April 4, 2006

A Tale of Two Cities

Hatched by Dafydd

I won't say this is my last word on immigration reform, because something interesting might crop up. But I'll be loath to post anything more unless I think of a totally different angle.

An article by Herbert Meyer (via RealClearPolitics blog) notes a distinction I only recently internalized: the difference between immigrants and guests.

The distinction is simple to explain but profound in its implications:

  • An immigrant wants to renounce his citizenship in his country of origin (usually birth but not always) and become an American;
  • A guest wants only to visit for a time; this includes tourists, students, and workers (legal and illegal). A guest worker, of course, wants to come here and work, then go back home.

These two groups create two radically different "cities," which can exist in the same physical space: on the right hand, a city of foreigners who are really just Americans in training, who think and act as much like Americans as they can; and on the left hand, a city of foreigner who like being foreign, who don't like America or Americans, who may even seethe in resentment that the American Southwest was "stolen" from Mexico (to which it actually never belonged) -- a city of people marching in the streets waving Mexican flags and holding signs that say "this is MY continent!"

The immigration debate, then, is a tale of two cities; and which city you see determines which side you're on. But if we look a little closer, close enough to determine fine distinctions, we discover that it's really one city after all. Only then can we slip carefully through the barbed wire to create a plan to satisfy both camps in Congress.

Terrorists are rarely immigrants; there is too much scrutiny, too many background checks. They normally come as tourists or students, or they just sneak across the border. Guests are the biggest security risk; immigrants, even when here illegally, are the most valuable of the people seeking admission to the country.

The most important issue related to any of this is protecting the border. While I believe that no wall can work without first separating out those people -- immigrant and guest -- who come here for benign reasons from those who come here for malicious reasons... it is equally true that no such reformation of the rules can work unless you control the borders. Otherwise, everyone you don't want to admit will just sneak in anyway. Realistically, the two programs must be done simultaneously, like lifting ourselves by tugging on our own bootstraps.

Once the borders are better controlled, though, my first concern is towards regularizing and rationalizing our immigration system; doing the same for guests (including guest workers) can come later. So if we had to drop one or the other from the bill currently slithering its way through the Senate, I would prefer to lose the guest-worker program than immigration reform.

Ideally, I want all four programs: border security, immigration reform, a better managed guest-worker program -- and regularization of those immigrants already here illegally, but whom we would otherwise be happy to admit under the reformed immigration system. But the guest-worker program is least important of those four.

Which is good, because it appears one of the most contentious. I doubt that anyone, not even Tom-Tom Tancredo, would raise a serious objection to rationalizing the immigration system: making a clear path to citizenship encourages exactly the sort of committed immigrants we need. Nobody can be in favor of an arbitrary system where applicants have no clue what they're supposed to do to become citizens.

And the only people who could possibly oppose better border control are politicians who hope to be reelected on the illegal votes of non-citizens (the Sanchez Sisters spring to mind).

The big divide occurs over the last two problems: guest workerss and people already here illegally (guests or immigrants). These are two partially overlapping groups, but it's easiest to split them into three groups: guest workers here legally; illegal workers; and illegal immigrants:

  1. How many legal guests should we allow? All who want to come; only those who we determine, to the best of our ability, are not threats; a predefined number of those we determine are not threats; or none at all?
  2. What do we do with people who are already here illegally but have no interest in living here permanently?

I don't believe there is much to argue about these two categories. First, we come to agreement on how many legal guest workers to admit; any question of numbers can be compromised (that's what Congress does best).

After settling that point, it's easy to deal with the next: if enough guest workers can enter legally, then we can drop the hammer on employers who hire people still coming illegally. That should drastically reduce this group, because if the workers can't get jobs, they'll go home (where it's much cheaper to live).

The big, tough question is the third:

  1. What do we do about the millions of people who are here illegally -- but only because our immigration system is so screwed up, they can't get in legally, even though there is nothing wrong with them: they're sane, decent, honest, hard-working people who only want a better life for themselves and their families. This number is far less than the 12 million we hear about, because many of those are Cat-2 (illegal workers), not Cat-3 (illegal immigrants).

We're talking here about people who would be happy to immigrate here legally, following all the rules and jumping through all the hoops -- except that we have such a wretched system, they can't figure out what to do. They keep being rebuffed, but nobody will tell them why or what they can do to fix the problem or make themselves more attractive applicants. In desperation, they sneak in or overstay a student or tourist visa.

And even here, the main bone of contention seems to be pretty simple: the McCain-Kennedy camp wants to be able to regularize them in situ, after they pay a fine and all back taxes; but the Cornyn camp wants them to do all that, but still be required to return to their country of origin and then be readmitted here legally.

I think the reason the McCainiacs (which includes me on this one, special issue) are so opposed to forcing the illegal immigrants -- and I do mean immigrants, not workers -- to return and then try to be readmitted is their sneaking suspicion (which I share) that what the Cornynites really want is to trick them into returning to their countries of origin... so they can say "ha ha, you're never getting back in... never!"

Clearly, that same fear will occur to illegal immigrants. Without some sort of legal assurances, they won't leave; they would rather stay here illegally than return "home" without any hope of being allowed back into what they consider their real home, the United States.

If your goal is to get illegal immigrants to exit and then be readmitted legally, you must guarantee they will, in fact, be readmitted, assuming nothing disqualifying arises during the reentry security checks. Without such assurance, the reentry provision is just a poison pill to kill the whole deal, and the demand for it is dishonest.

The traditional response, that guaranteeing readmission provides an incentive for future immigrants to come here illegally, is a non-sequitur; since we're rationalizing the process anyway, it's easier for a person of good character to come legally than sneak across and hope for another piece of legislation down the road. And if the person is not of good character, they wouldn't be readmitted anyway.

Assuming everybody is honest, here then is a broad outline of a bill that would actually pass:

  1. We control the borders by a combination of a real wall, an electronic wall created by advanced technology, and beefed up border- and law-enforcement agencies.
  2. We decide how many guest workers (who can pass the threat firewall) we will admit legally, then make it easier for them to move through the steps than it currently is. The number should be higher than it is right now, since the number of illegal who can get jobs here indicates we're not admitting enough legals.
  3. We tighten the noose around employers who hire illegals anyway... those not satisfied with cheap legal guest workers and want to maximize profits by hiring even cheaper illegal workers. We require employers to verify the status using the systemI wrote about earlier (like verifying a credit-card payment but with embedded photo and biometric information).
  4. We rationalize the path to citizenship for immigrants. It can be long and arduous, but so long as they can see that they're making progress, they'll continue along it. Remove all race-based and country-of-origin-based quotas; if you want to control the numbers, use a point system based upon individual attainments or family situations.
  5. Finally, we make all illegal immigrants first exit the country and then apply for readmission legally (after paying appropriate fines and back-taxes)... but we guarantee that if nothing untoward pops up during the reentry security checks, they will be readmitted; otherwise, they have no incentive to leave.

And with that, I believe you can get sixty senators and a majority in the House.

Big Lizards: solving society's scaley conundrums in the blogosphere!

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, April 4, 2006, at the time of 7:42 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/632

Comments

The following hissed in response by: levi from queens

Also -- all guest workers and immigrants must register and inform the INS (or whomever, it could be a state agency) when they change address of employment; they must acquire automobile insurance for all automobiles and health insurance for all family members. Then I think you have a full solution.

The above hissed in response by: levi from queens [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 4, 2006 7:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: Fritz

This is my first comment on your site. All I can say is this has to be one of the best and most thoughtful pieces on the problem I've seen. I recently discovered your site from Powerline and I'm glad I did. Keep hissing away. Also I love your sense of humor. I sometimes find myself laughing uncontrolably over some of your choices of words and phrasing. You manage to get some of your digs in most slyly.

The above hissed in response by: Fritz [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 4, 2006 11:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Finally, we make all illegal immigrants first exit the country and then apply for readmission legally (after paying appropriate fines and back-taxes)... but we guarantee that if nothing untoward pops up during the reentry security checks, they will be readmitted; otherwise, they have no incentive to leave.
*************************************************
That is the part which I see as the most difficult.
I also am for a guarantee of return for those who report and go back to the country of origin to register for re-entry, for THEM I would give a citizen track. I did waffle and came to the conclusion for it to work, the guest worker program without a citizen track would be advisable for those willing to register, but not wanting to return immediately. That would have a limited duration, not lead to citizenship,

For those cities that wish to be "Sanctuaries"?

