Employing Illegals

[Marion Morrison]

I never called ICE on this 1 fat white guy that's beat me out of like 10 jobs (over 7 years) when Obama was president, because I knew it would be a waste of time.

Now he's nowhere to be found, hehe. Winning!

Muhfukker can't make the jobs happen himself like I can.

I learned a while back.

You know what makes you the man? When you can make the job happen no matter what.

The one that can do that is the man. I am the man.

 

[JoeB131]

I never called ICE on this 1 fat white guy that's beat me out of like 10 jobs (over 7 years) when Obama was president, because I knew it would be a waste of time.

Now he's nowhere to be found, hehe. Winning!

Muhfukker can't make the jobs happen himself like I can.

Right, we have actual footage of Marion making jobs happen.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

FWIW, Let me begin at the beginning:

Alec Baldwin plead guilty to second-degree violation of harassment, and as Tamara Gitt points out, it was not a crime, but a violation of the law.

Alec Baldwin Pleads Guilty to Harassment, Must Take Anger Management After Allegedly Punching Man

George Bush's Attorney General, Michael Mukasey admonished the American Bar Association

"But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,"

Mukasey: ‘Not Every Wrong, Or . . . Every Violation of the Law, is a Crime’

The purpose behind that is to preempt the inevitable trolling that will follow.

Entering the United States is an improper action. 8 USC 1325

Congress tried to change the wording from improper to unlawful. That bill FAILED in the U.S. Senate.

Text - H.R.4437 - 109th Congress (2005-2006): Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005

See Section 203

At best, it is a federal civil misdemeanor to enter the United States without papers. It usually has a maximum penalty of a $250 fine. It is possible to jail people for it, but WHY? It costs more to lock the people up than it's worth. So, the government deports.

It is a known FACT, if I have a gig and a Hispanic shows up and will do the job for what I can afford, I will hire them. LOCAL laws say I must pay them at least $10 an hour. The next time I hire one, PM me if you want to know and I'll inform you know so you can report me. And this is what you should know:

For YEARS the conservatives, constitutionalists, and patriots hawked the book "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat. You can now read it online for free if you Google it. Here is a quote you need:

"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”

So, what you would do is take from me (an individual person) my property that I and I alone created (a job) and give it to someone else. You would employ the law to do that? That is legal plunder.

I cannot take a job from another employer simply because he hired a felon that failed a background check and replace him with someone else. No court in America would recognize such an act. Spin it any way you like, but you're advocating legal plunder.

Even if it is against the law to cross into the United States without papers, once here, being here is NOT a crime. That is not opinion; that is legal FACT. And so, those sorry sons of bi+c#es - the white meth heads that don't work once they get the jobs are high on my radar. I'm advocating that we rehabilitate them and get them back in the workforce as PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS. As a reward for my efforts, people on this board condemn the work I'm doing. Then they want to tell me who I can and cannot hire??? You guys that are making these arguments do realize you're advocating socialism, right?

 

[xyz]

What happens to employers who employ people who should not be in the country ? What checks are made on them ?

You mean Trump? Nothing has happened to him yet.

 

[dudmuck]

What happens to employers who employ people who should not be in the country ? What checks are made on them ?

You mean Trump? Nothing has happened to him yet.

He fired them.

 

[Zorro!]

E-Verify, stiffer penalties are good start.

And another great idea:

Trump wants to evict illegals

The Housing and Urban Development told Congress it plans to scrap a Bill Clinton rule that allowed illegal aliens to get public housing assistance. This is part of President Donald John Trump's plan to remove bad policies from all prior presidents, not just Obama.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I hear ya Joe......had one recent job where the junkies smelled of dope so badly i thought i'd get a contact high.....all local yokels too....

and hey, those south Americans are usually hard workers , methinks they know they can be sent back easier than junkies are laid off or fired.....

One job had this crew of Panamanians who'd never seen a winter, never seen snow, didn't know how to dress for it, totally looked outta place

I brought my propane heater to the job for the poor sots....

~S~

Interesting choice of words there. We don't say "sot" in America.

