Replies

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.

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.