|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 30, 2014 0:12:01 GMT
Sure we could. The law should state that any person who has hired one or more illegals will be presumed to have done so intentionally--just as a person who has rear-ended another car is presumed, in most localities, to have been driving too fast, following too closely, or both. If the employer has simply been duped by a phony ID, then he (or she) should pay the consequences--as is currently the case with anyone who sells beer or liquor to a minor with a fake ID. My argument is not that we should "ban" poisonous mushrooms--already, they are banned (which is to say, not sold) by retailers--but that the mere fact that something is found in nature is not automatic proof of its wholesomeness.
"Presumption of guilt" is the foundation for prosecution today but in court guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Sorry, but I would never be willing to allow someone to be fined or sentences to prison based upon an "assumption" as opposed to "evidence" of guilt. If we go there then were no better than the most tyrannical of regimes imaginable. Even in your case of a rear-end accident the person is still entitled to provide a defense as to why they might not be guilty of being responsible for the accident (e.g. the driver in front cut them off and slammed on the brakes as a part of an insurance scam - that happens more often than you might know). If the driver wants to contest the "assumption of guilt" in a rear-end accident then the prosecution must establish they're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Guilt must always be proven and not assumed.
An employer that simply makes facsimile copies of the fake ID could show they made a reasonable attempt to comply with the law and would not be guilty in a court of law. A facsimile copy cannot typically be used in a court of law to determine authenticity of an actual document and an employer cannot be assumed to be a document expert that could tell the difference between an authentic document and a forgery.
No one said that something found in nature is wholesome or good for you. Instead I would state that "nature" should never been against the law.
I am not sure just what you mean by your assertion that nature should never be "against the law." What does that mean, exactly, in this context? Yes, it is possible that a driver could cause a rear-end accident in the manner you have described--for insurance purposes, perhaps--but the burden of proof would be upon the person claiming that the prevailing circumstances made a rear-end accident unavoidable. He (or she) would be presumed to be guilty of the infraction, in most localities, absent compelling evidence to the contrary. And my proposal for employers hiring illegals is not grounded in "prison" time for the offender. Rather, I would propose shutting down his (or her) business for at least two weeks, for a first offense; and shutting it down permanently for any subsequent offense, within a period of, say, five years. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 30, 2014 11:00:51 GMT
I am not sure just what you mean by your assertion that nature should never be "against the law." What does that mean, exactly, in this context? Yes, it is possible that a driver could cause a rear-end accident in the manner you have described--for insurance purposes, perhaps--but the burden of proof would be upon the person claiming that the prevailing circumstances made a rear-end accident unavoidable. He (or she) would be presumed to be guilty of the infraction, in most localities, absent compelling evidence to the contrary. And my proposal for employers hiring illegals is not grounded in "prison" time for the offender. Rather, I would propose shutting down his (or her) business for at least two weeks, for a first offense; and shutting it down permanently for any subsequent offense, within a period of, say, five years.
The person in the rear-end accident does not have to "prove" innocense but instead has to only introduce "reasonable doubt" if the case goes to court. If there is a personal injury the matter is generally determined by a jury and the "assumption" that they were at fault basically goes out the window because the instructions to the jury are always that the prosecution must extablishe guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I've sat on enough juries to know this is a fact. For the "infraction" there might be one criteria but in a jury decision there is another criteria and even an infraction can probably be appealed to a "jury" level although I'm not a legal expert on that.
As I noted if an employer simply makes a copy of the ID presented they can't be held accountable if the ID was a forgery. They are not document experts and are not assumed or expected to be document experts. They'd get off every time. Many already do that related to Social Security cards that are often forgeries even though, under the law, a Social Security card is not a valid form of ID.
