I dared not believe my eyes when I read this:
“Employers across the country are preparing to fire workers with questionable Social Security numbers to avoid getting snagged in a Bush administration crackdown on illegal immigrants…The Department of Homeland Security is expected to make public soon new rules for employers notified when their worker’s name or Social Security number was flagged by the Social Security Administration.†(Source)
So George Bush’s mega-billion-dollar agency is, at long last, doing something useful.
According to the article, employees with “questionable” Social Security numbers will have 60 days after notification to resolve the issue. If they can’t, employers must fire them or face fines ranging from $250 to $10,000 per illegal.
To get a handle on illegal “immigration,†we must go to the main source of the problem. I’ve ranted often enough about illegal aliens on this blog, but now’s the time to focus on businesses and individuals who hire illegal aliens.
If the executive branch does its job and actually enforces immigration laws, it would go a long way toward stemming the tide of foreigners crossing the border or overstaying visas, if the effort is combined with cutting off welfare to non-citizens. (No welfare for legal residents, either.) With no means of support, perhaps they’ll go home and try to return the legal way.
One can only hope.
Related posts:
Check out The Stein Report.
Update II (11:50 a.m.): Sean McHugh, spokesman for Swift & Company, e-mailed this canned press release (PDF) in non-responsive response to my question about why Swift hires illegal aliens in violation of federal law. It’s mostly a CYA piece of fluff that assures investors and clients that production is back on track and reminds everyone else that no criminal or civil charges have been filed against Swift.
Update (10:13 a.m.): Michelle Malkin reports: “One of the victims [of the raid identity theft] was a Border Patrol agent!”
—————————————————————
Yesterday, federal agents arrested a bunch of illegal aliens working for meat-packing plants owned by Swift & Company after an 11-month identity theft investigation.
(I contacted their media person for comment. I don’t expect to hear back, though.)
But it’s all for show. Why? Unless the government “cracks down” on employers and give them heavy disincentives to hiring illegal aliens, the whole thing’s meaningless.
Whoever does the hiring at these plants has to know by now that non-English speaking, Spanish-speaking people seeking jobs there likely are illegal aliens. At the very least, they need to be trained to spot fake Social Security cards and other documents.
The federal government must change the way it operates, too. There is no coordination between the various agencies, and that makes tracking down illegal aliens more difficult. From the article:
[click to continue…]
Update: State governments are getting the message. The federal government is a too-powerful, pork-laden bureaucracy with little accountability. It certainly doesn’t help matters that the White House is sending mixed signals with a strong “war on terror” mantra and weak border and interior enforcement efforts. Talk, as they say, is cheap.
———————————————————————————
Big government is expensive, wasteful, and inefficient, and most social programs are vulnerable to fraud and abuse. That’s my off-the-cuff opinion, and I’m sure many intelligent people would agree.
I stumbled upon a story in the Washington Times about a recent audit report issued by the Office of the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration, Employers With The Most Wage Items In The NonWork Alien File (PDF).
Since 2003, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has issued “nonwork” Social Security numbers (SSN) to foreigners who aren’t allowed to work in the United States but need to collect welfare(?). According to the audit report, a nonwork SSN card indicates on its face that the holder may not use the card for employment purposes.
[click to continue…]
Whenever citizens are prevented from doing something (like keeping the money they earn), the government is exerting its control. In the case of prohibiting murder or injury to another, it’s a good thing. Removing criminals from society and protecting citizens is how the state’s power is most effectively flexed. This is for the benefit not just of the state but citizens as well.
Where the state’s power is most effective for itself but least effective for us is in exerting control over our ownership rights in the form of excessive regulation (land use, for example), burdensome taxes and gun control.
An argument can be made that the social security system is burdensome and broken and infringes on our freedom and ownership rights. Slavery was burdensome (to the slave) and broken and infringed on people’s freedom and “self-ownership” rights. Just as slavery was abolished, social security should be abolished. Is that line of reasoning a stretch?
Abolishing social security would be radical, wouldn’t it? The idea of outlawing slavery was once radical, too. Imagine that. Free Negroes walking around. There are so many ways we can go with this, but I’ll let you do that in the comments. Read Star Parker’s take on the issue:
Am I pushing the envelope too far to suggest that there is common ground between the politics of slavery and the politics of Social Security?
When moral problems are transformed into politics, we can find surprising similarities in issues that otherwise might seem worlds apart….
Listening to the case for transforming Social Security to a regime of personal ownership is simple and compelling. The numbers no longer add up in our current system. Personal accounts would allow ownership and wealth creation. If we had to start from scratch, no one would want the system we now have. If the case is so clear, why isn’t it simple to change?
Good question. Anybody know the answer?
Star’s book, Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can Do About It, is a good read. I’ve blogged it (and Star) several times here and here.
Update (1:52 p.m.): I just got off the phone with Kevin McCullough, and we talked about this post (That’s what I like about radio interviews. The discussion at hand always leads to other topics. We talked briefly about Easongate and mostly about social security.) I was writing this post while I was on hold.
As we talked about social security, I realized that many people don’t want the system overhauled because it’s scary. With private accounts, we’ll assume control over our own retirement. I’m sure President Bush’s plan includes an option to keep the money safe in government bonds and such, as well as an option to invest in risky ventures, like the stock market.
If you have a 401(k) account, you already have an idea of what it takes to keep your nest egg relatively safe, so reforming social security shouldn’t be viewed as radical.
Unrelated Update II (3:23 p.m.): Visit the new CPAC Bloggers site.
Update III (5:25 p.m.): Kevin McCullough is interviewed on a show called ReachOUT.org. He talks about his faith, his radio show, blog, etc. It’s very good.
Professor Bainbridge on social security.
Update II (1/6): Must-read post on slave reparations and taxes by Casey Lartigue.
———————————————————————-
“Would liberals support Social Security reform if they thought of it as reparations for blacks?”
Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, asks a question I’d never thought of asking white liberals. Yet it seems so obvious. Liberals support “reparations” and any other idiotic idea complaining blacks come up with. I’ve always argued that blacks are receiving reparations: welfare, entitlements and all manner of skin color preferences.
As we all know, if the old baby boomers aren’t breaking us now, they will be very soon. President Bush is trying to help us out. Under his plan, we’d get to invest part of our wages instead of throwing it down the black hole that is the government. In fact, it is a conservative trait to advocate that people keep more of their earnings. It’s a liberal trait to advocate that government not only take more of your money but force you to give it to people who have less, whether they have a job or not.
[click to continue…]
