This seems to me to be another step toward tighter control on the American People. Am I paranoid? probably. But just because I am paranoid doesn't mean that the world isn't out to get me. Two things can be right at the same time.

    --
    Decaffeinated coffee is kinda like kissing your sister.
  112. History says so. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    The US army would be the first one in the world that does not obey orders.

    You belive too blindly in your exceptionality...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:History says so. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      The US army would be the first one in the world that does not obey orders.

      "First in the world?" Really?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_of _1917

      -b.

  113. You assume far too much. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Given the voting patterns of US people, it would not surprise me if a dictatorial government arised in the US and 50% or more of the people in the US would vote for it. In other instances when a dictatorial government has arised it always finds enough support to make any oposition questionable, which naturally weakens it.

    You also count guns (do USians solve all their problems counting guns?) as if that was the sign of military might. What about tanks, jeeps, communications equipment, the air force and the navy, not to mention the supply chain already in the field of conflict?

    What would protect you from an opressive government is politics, not guns. But based on current evidence of how the US political system works, it is clear that the US citizens have no apetite to protect their freedoms and the democratic process by convinced political involvement in party politics.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  114. Horse Committee Makes Camel by Rockin'Robert · · Score: 0

    Congress Debating "No-Work" Database from the try-getting-off-that-list dept. Now, that's an interesting concept ... considering "Any committee tasked with designing a horse always comes up with a camel." (Olde English adage).

    Say - as a charter member of the hard-core unemployable, and built for comfort not for speed, kindly advise HOW TO GET ON THIS LIST. If nowt else - to preclude the possibility of ever slaving for the various beasts. This is not about being work-shy, but being self-employed - thus subject to new regualtions with penalties, fines and/or jail for working ... FOR MYSELF? Given the way CONgress messes up, like: amnesty, give-a-ways and criminal immunity for illegal aliens (felons from top to bottom) - we can soon say 'bye bye' to work-from-home, knitting and even ... eBAY?

    'Liberation', at last!

    RR

  115. So what? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    A military force is based upmost in politics, not gun onwership.

    Look at Afghanistan, they all have guns but you have no political direction. What ensues is chaos, fundamentalism and poppy cultivation, not a representative, democratic government.

    Repeat after me: politics, politics, politics.

    Your guns are worth squat without coherent politics to back them up, and politics is what a dictatorial government will throw at you up to the whazoo.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  116. Cry me a river.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    People will do anything to be in front of a TV camera, and that is the work that is not cheap to hire for (ridicule in national level is something one should be properly compensated for).

    Remove that and the equation changes completely, since I am pretty certain nobody would pay the amounts they paid for doing a job that has no TV coverage and is degrading on the extreme.

    What is the right compensation anyway? The right compensation is not what you think you should earn, or what you think somebody else should earn.

    The right compensation is what the market bears, and in the case of illegal workers, the market is completely messed up by politicians, but not for the reasons you are stating.

    You say that only big corps benefit from cheap labour. Last time I checked all those gardeners and baby sitters, domestic cleaners and carers, construction workers, most of them were working for an individual or a small company, which benefit by reducing their costs.

    It is quite rich to say that high earners are impacted, first of all illegal immigrants pay taxes (VAT and others) and get nothing or very little in return, so I fail to see how your precious rich person taxes are waisted, and as for them lowring the general level of wages, in some mistireous way, frankly is ludicrous, the fact that they pay the poor sod clenaning toilets $5/hour has never affected my salary or yours, your explanation reads suspicisoulsy as an attempt to split hairs in a cut and dry issue: the inhumane treatment of illegl immigrants in complicity with goivernment officials that prefer to turn a blind eye rather than face the criticism of the closeted racists in the US.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  117. You simply don't get economics. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Fact: you have millions of people that are going to do labour cheaply.

    You have 2 choices: let the cheap labour in or outsource production of cheap goods elsewhere.

    When you outsource there is a smaller benefit for your local economy, since those salaries and profits are spent elsewhere. When tha cheap labor is local, they contribute to the local economy by means of spending and taxes.

    As a rich country you have no choice but to become employment agency for the poor of the world. It is simply economics: you have money and will not clean your own toilet (or do your own garden, or clean your own house, or whatever). People from poor countries will do it for you. You may decide not to hire illegal workers, economics is working against you and most people with money will take advantage of the cheap labour. That is a fact, not a delussional statement.

    Western Europe "opened the floodgates" first to Portugal, Spain and Ireland, and in typical fashion, the alarmists feared that their country would be invaded by poor foreigners.

    WHat happened in reality is that those countries became more propsperous, becuase their emigrees could earn decent wages in richer countries, and feedback disposable income and expertise back in their home countries, this created bigger markets for products made in the rich countries, whose economies grew.

