But this bit of D.C. sausagemaking that Joel points out gives me the creeping willies. When you think about it, the right to say whether a person is allowed to hold a job or not is perilously close to having the right to tell them whether or not they can exist. Where have I read something like that before? Oh, yeah...
"And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." -Revelation 13:17Because I believe in going Godwin early and often, might I suggest that, rather than having special cards for all of us employable citizens to carry around in wallets already overcrowded with driver's licenses, social security cards, and toter's permits, why don't we get the graphic designers to work on some snazzy and eye-catching little patch that all the unemployables have to wear so that we know who they are?
21 comments:
Note that it is a Republican pushing the initiative and the vote was along party lines. Amazing.
It is almost like they got toghether and decided the Democrats would enact all the taxes and social controls, and the Republicans would be in charge of enforecement.
russell1200,
This is one of those things that is a natural pitch to conservatives, because it's sold as a measure to fight them illegal aliens.
It's amazing how well that sales pitch still works: "This law will only be used to fight (mobsters/drug kingpins/commie spies/terr'ists/illegal aliens)!"
Small business owners can pay themselves a salary (subject to FICA), or take a distribution of the company's profits (not subject to FICA). The IRS likes to attack owners that pay themselves too little salary and take too large a distribution; your salary needs to be "typical" so that sufficient FICA is paid (as judged by IRS whim).
So, if I am not eligible for a salary, then I can't take too little! I save a bundle on FICA taxes!
Stupid laws can work to your advantage, ya just gotta work it right.
samsam von Virginia
I think you're right, and we haven't seen the tip of the iceberg on enforcement of this one...
Instead of lawmakers, shouldn't they be called criminalmakers? That's all they tend to do anymore is pass stuff that makes more people criminals.
And yes, much like all the post 9/11 "security" laws, I'm sure they'll only use this to fight the hordes from Mexico that actually want to work unlike the dipshit occupier crowd. I propose a plan, we send one occupier South for every Mexican that comes North.
Problems. Solved.
Any way we can put an I.Q requirement into this system and Test Drive it on the Politicians? "I'm sorry, Sen. Dumbo, but ePolitify says you're too Frackin' Stoopid to remain in Office. See Ya!"
Seriously, this system has been in place for years. It started under Bush the Younger, and it's "Voluntary" for now, but you notice that the Anointed One did not get rid of it when Barry,Harry and Nancy controlled the Gooberment, either.
So do you want your Barcode Tattooed on your left or right wrist? And do you want Fries with that?
< Voluntary for now>
That is IF you are a contractor and DON'T want to get projects from city, state or federal sources..... and not work for General Contractors who already have such contracts! We HAVE to supply the E-Verify certification to just be able to BID these jobs... let alone win a bid and get the contracts signed!
Nothing new for me. I'd like to exchange my labor for substance, but the men with guns who claim the moral authority to shoot me have declared it a crime. It's just finally catching up with everyone else.
What about the kid you pay to mow your lawn (or shovel snow)?
Is he being employed, or is a self-employed businessman doing contract work?
I'll take "Growing the Underground Economy" for a thousand, Alex.
WV: "fidons" -- Fundamental dog particle.
In 1986, the Gov't traded amnesty for employment verification; the I-9 process. The I-9 process forced employers to become immigration officers and make new hires prove employment status or suffer stiff fines (up to $50K) This has been going on for 25 years. E-verify is the next logical step in the age of the intarw3bz. It wasn't right in 1986, but the potential for E-verify abuse is strong in this one.
Oh, wow. A kid sister to the secret "no fly" list, where it is illegal to ask if you are on the "don't hire" list, or why your name pops up, even if it refers to someone else's antics.
I figure the right thing to do is find all them illegals that have been here five years or more, or employed a year or more, make them legal so they get the same wage scale as legal Americans. That will fix those scavenging, greedy employers that are, uh, giving a guy a break? (How many high schoolers and others, born in the US and raised here, cannot hold a job for 12 months? Yes, some do manage to impress their employer. Others, not so much.)
Wouldn't making regular jobs simpler, less complicated or expensive, mean there would be less need for under-the-table, cash-only, don't tell the IRS kind of work? Forget the drug testing -- let employers fire someone incompetent, rude, or under the influence (maybe charged with under the influence in public, since we don't have an expectation of privacy in the workplace? How many professional athletes and celebrities go to prison for drug abuse?).
Why punish an employer willing to risk legal consequences to hire someone that gets the work done? I am not Amish, I don't need the Bishops to come around and tell me who I can talk to and hire.
Frankly, I am tired of the Union bigotry about Hispanics taking Union jobs. I have both for neighbors. The union guys are kind of okay.
As Anon 9:09 said, this is nothing new at all -- it's just more electronickified than the current system.
If the law is wrong, it's wrong. That it hasn't been enforced well is no excuse.
The danger of a Mitt Romney Administration is that he'll use his (impressive) administrative skills to make the government trains run on time.
What about the kid you pay to mow your lawn (or shovel snow)? Is he being employed, or is a self-employed businessman doing contract work?
Silly, he's doing it for free, out of the goodness of his heart. You, impressed by his generosity, offer him a gift of cash, which he humbly and gratefully accepts. See?
I've gotta say, though, that it's a bit of a comedown, when you've just finished explicitly comparing the state to Satan, to then implicitly compare it to Hitler.
E-verify fails the Jews in the Attic test, and therefore must be opposed.
To obtain that card you will also have to illustrate you will join any unions applicable in the job.
Those that are allowed to work will be those who voted for the party in power.
Gotta go with Erin on this one, it fails the 'Jews in the Attic' test, in addition to being wrong for so many other reasons. There are so many things to fix on the illegal immigration issue that it astonishes me that this bozo would pick this as his solution. His idea is a definite win for the Democrats. I'd be happy if they just sealed the border - keep out illegals and terrorists, a two-fer. Then worry about how to deal with the illegals already here. Without this kind of stupid Nazi-like crap.
how about an 'eye catching eye patch that would be really easy to see. kinda like a pirate.
I'm sure I've seen just such a patch somewhere before, Tam... lemme think. Oh, right... it was that cute little yellow Star of David. I think they might have used pink triangles, too.
Post a Comment