Holy Crap - The Revolution is about to start

[Emily Lake]

How about the employer knowingly participating in Social Security fraud.

Technically, perhaps. But arguing "you've committed SS fraud by... *checks notes*... giving us too much money" seems unlikely to grow legs.

 

[ZiprHead]

How about the employer knowingly participating in Social Security fraud.

Technically, perhaps. But arguing "you've committed SS fraud by... *checks notes*... giving us too much money" seems unlikely to grow legs.

It's still fraud and the employer is participating in it. Do you want employers punished for hiring illegals or not?

 

[Emily Lake]

How about the employer knowingly participating in Social Security fraud.

Technically, perhaps. But arguing "you've committed SS fraud by... *checks notes*... giving us too much money" seems unlikely to grow legs.

It's still fraud and the employer is participating in it. Do you want employers punished for hiring illegals or not?

I do, but I'm also pretty pragmatic. This seems like a strategy that won't be particularly successful.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

But is it cooperation or identity theft? One might be legal and we have no good procedure in place to figure out which one.

How about the employer knowingly participating in Social Security fraud.

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But is it cooperation or identity theft? One might be legal and we have no good procedure in place to figure out which one.

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?

That's for law enforcement to deal with, not the employer. I'm asking what action the employer should take.

 

[TomC]

That's for law enforcement to deal with, not the employer. I'm asking what action the employer should take.

Same thing an adult should do before having sex.
Be safe or suffer the consequences of making a bad decision.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about the employer knowingly participating in Social Security fraud.

Technically, perhaps. But arguing "you've committed SS fraud by... *checks notes*... giving us too much money" seems unlikely to grow legs.

It's still fraud and the employer is participating in it. Do you want employers punished for hiring illegals or not?

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.

 

[Shadowy Man]

But is it cooperation or identity theft? One might be legal and we have no good procedure in place to figure out which one.

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?

That's for law enforcement to deal with, not the employer. I'm asking what action the employer should take.

The employer should take due diligence and they can use that as their defense in court.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But is it cooperation or identity theft? One might be legal and we have no good procedure in place to figure out which one.

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?

That's for law enforcement to deal with, not the employer. I'm asking what action the employer should take.

The employer should take due diligence and they can use that as their defense in court.

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.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

But is it cooperation or identity theft? One might be legal and we have no good procedure in place to figure out which one.

How about the employer knowingly participating in Social Security fraud.

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.

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.

 

[Elixir]

All of them, including the employer are guilty of SS fraud

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”.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

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.