As for nature we cannot logically make a plant "illegal" at all. That violates natural law. Nor can we logically make that which a person can produce from the plant "illegal" as that also violates natural law. We can prohibit "commerce" related to it but to prohibit personal use is one step too far because no one has the authority to deny another person's natural Right to "harvest from nature for their personal use" so long as that person doesn't deny or restrict any other person the ability to do the same (Ref John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, Chapter V). Natural law that establishes the Rights of the Person supersedes the authority of statutory law (Ref 9th Amendment to the US Constitution).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 30, 2014 18:09:11 GMT
I am not sure just what you mean by your assertion that nature should never be "against the law." What does that mean, exactly, in this context? Yes, it is possible that a driver could cause a rear-end accident in the manner you have described--for insurance purposes, perhaps--but the burden of proof would be upon the person claiming that the prevailing circumstances made a rear-end accident unavoidable. He (or she) would be presumed to be guilty of the infraction, in most localities, absent compelling evidence to the contrary. And my proposal for employers hiring illegals is not grounded in "prison" time for the offender. Rather, I would propose shutting down his (or her) business for at least two weeks, for a first offense; and shutting it down permanently for any subsequent offense, within a period of, say, five years.
The person in the rear-end accident does not have to "prove" innocense but instead has to only introduce "reasonable doubt" if the case goes to court. If there is a personal injury the matter is generally determined by a jury and the "assumption" that they were at fault basically goes out the window because the instructions to the jury are always that the prosecution must extablishe guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I've sat on enough juries to know this is a fact. For the "infraction" there might be one criteria but in a jury decision there is another criteria and even an infraction can probably be appealed to a "jury" level although I'm not a legal expert on that.
As I noted if an employer simply makes a copy of the ID presented they can't be held accountable if the ID was a forgery. They are not document experts and are not assumed or expected to be document experts. They'd get off every time. Many already do that related to Social Security cards that are often forgeries even though, under the law, a Social Security card is not a valid form of ID.
As for nature we cannot logically make a plant "illegal" at all. That violates natural law. Nor can we logically make that which a person can produce from the plant "illegal" as that also violates natural law. We can prohibit "commerce" related to it but to prohibit personal use is one step too far because no one has the authority to deny another person's natural Right to "harvest from nature for their personal use" so long as that person doesn't deny or restrict any other person the ability to do the same (Ref John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, Chapter V). Natural law that establishes the Rights of the Person supersedes the authority of statutory law (Ref 9th Amendment to the US Constitution).
Your stated standard--beyond a "reasonable doubt"--certainly applies to criminal cases. But not to civil cases, where a mere preponderance of the evidence (i.e. 51 percent of it) is the standard that is used. And in a rear-end accident in most localities, it is generally assumed that a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the trailing driver was following too closely, going too fast, or both--unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. It would be very difficult to forge an ID card that contained a hologram. It could not merely be photocopied. I really do not need to go into John Locke's Second Treatise on Government to know that I have no desire to arrest people for the possession of small amounts of drugs (which, it may be presumed, were intended merely for personal use). But I do not believe that such laws are inherently anti-American--just wrongheaded, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 31, 2014 10:42:22 GMT
Your stated standard--beyond a "reasonable doubt"--certainly applies to criminal cases. But not to civil cases, where a mere preponderance of the evidence (i.e. 51 percent of it) is the standard that is used. And in a rear-end accident in most localities, it is generally assumed that a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the trailing driver was following too closely, going too fast, or both--unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. It would be very difficult to forge an ID card that contained a hologram. It could not merely be photocopied. I really do not need to go into John Locke's Second Treatise on Government to know that I have no desire to arrest people for the possession of small amounts of drugs (which, it may be presumed, were intended merely for personal use). But I do not believe that such laws are inherently anti-American--just wrongheaded, in my opinion.
The requirement of "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not change in a civil case but the requirement for a "unanimous" decision changes to a "majority" decision. In a civil case the "majority" still have to believe that the Plaintiff established their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" to vote on behalf of the plaintiff.
You can purchase hologram printing machines commercially today.
www.alibaba.com/product-detail/TJ-81-Automatic-Grade-PVC-Hologram_1958653138.html
So you don't believe that a person raising opium poppies to harvest the opium for personal use should be illegal? Just checking on what you support and what you oppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 1, 2014 0:41:33 GMT
Your stated standard--beyond a "reasonable doubt"--certainly applies to criminal cases. But not to civil cases, where a mere preponderance of the evidence (i.e. 51 percent of it) is the standard that is used. And in a rear-end accident in most localities, it is generally assumed that a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the trailing driver was following too closely, going too fast, or both--unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. It would be very difficult to forge an ID card that contained a hologram. It could not merely be photocopied. I really do not need to go into John Locke's Second Treatise on Government to know that I have no desire to arrest people for the possession of small amounts of drugs (which, it may be presumed, were intended merely for personal use). But I do not believe that such laws are inherently anti-American--just wrongheaded, in my opinion.
