Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Verifying system called deficient
Denverpost.com ^ | 12/14/2006 | Will Shanley

Posted on 12/14/2006 10:33:49 AM PST by APRPEH

Basic Pilot is a federal program and database designed to help employers like Swift & Co. verify that workers can legally be employed by screening for bogus identification such as counterfeit Social Security numbers and fake green cards.

But the program should be revamped or a new one created because it can't identify illegal immigrants who steal people's identities to secure U.S. jobs, immigration experts said Wednesday.

Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security secretary, urged Congress to take action.

Chertoff on Wednesday noted that federal law bars the Social Security Administration from notifying the Department of Homeland Security if Social Security numbers are being used by multiple people in multiple workplaces.

Lifting that legal obstacle would allow the agency "to more readily identify the kind of identity theft and identity fraud that we discovered in this case."

Chertoff was referring to Tuesday's raids at Swift meatpacking plants in Greeley and five other states, in which 1,282 people were arrested. Some allegedly had purchased or stolen names and Social Security numbers to get jobs with Swift.

Swift, one of the nation's largest meat processors, maintains that it followed all federal regulations for verifying the legal status of its workers. It uses Basic Pilot.

"Swift remains one of the very few employers to use the system," the company said in a statement Tuesday.

A fraction of eligible employers - about 8,600 out of 5.6 million companies nationally as of July - use Basic Pilot, which is optional. About 760 businesses in Colorado use the system.

The parent company of Dunkin' Donuts said this year it would require all franchisees to use Basic Pilot.

(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; basicpilot; identitytheft; illegals; ssn
Tested since 1997 and rolled out nationally in 2004, Basic Pilot allows companies to check names and Social Security numbers proffered by potential workers against federal databases. That happens after an Employment Eligibility Verification form, called an I-9, is filed.

Basic Pilot was not designed to counter identity theft, said Sharon Rummery with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency in charge of the program that is part of Homeland Security.

The only thing this system is doing is protecting businesses with a "due diligence" defense and ignoring the ID theft problem entirely. Verifying a SSN is no longer sufficient to prove a right to legally hire a prospective employee.

1 posted on 12/14/2006 10:33:51 AM PST by APRPEH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: APRPEH

My SSN has been passed around like a cheap whore, I have worked on both the left and right coast at the same time as dishwasher and a roofer.


2 posted on 12/14/2006 10:44:17 AM PST by razorback-bert (I met Bill Clinton once but he didn't really talk , he was hitting on my wife)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: APRPEH

This is a smokescreen.

Employers should have the FREEDOM OF SPEECH and ASSEMBLY described in the First Amendment. This would include the freedom to directly ask a prospective employee a direct question "Are you in the USA legally?" as well as "What is your zodiac sign" and any other relevant or irrelevant question.

Employers are prevented by law and threats from a dozen government agencies for doing so. It is discrimination just to ask the question. It is illegal to even allude to certain subjects.

We don't need to add more complexity to the rube goldberg regulations. What we need is more freedom for everyone to exercise their freedoms and to be then directly responsible for how they exercise those freedoms.

I realize this would put many bureaucrats out of work. Where else could they find a job where they would be able to lord it over others?


3 posted on 12/14/2006 10:44:57 AM PST by spintreebob (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob

"Employers are prevented by law and threats from a dozen government agencies for doing so. It is discrimination just to ask the question. It is illegal to even allude to certain subjects."

I've heard this. but I don't believe it. I am an employer and I have never been coached by the feds as what I could or could not ask a prospective employee.


4 posted on 12/14/2006 10:54:29 AM PST by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: APRPEH
One of the most rediculus things I have EVER come across it the POLICE being legally RESTRAINED from asking the question: Are you a LEGAL resident of the United States?

I mean HOW STUPID IS IT to prevent Law Enforcment from doing its JOB????????????????????? Just to save a few feelings?

BS.

Get out of my country if you are not here LEGALLY!!!! Any questions?


No se puede. Get out.
5 posted on 12/14/2006 11:12:24 AM PST by Danae (Anail nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do chel denmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob
Employers are not legally required to perform background checks on prospective new hires but do so as a precaution from hiring folks who may be a threat to their business, fellow employees or customers. Failing to do so may make them liable in a negligent hiring suit or even criminal negligence.

to reverse your question, what protection should the employer take to make sure the employee is legally able to be hired? at this time, enforcement of these employment laws is minimal and the costs of hiring illegals does not provide much dis-centive to business.

i agree with you, the employer should be able to inquire about any and every aspect about a potential employee. since you suggested it, {employers should be}directly responsible for how they exercise those freedoms, what or how is the responsibility to be measured? what are the consequences for a bad decision, and what is a bad decision? will businesses have any liability for hiring decisions or be given a blank check?

once the employer asks "Are you in the USA legally?" and the new hire provides the answer, what additional "responsibility" should there be when it turns out the employee was working under someone else's ID?

6 posted on 12/14/2006 11:32:16 AM PST by APRPEH (id theft info available on my profile page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Thank Nixon's INS for the stupidity that law enforcement cannot ask the immigration status of a person.

Daley-1 fought it in cour and lost. Since the INS won at the district and circuit levels, but it was not appealed to the Supremes, it may only be "law" here in the Midwest. We'd have to check with a lawyer.


7 posted on 12/14/2006 12:30:12 PM PST by spintreebob (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: APRPEH

The free market should decide the consequences of most bad decisions.

There is a shortage of employees in the USA who are willing and able to work. The employer who does not hire the best workers he can is the loser, not the employee.


8 posted on 12/14/2006 12:32:46 PM PST by spintreebob (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..
Tested since 1997 and rolled out nationally in 2004

Isn't it amazing how companies like FedEx, UPS & DHL can track packages 24/7/365 anywhere in the world, but our gov't can't come up with a data base to track SS#'s. If these companies had been losing packages for 1 week, they'd be out of business, but the gov't still hasn't gotten their system to work after 9 years.

9 posted on 12/14/2006 12:46:01 PM PST by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
Here is a true story from April 1979:

I went to a state emplyment office to apply for a job. Feeling a little naughty, I "accidently" mixed up a few digits in my number. Two minutes later I was called back to the receptionist to verify my SSN because the number I had given them matched with another worker in the U.S. Department of Labor database. They were even able to tell me he was working at a job in a town 100 miles away. They could have, but did not, give me his name and the name of the company.

Two minutes with 1970's technology. Do you suppose this couldn't be done with current technology? Or is it just a matter of not wanting to know?

10 posted on 12/14/2006 1:07:21 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster

Maybe some class action suits agains employers hiring illegals would get the government up to speed. Employers would then clamor for a better system.


11 posted on 12/14/2006 8:23:18 PM PST by TheLion (We are not the health maintenance organization for Mexico)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob

Bingo.


12 posted on 12/14/2006 10:08:48 PM PST by MonicaG (Thank you and God bless you, excellent TROOPS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson