Senate resuscitates immigration bill

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For the sake of the argument, let's just say that fraudulently establishing work eligibility in and of itself is not a criminal offense. Let's say that those that can legitimately demonstrate that they have not committed ID theft and paid all taxes due would be made eligible for an individual review of the merits of their case to remain in this country after paying a fine and fees and apply from outside the US, I might just jump on board. But that is not what the President and the Senate is looking to do. They want to roll out an amnesty that will include ID thieves, fugitives and all other kinds of undesirables. It's a blanket amnesty and that is jst a very bad idea.

I don't agree with a blanket amnesty - but I do see a case for a limited one based on certain conditions. Specifically for people who have been here a long time, have no criminal record and have significant demonstrable family and material ties to this country.

[Caladan 19]

Also, I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt unless advised otherwise by your doctor.... I think while the person's illegal status is still active after they've crossed the border, it's certainly not the case that they've crossed illegally several times.

And on the assumption that some illegals have committed identity theft and used it to obtain a job, I'm almost certain that's a one time/per employment offense. The Court just ruled that if my employer is discriminating against me (say, offering me lower pay), that the statute of limitations is indexed to the time when the behavior first occurs, not, say, every time a paycheck is printed. Meaning that if I wanted to sue for discrimination and I had six months to do it in, I'd have six months from the time of the first discrimination, even if it was ongoing.

It's dangerous to apply one case to another, but if something similar is going on here, they're not committing ID theft every time, just the first time they submitted the info. And in a lot of cases, no one ever asks for ID or receives a 1099, because the employer wants it under the table and the employee doesn't care. So no theft has occurred, and you're going to have a hell of a time proving tax evasion with work done in cash with no paperwork. This is going to be true regardless of the worker's nationality. And I'm prettty sure accepting work without proving your work authorization isn't a criminal offense (nor is hiring someone, unless you're a repeat offender.)

Probably all you're going to get the alien on is illegal presence and/or entry.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Also, I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt unless advised otherwise by your doctor.... I think while the person's illegal status is still active after they've crossed the border, it's certainly not the case that they've crossed illegally several times.

And on the assumption that some illegals have committed identity theft and used it to obtain a job, I'm almost certain that's a one time/per employment offense. The Court just ruled that if my employer is discriminating against me (say, offering me lower pay), that the statute of limitations is indexed to the time when the behavior first occurs, not, say, every time a paycheck is printed. Meaning that if I wanted to sue for discrimination and I had six months to do it in, I'd have six months from the time of the first discrimination, even if it was ongoing.

It's dangerous to apply one case to another, but if something similar is going on here, they're not committing ID theft every time, just the first time they submitted the info. And in a lot of cases, no one ever asks for ID or receives a 1099, because the employer wants it under the table and the employee doesn't care. So no theft has occurred, and you're going to have a hell of a time proving tax evasion with work done in cash with no paperwork. This is going to be true regardless of the worker's nationality. And I'm prettty sure accepting work without proving your work authorization isn't a criminal offense (nor is hiring someone, unless you're a repeat offender.)

Probably all you're going to get the alien on is illegal presence and/or entry.

That's as I see it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And if the employer doesn't ask for the I-9, which many don't, especially in the day laborer/short contract worker end of things, the employee hasn't had to present anything false. (Do you fill out an I-9 for the teenager who mows your lawn? Think he pays taxes?)

Think it's legal?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For the sake of the argument, let's just say that fraudulently establishing work eligibility in and of itself is not a criminal offense. Let's say that those that can legitimately demonstrate that they have not committed ID theft and paid all taxes due would be made eligible for an individual review of the merits of their case to remain in this country after paying a fine and fees and apply from outside the US, I might just jump on board. But that is not what the President and the Senate is looking to do. They want to roll out an amnesty that will include ID thieves, fugitives and all other kinds of undesirables. It's a blanket amnesty and that is jst a very bad idea.

I don't agree with a blanket amnesty - but I do see a case for a limited one based on certain conditions. Specifically for people who have been here a long time, have no criminal record and have significant demonstrable family and material ties to this country.

Like that Japanese lady that was discussed in the other thread who was kicked from the US and now lives apart from her husband separating a family of four? I would too. Those are not the one's that are about to benefit from the President's moronic plan that the Senate is considering at this point. The ID thieves and fugitives, however, are. That's why I oppose this shamnesty.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And in a lot of cases, no one ever asks for ID or receives a 1099, because the employer wants it under the table and the employee doesn't care. So no theft has occurred, and you're going to have a hell of a time proving tax evasion with work done in cash with no paperwork.

Just have them demonstrate how they sustained themselves in the US. Must have lived from something. Have them demonstrate what the source of income was, from where, how much, how that sufficed to sustain oneself and how it was taxed. It'd sure be fun to watch...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For the sake of the argument, let's just say that fraudulently establishing work eligibility in and of itself is not a criminal offense. Let's say that those that can legitimately demonstrate that they have not committed ID theft and paid all taxes due would be made eligible for an individual review of the merits of their case to remain in this country after paying a fine and fees and apply from outside the US, I might just jump on board. But that is not what the President and the Senate is looking to do. They want to roll out an amnesty that will include ID thieves, fugitives and all other kinds of undesirables. It's a blanket amnesty and that is jst a very bad idea.

I don't agree with a blanket amnesty - but I do see a case for a limited one based on certain conditions. Specifically for people who have been here a long time, have no criminal record and have significant demonstrable family and material ties to this country.

