• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Holy Crap - The Revolution is about to start

 
 
 
Emily Lake said:
ZiprHead said:
How about the employer knowingly participating in Social Security fraud.
Click to expand...
Technically, perhaps. But arguing "you've committed SS fraud by... *checks notes*... giving us too much money" seems unlikely to grow legs.
Click to expand...
It's still fraud and the employer is participating in it. Do you want employers punished for hiring illegals or not?
 
ZiprHead said:
Emily Lake said:
ZiprHead said:
How about the employer knowingly participating in Social Security fraud.
Click to expand...
Technically, perhaps. But arguing "you've committed SS fraud by... *checks notes*... giving us too much money" seems unlikely to grow legs.
Click to expand...
It's still fraud and the employer is participating in it. Do you want employers punished for hiring illegals or not?
Click to expand...
I do, but I'm also pretty pragmatic. This seems like a strategy that won't be particularly successful.
 
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Elixir said:
Well, if they’re using a SS# that is already in use by another of your employees…
There are probably other ways as well. The biggest problem is that it is strongly in the interest of bulk employers of “illegals” to remain as clueless as possible about their employees’ immigration status.
Click to expand...
But is it cooperation or identity theft? One might be legal and we have no good procedure in place to figure out which one.
Click to expand...
How about the employer knowingly participating in Social Security fraud.
Click to expand...
The point is what do you do about it? 6 are clearly in the wrong--but you can't tell which 6. And it's probably not something the higher-ups were actively looking for.
 
Shadowy Man said:
Loren Pechtel said:
But is it cooperation or identity theft? One might be legal and we have no good procedure in place to figure out which one.
Click to expand...
We have the court system. Why is that not a “good procedure” to use? If the prosecutor can prove cooperation, or at least negligence, why wouldn’t that be an appropriate venue to “figure out” what’s happening?
Click to expand...
That's for law enforcement to deal with, not the employer. I'm asking what action the employer should take.
 
ZiprHead said:
Emily Lake said:
ZiprHead said:
How about the employer knowingly participating in Social Security fraud.
Click to expand...
Technically, perhaps. But arguing "you've committed SS fraud by... *checks notes*... giving us too much money" seems unlikely to grow legs.
Click to expand...
It's still fraud and the employer is participating in it. Do you want employers punished for hiring illegals or not?
Click to expand...
The problem comes down to our system is messed up.

The employer might suspect that somebody is an illegal but if they present proper documentation how are they supposed to know? And we specify what documents are acceptable and do not expect employers to detect fraudulent ones as asking that of them ends up being discriminating against immigrants, period, because they take the better safe than sorry approach.

And our system has a big problem with identity theft. Trying to enforce checks against a government database ends up with them working on stolen identities rather than completely fraudulent ones. You make the fallout worse. We need to back up and solve identity theft first--but we are doing very little in that regard. We get government obsession about every detail matching which causes headaches for a lot of people with minor flaws in their history (for example, the hyphen that snuck into my wife's name) but it does nothing about identity theft.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Shadowy Man said:
Loren Pechtel said:
But is it cooperation or identity theft? One might be legal and we have no good procedure in place to figure out which one.
Click to expand...
We have the court system. Why is that not a “good procedure” to use? If the prosecutor can prove cooperation, or at least negligence, why wouldn’t that be an appropriate venue to “figure out” what’s happening?
Click to expand...
That's for law enforcement to deal with, not the employer. I'm asking what action the employer should take.
Click to expand...
The employer should take due diligence and they can use that as their defense in court.
 
Shadowy Man said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Shadowy Man said:
Loren Pechtel said:
But is it cooperation or identity theft? One might be legal and we have no good procedure in place to figure out which one.
Click to expand...
We have the court system. Why is that not a “good procedure” to use? If the prosecutor can prove cooperation, or at least negligence, why wouldn’t that be an appropriate venue to “figure out” what’s happening?
Click to expand...
That's for law enforcement to deal with, not the employer. I'm asking what action the employer should take.
Click to expand...
The employer should take due diligence and they can use that as their defense in court.
Click to expand...
The state should define what due diligence they should use. But, wait, they do--it's called the I-9. If it's inadequate then look at what should be done to make it more effective.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Elixir said:
Well, if they’re using a SS# that is already in use by another of your employees…
There are probably other ways as well. The biggest problem is that it is strongly in the interest of bulk employers of “illegals” to remain as clueless as possible about their employees’ immigration status.
Click to expand...
But is it cooperation or identity theft? One might be legal and we have no good procedure in place to figure out which one.
Click to expand...
How about the employer knowingly participating in Social Security fraud.
Click to expand...
The point is what do you do about it? 6 are clearly in the wrong--but you can't tell which 6. And it's probably not something the higher-ups were actively looking for.
Click to expand...
Jeez, this is not that hard. All of them, including the employer are guilty of SS fraud because none of them are the person associated to the number being used, and they know they aren't. And has been stated upthread, the employer knows this is happening. That is participating in the fraud.
 
ZiprHead said:
All of them, including the employer are guilty of SS fraud
Click to expand...
Lock ‘em up! Lock ‘em ALL up!!
Chicken at $15/lb is a small price to pay to get rid of The Illegals!

Seriously, this problem has been MADE intentionally intractable by employers, and allowed by politicos to avoid having their heads set on pikes in protest of the effects of “solving the problem”.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
The problem comes down to our system is messed up.

The employer might suspect that somebody is an illegal but if they present proper documentation how are they supposed to know? And we specify what documents are acceptable and do not expect employers to detect fraudulent ones as asking that of them ends up being discriminating against immigrants, period, because they take the better safe than sorry approach.

And our system has a big problem with identity theft. Trying to enforce checks against a government database ends up with them working on stolen identities rather than completely fraudulent ones. You make the fallout worse. We need to back up and solve identity theft first--but we are doing very little in that regard. We get government obsession about every detail matching which causes headaches for a lot of people with minor flaws in their history (for example, the hyphen that snuck into my wife's name) but it does nothing about identity theft.
Click to expand...
Totally can't stop those 15 year olds from drinking at the local bar either. I mean, they've got an ID right? IT's way too much to ask the bouncer to evaluate whether it's likely to be a fake id or not... that would end up in them discriminating against young looking people.

Note that this is a commentary on the integrity of your argument, not the intent nor the substance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom