Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (59965)	6/13/2007 3:43:58 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Oops. I should have read the subsequent posts before I replied. Sorry for duplicating the thoughts in Bill's post.

To: Jim S who wrote (59965)	6/13/2007 4:03:50 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"So, I stand by my statement that I find the gov't more at fault than employers, who I wouldn't expect to investigate the backgrounds of every employee." In general, I'd agree. That's why the claim that we could materially reduce illegal immigration by enforcing existing laws on employers, essentially making employers do the police work, is bogus. But also, we were talking about an employer that was knowingly and systematically violating the law, and they are being prosecuted. The employer is clearly the one to blame in such cases and in this case at least, the government is doing it's job.

To: Jim S who wrote (59965)	6/13/2007 5:16:00 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 90947

In theory, I agree. In practice, I probably don't. Such a verification system will probably mean a whole new bureaucracy, with special software and "other uses" to include personal data on everyone in the US, not just non-citizens. This is already the law. en.wikipedia.org "SEC. 274A. (a) "8 USC 1324a" MAKING EMPLOYMENT OF UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS UNLAWFUL. -- "(1) IN GENERAL. -- It is unlawful for a person or other entity to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States -- "(A) an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3)) with respect to such employment, or "(B) an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b). "(1) ATTESTATION AFTER EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTATION. -- "(A) IN GENERAL. -- The person or entity must attest, under penalty of perjury and on a form designated or established by the Attorney General by regulation, that it has verified that the individual is not an unauthorized alien by examining -- "(i) a document described in subparagraph (B), or "(ii) a document described in subparagraph (C) and a document described in subparagraph (D). A person or entity has complied with the requirement of this paragraph with respect to examination of a document if the document reasonably appears on its face to be genuine. If an individual provides a document or combination of documents that reasonably appears on its face to be genuine and that is sufficient to meet the requirements of such sentence, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as requiring the person or entity to solicit the production of any other document or as requiring the individual to produce such a document. "(B) DOCUMENTS ESTABLISHING BOTH EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION AND IDENTITY. -- A document described in this subparagraph is an individual's -- "(i) United States passport; "(ii) certificate of United States citizenship; "(iii) certificate of naturalization; "(iv) unexpired foreign passport, if the passport has an appropriate, unexpired endorsement of the Attorney General authorizing the individual's employment in the United States; or "(v) resident alien card or other alien registration card, if the card -- "(I) contains a photograph of the individual or such other personal identifying information relating to the individual as the Attorney General finds, by regulation, sufficient for purposes of this subsection, and "(II) is evidence of authorization of employment in the United States. [ continues ] oig.lsc.gov So, I stand by my statement that I find the gov't more at fault than employers, who I wouldn't expect to investigate the backgrounds of every employee. My experience has been that they do. But in my line of work, they would. I have no doubt there are plenty of employers that don't. Also "(ii) a document described in subparagraph (C) and a document described in subparagraph (D)." seems to have a large hole in it since it can be satisfied by an SS card (which the act itself admits does not authorize employment) and a driver's license (which are notoriously often fake).