Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: allmendream

Couple of questions here.

One, what’s the constitutionality of requiring social security numbers to be used for employment? That wasn’t the purpose of their introduction.

From what I can see, there’s zero requirement for any employer in the US to be required to solicit the SSN for employment. However, the employer can ask and should conduct their own background checks.

If the employer is the state, by all means. Have the state require the use of an SSN is a decision that each state can make. The state doesn’t have the authority to require all businesses that operate with the state to do the same.

Driver’s licenses. Agreed. Law breaking. Yes, of course, but then we get to the question as to what constitutes the laws of the state? There are many laws which citizens break inadvertantly, should these be treated the same as other laws which are considered more serious?

Housing, I disagree. Housing isn’t a federal or a state role. Housing is, at least last I checked a market based industry. If an owner wishes to rent without checking ID, then that should be an option for them. Would that be a wise decision? No. But the government has no role overseeing all private transactions.


51 posted on 08/11/2011 12:52:13 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]


To: BenKenobi
The form of the identification is not at issue - but the State issues Drivers Licenses - and they should not be issued to any but those who reside within the State legally.

Employees have to file withholdings to the State - the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that these witholdings are for actual citizens and legal residents within that State.

There are numerous laws, State and otherwise, on housing. Ensuring that landlords only rent to those who reside within a State legally - and that they do not rent to someone who houses a mob far in excess of reasonable capacity - as illegal alien apartments so often do - is a valid State role.

States have a right and a role under the Constitution to any number of powers that can and should be used to discourage illegal residency within their State and enforce such laws. That does not at all amend or abridge the Federal role (that they have failed at) in determining immigration and naturalization.

So you are OK with “sanctuary” but not with enforcement?

Does making your State or City a “sanctuary” for illegal aliens also abrogate the Federal Constitutional role, in your view?

52 posted on 08/11/2011 1:09:15 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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