 

[sparky]

I hear ya Joe......had one recent job where the junkies smelled of dope so badly i thought i'd get a contact high.....all local yokels too....

and hey, those south Americans are usually hard workers , methinks they know they can be sent back easier than junkies are laid off or fired.....

One job had this crew of Panamanians who'd never seen a winter, never seen snow, didn't know how to dress for it, totally looked outta place

I brought my propane heater to the job for the poor sots....

~S~

Interesting choice of words there. We don't say "sot" in America.

dunno where that came from .......but i do know my HS spanish is improving

machas gracias senor MM....

~S~

 

[Porter Rockwell]

E-Verify, stiffer penalties are good start.

And another great idea:

Trump wants to evict illegals

The Housing and Urban Development told Congress it plans to scrap a Bill Clinton rule that allowed illegal aliens to get public housing assistance. This is part of President Donald John Trump's plan to remove bad policies from all prior presidents, not just Obama.

Here is another good one: E Verify. E- Verify applies to the citizen as well as the undocumented foreigner. Fabulous idea except for this little thing called the Fourth Amendment. Allow me:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So, you advocate forcing private employers violate the Fourth Amendment on behalf of the government for... exactly what???

For those who have an IQ above their shoe size, your post is almost funny if not for advocating sedition. IF a person is found to be in the United States without the proper paperwork, they are sent back across the border. The government could get a small fine of $250, but doesn't pursue even that since the majority of those caught don't have any money.

Anyway, it is not illegal to be in the United States without the proper documentation and you advocate violating my Fourth Amendment Rights and then, throwing the book at an employer for doing what they have a constitutional Right to do. There is a lot of dumbassery being considered on this thread and all of it socialist solutions threatening the Liberties of the citizenry while setting precedents that will come back and bite even you in the ass.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I never called ICE on this 1 fat white guy that's beat me out of like 10 jobs (over 7 years) when Obama was president, because I knew it would be a waste of time.

Now he's nowhere to be found, hehe. Winning!

Muhfukker can't make the jobs happen himself like I can.

I learned a while back.

You know what makes you the man? When you can make the job happen no matter what.

The one that can do that is the man. I am the man.

You want special privileges because you're a white dude and thinks the employer owes you a job??? Really? And you can't compete against an uneducated foreigner???

You have have over 43,000 posts on this board. Did you ever consider that if you pushed yourself away from the computer, got out of mommy's basement, used your posting time to learn a skill or go to school, you might qualify for a real job?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

What happens to employers who employ people who should not be in the country ? What checks are made on them ?

Actually, they are relatively tame.

Penalties for Employers Hiring Illegal Immigrants | LegalMatch Law Library

Most fines are broken down to the following:

• First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee.
• For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.
• Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.

Yup, a whopping six months.

E-verify is all a company can do, but if the government doesnt do their job...Like the FBI failing background checks on mentally ill kids who then go out and shoot up schools..

It's not the FBI's job to be "Face Book Investigation".

The problem is, a mentally ill kid was able to buy a street legal assault rifle and shoot up a school.

But back to the topic at hand. The penalties for hiring illegals is so light you might as well not have them.

That is light to you?

If caught the first time the employer could pay 200 to 2000 per person, so if someone employed ten employees that were illegal it could range from 2000 to 20000 dollars in fines just on the first offense.

The second offense could range from 20k to 50k on the second offense and the third offense could result in 30k to 100k if the employer has ten employees while doing six months in jail.

I say that is stiff enough and just need to be enforced...

 

[Zorro!]

E-Verify, stiffer penalties are good start.

And another great idea:

Trump wants to evict illegals

The Housing and Urban Development told Congress it plans to scrap a Bill Clinton rule that allowed illegal aliens to get public housing assistance. This is part of President Donald John Trump's plan to remove bad policies from all prior presidents, not just Obama.

Here is another good one: E Verify. E- Verify applies to the citizen as well as the undocumented foreigner. Fabulous idea except for this little thing called the Fourth Amendment. Allow me:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So, you advocate forcing private employers violate the Fourth Amendment on behalf of the government for... exactly what???

For those who have an IQ above their shoe size, your post is almost funny if not for advocating sedition. IF a person is found to be in the United States without the proper paperwork, they are sent back across the border. The government could get a small fine of $250, but doesn't pursue even that since the majority of those caught don't have any money.

Anyway, it is not illegal to be in the United States without the proper documentation and you advocate violating my Fourth Amendment Rights and then, throwing the book at an employer for doing what they have a constitutional Right to do. There is a lot of dumbassery being considered on this thread and all of it socialist solutions threatening the Liberties of the citizenry while setting precedents that will come back and bite even you in the ass.

Very interesting post and points, thank you.

I'd say that it's well settled that the physical custody of incriminating documents does not protect the custodian against their compulsory production. Where employers are required to maintain records under statutory or regulatory authority, the employer cannot hide behind the right against unreasonable search and seizure or the right against self-incrimination when the government commands the production of records. Wilson v. U.S ., 221 U.S. 361, 380 (1911). So, I-9 docs are required to be kept on hand, and when the government wants to verify them, they will, and this was confirmed by the Court well before FDR.

The point is further weakened when dealing with corporations in that the Court has held that corporations can claim no equality with individuals in the enjoyment of the right to privacy, since corporations are creatures of state law and are endowed with "public attributes." U.S. v. Morton Salt Co ., 338 U.S. 632, 652 (1950). So agencies are permitted to check based on nothing more than "official curiosity" - to determine whether an employer corporation is complying with the law. The agency need only have the authority to make an inquiry, the agency's request must not be too indefinite and the information sought must be reasonably relevant to the investigation. Most agency requests for corporate records will fall well within these wide parameters. In Re Administrative Subpoena, 253 F.3d 256 (6th Cir. 2001).

Further, agencies generally are not required to make a showing of probable cause when issuing an administrative subpoena for production of documents. Oklahoma Press Publishing v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 216 (1945). Where the Fourth Amendment mandates a showing of probable cause for the issuance of search warrants, subpoenas are analyzed only under the Fourth Amendment's general reasonableness standard. One of the primary reasons for the difference rests on the distinction between physical searches and "constructive" searches. The latter type of search is usually involved when the government issues a subpoena, which is a request that the subject of an investigation produce its records for government inspection, as opposed to an on-site, physical search of a company's premises. As a result, the government need not have probable cause to request documents; that is, an actual violation need not be probable. The purpose of an investigative subpoena is to discover and procure evidence in order to make a determination, not necessarily to prove the pending charge. Under these circumstances, the government is only limited to the extent that it shall not act arbitrarily or in excess of statutory authority.

E-Verify: A Search And Seizure Nightmare?

It will be interesting to see how this body of law develops with Trump adding so many Constitutionalist judges to the bench.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

E-Verify, stiffer penalties are good start.

And another great idea:

Trump wants to evict illegals

The Housing and Urban Development told Congress it plans to scrap a Bill Clinton rule that allowed illegal aliens to get public housing assistance. This is part of President Donald John Trump's plan to remove bad policies from all prior presidents, not just Obama.

Here is another good one: E Verify. E- Verify applies to the citizen as well as the undocumented foreigner. Fabulous idea except for this little thing called the Fourth Amendment. Allow me:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So, you advocate forcing private employers violate the Fourth Amendment on behalf of the government for... exactly what???

For those who have an IQ above their shoe size, your post is almost funny if not for advocating sedition. IF a person is found to be in the United States without the proper paperwork, they are sent back across the border. The government could get a small fine of $250, but doesn't pursue even that since the majority of those caught don't have any money.

Anyway, it is not illegal to be in the United States without the proper documentation and you advocate violating my Fourth Amendment Rights and then, throwing the book at an employer for doing what they have a constitutional Right to do. There is a lot of dumbassery being considered on this thread and all of it socialist solutions threatening the Liberties of the citizenry while setting precedents that will come back and bite even you in the ass.

Very interesting post and points, thank you.

I'd say that it's well settled that the physical custody of incriminating documents does not protect the custodian against their compulsory production. Where employers are required to maintain records under statutory or regulatory authority, the employer cannot hide behind the right against unreasonable search and seizure or the right against self-incrimination when the government commands the production of records. Wilson v. U.S ., 221 U.S. 361, 380 (1911). So, I-9 docs are required to be kept on hand, and when the government wants to verify them, they will, and this was confirmed by the Court well before FDR.

The point is further weakened when dealing with corporations in that the Court has held that corporations can claim no equality with individuals in the enjoyment of the right to privacy, since corporations are creatures of state law and are endowed with "public attributes." U.S. v. Morton Salt Co ., 338 U.S. 632, 652 (1950). So agencies are permitted to check based on nothing more than "official curiosity" - to determine whether an employer corporation is complying with the law. The agency need only have the authority to make an inquiry, the agency's request must not be too indefinite and the information sought must be reasonably relevant to the investigation. Most agency requests for corporate records will fall well within these wide parameters. In Re Administrative Subpoena, 253 F.3d 256 (6th Cir. 2001).

Further, agencies generally are not required to make a showing of probable cause when issuing an administrative subpoena for production of documents. Oklahoma Press Publishing v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 216 (1945). Where the Fourth Amendment mandates a showing of probable cause for the issuance of search warrants, subpoenas are analyzed only under the Fourth Amendment's general reasonableness standard. One of the primary reasons for the difference rests on the distinction between physical searches and "constructive" searches. The latter type of search is usually involved when the government issues a subpoena, which is a request that the subject of an investigation produce its records for government inspection, as opposed to an on-site, physical search of a company's premises. As a result, the government need not have probable cause to request documents; that is, an actual violation need not be probable. The purpose of an investigative subpoena is to discover and procure evidence in order to make a determination, not necessarily to prove the pending charge. Under these circumstances, the government is only limited to the extent that it shall not act arbitrarily or in excess of statutory authority.

E-Verify: A Search And Seizure Nightmare?

It will be interesting to see how this body of law develops with Trump adding so many Constitutionalist judges to the bench.

I won't play Perry Mason with you on a discussion board - though I do have a law degree.

What I'm going to say to you is that PRIOR to 2005 when the right began demanding the Socialist Surveillance Number ... I mean "Social Security Number" be used for Orwellian National ID, there was NO law requiring an individual to have an SSN.

Many people rescinded their SSN and oddly, I just told my mother in law today about a case I worked on some years back involving the I - 9. We checked the I 9 form back in those days and found an OMB number on it. Further investigation led us to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS - now BICE) demanding such information. Our case prevailed because the INS had exactly ZERO jurisdiction in Socialist Security matters. As a matter of fact, I had a letter from the head of the SSA that read: "It is strictly a personal matter between the employer and the employee if the employee ever divulges their SSN.

All your case law aside, the federal government, under our de jure /constitutional / lawful / legal Constitution simply does not have the jurisdiction to the things you think they do. Granted, we are no longer governed by the Constitution and the system has the power to enforce unconstitutional laws, but they damn well lack the authority. THAT, more than foreigners working dead end menial jobs ought to be more of a threat to you... IF you give a rat's ass about Freedom and Liberty.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

What happens to employers who employ people who should not be in the country ? What checks are made on them ?

Actually, they are relatively tame.

Penalties for Employers Hiring Illegal Immigrants | LegalMatch Law Library

Most fines are broken down to the following:

• First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee.
• For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.
• Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.

Yup, a whopping six months.

E-verify is all a company can do, but if the government doesnt do their job...Like the FBI failing background checks on mentally ill kids who then go out and shoot up schools..

It's not the FBI's job to be "Face Book Investigation".

The problem is, a mentally ill kid was able to buy a street legal assault rifle and shoot up a school.

But back to the topic at hand. The penalties for hiring illegals is so light you might as well not have them.

That is light to you?

If caught the first time the employer could pay 200 to 2000 per person, so if someone employed ten employees that were illegal it could range from 2000 to 20000 dollars in fines just on the first offense.

The second offense could range from 20k to 50k on the second offense and the third offense could result in 30k to 100k if the employer has ten employees while doing six months in jail.

I say that is stiff enough and just need to be enforced...

It is utterly and absolutely ridiculous since the feds have no constitutional authority to do these things.

If we return back to private ownership of property, the system balances itself out and reduces the problem. Secondly, getting lazy ass white boys with 40,000 + posts on a single board on the Internet and back to work means for every American applying for and working a job is one less job going to a foreigner.

 

[Zorro!]

E-Verify, stiffer penalties are good start.

And another great idea:

Trump wants to evict illegals

The Housing and Urban Development told Congress it plans to scrap a Bill Clinton rule that allowed illegal aliens to get public housing assistance. This is part of President Donald John Trump's plan to remove bad policies from all prior presidents, not just Obama.

Here is another good one: E Verify. E- Verify applies to the citizen as well as the undocumented foreigner. Fabulous idea except for this little thing called the Fourth Amendment. Allow me:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So, you advocate forcing private employers violate the Fourth Amendment on behalf of the government for... exactly what???

For those who have an IQ above their shoe size, your post is almost funny if not for advocating sedition. IF a person is found to be in the United States without the proper paperwork, they are sent back across the border. The government could get a small fine of $250, but doesn't pursue even that since the majority of those caught don't have any money.

Anyway, it is not illegal to be in the United States without the proper documentation and you advocate violating my Fourth Amendment Rights and then, throwing the book at an employer for doing what they have a constitutional Right to do. There is a lot of dumbassery being considered on this thread and all of it socialist solutions threatening the Liberties of the citizenry while setting precedents that will come back and bite even you in the ass.

Very interesting post and points, thank you.

I'd say that it's well settled that the physical custody of incriminating documents does not protect the custodian against their compulsory production. Where employers are required to maintain records under statutory or regulatory authority, the employer cannot hide behind the right against unreasonable search and seizure or the right against self-incrimination when the government commands the production of records. Wilson v. U.S ., 221 U.S. 361, 380 (1911). So, I-9 docs are required to be kept on hand, and when the government wants to verify them, they will, and this was confirmed by the Court well before FDR.

The point is further weakened when dealing with corporations in that the Court has held that corporations can claim no equality with individuals in the enjoyment of the right to privacy, since corporations are creatures of state law and are endowed with "public attributes." U.S. v. Morton Salt Co ., 338 U.S. 632, 652 (1950). So agencies are permitted to check based on nothing more than "official curiosity" - to determine whether an employer corporation is complying with the law. The agency need only have the authority to make an inquiry, the agency's request must not be too indefinite and the information sought must be reasonably relevant to the investigation. Most agency requests for corporate records will fall well within these wide parameters. In Re Administrative Subpoena, 253 F.3d 256 (6th Cir. 2001).

Further, agencies generally are not required to make a showing of probable cause when issuing an administrative subpoena for production of documents. Oklahoma Press Publishing v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 216 (1945). Where the Fourth Amendment mandates a showing of probable cause for the issuance of search warrants, subpoenas are analyzed only under the Fourth Amendment's general reasonableness standard. One of the primary reasons for the difference rests on the distinction between physical searches and "constructive" searches. The latter type of search is usually involved when the government issues a subpoena, which is a request that the subject of an investigation produce its records for government inspection, as opposed to an on-site, physical search of a company's premises. As a result, the government need not have probable cause to request documents; that is, an actual violation need not be probable. The purpose of an investigative subpoena is to discover and procure evidence in order to make a determination, not necessarily to prove the pending charge. Under these circumstances, the government is only limited to the extent that it shall not act arbitrarily or in excess of statutory authority.

E-Verify: A Search And Seizure Nightmare?

It will be interesting to see how this body of law develops with Trump adding so many Constitutionalist judges to the bench.

...the federal government, under our de jure /constitutional / lawful / legal Constitution simply does not have the jurisdiction to the things you think they do. Granted, we are no longer governed by the Constitution and the system has the power to enforce unconstitutional laws, but they damn well lack the authority. THAT, more than foreigners working dead end menial jobs ought to be more of a threat to you... IF you give a rat's ass about Freedom and Liberty.

Well, let's give that some thought. You seem to claiming that we have no power over whether foreign nationals are employed in the US. You also seem very dismissive of case law.