Thread: NOT A BAD ARTICLE

A little tough on Tom T but he can handle it. Good article none the less. Any politcal types reading this one would be interested in your comment:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_3720545




www.bighornmusic.com/bushton/

All they would have to do is require U.S. employers to check the legal status of all employees

Isn't this already the law? Isn't this why the I-9 forms are filled out and kept on file??

Employers are already required to do this. These laws just need to be enforced.

After a few executives had done the perp walk, others would get the message. Illegal hiring would drop precipitously. Since the vast majority of illegal immigrants come to this country to work, many of them would leave if they couldn't get hired. And they'd take the message back home to La Paz and Villa Juarez and San Gerardo: Without legal papers, you can't get a job in the United States.

This is what I've said all along, as well as taking away their welfare safety net. They would eventually deport themselves. It's as simple as enforcing our existing laws. The President and Congress know this, but they want to make it sound difficult, so that nothing will get done. They want the cheap labor and cheap votes. How many times have you heard a politican start his illegal immigration stance with "it's a complicated/difficult issue"? Only because they want it to be.

REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!

Originally Posted by JohnB2012

All they would have to do is require U.S. employers to check the legal status of all employees

Isn't this already the law? Isn't this why the I-9 forms are filled out and kept on file??

Employers are already required to do this. These laws just need to be enforced.

The law states that they must make a good faith effort to verify the legal status of their employees, but it does not specify how they must do this. All an illegal alien has to do is show an employer that he has a fake SS card and he is good to go, and it gives the employer a way out by saying hey, he gave me an SS# and that is all I have to do. There is no requirement that they verify it is a valid SS# or not an SS# that actually belongs to someone else. The state should set up a database of all people who are legally eligible to work inside state lines since unemployment is a state issue, not federal, and require that all employers match the information in the database against all prospective hirees. The federal Basic Pilot Program does this to some extent, but the only thing it does is to match the name against SS# and birthdate. It should include a picture and descriptive information to ensure that it is actually the person that they think they are hiring. If this system is handled by the state, such as the Labor Commissioner, it is more responsive to the needs of the state.

The federal Basic Pilot Program does this to some extent, but the only thing it does is to match the name against SS# and birthdate.

That should work most of the time. If all three match the database the person should be OK.

The state should set up a database of all people who are legally eligible to work inside state lines

This won't work, I can work in any state I want to. More employers need to use the SAVE program.

Probably 75% of the time SAVE will work, right now. The problems will begin because once they start cracking down on employers for it. The illegals will start utilizing identity theft more and more often, because they won't be able to get a job without stealing someone's elses identity. Identity theft is already the fastest growing crime nationwide. This will make the problem worse.

Another problem is that the SAVE program is a Pilot Program, meaning that the programming is not set up to withstand the assault of hundreds or thousands of employers accessing it at one time. It was not developed using sequel or SOAP technology, it was developed utilizing ASP programming, meaning that if suddenly they have more than a few employers accessing at the same time, this system is going to crash constantly.

You are right, you can work in any state that you want to. However, the vast majority of people working in Georgia live there. It would be a relatively simple thing to set up a database of all current people licensed to drive or having a state ID card in the state of Georgia, assuming that Georgia has a legal residency requirement for a drivers license or state ID card, then require those without at least one of these two forms of ID to get a work permit through the local DMV offices, where they would have to prove legal presence in order to receive a work permit. No lawful presence, no work permit. The state database would be better than SAVE because it could also include pictures of the individuals as well as their descriptions, including height, weight, gender, hair color, eye color, etc. In other words, if someone applying for a job speaks only a little English, claims his name is Joe Smith and he is 5'5", looks to be around 20 years old, with black hair, and brown eyes, but his description in the state database is that he is 5'11", 48 years old, blond hair and blue eyes, you have a very realistic means to prosecute an individual for identity theft and to ensure that employers are held accountable. Using SAVE, as long as the person claiming to be Joe Smith knows the SS#, the name and birthdate of the individual, an employer can skate by claiming that the information submitted by the employee was correct and he fulfilled his duty by verifying it. A system such as this would prevent employment for 95%+ of illegal aliens and reduce the possibility of identity theft drastically. It could also be used to cut down on credit card fraud if offered as a means to identify credit card users when their identity is in question.

But wouldn't some/many employers use the system
to tell the applicant to bleach their hair, wear
tall shoes and colored contacts ??

LOL they may be able to get away with it at times, but not very often. I sincerely doubt that a reduction in height of six or more inches can easily be explained. If you wanted to take it one step further, you can always include biometric data, such as a thumbprint, which is a unique identifier.

Current technology is in the process of setting up fingerprint technology, although it is not very reliable yet. Credit institutions are watching it's development closely as a means of reducing fraud. Within the next few years you won't be able to make an online purchase without submitting your finger or thumbprint to verify your identity for the purchase. When this goes into effect, it will make it even easier to add biometrics into the type of statewide database I am talking about.

Im an old locksmith and was intrigued with biometrics since the 80s. I will see if i can find a good short article on the subject. Most bios have there problems but win used in conjunction with other means of id accuracy is increased.


www.bighornmusic.com/bushton/

Thank you Rhino. I agree. I am a retired peace officer, and while I am a firm believer that the only thing in life that is 100% certain is death, I believe it is possible to increase reliability to 99.9%. Used in conjunction with other forms of identity verification, biometrics can be very valuable.

When I worked as a peace officer on the West Coast we had to go downtown to the main facility for training and had to use our keycards for access into the building. The keycards were biometric and included our picture, and they required that they be clipped to our uniform in plain sight while we were in the building. After swiping the keycard to get into a door we also had to input our thumbprint to verify that it was our keycard before getting access to different areas of the building. It is possible that someone who looked like me could feasibly manage to steal the keycard and cut off my thumb to use for access, but much less likely that it wouldn't be noticed that someone was using a cut off thumb to gain entry...heh