The requirement of "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not change in a civil case but the requirement for a "unanimous" decision changes to a "majority" decision. In a civil case the "majority" still have to believe that the Plaintiff established their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" to vote on behalf of the plaintiff.
You can purchase hologram printing machines commercially today.
www.alibaba.com/product-detail/TJ-81-Automatic-Grade-PVC-Hologram_1958653138.html
So you don't believe that a person raising opium poppies to harvest the opium for personal use should be illegal? Just checking on what you support and what you oppose.
"For instance, in the United States, Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the standard for criminal conviction while Preponderance of the Evidence is used to determine liability for civil cases." And the link: defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Standards_for_Conviction How many illegals could afford to purchase a hologram-producing machine for between $19,607 and $22,549? There should probably be a limit as to how many poppies one could grow for personal use--I do not have an exact number to throw out, currently, in this regard--but, on principle, I can see no good reason to prosecute a person for growing poppies for his (or her) own personal use (even though I consider such behavior most unwise and self-destructive). |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 1, 2014 10:31:47 GMT
The requirement of "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not change in a civil case but the requirement for a "unanimous" decision changes to a "majority" decision. In a civil case the "majority" still have to believe that the Plaintiff established their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" to vote on behalf of the plaintiff.
You can purchase hologram printing machines commercially today.
www.alibaba.com/product-detail/TJ-81-Automatic-Grade-PVC-Hologram_1958653138.html
So you don't believe that a person raising opium poppies to harvest the opium for personal use should be illegal? Just checking on what you support and what you oppose.
"For instance, in the United States, Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the standard for criminal conviction while Preponderance of the Evidence is used to determine liability for civil cases." And the link: defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Standards_for_Conviction How many illegals could afford to purchase a hologram-producing machine for between $19,607 and $22,549? There should probably be a limit as to how many poppies one could grow for personal use--I do not have an exact number to throw out, currently, in this regard--but, on principle, I can see no good reason to prosecute a person for growing poppies for his (or her) own personal use (even though I consider such behavior most unwise and self-destructive).
I find little difference in practice between Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt and Preponderance of Evidence because if a legitimate "doubt" exists then it wouldn't overcome the "Presumption of Innocence" that exists in both civil and criminal cases. Where I see the difference in practice is that a criminal conviction requires a unanimous decision by the jury while a civil conviction does not.
The "illegal" doesn't have to purchase the hologram-producing machine. They just have to purchase the ID card produced by it. I don't purchase the printing machine when I buy a Hallmark birthday card, do you?
I would agree with you on the "growing poppies" issue although I would see it as being self-limiting if we prohibited the commercial sale of the product.
From my libertarian perspective we have a Right to Nature (with caveats provided for in Locke's arguments) but we do not have a Right of Commerce because "commerce" is not inherent in either man or nature. We have the "Freedom" to engage in commerce but it is not explicitly a Right of the Person. Commerce is a "Freedom" afforded to two or more persons based upon their individual Inalienable Rights and a "Freedom to Exercise" and Inalienable Right can be limited (and we do that all of the time).
If you can only personally use the poppies then growing more than necessary serves no purpose (other than beauty because they do produce a beautiful flower).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 2, 2014 0:27:16 GMT
"For instance, in the United States, Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the standard for criminal conviction while Preponderance of the Evidence is used to determine liability for civil cases." And the link: defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Standards_for_Conviction How many illegals could afford to purchase a hologram-producing machine for between $19,607 and $22,549? There should probably be a limit as to how many poppies one could grow for personal use--I do not have an exact number to throw out, currently, in this regard--but, on principle, I can see no good reason to prosecute a person for growing poppies for his (or her) own personal use (even though I consider such behavior most unwise and self-destructive).
I find little difference in practice between Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt and Preponderance of Evidence because if a legitimate "doubt" exists then it wouldn't overcome the "Presumption of Innocence" that exists in both civil and criminal cases. Where I see the difference in practice is that a criminal conviction requires a unanimous decision by the jury while a civil conviction does not.
