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."

Comments

Re:Land of the Free, Indeed

[b0s0z0ku]

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.

Several of these already exist

[PIPBoy3000]

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.

Re:Well that's neat....

[Richard W.M. Jones]

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.

Does anyone see the parallels?

[ATestR]

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.

Damned if they do and damned if they dont

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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.

Re:Get mo' Gitmo!

[G27 Radio]

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.

Re:Get mo' Gitmo!

[mrchaotica]

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.

Re:Get mo' Gitmo!

[G27 Radio]

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.