    Nowadays some of the countries that send most tourists to the UK and Germany are Spain, Ireland and Portugal, whose economies are quite prosperous and are sending now far less workers to foreing countries than when they joined the EU.

    You argument about thrid world conditions is spurious, racist and devoid of any base in facts learned from similar situations elsewhere.

    When people emigrate from African or Asian countries to EU ones they don't build mud huts and raise cattle, they get a cheap flat with proper sanitation services and get a safe job with all the proper social benefits. Exactly the opposite of what your blantantly racist statement is suggesting may happen.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  118. Your logic is flawed. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Those people work and contribute to the economic wealth of your contry, risking even their lives in the pursuit of the betterment of them and their families. That deserves at the very least respect and in an ideal world politicians and citizenry that would recognize the economic realities creating this situation, would stop believing in old prejudices based mostly in racist perceptions and would legislate accordingly (there is NAFTA, but there is no free movement of labour, so in reality there is no free trade at all).

    You guys in the US are too much talk and little action, you talk about free markets, commerce, capitalism and freedom, but do all what is in your might to avoid many of the more difficult consequences of being free, capitalist and rich, because deep inside you you know you need that cheap labour, but the pragmatist inside you is always shouted out by the little racist many of you have cohabiting your inner conscience.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  119. We need a Godwin's law for spurious racism claims. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    As a rich country you have no choice but to become employment agency for the poor of the world. It is simply economics: you have money and will not clean your own toilet (or do your own garden, or clean your own house, or whatever). People from poor countries will do it for you. You may decide not to hire illegal workers, economics is working against you and most people with money will take advantage of the cheap labour. That is a fact, not a delussional statement.

    I disagree completely; your assumption that Americans (or other First Worlders) will not 'clean their own toilet' is completely false. Lots of Americans are willing to work as janitors, gardeners, house-cleaners, and everything else. There are Americans willing to stand waist-deep in pig shit, for the right amount of pay. However, they're not going to do it for $5.50 an hour; they're going to demand pay that's commensurate with the job being performed. This is completely fair, and how the labor market ought to operate; people who claim that 'Amercians won't do x,' where x is some unsavory job, really mean "Americans won't do x for minimum wage," which is probably true. But there's no real reason why that job should be done for minimum wage. In reality, people who clean toilets should be paid pretty well, because it's a, well, shitty job.

    I agree, however, that you need to keep outsourcing in mind when designing an immigration policy; however the majority of the jobs currently done by illegal workers are service-sector jobs that can't be easily outsourced. (Frankly, all the jobs in the U.S. today are ones that can't be easily outsourced, because all the ones that can be, already have been.) Trying to prevent outsourcing by bringing cheap labor here, is a losing game; the goods still end up costing the same amount to be manufactured (you can't import workers and then pay them less than they would earn back home), and although they probably contribute to the economy somewhat, there are ample studies that suggest that large numbers of poor workers are actually a net drain on the local economy. They certainly are on the government, because they consume more services than they pay in taxes. And that's without even getting into the social problems that a huge recently-immigrated working class causes, particularly if the economy goes south and their jobs disappear, or if there aren't enough jobs for their children. (Cf. France.) "Insourcing" through immigration just trades a short-term benefit for a long-term problem.

    Also, your allegations of racism and other general name-calling aren't convincing. (Actually, it's not even factually correct; I never mentioned "race" at all. You seem to be assuming it exists when it does not ... a little over-defensive, actually.) I have been to many of the countries where the majority of the illegal workers in the U.S. (my part of it anyway) come from. Conditions there are, by First World standards anyway, pretty deplorable on the mean. So I don't think it's particularly a stretch to understand that when people immigrate to the U.S., their expectations on arriving, for things like housing, are somewhat lower. Does this mean that they don't want a nice house? Certainly not -- and I never said that. But they're willing to compromise, because if you're coming from a coffee plantation in El Salvador, a whole lot of living situations that Americans would scoff at look pretty decent by comparison. I don't think that's even a particularly controversial statement, and it's not as though it's without historical parallels. (Recent immigrants have almost always been willing to accept lower standards of living than people who've established themselves here; e.g. Hell's Kitchen.)

    But the point is that if you have a continuous influx of people moving in from very low-cost areas, and a labor market that only has a limited number of jobs at any one time, the people who are willing to make the most sa

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  120. Load of Crap by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

    And everyone always gets wrong WHY they're cheaper: payroll taxes. The face value of illegal labor is only a little lower than the legal labor but behind the scenes not having to pay the additional taxes an employer has to pick up makes the difference HUGE.
    That is actually a load of crap.

    If what you said were true, then riddle me this, Batman. Remember the big meat packing plant brouhaha last year with a bunch of meat packing plants getting raided for hiring illegals? Remember what they found? The illegals were all using stolen SSNs and working as though they were legal to work. In other words, the plants were paying the payroll taxes on these illegals despite them being illegal, yet they still found it preferable to hire illegals over the work-authorized.

    We can only speculate as to why the plants preferred to hire illegals, but there is one thing that we can say for certain: it was not because of the payroll taxes, because payroll taxes were being paid on the illegals' wages.

    When all else fails, listen to the market. The market will tell you what you need to know. (Why yes, I am an economist.)
    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    1. Re:Load of Crap by magarity · · Score: 1

      The illegals were all using stolen SSNs and working as though they were legal to work
       
      From MSNBC coverage of the story:
        Since 1997, Swift has been using a government pilot program that confirms whether Social Security numbers are valid. Company officials have previously said one shortcoming may be in the program's ability to detect when two people are trying to use the same number
       
      There is no evidence at all to support your claim of "the plants ... still found it preferable to hire illegals". Instead we find all evidence of the illegal workers being clever enough to scam the system and none that there is a corporate level decision to hire illegal workers for any reason at all.
       
        Why yes, I am an economist
       
      So am I, BA Economics, CSU, 2000, which is where I learned to recognise cheap straw man arguments like yours.

    2. Re:Load of Crap by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      There is no evidence at all to support your claim of "the plants ... still found it preferable to hire illegals".
      Other than the fact that the illegals were more competitive in the labor market, despite receiving the same tax treatment as authorized workers. I'm sure the plants' boards of directors didn't get together and say, "Let's hire illegals", and if they had, they surely would never admit to it. Anyhow, that is irrelevant.

      What is relevant, is that despite hoards of domestic labor clamoring to work in meat-packing plants (if you believe what you read in the papers), illegal immigrants still won out over the domestic workers and took their jobs. You asserted that this is a result of favorable tax treatment of illegals (no payroll taxes); I refuted that even when we harmonize the tax treatment of both groups of workers (and make the employer pay the payroll taxes on the illegals as well as the legals), the illegals still do better in the labor market.

      I learned to recognise cheap straw man arguments like yours.
      Are you sure that you understand the definition of the term "straw man"? If so, please tell me how I altered your argument to make it easier to refute.

      Your point as I understood it: illegals can work for less because employers aren't paying payroll tax, which makes the illegals seem cheaper. Is this an incorrect summary of your point? If so, how? Let me paste your argument in here for reference: "And everyone always gets wrong WHY they're cheaper: payroll taxes. The face value of illegal labor is only a little lower than the legal labor but behind the scenes not having to pay the additional taxes an employer has to pick up makes the difference HUGE."

      My refutation of your point: Even when the employer is tricked into believing that the illegal is actually legal and thus paying the payroll taxes (neutralizing the tax issue completely), illegals are still being hired over legals.

      Anyhow, at CSU do they also teach you to admit when you are wrong?
      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    3. Re:Load of Crap by magarity · · Score: 1

      Are you sure that you understand the definition of the term "straw man"? If so, please tell me how I altered your argument to make it easier to refute.
       
      Because I'm discussing illegals hired as illegals for cash. My example was one of cash hire of illegals making a strong competitive advantage for the employer. There is a pattern there. You're countering by bringing out an example where illegals breaking even more laws and stealing identities to pose as legal. That's a completely different discussion. I interpret your countering with a completely different situation to be a straw man type argument.

    4. Re:Load of Crap by lorcha · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not even sure how to respond here. The whole point of bringing up illegals posing as legals was to show that the tax treatment isn't what makes illegals attractive to hire. I didn't use that example to make your point easier to refute. I used that example because your argument is so easy to refute.

      But since you can't make that mental jump, I'll refute your argument anyhow. So you have all of these illegals working under the table. What's to stop a citizen from doing the same thing? Some silly law? I'm not even sure that the US citizen would be breaking any laws by working under the table (don't have to file tax returns if you don't owe tax, and these grape pickers aren't making enough money to owe tax). Of course, the employer would be violating half a dozen laws, but the employer already has proved that he doesn't much care about those laws since he hires illegals.

      And why wouldn't Americans be more competitive for those grape-picking under the table jobs? I mean, we live here. We don't have to make the dangerous border crossing to and from Mexico each year. In theory, we should be able to work for less than the illegal migrants. But yet illegal immigrants totally dominate in this type of employment. Any ideas why?

      It can't be the payroll tax, because again, no payroll tax is due on under the table employment, whether the employee is authorized to work here or not. Again, I'm going to have to say that I totally don't buy your payroll tax argument.

      --
      "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent