Think Government Is Intrusive Now? Wait Until E-Verify Kicks In

Wall Street Journal ^ | 08/03/2013 | John Cochrane

[i_robot73]

Sorry, but WHAT ‘need’? If we ran the Republic as it SHOULD be run, there would be NO need for E-Verify and the like.

The only thing that would matter would be the contract between employer and employee.

There are NO ‘American jobs’; they do not belong to anyone BUT the employer; the one who will pay the wage (and fed. extortion of taxes and the like).

[i_robot73]

NO Law has ever stayed within the confines of its origination....Just look what the “’Patriot’ Act” has gotten us w/ the NSA and the like...no more 4th Amendment and a feckless Congress that does NOTHING.

We already have a Constitution that’s not followed, what the hells another Law going to do??

[SeekAndFind]

RE: We already have a Constitution that’s not followed, what the hells another Law going to do??

Well, as the article states: missions always creep and bureaucracies expand.

E-Verify will be attractive as a way to enforce hundreds of other employment laws and regulations. In the age of big data, the government can easily E-Verify age, union membership, education, employment history, and whether you’ve paid income taxes and signed up for health insurance. ALL UNDER THE GUISE OF PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR LABOR LAWS.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: The only thing that would matter would be the contract between employer and employee.

What if the employee were here illegally?

[i_robot73]

My point exactly. Gov’t ‘solving’ a problem itself creates; abusing the Rights of the Citizens it is instituted to PROTECT.

You asked “What if the employee were here illegally?” The question should be, why should the employer be on the hook to track/verify/etc.??

It’s the Fed. gov’ts JOB to protect the border (one of the FEW enumerated powers), and it doesn’t do SH!TE. But, they’ll load the responsibility onto those that presume they are doing their expected duties?!

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Birth date would be nice. At least birth year.

It would prevent people from stealing children's identities. If Robin Smith, an adult male is standing in front of you but the number is for Robin Smith born in 2010 then you have grounds to inquire what the heck is going on.

[zeugma]

The main objection I have to this crap is that the only people who are subjected to it, are citizens. Illegals and other criminals get a free pass on this, and all other laws.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: It’s the Fed. gov’ts JOB to protect the border (one of the FEW enumerated powers), and it doesn’t do SH!TE.

The problem is in the definition of “borders”. Oftentimes, a person comes here LEGALLY ( e.g. via a visitor’s visa ) and then OVERSTAYS. In fact, a SIGNIFICANT portion of those here illegally are overstayers who came in LEGALLY.

So, a fence will help, but that doesn’t solve all the problem.

So, if you object to eVerify, how do you propose to prevent illegals from working?

[i_robot73]

Answer: You’re NOT going to be able to do so. You have a Federal gov’t that cannot/will not do it’s basic job (protect/enforce the border), so you want the employer to be saddled with the task (time and $$ spent) instead??

Root problem: a bloated, Unconstitutional gov’t. Fix THAT, the rest will fall into place, or deal with the left-overs afterward.

No offense, but if the ‘Conservatives’ think they can work within the system as it exists today, you’re not going to get anywhere. Instead of arguing about step #50, they should be starting at square 1.

[DoughtyOne]

Sorry, but WHAT ‘need’? If we ran the Republic as it SHOULD be run, there would be NO need for E-Verify and the like.

Immigration is one of the duties of the federal government.  It devises the policies and enforces them.  Under Article Four, Section Four it says the states shall be protected from invasion.

The federal government has every right to regulate access to our nation, and to devise laws and enforce them.  The employer mandate is constitutional.  It is in accordance the mentioned Article and Section mentioned above.

Even when the border was being enforced as it should have been, we have always had problems with illegals taking jobs.  E-Verify brings that to a screeching halt.

The only thing that would matter would be the contract between employer and employee.

Employers do not supercede the duty of the federal government to oversee immigration, devise immigraton policy, and enforce immigration policy.

There are NO ‘American jobs’; they do not belong to anyone BUT the employer; the one who will pay the wage (and fed. extortion of taxes and the like).

The workforce in the United States is made up of Citizens of the United States, or others as per the discression of the federal government.  The federal government has every right to oversee who works in the United States.

It is part of the immigration policies of the United States.  The federal government has a vested interest in making sure the nation is not over-run by foreign nationals.  It has a vested interest in making sure regions of our naiton do not become Balkanized.  The federal government is supposed to make sure the general welfare of the U. S. Citizen comes first, over the citizens of other nations.

Ramirez's latest political cartoon LARGE VERSION 08/01/2013: LINK  LINK to regular sized version of Ramirez's latest, and an archive of his political cartoons.

FOLKS, THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN, PLEASE CLICK HERE AND PENCIL IN YOUR DONATION TO HELP END THIS FREEPATHON.  THANK YOU!
...this is a general all purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

[cynwoody]

Yes, you need a government to keep illegals out.

But that's a problem, as Eddie Snowden has pointed out.

E-verify is the best way to combat illegals. If it's actually enforced, it will work, and they'll self-deport. Problem solved.

But if it metastasizes in the manner Professor Cochrane supposes, then we'll just have to march on Washington and kill all of them and burn it to the ground!

[Vaduz]

The great sell out is on going by our so called leaders.

[Grampa Dave]

One can only imagine the data the feds have on you and I.

Of course, since we met on Jim Robinson’s creation over a decade ago, only God knows how much we are monitored, have been monitored and will be monitored.

Yet, the cheap labor thugs don’t want E-Verify run on our millions of illegals.

The liberals don’t want photo ids used to verify, who, we are, when we vote, yet they don’t have a problem with law abiding citizens having to use a driver’s license to identify them selves several times each week doing normal activities as I noted in my original reply on this thread.

[Grampa Dave]

“In the age of big data, the government can easily E-Verify age, union membership, education, employment history, and whether you’ve paid income taxes and signed up for health insurance. ALL UNDER THE GUISE OF PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR LABOR LAWS.”

They have that capability and have had it since Social Security was created by FDR. It is called your/our Social Security Number. It is used for every warning item in your reply.

[i_robot73]

Let’s presume for a moment your points are correct (IE: gov’t can regulate whom is hired when/where). And excuse me outright, I’m going to be all over the place I suspect.

Questions:
1) Does a Citizen need permission from gov’t to earn a living/work?
2) Does gov’t have the authority to determine what businesses are (in)valid for the Citizens? We see this Fascism (IE: biz licensee). Just look at the medallions for cab co. in NY and the like, liquor license fees, environmental impact studies, red tape, gov’t, regulations, etc.
3) How does the gov’t verify the validity of the possibly-to-be employee? SSN (a program that is Unconstitutional and already mission-creep’d leaps and bounds beyond its intended purpose)?? Passport? Drivers license (another gov’t encroachment on free travel, IMHO)? Utility bills?
4) By what authority does gov’t have to enforce whom is hired, but not what the min. wage will be? What ‘benefits’ will be offered? etc. etc. etc.?

Did I imply the employer is above the gov’t? No, I did not. What I did state is that it is NOT up to the employer to validate the Fed. gov’t is (not) doing its job.

Is not employment a contract? “Here is what I am willing to offer for services (work) rendered”? A1S10 specifically states contracts are to be enforced (yes, only when entered into by willing participants, yada yada). Nowhere is the Fed granted this authority either.

If the employee is found to be illegal, the Fed has the authority to remove that person from our borders.

As to your ‘vested interest’...When the Fed. gov’t BEGINS to do the basics of its authorized functions (IE: borders, protecting Citizens Rights), you might have a point. As to the ‘Balkinization, the States are where the experiments in Laws and Liberty are to be ‘fought’; in your postulation, if one State became the shining example, the gov’t could step in to stop people from confirming with their feet (moving). No. You give the gov’t too much authority it never had; it is only to PROMOTE the general welfare....not try provide.

The Individual comes first and foremost as they are the ONLY entity with Rights.

[i_robot73]

If one remembers (as it was for the first one I received) it was NOT to be used for identification purposes.

E-Verify is just another way for the Fed.’s left hand to not know (plausible deniability?) what the right hand is doing.

[Liz]

HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN CHUCKIE AND THE GANG BRING 'EM "OUT OF THE SHADOWS" (cackle)

The illegals already have multiple faked/forged ID's, and drivers' licenses under different names....which also allows them to vote under different names....and collect a raft of US freebies under different names.

1. legalization forces them to get drivers' licenses under their real names.

2. state computers run a photo-match check to see if the same person has applied under different names.

3. they get investigated for ID theft and have to answer to a judge.

4. they get prosecuted under US law.

[DoughtyOne]

Let’s presume for a moment your points are correct (IE: gov’t can regulate whom is hired when/where). And excuse me outright, I’m going to be all over the place I suspect.

I am not assuming the government has the right to determine who can/can't work in all circumstances.  In some circumstances it definitely does.  Why?  Well, there's a good reason why.

Do you want a person hired as a physician in a Medical Center to perform surgery on you, who doesn't have a degree?  Do you want a pharmacist recommending the wrong medications for you, a nurse using terrible technique on your wounds, a pharamcy tech pulling the wrong medications or creating the wrong admixtures as IVs, who hasn't been licensed by the government?  Do you want a police officer who has been convicted of serious felonies?  Do you want your child to go to a day care center with people working there who have been convicted of sexually abusing children in the past?

I think you're trying to come at this from a Libertarian vantage point.  Here I think you're missing quite a bit in that effort.

Questions:

1) Does a Citizen need permission from gov’t to earn a living/work?  In many instances no.  In others it's a definite yes.

2) Does gov’t have the authority to determine what businesses are (in)valid for the Citizens?  If we're talking about who is qualified for some jobs, or who isn't, then in some instances yes, most definitely.

We see this Fascism (IE: biz licensee). Just look at the medallions for cab co. in NY and the like, liquor license fees, environmental impact studies, red tape, gov’t, regulations, etc.  Would it have to be a Fascist government who regulated businesses?   Of course not.  People come into New York all the time.  They don't know the businesses there.  You mentioned a Taxi company.  What if everyone were able to slap a decal on their door and do as they please?  Would vehicles be safe?  Would legal practices prevail.  Would the government even know how to find a certain enterprise if it were ripping off passenegers, or endangering their passengers in other ways?  Should there be liquor license fee?   Should the government have control over whether minors can drink or not?   How do you regulate that, if you don't issue or deny liquor licenses?  You and I are against the nightmare environmental impact studies, but we shouldn't be against reasoned impact studies.  If a new building isn't designed right, it can acually create a hazard.  This involves wind partern studies, which are in effect environmental studies.  How will this building affect other standing structures?  How will this building affect water runoff?  Will this building cause some other sort of hazard?  I don't think we should object to any environmental studies.  We should simply object to the ridiculous ones.  This can be seen as big government out of control.  Okay.  I get that.  As Conservaties we all do.  What if a new building went up, it created a new wind dynamic that caused the windows to pop out on a nearby pre-existing building?  Would that be a problem?  If you're family were walking on the street below, you bet it would be.  What if a new property's excavation were such that it cause rain water to collect and run off in a massive wall of water along one side of the property, washing completely out your restaurant next door?  Do you think that should be avoided?  Some government red tape should be eliminated.  It all can't be.  It all shouldn't be.

As Conservatives or Libertarians, we have some reasoned concerns about government expansion.  I get that.  I still think there are some reasoned functions for the government to fulfill.  If they weren't there doing it, we would be pissed abou that too.

3) How does the gov’t verify the validity of the possibly-to-be employee? SSN (a program that is Unconstitutional and already mission-creep’d leaps and bounds beyond its intended purpose)?? Passport? Drivers license (another gov’t encroachme  nt on free travel, IMHO)? Utility bills?

Okay, then it's your take that anyone who wants to come here to the United States should be able to.  You just said you don't want a passport or a driver's license.  So if a leading Islamic terrorist wants to come to the U. S.and set up a sleeper cell, he should be able to with impunity.

Look, if we don't carry I. D., then the government cannot check out the I. D.s of anyone.  Remember, we just did away with passports.  A Middle-Eastern looking man walks off a plane in New York, walks right on down the hall and out front to take a taxi where ever he likes.  He doesn't have to check in, becuase passports are a thing of the past.  If challenged all he would have to say is, "I live in Detroit."  The guy at the gate says, "Oh, okay, go right along then."  Does that sound like a good idea?  I doubt that it does if you give it some thought.

4) By what authority does gov’t have to enforce whom is hired, but not what the min. wage will be? What ‘benefits’ will be offered? etc. etc. etc.?

Who is hired, yes.  What the wages will be, benefits will be, no.  Employers should have to negotiate with an approved work force to establish a working relationship with one of them.  We all have a vested interest in whether jobs are available to citizens or not.  We all have a vested interest in whether we as breadwinners with reponsibilities, are having to compete with other breadwinners or people who can work for 25% of what we can, because they are living five families to an apartment, and willing to live in sub-human conditions to compete unfairly.  You cannot allow this, or pretty soon none of your head of households can earn a living to support a family.  It is the government's duty to make sure this doesn't happen.  That's why Article IV Section 4 is so important.  It's not just there because it looks pretty.  There are massive problems with allowing your nation to be over-run.

Did I imply the employer is above the gov’t? No, I did not. What I did state is that it is NOT up to the employer to validate the Fed. gov’t is (not) doing its job.

The federal government cannot be at every job site making sure illegals are not obtaining jobs.  It can provide a tool and demand that employers use it.  This is not a business having to do the government's job for it.  It's the business complying with a reasonable requirement.

Is not employment a contract? “Here is what I am willing to offer for services (work) rendered”? A1S10 specifically states contracts are to be enforced (yes, only when entered into by willing participants, yada yada). Nowhere is the Fed granted this authority either.

Okay, so you're saying an A1S10 form is okay, but heaven forbid the employer check out a social security number against the applicant.  Good grief.  A person in H. R. enters a Social Security number on the screen.  In moments the person is cleared or denied to work based on their citizenship status.

If the employee is found to be illegal, the Fed has the authority to remove that person from our borders.

Yes it does.  Would it have to?  No.  If you can't eat here, you're soon going to be living somewhere you can.

As to your ‘vested interest’...When the Fed. gov’t BEGINS to do the basics of its authorized functions (IE: borders, protecting Citizens Rights), you might have a point. As to the ‘Balkinization, the States are where the experiments in Laws and Liberty are to be ‘fought’; in your postulation, if one State became the shining example, the gov’t could step in to stop people from confirming with their feet (moving). No. You give the gov’t too much authority it never had; it is only to PROMOTE the general welfare....not try provide.

The federal government currently captures hundreds of thousands of illegals each year.  It may be over one million now.  While I think we should but more agents on the border, I do not think we'll ever prevent all illegal immigration.  For that reason it is necessary to provide a tool that makes it impossible for illegals to get work here in the U. S.

The Individual comes first and foremost as they are the ONLY entity with Rights.

Except that some of those individuals are what....  come on you can say it...  try hard now...  that's right, illegal immigrants or the citizens of another nation.  They have no rights here, other than basic human rights.  They don't belong here, and they shoud be denied employment, housing, goods, and services.  GO HOME!

No individual U. S. Citizen is harmed by the demand for a social security number.  Yep, that's all it boils down to.  Something you already give H. R. when you're hired, is all that is required.  99.99% of U. S. Citizen hires will see no change at all.  Teh other remnant will simply have to obtain documents they should already have had.

[Grampa Dave]

“If one remembers (as it was for the first one I received) it was NOT to be used for identification purposes.”

When the health insurance companies started using our SS#’s, some in the late 1970’s, some of us started saying whoa and no! They were apparently following the Medicare protocols set up by LBJ.

A decade or so later, any of us who saw a doctor, had lab work done, x rays and other medical services, our SS# was in a lot of unprotected medical offices, labs, hospitals and other medical providers.

In the 80’s a scam that started with the so called poor and dare I say illegals, was loaning someone else your medical insurance cards so they could get free medical services. Some stole the cards from friends, room mates and where ever they could get them.

So the providers started asking for photo ids when a card was presented (of course with our SS#’s). The standard procedure then and now, was/is to photocopy your driver’s license, ss card or medicare/insurance card. Now your driver’s license # was out there unprotected with your SS#.

Often the lowest paid person in a medical provider’s office is the secretary and the book keeper, sometimes the same person. Their low pay often made them targets for the crooks after ss#’ and other id nos.

A few years ago, the feds started forcing medical providers to go to computer systems for patient data. Supposedly that would secure and protect our SS#’s and other data.

That has worked so well, we often read about a hospital or big lab supposedly having our numbers stolen by some unknown group or by stupid error in the hospital.

Along this concern about numbers, never use a credit card to pay for any medical service provided. That is asking for identity theft, if they have your cc # and social security number and other data like birthdates, maiden names etc.

[i_robot73]

Hell, this is going to be a long one ;) I have neither the HTML skills, nor time to nicely format, so I’ll do my best to break it down by reply

Pre:
That’s presuming the monopoly granted ensures the task at hand (operation, Rx, etc.). And, you’ll have to concur that problems STILL arise w/ ‘gov’t oversight’ (malpractice, wrong scripts...); doesn’t mean it’s worth a hill of beans. What it DOES do, is keep the customers in-the-dark (expecting the ‘system’ to weed out the ‘bad’), and keep those with a penchant in those fields from ‘rocking the boat’. IE: Einstein would have been a bad math teacher ‘cause he didn’t have his certification??

1) Either the gov’t has that authority, or it does not. Sorry, it’s not a ‘in this case, yes, in others, no’.

2) See #1

2a) You really think mom/pop, to make a few extra $$ would jeopardize their vehicle, insurance rates, let alone word-of-mouth for their customers enough to REQUIRE a gov’t monopoly?? ‘Underage drinking’...only a problem in the U.S. (and that can be left up to the BIZ to enforce...it does NOT require a liquor license). Any co. would be penny wise pound foolish to sink MILLIONS into XYZ w/out validation re: impact studies. As if it takes the Army Corp of Engineers to get it ‘right’. The lawsuits and bad publicity alone could shut their doors. Just look at the super fund clean-up sites...OK’d by gov’t one day, ‘outlawed’ the next

3) No, I asked how, aside from the ineffective, broke and Unconstitutional SS (numer), how does not validate a prospective employee?? Let’s say they didn’t HAVE a passport, no drivers license (big city living). We already know the SSN wasn’t designed for identity, let alone the fraud already inherit in the system. When did it become ‘papers, please’ in the U.S.?

4) Vested interest or not, those jobs are NOT anyone’s BUT the employer (they pay the taxes, paycheck, etc.). Again, WHO, and by what authority, gives this ‘approved work force’??

4a) Reasonable requirement? Gov’t would same the same for the reams of regs, rules, Laws on the books. Let alone, in this instance, making all FREE Citizens a # in some gov’t DB...that’s not FREE anymore.

4b) Again, you propose it’s the gov’t position to ensure all Citizens are ‘valid to work’. Let’s not even go into them NOT enforcing the borders as it is, but, instead, heaping more B.S. upon biz and Citizens. Biz should be as much border enforcement as it is tax collector...that being ZERO.

4c) “Would it have to? No.” Not sure which party you’re talking about here :)

4d) The ‘tool’ in that case is ENFORCE THE CURRENT LAW(S) and REMOVE THE NANNY STATE/SECURITY NET....it’s not authorized by A1S8, and creates the carrot to break the law.

4e) Little over the top, but I’ll let is slide :P Yes, they only have the basics. Now, as to ‘no individual is harmed...’ What if I didn’t WANT it? What if I never signed up FOR it (is it now MANDATORY in the land of the Free?) You give gov’t authority it does not possess....Why not just implant at birth all ‘valid’ Citizens; then gov’t will make sure you can work, get paid, see the doc, etc.

Sorry, but you give gov’t more authority than it has, or deserves. Business is there to make a profit, make a product/provide a service. It’s NOT there to collect taxes for the gov’t, ensure gov’t didn’t let XYZ slip over the border, make sure their employees pay their bills on time, see the dentist every 6 months, etc.