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."
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?
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
...a list of 535 people who do no work.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
Huh ? Did you find that in some outdated g******d piece of paper or what ?
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
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?
.... due process that the local police arresting someone would.
This isn't just a "don't fly" list, and I suspect that in its initial incarnation it wouldn't have the same
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?
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.
Just what we need! Another list that people can mistakenly get put on for no particular reason other than having done nothing wrong.
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 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
And if you are caught then it's your family who is punished....either way someone is screwed.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
- 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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Heh. Yeah. Definitely no-brain list.
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.
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?
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
See spending priorities.
Well, at least the Vandals didn't fly a jet plane into the colosseum.
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.
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.
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.
My blog
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Which I agree with. Wow a thread ending in agreement on Slashdot with no insults thrown. Is this really Slashdot?
*shudder*
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)
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.
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?
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/
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.
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.
"George W. Bush" added to the list?
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.
...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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
...get YOUR '666' carved into your forehead today!
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
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?
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/
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.
/year. /year after income taxes.
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
You take home 40K
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.
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.
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.
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!!
"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.
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)
> 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?
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
to...
You'll NEVER work in this town again!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Much respect towards your sentiment (Upstate NY dutch here, of 300 yrs descent)
C|N>K
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.
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.
"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
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.
Read radical news here
- US government establishes treaty with Indian tribe
- US Constitution describes such treaties as the "supreme law of the land"
- Somehow, white settlers end up on lands guaranteed to the Indians by said treaty
- ???
- 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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
This'll stop those god-damned commies...I mean terrorists.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
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.
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:
Things that are pending and haven't passed - yet.
Things likely to show up in our lifetimes (not necessarily in this order):
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.
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.
The empire lasted for quite a while longer than 369:
_ the_Roman_Empire.28395.E2.80.93476.29
"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 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.
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.
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?
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.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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..."
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.
The other black spot...on America's soul.
What?
I wouldn't have a problem with it. The current situation is definitely not working.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Yay! More Government! Woo-hoo!
[/sarcasm]
-jX
Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
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
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.
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.
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
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"
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
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...
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.
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.
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 ----
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.
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.
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"
does this mean there is no way to check citizenship of voters during elections?
Hell, just merging in the phone books for major metropolitan areas ... Nope. Can't think of anything like that ever happening.
...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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.)
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
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."
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