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?
...a list of 535 people who do no work.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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*
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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.
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