Like that Japanese lady that was discussed in the other thread who was kicked from the US and now lives apart from her husband separating a family of four? I would too. Those are not the one's that are about to benefit from the President's moronic plan that the Senate is considering at this point. The ID thieves and fugitives, however, are. That's why I oppose this shamnesty.

Do you extend that to people who came here illegally 25 years ago, and now have a legal USC family whom they are dependent on?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And in a lot of cases, no one ever asks for ID or receives a 1099, because the employer wants it under the table and the employee doesn't care. So no theft has occurred, and you're going to have a hell of a time proving tax evasion with work done in cash with no paperwork.

Just have them demonstrate how they sustained themselves in the US. Must have lived from something. Have them demonstrate what the source of income was, from where, how much, how that sufficed to sustain oneself and how it was taxed. It'd sure be fun to watch...

The trick there is without a definite record of entry you don't know how long a person has been here; and without a paper trail to prove employment they could have been here 6 years, 6 months or 6 days. Which goes back to the only thing that they can be definitively charged with - the illegal entry.

[Caladan 19]

And if the employer doesn't ask for the I-9, which many don't, especially in the day laborer/short contract worker end of things, the employee hasn't had to present anything false. (Do you fill out an I-9 for the teenager who mows your lawn? Think he pays taxes?)

Think it's legal?

No, but I don't think there's any penalty for the employee and as near as I can tell it's not a criminal or deportable offense just to work.

In any case, if the guy hasn't been asked for documentation, he hasn't shown fraudulent documentation in order to get hired. And I suggest that it's more common, even with LEGAL! citizens, than people are pretending. I'm pretty sure no one withheld social security taxes for me when I babysat in high school.

Nor do I think it's a provable offense in most cases. A lot of it is off the books, even when everyone involved is legal. So you're going to have to prove a taxable transaction took place. I'd be willing to bet in a lot of cases, this is going to be hard to prove, so if you're resting your argument for mass deportation on that, I think it's a little trickier than that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My company doesn't seem too concerned to follow up on these things - I didn't submit my I-751 NOA until after my GC had expired. No one asked me to provide it.

[Caladan 19]

And in a lot of cases, no one ever asks for ID or receives a 1099, because the employer wants it under the table and the employee doesn't care. So no theft has occurred, and you're going to have a hell of a time proving tax evasion with work done in cash with no paperwork.

Just have them demonstrate how they sustained themselves in the US. Must have lived from something. Have them demonstrate what the source of income was, from where, how much, how that sufficed to sustain oneself and how it was taxed. It'd sure be fun to watch...

On what grounds? First off, you can't just order people to give up their income records, so you'd have to have some reason to suspect them. Though I'd laugh my ### off if you started with the trust fund brats on the grounds there's no way they live like that without working.

Second, if you're going to argue that they committed tax evasion, you need specific, documented amounts, not just 'well they have a house they mustuv.' And third, fine, you say, 'how'd you get the money?' I say, 'I've owned this house for a while and I just crossed the border six days ago. My money's from working in Mexico.'

No paper trail, no go.

My company doesn't seem too concerned to follow up on these things - I didn't submit my I-751 NOA until after my GC had expired. No one asked me to provide it.

C.'s employer didn't ask. We photocopied it for them anyway, but if he were here without work authorization they wouldn't have cared.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For the sake of the argument, let's just say that fraudulently establishing work eligibility in and of itself is not a criminal offense. Let's say that those that can legitimately demonstrate that they have not committed ID theft and paid all taxes due would be made eligible for an individual review of the merits of their case to remain in this country after paying a fine and fees and apply from outside the US, I might just jump on board. But that is not what the President and the Senate is looking to do. They want to roll out an amnesty that will include ID thieves, fugitives and all other kinds of undesirables. It's a blanket amnesty and that is jst a very bad idea.

I don't agree with a blanket amnesty - but I do see a case for a limited one based on certain conditions. Specifically for people who have been here a long time, have no criminal record and have significant demonstrable family and material ties to this country.

Like that Japanese lady that was discussed in the other thread who was kicked from the US and now lives apart from her husband separating a family of four? I would too. Those are not the one's that are about to benefit from the President's moronic plan that the Senate is considering at this point. The ID thieves and fugitives, however, are. That's why I oppose this shamnesty.

Do you extend that to people who came here illegally 25 years ago, and now have a legal USC family whom they are dependent on?

Depends on the specifics of the case. If that person can demonstrate w/o question that other than entering without inspection at some distant point in the past (s)he has played by the (major) rules and contributed to this nation, I might just be tempted to consider. There ain't many this would apply to, though.

That said, whatever the benchmark is going to be to fall under the shamnesty if it happens, there will be document fabrication galore in America where people will scramble all they can to make it appear that they are eligible to benefit from the amnesty. No doubt this will happen.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My company doesn't seem too concerned to follow up on these things - I didn't submit my I-751 NOA until after my GC had expired. No one asked me to provide it.

No-one needs to ask. I tend to think they're not supposed to ask. You're not referred to as a "permanent" resident for no reason.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Point is they had my GC on file - together with the expiry date. Granted its a needle in a haystack for HR - but seems to me a company should be aware of limitations on working eligibility and the potential liability they could face for not checking.

[Caladan 19]

Wait, if they're not supposed to ask, how are they supposed to know that he's a permanent resident?