The "illegal" doesn't have to purchase the hologram-producing machine. They just have to purchase the ID card produced by it. I don't purchase the printing machine when I buy a Hallmark birthday card, do you?
I would agree with you on the "growing poppies" issue although I would see it as being self-limiting if we prohibited the commercial sale of the product.
From my libertarian perspective we have a Right to Nature (with caveats provided for in Locke's arguments) but we do not have a Right of Commerce because "commerce" is not inherent in either man or nature. We have the "Freedom" to engage in commerce but it is not explicitly a Right of the Person. Commerce is a "Freedom" afforded to two or more persons based upon their individual Inalienable Rights and a "Freedom to Exercise" and Inalienable Right can be limited (and we do that all of the time).
If you can only personally use the poppies then growing more than necessary serves no purpose (other than beauty because they do produce a beautiful flower).
There is an enormous difference between "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "the preponderance of evidence." The former requires near-certainty, whereas the latter requires only 51 percent probability, in the juror's mind. That is because a jury should be very close to certain before stripping a person of his liberty (or even his life, in capital cases); but such a degree of certitude is not required when only money is at stake. Well, someone would certainly have to purchase that hologram-producing machine. And why do you suppose it has not been used to counterfeit US currency--which would be a far more lucrative use for it--if it worked so swimmingly? Oh, I quite agree with your appreciation of the beauty of flowers. (When I was a little boy, growing up with my mother and grandmother--my father passed away when I was just eight years of age--we always had all sorts of flowers: tulips; daffodills; hyacinths; and various types of roses--among others. I came to have a deep appreciation of them.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 2, 2014 1:42:49 GMT
There is an enormous difference between "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "the preponderance of evidence." The former requires near-certainty, whereas the latter requires only 51 percent probability, in the juror's mind. That is because a jury should be very close to certain before stripping a person of his liberty (or even his life, in capital cases); but such a degree of certitude is not required when only money is at stake. Well, someone would certainly have to purchase that hologram-producing machine. And why do you suppose it has not been used to counterfeit US currency--which would be a far more lucrative use for it--if it worked so swimmingly? Oh, I quite agree with your appreciation of the beauty of flowers. (When I was a little boy, growing up with my mother and grandmother--my father passed away when I was just eight years of age--we always had all sorts of flowers: tulips; daffodills; hyacinths; and various types of roses--among others. I came to have a deep appreciation of them.)
I've never been on a civil jury, just criminal, but I still believe that I'd have to be very convinced before I gave someone's money away. It would take a lot more than just believing it was a 51% "probability" (and a preponderance of evidence don't imply just a slight edge such as 51% sure) before I'd side with the plaintiff.
There are many different verifications for currency that is eventually subjected to bank scrutiny and banks are very good at detecting counterfeit currency (as opposed to an employer that really doesn't care very much). Of course even today's currency is being counterfeited and they do use holographic printers to counterfeit it. There are numerous recent stories on counterfeit currency so I'll just post one.
www.wandtv.com/story/26173087/springfield-police-investigating-reports-of-counterfeit-money
Of course printing fake ID doesn't come with the risks associated with counterfeiting currency and is very profitable.
I could see opium poppies providing a nice accent color to a flower garden.
i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1/CrackedVP/IMG_6687OXChilton_zpsfa587846.jpg
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 2, 2014 23:12:26 GMT
There is an enormous difference between "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "the preponderance of evidence." The former requires near-certainty, whereas the latter requires only 51 percent probability, in the juror's mind. That is because a jury should be very close to certain before stripping a person of his liberty (or even his life, in capital cases); but such a degree of certitude is not required when only money is at stake. Well, someone would certainly have to purchase that hologram-producing machine. And why do you suppose it has not been used to counterfeit US currency--which would be a far more lucrative use for it--if it worked so swimmingly? Oh, I quite agree with your appreciation of the beauty of flowers. (When I was a little boy, growing up with my mother and grandmother--my father passed away when I was just eight years of age--we always had all sorts of flowers: tulips; daffodills; hyacinths; and various types of roses--among others. I came to have a deep appreciation of them.)
I've never been on a civil jury, just criminal, but I still believe that I'd have to be very convinced before I gave someone's money away. It would take a lot more than just believing it was a 51% "probability" (and a preponderance of evidence don't imply just a slight edge such as 51% sure) before I'd side with the plaintiff.
There are many different verifications for currency that is eventually subjected to bank scrutiny and banks are very good at detecting counterfeit currency (as opposed to an employer that really doesn't care very much). Of course even today's currency is being counterfeited and they do use holographic printers to counterfeit it. There are numerous recent stories on counterfeit currency so I'll just post one.
www.wandtv.com/story/26173087/springfield-police-investigating-reports-of-counterfeit-money
Of course printing fake ID doesn't come with the risks associated with counterfeiting currency and is very profitable.
I could see opium poppies providing a nice accent color to a flower garden.
i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1/CrackedVP/IMG_6687OXChilton_zpsfa587846.jpg
Your opium poppies are certainly very pretty--albeit probably rather shocking to the neighbors. You might, indeed, vote for acquittal in a civil case if you felt only 51 percent certain of the defendant's guilt. That would be an example of jury nullification. (For the record, I would vote for conviction in that event,) If we had a hard-to-counterfeit national ID card, it should probably be a federal offense to counterfeit it--just as counterfeiting US currency is a federal offense--and the penalty for doing so should be of similar severity, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 3, 2014 11:52:25 GMT
I've never been on a civil jury, just criminal, but I still believe that I'd have to be very convinced before I gave someone's money away. It would take a lot more than just believing it was a 51% "probability" (and a preponderance of evidence don't imply just a slight edge such as 51% sure) before I'd side with the plaintiff.
There are many different verifications for currency that is eventually subjected to bank scrutiny and banks are very good at detecting counterfeit currency (as opposed to an employer that really doesn't care very much). Of course even today's currency is being counterfeited and they do use holographic printers to counterfeit it. There are numerous recent stories on counterfeit currency so I'll just post one.
www.wandtv.com/story/26173087/springfield-police-investigating-reports-of-counterfeit-money
Of course printing fake ID doesn't come with the risks associated with counterfeiting currency and is very profitable.
I could see opium poppies providing a nice accent color to a flower garden.
i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1/CrackedVP/IMG_6687OXChilton_zpsfa587846.jpg
Your opium poppies are certainly very pretty--albeit probably rather shocking to the neighbors. You might, indeed, vote for acquittal in a civil case if you felt only 51 percent certain of the defendant's guilt. That would be an example of jury nullification. (For the record, I would vote for conviction in that event,) If we had a hard-to-counterfeit national ID card, it should probably be a federal offense to counterfeit it--just as counterfeiting US currency is a federal offense--and the penalty for doing so should be of similar severity, in my opinion.
We can simplify the issue because "preponderanc of evidence" cannot be used in a criminal prosecution that would be required in addressing the government filing a case against an employer for hiring immigrants. There are even different standards depending upon the type case.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence
You know we already have a national ID card. It's called a US Passport and they're costly to obtain.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 3, 2014 21:12:47 GMT
Your opium poppies are certainly very pretty--albeit probably rather shocking to the neighbors. You might, indeed, vote for acquittal in a civil case if you felt only 51 percent certain of the defendant's guilt. That would be an example of jury nullification. (For the record, I would vote for conviction in that event,) If we had a hard-to-counterfeit national ID card, it should probably be a federal offense to counterfeit it--just as counterfeiting US currency is a federal offense--and the penalty for doing so should be of similar severity, in my opinion.
We can simplify the issue because "preponderanc of evidence" cannot be used in a criminal prosecution that would be required in addressing the government filing a case against an employer for hiring immigrants. There are even different standards depending upon the type case.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence
You know we already have a national ID card. It's called a US Passport and they're costly to obtain.
A national ID card would not have to be "costly to obtain." Our government could issue it to each citizen, at no charge. (Or, alternatively, Social Security cards could be upgraded to be very difficult to counterfeit--just as our currency is--and accepted for identification.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 4, 2014 10:36:35 GMT
We can simplify the issue because "preponderanc of evidence" cannot be used in a criminal prosecution that would be required in addressing the government filing a case against an employer for hiring immigrants. There are even different standards depending upon the type case.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence
You know we already have a national ID card. It's called a US Passport and they're costly to obtain.
A national ID card would not have to be "costly to obtain." Our government could issue it to each citizen, at no charge. (Or, alternatively, Social Security cards could be upgraded to be very difficult to counterfeit--just as our currency is--and accepted for identification.)
The federal government would basically have to run the same background check that it does for a passport and you don't believe it would be costly.
That still isn't the point of course. I have no desire to live "In the USSR" where was person is forced to "Present Their Papers" to do anything and that is what would evolve from a national ID card.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 4, 2014 20:36:31 GMT
A national ID card would not have to be "costly to obtain." Our government could issue it to each citizen, at no charge. (Or, alternatively, Social Security cards could be upgraded to be very difficult to counterfeit--just as our currency is--and accepted for identification.)
The federal government would basically have to run the same background check that it does for a passport and you don't believe it would be costly.
That still isn't the point of course. I have no desire to live "In the USSR" where was person is forced to "Present Their Papers" to do anything and that is what would evolve from a national ID card.
How "costly" is it for the US government to issue Social Security cards? (Again, it would not even have to issue additional cards. It could simply make those Social Security cards very difficult to counterfeit--just as our currency is--and ask employers to accept those for identification.) And to compare a United States that requires proof of citizenship for employment to the former USSR strikes me as downright ludicrous... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 5, 2014 3:44:18 GMT
The federal government would basically have to run the same background check that it does for a passport and you don't believe it would be costly.
That still isn't the point of course. I have no desire to live "In the USSR" where was person is forced to "Present Their Papers" to do anything and that is what would evolve from a national ID card.
How "costly" is it for the US government to issue Social Security cards? (Again, it would not even have to issue additional cards. It could simply make those Social Security cards very difficult to counterfeit--just as our currency is--and ask employers to accept those for identification.) And to compare a United States that requires proof of citizenship for employment to the former USSR strikes me as downright ludicrous...
They will simply be counterfeited regardless of how hard you make it do to so. US dollars are still being counterfeited and a $100 bill, with all of the "security" protections, can still be counterfeited for about $2 and pass general scrutiny (not the bank experts of course). Of course because ID must be personalized with a photo it costs more so I'd guess the "cost" would be about $20 and it would probably sell for ten-times that amount (i.e. $200) which is insignificant for an "illegal" alien seeking employment.
I remember when you could walk into an airport and purchase the ticket at the gate so don't even try to tell me that our government would not expand the mandates for "showing your papers" over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 5, 2014 23:48:38 GMT
How "costly" is it for the US government to issue Social Security cards? (Again, it would not even have to issue additional cards. It could simply make those Social Security cards very difficult to counterfeit--just as our currency is--and ask employers to accept those for identification.) And to compare a United States that requires proof of citizenship for employment to the former USSR strikes me as downright ludicrous...
They will simply be counterfeited regardless of how hard you make it do to so. US dollars are still being counterfeited and a $100 bill, with all of the "security" protections, can still be counterfeited for about $2 and pass general scrutiny (not the bank experts of course). Of course because ID must be personalized with a photo it costs more so I'd guess the "cost" would be about $20 and it would probably sell for ten-times that amount (i.e. $200) which is insignificant for an "illegal" alien seeking employment.
I remember when you could walk into an airport and purchase the ticket at the gate so don't even try to tell me that our government would not expand the mandates for "showing your papers" over time.
I cannot assert, with any confidence, that government "mandates" will never be "expand[ed]," as they very often are. But that is a separate subject. The fact that US currency is still counterfeited, despite the built-in safeguards against counterfeiting, is really no argument in favor of your position. In fact, quite the opposite: The law against counterfeiting still stands; and US currency (of the legal variety) is still being printed. If there are, say, 200 million working-age Americans in the US--and I am merely venturing a guess here--and if the enhanced Social Security card for each would cost $200, that would result in a total cost of $40 billion. Not exactly pocket change, to be sure. But not an enormous percentage of America's total annual budget, either. And it would surely be possible to find offsets--spending that might be pared--in order for the federal government to issue these cards, at no charge. |
|
