Posted on 09/13/2011 2:26:19 PM PDT by jazusamo
The House Judiciary Committee will mark up a bill from Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) on Thursday morning that would require all U.S. employers to use E-Verify, the Department of Homeland Security system that checks whether new hires are eligible to work in the United States.
Smith called on President Obama to make E-Verify part of his jobs plan on Monday, arguing the law could open up millions of jobs for legal residents as the unemployment remains above 9 percent. The program checks candidates' Social Security numbers against a federal database to verify they are allowed to work in the U.S.
“A federal E-Verify requirement is needed now more than ever," Smith said in a statement sent to The Hill.
"Nearly 14 million Americans can’t find work but at the same time seven million illegal immigrants work in the U.S. Congress should pass the Legal Workforce Act and the President should sign it into law — unemployed Americans can’t wait any longer.”
Federal contractors are already required to use E-Verify, which Smith characterized as a simple, straightforward way to ensure employers aren't hiring illegal aliens for open jobs in an op-ed published Tuesday in The Hill.
"The 'E' in E-Verify could just as well stand for 'easy' and 'effective.' It takes only one to two minutes to use per new hire and immediately confirms 99.5 percent of work-eligible employees," Smith said.
"Even though E-Verify is not mandatory, many businesses voluntarily use the program. Nearly 290,000 American employers use E-Verify and an average of 1,300 new businesses sign up each week," he said.
While Smith noted that the vast majority — 99.5 percent — of individuals are immediately confirmed as eligible to work, the remaining half-percent remain a major concern for groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union that oppose making E-Verify mandatory. While a portion of those cases are ineligible workers, DHS has also previously acknowledged that some workers are erroneously rejected initially and must petition to have their status reviewed. Critics argue those workers are essentially barred from working through no fault of their own, until DHS corrects the error.
But the program has a long list of supporters, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association and the National Association of Home Builders. The bill has met stiff resistance from agricultural producers, who rely heavily on illegal labor to harvest fruits and vegetables.
http://www1.honolulu.gov/csd/vehicle/faqs_dl.htm
What are the requirements to apply for a minor’s instruction permit?
You have to be 15 ½ years old to apply for an instruction permit. You have to present the original birth certificate and original social security card.
Have you considered the possibility that an administration like Obama’s might abuse ‘E-verify’?
It seems to me that such a system could quite easily be misused by a politically partisan, pro-illegal immigration, administration such as Mr. Obama’s.
It could potentially be a tool to harass opponents of the administration (“We’re sorry, sir, but SSA says you are NOT eligible to work in this country. I’m sure it’s just a mix-up of some sort and they have assured me that they should be able to get things squared away so you can get a job and start earning some money in no more than 6 months or so”).
Crazy? Maybe; but I can also think of a much more likely, and more damaging overall, method by which a system such as ‘e-verify’ could be misused. A pro-illegal-immigration administration’s SSA could improperly declare large numbers of illegal aliens to actually be ELIGIBLE for employment. Given how difficult it is to deport illegal aliens now, imagine how much harder it will be when they have a piece of paper in their hand from the government saying they are eligible to work in this country. A widespread ‘policy’ of ‘accidently’ declaring illegals eligible to work would basically serve as a defacto amnesty- and congress would not even need to be consulted.
I think there is a chance that the ‘pro-amnesty’ crowd is actually only feigning opposition to e-verify (PLEASE don’t throw me in that briar patch”) in order to get those who support true reform ‘spun up’ enough to force its approval. Later, when it is a dismal failure, or has been horribly abused, they can declare “well, you asked for it!”
Your hyperbolic insults notwithstanding, there are many principled people who oppose allowing the federal government to over-step its Constitutional authority. I think the old legal adage “hard cases make bad law” might apply here. Yes, we DO need to stop illegal aliens from entering and staying in the country. No, we do not need to cede ever more power to our federal government as we strive to do so.
Obama became a Naturalized US Citizen in his early 20’s.
____________________________________________________
So did I
Well 26...
President Nana
Whoopeeee
So, what do they do when the people demand that they do their job? Instead of securing the border, or enforcing our laws, they move towards forcing every American to go, hat in hand, to government bureaucrats for permission to work and earn their daily bread.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
All BS. The employer already has to provide the government with employees name, ss# etc., they already have to verify ID (I).
Like I said only pro amnesty people are against e-verify.
It could potentially be a tool to harass opponents of the administration (“We’re sorry, sir, but SSA says you are NOT eligible to work in this country. I’m sure it’s just a mix-up of some sort and they have assured me that they should be able to get things squared away so you can get a job and start earning some money in no more than 6 months or so”).
____________________________________________________________
NO. You must already be an employee before your info is submitted to e-verify.
An employer can’t fire you until after the appeals process is complete.
More misinformation from amnesty supporters.
Can you direct me to the Article and Section of the United States Constitution which provides the federal government the power to require this? I am referring specifically to a power which allows the federal government to control the hiring practices of private businesses.
____________________________________________________________
E-verify is not used to tell businesses who they can hire.
The person must already be employed to use e-verify.
Are you suggesting that the constitution doesn’t allow for the feds to control immigration?
Do you have a problem with the current I9 mandate?
If a bounty system could eradicate the passenger pigeon it can deal with illegals. It is entirely constitutional as a letter of marque.
The employer already has to provide the government with employees name, ss# etc., they already have to verify ID (I).
I don't want any of that fascist crap.
Like I said only pro amnesty people are against e-verify.
Besides being an idiot, you apparently want a police state.
Thank you for asking these questions.
Of course, there is no such power granted by the provisions of our Constitution.
But e-verify represents even more of a vast overreach than them controlling the hiring practices of private businesses. It presumes the power of government to tell YOU whether or not you can work. Whether you can earn what is necessary to keep body and soul together.
Patriots should blanch at the idea of government with that sort of total power. Frankly it is so radical as to be getting into mark of the beast territory. Anti-Christ government forcing you to bow to them before you are allowed to buy or sell, to do any sort of commerce.
When you lose the argument call the other person an idiot.
Brilliant, I’m convinced.
Why would the Feds prefer this to policing the border?
He was probably issued a new one when his went public.
Check out # 34 , # 35, # 36.
I don't understand. Why was it necessary to place obummer (or someone claiming to be obummer) in Federal foster care in 1971 with Catholic Charities Migration & Refugee Services, located in Hartford, CT.?
Is this really true? Are we reading about the substitute child (that was taken to Hawaii at about age 3,) or is this another myth (lie), formulated to further cloud the issue?
Of course, none of know for sure or have any evidence either way. That was the year he was shipped back to the US. Could there have been an incident in Indonesia or with Lolo? We have yet to determine why he suddenly ended up back here with the Dunhams. Could it be that he was sent to CT temporarily before going to Hawaii? Whatever it was, it had to have been huge. And so huge that it necessitated paying for Sr. to drop everything and rush to Hawaii for two months. We suspected Sr. was there due to some custody hearings so this seems to tie in. A substitute kid? It's anyone's guess.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2717548/posts?page=661#661
I think if you read the original comment by Sven, there’s a pretty good outline of what probably took place at the time.
Suggests to me that an FOI request might answer the question: WHY?
The documents at the root of this need to seen.
.
> Ping.
Here’s the comment from Fred Nerks link, as shown in # 56, fwiw. Note this was posted in June, 2011. Is this another myth? Where is verification?
Sven posts interesting information, but apparently is reluctant to document his sources.
-
In the mid-60’s to late 60’s, Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro after BHO’s Sr parental rights were stripped from him in an HI Court. Here’s a rudimentary flow chart for reference:
SAD Obama marries Lolo Soetoro - Barack Hussein Obama II becomes Lolo’s step-son.
Soetoro adoption is finalized - BHO’s Sr. parental rights are stripped from him in a HI Court, BHO’s II legal name is changed to Barry Soetoro, the Court orders BHO’s II Long Form BC sealed and archived, Barry Soetoro becomes Lolo Soetoro’s son and the State of HI issues Barry Soetoro a COLB naming SAD Soetoro and Lolo Soetoro as his parents.
Barry Soetoro returns to HI alone. SAD Soetoro loses custody of Barry and he becomes a ward of the state with an American Refugee Resettlement Organization located in CT assigned custody. Eventually, Madelyn Dunham, Barry’s grandmother is named Barry’s guardian. SAD Soetoro is given visitation rights, but she is stripped of custody of her son.
BHO Sr returns to HI Court and objects to the Soetoro adoption - BHO’s Sr. parental rights are reinstated and Lolo Soetoro’s parental rights are stripped from him. The State of HI issues BHO II a COLB naming SAD and BHO Sr (with 1970’s politically correct race as “African”) as parents.
The Original Long Form BC was sealed and archived. It stays sealed and archived because it is void and cannot be used in any legal proceeding. Lolo Soetoro is now classified as BHO’s II stepfather because he is still married to SAD Soetoro.
The annulled adoption stipped Lolo Soetoro of his parental rights but not his marriage. BHO’s II medical, immunization, and school records with the name Barry Soetoro are sealed by order of the court. Barry Soetoro becomes persona non grata. BHO II can legally state he has never used a name different than BHO II.
An American Refugee Resettlement Organization maintains legal custody of BHO II until he turns 18. His case manager in CT files his SS-5 with the SSA in 1976-1977 using his status as a Permanent Legal Resident in the United States as his qualifications. A document examiner with the SSA reviewed and verified the SS-5 and its supporting documents. An alpha-numeric code is generated as a result of this document examination. BHO’s II PLR code is marked with a “Y” (Permanent Legal Resident = Yes).
Obama became a Naturalized US Citizen in his early 20’s.
661 posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:48:21 AM by SvenMagnussen (BHO II naturalized as U.S. Citizen after becoming an Indonesian National)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2717548/posts?page=661#661
Thanks.
Never saw this before.
And I don't blame him! But what he writes appears to have a sound foundation of knowledge. I think what he's been trying to tell us is that THIS IS WHERE TO LOOK.
...and no one is listening.(I can't, as an Aussie, request anything under your FOI laws,) BUT SOMEONE SHOULD!
...and wait two years?
ALL HIS POSTS ARE HERE:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:svenmagnussen/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
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.