Posted on 06/12/2006 10:24:20 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Exactly right. Employers are already required to check names of all potential employees against a "terrorist list." OK it's a bit of joke since most individuals on the list have 20 or more known aliases (most of them containing "Mohammed") and false positives are very common. Still the obligation to check is there.
There is also a strict requirement on all health care providers who accept Medicare to check applicants against a federal list of individuals barred from Medicare work (it's a much larger list than you might think).
Deborah Meyers, a senior policy expert at the Migration Policy Institute... said, "ultimately, from an immigration perspective, only an employer verification system has the potential to reduce illegal immigration to the United States, because ultimately it's the job magnet that draws illegals to the U.S.
IMO that's a bunch of hooey. Maybe in the 'olden days' it was mostly for the jobs, now I think its more so for the "FREEBIES". And that is exactly what these uneducated invaders think it is - "free".
Voluntary is good.
The smartest way to combat illegal immigration is to dry up the incentive - employment - and go after the employers. Make it hard enough for them to get jobs and they will self-deport and fewer will come over. If someone is not willing to crack down on employers and provide them the means to determine if a person is legal or not - then they are not serious about fixing illegal immigration.
I'd say a job AND ("free") bennies is more like it.
Really, I don't see how this gives the government any more information than it already compiles through the IRS and Social Security.
How come nobody has been worried about privacy and government involvement in employment relationships before this?
Really, I don't see how this gives the government any more information than it already compiles through the IRS and Social Security.
How come nobody has been worried about privacy and government involvement in employment relationships before this?
how about cross referencing DEPORTATION lists with voter registration lists...
Am I reading this right? You'll need permission from the state in able to work legally?
If it were happening under a Clinton Administration, would you be for it?
Be for what? Providing a means for employers to verify whether a person is legal or not? Of course. Not sure what that has to do with who is President.
Do you want to crack down on employers who hire illegals or not?
I received a Happy 60th birthday card for El Presidente Bush from the RNC today. Promptly tore it up and threw it in the trash with the rest of the garbage.
I at one time believed in Bush, and contributed regularly to the RNC, but ceased doing so when Bush abandoned his base. Bush is no longer serious about border security and enforcement of the law against companies that employ illegal aliens.
All this does is provide another method to illegally get permission to work. Of course, an undercover nark, trying to penetrate one of the gangs, may find such a system amusing.
"Be for" a mandatory national ID card in order to work? Next is a "mark" in order to buy food, etc.
Card? Not sure that's needed. My only objection to a national ID card is that it is yet another card I have to carry around in my wallet. Other than inconvenience I don't care one way or another. The Feds already have one - its called Social Security Number.
But the requirement is to have a efficient system where employers can check on legal status of workers. That must happen if we want to crack down on employers that hire illegals. Anyone that doesn't want some sort of system to meet this requirement isn't serious about fighting illegal immigration.
Well, I don't want the number of the Beast tattooed on my forehead either, so I must not be "serious" about fighting illegal immigration then.
I had to provide a state picture ID, social security card, birth certificate, in addition to a US passport when I got on with my current company.
If you can't, in a week, provide two, or more, forms of ID that says you're here legally.......hike to the border.
I think the government should even be persuaded to give you a ride.
Perhaps you missed the problems even a week or two process can uncover:
"According to the UCSIS's own 2002 study, employers do use the pilot system to screen applicants. And when they receive a tentative non-confirmation, "job applicants are unlikely to be notified,'' the study found.
Moreover, 67 percent of employees who contested a non-confirmation reported being suspended, docked pay or having their job training delayed while they sorted out their records.
A 2004 agency report found that erroneous non-confirmations for foreign born workers was "unacceptably high'' and "higher than desirable'' for U.S.-born workers.
The errors, it found, are largely the result of data entry mistakes and accuracy problems with either the Social Security or USCIS databases.
"This creates burdens for employees and employers, increased verification costs for the government and led to unintentional discrimination against foreign-born persons,'' the study found.
These days the USCIS pegs the overall error rate as low as 1.4 percent.
But extrapolated to 54 million workers in a mandatory national system, and that could result in more than 750,000 people each year wrongly told they aren't eligible to work."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.