Compete cutoff of ALL Federal Funds and then we talk about "aiding and abetting" evasion of the Law.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 4, 2006 11:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: thumper

My first comment on your site as well. I also made it a fav and have been reading it everyday for the past couple of weeks. Very good stuff, indeed.
I like your last five points. I'd vote for a bill that does that. I would only change one thing. Let's show immigrants what they are working towards. Let's start within the first year having classes for them in English, civics classes, and giving them a point system for achieving citizenship. Then let's send them once a year (or have online) their scores and show them how close they are to making America their new home. Sure it will cost. But if we get more local civic and religious groups involved we also help the community understand our new neighbors.
We can't let the politicians turn this into another polictical football they will use for their own benefit. This is the best opportunity I've ever seen for America to take our country back from the politicians who look out for only themselves and their lobbyst's interests.

The above hissed in response by: thumper [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 5, 2006 4:18 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

A guest wants only to visit for a time; this includes tourists, students, and workers (legal and illegal)
***************************************************
I have the firm belief that words mean specific things, not always what we want them to and there seems to be a trend these days to distort the meaning of words to fill assumptions.

The word guest can be no stretch of the imagination include the concept Illegal guest.

There are other words to describe one who enters somewhere illegal and without permission.

Guest is not one of them.

Such thinking and semantics is aligned with the concepts perporting that Illegal Aliens have rights.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 5, 2006 5:01 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dan Kauffman:

Such thinking and semantics is aligned with the concepts perporting that Illegal Aliens have rights.

Of course they have rights, Dan; or do you think that when you find one, you can strangle him and take his wallet?

The word "rights" has a specific meaning too... and even illegal aliens have many of them. They don't have the right to stay here if they're caught; but they certainly have the right, for example, to a fair trial if they're accused of committing a crime.

I used the word "guest" because I wanted one word to mean a person only planning a temporary stay, and I didn't want to type a seven-word phrase every time I made reference to such. I made very clear what I meant.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 5, 2006 5:43 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

I stand corrected yes they do have rights, but they seem to be claiming MORE rights than you enumerated including the right to be here whether we wish them too or not and I still maintain that

a person planning a temporary stay illegally is not a guest, a burglar an invader but not a guest


That is in keeping with my dislike for seeing words changed into something they are not.

You knew what I meant too, but I take your point my wording was sloppy.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 5, 2006 6:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

I think my reaction to your use of the word guest was influenced by read this

Demand Full Rights for Immigrants!
¡Exijo Derechos Plenos para los Inmigrantes!

English: I demand full rights and equality for all immigrants living in the United States. Neoliberal economic policies targeting Latin America, like NAFTA and CAFTA, have pushed millions of people into abject poverty. Immigrants are forced to come to the U.S. to look for work. Nobody should be criminalized for attempting to survive. No human being is illegal. Racism against immigrants emanates from the same forces behind the U.S. war to conquer and control the wealth of Iraq.

Español: Exijo derechos e igualdad completa para todos los inmigrantes que viven en los Estados Unidos. Las políticas económicas neo-liberales impuestas en Latino América, como el CAFTA y NAFTA han forzado a millones de personas a vivir en condiciones de pobreza y olvido. Son estas políticas económicas las que obligan a los inmigrantes a venir a los Estados Unidos en busca de empleo. Ningún ser humano debe ser criminalizado por simple hecho de tratar de sobrevivir. El racismo en contra de los inmigrantes, proviene del mismo lugar donde se genera la guerra de ocupación en contra de Irak, la cual es una guerra para controlar los recursos de ese país.

on the ANSWER website.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 5, 2006 6:10 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

A great many of these undocumented workers came here legally and simply overstayed their visas, I think I read that INS out those numbers at about 33% of the undocumented foreigners in the country, not all of them came over the border.

I do agree that there is a difference in guest and immigrant. Some folks just want to make some money and then go home. And many of these people do work for a living, they are not all drug dealers or criminals. And to be truthful we don't know exactly how many illegals there are here at any given time. I think people tend to throw numbers around without really knowing if they are true or not. We all do that to some extent.

I think you have a good plan and I appreciate the reasonable tone you take. It is such a refreshing change from the hysterical stuff I see and hear on so many other blogs.

levi said make them get health insurance, I disagree. More than 40 million Americans don't have it and it is too expensive to think all these people could afford to get health insurance even if they wanted to.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 5, 2006 12:51 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dan Kauffman:

All right, let's go one at a time here. First, of course you're right that illegal aliens don't have the "right" to be here; nobody has the inherent right to be here but native-born Americans; and naturalized citizens have a qualified right to be here (unless they do something egregious enough -- such as lying on their citizenship application -- to be denaturalized).

Second, yes, the marchers are stupid and counterproductive. But in fact, the marches were not counterproductive to their organizers: International ANSWER, being a Stalinist organization, obviously benefits from any chaos or riot in the streets.

But even groups like MEChA and La Raza benefit... because, like their black counterparts, such groups require their "constituents" remain poor, powerless, and paranoid.

Only people who think they are "powerless" will turn over control of their lives to a radical group; only the paranoid (I'm using the word as poetic shorthand for people with delusions of persecution) will believe the bizarre conspiracy theories spun by such groups.

Those theories are used to support delusions of grandeur (which oft go hand in hand with delusions of persecution)... such as the "Aztlan" fantasy that the entire American Southwest rightly belongs to Mexico, the common birthright of all Chicanos, Indians, and Mexican nationals who live there.

So the leaders of those groups are acting very rationally... maliciously but rationally.

Third, while it is true we as a nation have the right to defend our borders and keep people out, it's equally true (perhaps more true) that we are a compassionate and just people... and we will not sit still for the heavy-handed tactics some folks on the right demand.

If we truly mounted machine-guns on the Southern border and started shooting women and children, the entire American government would be ousted, probably even before the next election: mass impeachments all around of anybody who supported such a monstrous overreaction.

But more than that: even if we do nothing but "secure the border" and make no effort to provide a path to citizenship, some form of guest worker program, and do something to lead the 12 million illegals already here to regularization... then Hispanics will desert the Republican party en masse.

Look at California post-1994 and Proposition 189: the California Republican Party is nothing but a joke now. That will be the case in every state where Hispanics constitute a significant share of the vote.

The Democrats will win the House and eventually the Senate. We will lose the war on jihadi terrorism. Every domestic policy that you hate will be crammed down your throat by the Democrats, plus many we haven't even thought of yet.

Don Rumsfeld famously said "you go to war with the army you have." A parallel aphorism is just as true: you go to the polls with the voters you have.

We have voters in this country -- not a majority but a substantial and very committed minority -- who believe as I believe, that most illegals come here for completely benign, even admirable reasons; and it would be political suicide to treat them all as "burglars," who by definition come to your house to rob and steal.

Think about it. A person can stand strong on his rights, fists clenched, refusing to budge an inch -- until the bulldozer comes and brushes him aside.

Or he can live and work for freedom and justice day by day, week by week, reaching out to natural allies and sometimes, as Ronald Reagan himself said, settling for half a loaf, hoping to start bargaining next week for the other half.

I'm in the latter camp. I take what I can get today and immediately start work on the rest. And in this case, I actually support what I wrote here (yes, assimilation is also important; I wrote at length about that in earlier posts) as true justice.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 5, 2006 2:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

even if we do nothing but "secure the border" and make no effort to provide a path to citizenship, some form of guest worker program, and do something to lead the 12 million illegals already here to regularization... then
**************************************************
Well in that case my plan IMO is more realistic than yours I also require applying from outside the US for a re-entry on a track to citizenship, but recognise that the types of jobs illegal aliens are likely to have may not be waiting for them if they do that so I have the idea of a guest worker program WITHOUT a track to citizenship (they can return to their nation of origin at anytime and take the other path)

You say "We have voters in this country -- not a majority but a substantial and very committed minority -- who believe as I believe, that most illegals come here for completely benign, even admirable reasons; and it would be political suicide to treat them all as "burglars," who by definition come to your house to rob and steal."

So if by some variation of political correctness the term "burglar" for those who enter illegally and without permission upsets you, then use

Party crashers. ;-)

BUT when you surrender the philosophical ground by identifying them as guests you have lost part of the battle.

I too will take what I can get but what I will not do is use the oppositions labels, calling identifying illegal aliens as guests is like the PC lable undocumented workers.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 5, 2006 3:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Dan:

I voted for Republicans in 2000, 2002, and 2004. The rhetoric I have heard out of the right on this issue is actually making some Democrats look better. It might not just be the hispanics the Republicans lose, they might lose the middle.

Most people want to see immigration reform but calling people names is just tacky. I have ancestors who walked the Trail of Tears, they thought all the whites were party crashers. Do you feel like a thief? You benefited, we all did. I know I don't want to give it back. In fact back then all immigration was just immigration, there was no legal or illegal to it.

Right now I am seeing a lot of really self righteous people who do not just want to control illegal immigration, they seem to have some need to punish people. Needless to say, that is spite.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 5, 2006 4:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

I have ancestors who walked the Trail of Tears, they thought all the whites were party crashers.
**************************************************
SO DO I!

Do you feel like a thief?

Do YOU?

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 5, 2006 5:59 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

I linked from Quick hits.

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 6, 2006 1:22 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

In the news today, there was a story about a guy who was arrested in Iowa carrying 2 suitcases of printing and laminating equipment. His scheme: printing fictitious documents -- sometimes better quality than the real ones. Homeland Security announced they are setting up 10 centers around the country to go after such folks -- of whom there are many.

Message: Just about any document can be faked. There also needs to be verification.

My suggestion for your point number 3 is to have the Social Security Administration set up a web site on which employers can quickly and easily verify Social Security numbers. The employer enters the number and name of the person he wants to hire, and the Social Security web site verifies whether that number is valid and agrees with the name given by the potential hiree. The program could also verify birth date. There would probably also have to be a way for employers to verfy SSN's by phone for computer illiterate employers. The SSA would NOT give out any information other than yes or no for whether the name number and birth date go together in their records.

This would not be foolproof. If there has been identity theft, one can have an imposter giving a valid SSN and name -- even birth date. But there surely would be fewer of these than fake documents in our current system. At least an employer would have a difficult defense if the hiree says his name is Jennifer Smith, age 3, but he looks more like Jose Gonzalez, age twenty-something.

There might be ways to make the system more secure. Maybe there can be a check to see if there are wages currently being reported in New York for someone applying for a job in Houston. That kind of check could be done for new hires and also on an ongoing basis by the Social Security Administration every quarter with a program identifying every employee who has wages reported on 941's (quarterly employment tax returns) in two or more states. (In some cases it would be valid, but it could raise a red flag.) It's probably asking too much for the government to have this kind of check built in, but it would sure be nice.

Its way too late for any further comments. Brain's fried.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 6, 2006 1:42 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dan Kauffman-

What about YOUR ancestors who invaded the land of the wooly mammoths? (Or whatever the dominant fauna was at the time.)

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 6, 2006 1:53 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

In a comment to a previous post, I also suggested biometric information should be encoded on the card (including a photo and fingerprints). Also that each card have an encrypted call-and-response check:

  • The central USCIS database reads the card number. There is a range of several thousand possible query codes it can send related to that card; it selects one of these queries at random and transmits it;
  • When the card receives the query code, it does a one-way key-coded transformation of that code and sends it back as a reply;
  • If the response matches the correct response in the database, USCIS knows this is the exact card issued to the immigrant or guest worker;
  • Because the key-code is one-way, you cannot reverse engineer the internal code number that would tell you what code to respond to the query.

About the only way to break this is to get a confederate inside the USCIS itself either to reprogram the computer or to download all 65,536 possible correct answers from that card to queries from the database. Not impossible, but pretty tough -- tough enough to stop all but a tiny fraction of violators.

The database would also show whether the employer ever verified that worker. If he hired the guy without sending him through the verification machine, he is in T-R-O-U-B-L-E (we force employers to buy the card-swiper with USB cable and clear-glass fingerprint reader... but it's reasonably priced).

USCIS stages random spot-inspections drawn from a list of each employer (via tax records), selected either by random or due to a complaint.

The inspector rounds up all the workers and makes each one run his card through the machine the inspector carries with him. He's looking to make sure (1) everybody is legal (has a valid card) and (2) the employer verified everyone.

Once we have a guest worker program that admits enough workers, we can level big, hairy fines against employers who still hire illegals... six- or seven-figure fines for each violation the first time, the same plus time in la calabooza for subsequent violations. (See? I can be a hard-ass when I need to be!)

This would be such a huge improvement over current procedures that anybody would have to agree it pretty much solves the problem of employers hiring illegals. Even the Tancredoistas would be happy.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 6, 2006 2:09 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

What about YOUR ancestors who invaded the land of the wooly mammoths? (Or whatever the dominant fauna was at the time.)

Maybe Shriners?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 6, 2006 2:11 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dan-

I apologize. That was uncalled for.

My ancestors weren't such admirable folk -- they raped and pillaged through western Europe. That's why there are so many blondes in Spain.

But, then again, can anyone out there be sure that their ancestors didn't do some pretty reprehensible things? Does that make us responsible for our forebears' misdeeds? Do we all have to apologize to one another and promise not to do it again?

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 6, 2006 2:29 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

Your system seems pretty foolproof, but it sounds like "national identity cards", which are anathema to many folks. (Although I don't share that viewpoint.) It's also very high tech and would be much costlier than what I propose.

My proposal requires each individual to do nothing more than they do now: Get a VALID Social Security card. And we already have the data base. All we'd have to do is create the program to match name, number and birth date, and we'd eliminate 99.99% (OK, I'm guessing) of the frauds. Why should we reinvent the wheel?

What you propose would probably catch MOST (but probably not all) of the remaining .01%.

But at what cost?

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 6, 2006 2:41 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

What I described is a Social Security Card! Just a bit more high-tech.

You don't need to get one. If you're a citizen, and somebody who wants to hire you knows you're a citizen (that would be true in the vast majority of cases in rural America, for example), then he can just hire you even without the SS card. Even if the USCIS takes an interest, when they discover you're a citizen, they'll shrug and wander off.

(You might get tagged for not paying your FICA tax, but that's a different question.)

Citizens who don't get one might be inconvenienced, but it's no crime. Independent contractors don't need one (they just need a taxpayer ID number). And people who don't work don't need one either, just like today.

But just like today, anybody who works for a company with a payroll needs a Social Security card... which in this case would be ultra high-tech.

The verification procedure would look like this: when you apply for a job, they ask for your SS card. You hand it over, and they insert it into the slot. You touch a glass plate with your thumb. A moment later, the device beeps and the card is ejected and you take it back.

That's it. You're verified. All the query/reply stuff I mentioned is done behind the scenes; you don't see any of it. The whole process would take about thirty seconds.

The cops cannot demand to see your SS card under my suggested system any more than they can under today's system.

It's just virtually impossible to spoof. That's the only change. "Sell it" as a new procedure to prevent identity theft: the people are getting value for their taxpayer dollar.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 6, 2006 4:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

Don't know if you're still interested in jousting about different kinds of Social Security cards. I still think my proposal is much better. If you want me to lay it on you, just say the word.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 6, 2006 8:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

You're welcome to post what you want here, subject only to the rules. Post away. But I can't guarantee response... I've been spending too much time in the comments when I should be writing more posts!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 6, 2006 9:56 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Dan Kauffman-

What about YOUR ancestors who invaded the land of the wooly mammoths? (Or whatever the dominant fauna was at the time.)

The above hissed in response by: Dick E at April 6, 2006 01:53 AM
**************************************************
You have a point, you failed to mention the Negroid Race that existed in the Western Hemispherre before the Mongoloid Proto-Indians crossed from Siberia and who pretty much got wiped out.

Actually you and Terrye make my point.

History is pretty clear, open borders and no attempt at control of them leads to extinction and or the complete destruction of the pre-existing culture,

It didn't work so good for the Ani yun wewa (total of all real people)

So I find it ODD that is used to justify a repetition now?

"Those who study History are doomed to see it repeated by those who do not"

But in any case You Dick E do not have to apoligise I took what you said as meant in jest,

Now Terrye looked at my last name and tried to pull that ancestory card Trail of Tears etc,

Works better when the person you pull that on does not have the same ancestory.

I am from Western KY the Trail of Tears goes right THROUGH where I grew up.

I still recall my Great-Aunt Ruby who was a Medicine Woman by the way telling me very sternly as a boy

Danny you just look white NEVER forget that you are really/b> CHEROKEE!

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 7, 2006 12:04 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

Thanks for pointing out the rules. They seem eminently reasonable.

I’m about to throw a number of brickbats at your proposal. Some may be exaggerated; some may be way off. I do NOT say what you propose won’t work -- I just think there’s a simpler way. But before you start refuting my objections (if you are so inclined), would you please take a serious look at my proposal? Tell me what’s wrong with it.

As I said before:

“…have the Social Security Administration set up a web site on which employers can quickly and easily verify Social Security numbers. The employer enters the number and name of the person he wants to hire, and the Social Security web site verifies whether that number is valid and agrees with the name given by the potential hiree. The program could also verify birth date. There would probably also have to be a way for employers to verify SSN's by phone for computer illiterate employers. The SSA would NOT give out any information other than yes or no for whether the name number and birth date go together in their records.”

I think the main potential drawback in my proposal is identity theft, where the thief knows all 3 items. But I doubt this would be a significant problem, because the thieves’ take is certain to be much better in more traditional applications of identity theft, like buying cars (or fur coats or jewelry or whatever) on someone else’s credit. The thieves would be risking a much more lucrative line of nefarious business in order to sell the information to illegals for a few bucks. What if the illegal rats them out, or what if they sell to an undercover sting? But if identity theft became more than a trivial problem, this could be addressed by putting in the cross checks I suggested:

“…there can be a check to see if there are wages currently being reported in New York for someone applying for a job in Houston. That kind of check could be done for new hires and also on an ongoing basis by the Social Security Administration every quarter with a program identifying every employee who has wages reported on 941's (quarterly employment tax returns) in two or more states.”

You could make the cross check more sophisticated -- say, doing it by distance between employers, rather than by state. There would probably be other cross checks I haven’t thought of. Once this is done, I’ll bet that we really could “eliminate 99.99% of the frauds”. How many hundreds of millions (billions?) should we spend to eliminate the last .01%?

Now the brickbats:

“The verification procedure would look like this: when you apply for a job, they ask for your SS card. You hand it over, and they insert it into the slot. You touch a glass plate with your thumb. A moment later, the device beeps and the card is ejected and you take it back.”

The cards and the brand new, or at least greatly expanded, data base would be much more expensive than the pieces of cardboard we now use. I don’t know what the cards would cost, but even if they are only 50 cents or a dollar apiece (and it can’t possibly be that low with thumbprints and photos to be taken), then to issue one each to most of 300 million people, you’re literally talking hundreds of millions of incremental dollars. Then there’s the cost of the card/thumbprint readers -- maybe not such a big deal for large companies, but what about mom and pop operations that would need it once every six months? Or domestic help? Or people without internet connections? (Yes, they’re out there.) Sure, you could have some card readers in local government offices. (“Local” in the city -- maybe not so local in rural areas.) But this would require both the employer and the employee to go there. That’s another cost -- time is money.

I can’t believe we wouldn’t require everyone applying for a job to have a card as you seem to suggest. Or are you just saying that employers who don’t require SS cards are breaking the law, but there would be no consequences if their employees turn out to be legal residents? Either way, it would be a major step away from current practice. Today, EVERY new hire requires an I-9, where an employer indicates what evidence he examined to ensure that the person is legally entitled to work. (Yeah, I know -- the system works great. That’s why we have so few illegal workers. But when the New World Order arrives and forged documents are no longer an issue, employers will still need some sort of document -- or electronic equivalent -- to prove that they verified every new employee’s immigration status.)

When the Feds show up, anyone working at the site could have been chosen for “random spot inspection”, so EVERYONE would have to carry this new ID card at all times while working. I shouldn’t be excused just because I look European and have an American accent. What if I forgot my card that day? Would I just be excused, or would they allow me to go home and get my card? (Honest, officer, I’ll be back.) What if Graciela Lopez forgets her card? Same treatment? Or are we both escorted home under guard to get our cards? (And yes, my proposal ignores this issue: The authorities would have to verify identities the old fashioned way. It’s not a significant loophole if employers verify residency status upon hiring and can provide documentation of having done so.)

Another thought: Social Security cards would no longer be good for life; they‘d have to be reissued periodically. Today, most newborns are issued SS cards. The built-in picture would obviously have to change; the thumbprint also might need to be updated -- maybe the whorls and arches don’t change, but would those “reasonably priced” readers be able to determine that the newborn’s print in the card is the same as the adult’s? Or maybe the data is stored elsewhere and not on the card. Then the card itself wouldn’t have to be updated, but everyone would still have to visit Big Brother once in a while to update their picture. And do we have a separate category of “non-smart” SS cards for people who need a card but not a job? If so, the identity theft argument is defenestrated. Oh yeah, but we:

“‘Sell it’ as a new procedure to prevent identity theft…”

All this to reduce identity theft (and, incidentally, control illegal immigration)? If the main selling point is identity theft, you might get individuals to buy in, but why should employers have to jump through so many hoops? Oh, and by the way, how do the cards prevent the expensive kind of identity theft like buying stuff on other people’s credit? I suppose retailers would need to have the card and thumbprint readers too. But then there are the purchases made by phone or on the internet -- how do we … Well, I think you get my drift.

Bottom line: I think your system could work, but we could achieve results almost as good with a much simpler, cheaper method.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 7, 2006 12:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

Bottom line: I think your system could work, but we could achieve results almost as good with a much simpler, cheaper method.

Your mileage may vary. I think the government is too low-tech. I like high-tech. And even at hundreds of millions, we're talking chump change.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 7, 2006 2:50 AM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

Dafydd,

The current system requires an employer to accept whatever documentation (bonafide or fraudulent) the prospective employee presents. That's why I like your smart card plan. Swipe, match, 99% of the time ok. Swipe, no match, 99% of the time not ok.

What is often forgotten is that an EEOC action is worse for an employer than an ICE action, so employers (the honest ones and we're talking about very small employers here) will give the employee the benefit of the doubt instead of heavily scrutinizing documents and/or spending big bucks on background checks. The employer who treats everyone who applies as if he's a citizen, knowing the bad backlash that "profiling" brings him, generally comes out better than one who doesn't.

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 7, 2006 3:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

cdquarles-

You’re right, we now rely on easily faked documents. That’s why I propose using NO documents. All the employment applicant needs is knowledge of a valid Social Security number, and the correct name and birth date associated with it. Such knowledge is NOT easy to come by, at least not by non-English speaking, barely literate, low wage illegal immigrants. And for the identity thieves who do know how to get it, why in the world would they assume additional risk and sell it on the cheap to illegals, when they can strike it rich with less risk using it in other ways?

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 7, 2006 9:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

Thanks for the thoughtful, reasoned response. I’ll just assume you were too busy to give it any real thought.

Of course you like high tech. You’re SUPPOSED to like high tech -- you’re a science fiction writer. (No, I’m not dissing sci-fi -- I enjoy it myself, although I haven’t yet had the pleasure of reading any of your works.) It would be really strange if you didn’t have a natural affinity with high tech solutions. That doesn’t necessarily make them better. And when you consider all the costs to our economy, both out of pocket and opportunity costs, whether incurred by the government, by businesses or by individuals, we’re definitely in the billions. I assure you, it’s not chump change.

I assume you would agree that civil discourse consists of more than simply stating and restating one’s own case. Normally it also requires considering and refuting, where possible, the arguments of others. (You usually do that, when you choose to respond.) Without step 2, it’s just like kids covering their ears and shouting “I’m Right! You’re wrong! Nyah, nyah!” It’s your site -- you’re the boss. But I thought you were above that.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 7, 2006 9:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

I can't respond in depth to everything. This struck me as a perfect example of subjective taste: more money for greater functionality.

Either it strikes you as worth it or it doesn't. It's not that one position is right and the other wrong.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 7, 2006 9:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

Thanks for the explanation.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 7, 2006 11:59 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved