Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio Is At It Again

[Green Eyed Lady]

Vandals...are you saying that since a particular state has no specific legislation on the books regarding the employment of illegal aliens, a business in that state is free to do so despite the fact that there is a federal law against it? 

[djAdvocate]

Jan 22, 2014 14:32:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 22, 2014 14:24:59 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

Tell you what, Toy. Go on down to the mall in DC and explain that to the judge of the Supreme Court. A federal court has determined that such a law is unconsitutional, and has overturned that law. Explain to them that they made a mistake.

You're saying that it's in fact legal for US companies to hire individuals without verifying that those individuals have the right to work in America?

Link?

businesses are required to fill out an I9.  the I9 form requires two forms of ID, which are from a short list on that form.  HOWEVER, for reasons that i invite everyone to explore, there is no requirement that the ID be VERIFIED in most states.  therefore, if a person presents false documents, then they (the presenter) are guilty of such, but the business is guilty of nothing.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 22, 2014 15:26:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 22, 2014 14:32:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You're saying that it's in fact legal for US companies to hire individuals without verifying that those individuals have the right to work in America?

Link?

businesses are required to fill out an I9.  the I9 form requires two forms of ID, which are from a short list on that form.  HOWEVER, for reasons that i invite everyone to explore, there is no requirement that the ID be VERIFIED in most states.  therefore, if a person presents false documents, then they (the presenter) are guilty of such, but the business is guilty of nothing.

In Canada, if you have an employee on payroll, you pay them by obtaining their SIN or work permit number, which allows you to send them cheques or deposit money in their accounts. If the information they give you is fake, you'd find out as soon as you issued their first paycheque.

If you're in the unusual situation of an all-cash business, there are situations where you can pay employees in cash, but you still have to report to the federal government that Joe Blow with SIN #123 or work visa #456 received a certain amount of payment from you. And again you would quickly discover that Joe's information was fake when the government contacted you.

The only way you wouldn't find out if Joe's information wasn't legitimate is if you were paying him in cash under the table without reporting the transaction to the government. That, for obvious reasons, is illegal. And if you're willing to carry on with that kind of illegal activity, you probably wouldn't care about the legitimacy of Joe's information anyway.

So it seems to me that verifying Joe's information is "built in" to the process of paying him legally, no? Does it not work the same way in the US?

[Sum Dum Gai]

Our process is similar, but only because of Social Security.  All you need to open a bank account is a driver's license, and you get one without proving citizenship.  It's possible to get a driver's license, open a bank account, get a job, and have your checks deposited without being here legally.  However, when your employer withholds your FICA taxes and sends them in to the government they're going to need a SS number to send them with.  You could give your employer a bogus SS number, but it'll get flagged as bogus when your FICA taxes go in.  You could instead find some way to obtain a valid number that isn't assigned to you, and give that to your employer, but you'd be paying SS taxes for another person, and they might question that when they get their statement and it shows more income than they actually make.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 22, 2014 15:26:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 22, 2014 14:32:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You're saying that it's in fact legal for US companies to hire individuals without verifying that those individuals have the right to work in America?

Link?

businesses are required to fill out an I9.  the I9 form requires two forms of ID, which are from a short list on that form.  HOWEVER, for reasons that i invite everyone to explore, there is no requirement that the ID be VERIFIED in most states.  therefore, if a person presents false documents, then they (the presenter) are guilty of such, but the business is guilty of nothing.

I have to wonder how many small landscaping companies, mom-and-pop grocery stores, and other small businesses don't bother to have employees complete an I-9 form. And you have got to know businesses that pay employees under the table never complete an I-9 form.  I would imagine the number of businesses who don't have employees complete I-9 forms is quite a few. 

[Sum Dum Gai]

I would imagine the number of businesses who don't have employees complete I-9 forms is quite a few.

And I'd be fine with every single one of them being fined, and I'm talking fines big enough to shut down a small mom and pop, and losing their business license if they have repeat violations.

The government sets the rules.  Business compete by them.  You don't have to like all the rules, you don't have to agree with them, but there is an expectation that you follow them.  If business owners can start picking and choosing which laws to follow, there's no point in making any.  I'd claim I made no money and ignore all my taxes.  For that matter I could withhold deductions from our employees pay, but pocket them instead of sending them to Uncle Sam, and let the rest of you suckers cover the shortfall.

It's impossible to have fair competition if business are all playing by different rules.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 22, 2014 17:42:16 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I would imagine the number of businesses who don't have employees complete I-9 forms is quite a few.

And I'd be fine with every single one of them being fined, and I'm talking fines big enough to shut down a small mom and pop, and losing their business license if they have repeat violations.

The government sets the rules.  Business compete by them.  You don't have to like all the rules, you don't have to agree with them, but there is an expectation that you follow them.  If business owners can start picking and choosing which laws to follow, there's no point in making any.  I'd claim I made no money and ignore all my taxes.  For that matter I could withhold deductions from our employees pay, but pocket them instead of sending them to Uncle Sam, and let the rest of you suckers cover the shortfall.

It's impossible to have fair competition if business are all playing by different rules.

I don't disagree with you. I am all for everyone following the law.

I am not sure how accurate the numbers are but according to United States Census, Statistics of U.S. Businesses (2011 stats), there are approximately 5,684,424 total firms/businesses in the U.S.  Of that number, 5,104,014 have less than 20 employees and 3,532,058 have 4 or less employees. 

United States Census/Statistics of U.S. Businesses

I have to wonder how many of those small businesses complete the I-9 form.  The state/federal manpower to ensure I-9 compliance with all these small businesses would be quite high.  It would be a monster of a task to determine compliance.

[vandalshandle]

Jan 22, 2014 15:04:45 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Vandals...are you saying that since a particular state has no specific legislation on the books regarding the employment of illegal aliens, a business in that state is free to do so despite the fact that there is a federal law against it? 

I am saying, and have said this in as many ways that I know how, that a state can not prosecute anyone for breaking a federal law, and vice versa. I am also saying that no state has a law making it a violation of state law to be in the USA against federal law. Finally, I am saying that in a court of law, everyone is either guilty or not guilty. The state has no way to make that determination of the legal status of an alien, other than if a federal court has made that determination. Consequently, under state law, in a state courtroom, there is no such thing as an illegal alien, unless the feds have found someone guilty of that crime.

Now, if you want your state DA to go to court and try to convice a judge that a person is an "illegal alien" according to some internet dictionary definition, and therefor, his employer should be punished by the state...well, good luck with that.

[NoNamePerson]

We have to have an I9, New Hire form to Dept of Industrial Relations (unemployment) and E Verify in my state. And all have to be done within a certain time frame or employer is fined.

[NoNamePerson]

Jan 22, 2014 18:15:18 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 22, 2014 17:42:16 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

And I'd be fine with every single one of them being fined, and I'm talking fines big enough to shut down a small mom and pop, and losing their business license if they have repeat violations.

The government sets the rules.  Business compete by them.  You don't have to like all the rules, you don't have to agree with them, but there is an expectation that you follow them.  If business owners can start picking and choosing which laws to follow, there's no point in making any.  I'd claim I made no money and ignore all my taxes.  For that matter I could withhold deductions from our employees pay, but pocket them instead of sending them to Uncle Sam, and let the rest of you suckers cover the shortfall.

It's impossible to have fair competition if business are all playing by different rules.

I don't disagree with you. I am all for everyone following the law.

I am not sure how accurate the numbers are but according to United States Census, Statistics of U.S. Businesses (2011 stats), there are approximately 5,684,424 total firms/businesses in the U.S.  Of that number, 5,104,014 have less than 20 employees and 3,532,058 have 4 or less employees. 

United States Census/Statistics of U.S. Businesses

I have to wonder how many of those small businesses complete the I-9 form.  The state/federal manpower to ensure I-9 compliance with all these small businesses would be quite high.  It would be a monster of a task to determine compliance.

When I worked for a construction company back in the late 80's when the I9 came into play we were audited concerning I9's. They seemed to have it in for construction companies back then. Don't know about today. Honestly can't remember if it was state or fed who did the audit, just remember getting out the file for them.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jan 22, 2014 18:21:44 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

Jan 22, 2014 15:04:45 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Vandals...are you saying that since a particular state has no specific legislation on the books regarding the employment of illegal aliens, a business in that state is free to do so despite the fact that there is a federal law against it? 

I am saying, and have said this in as many ways that I know how, that a state can not prosecute anyone for breaking a federal law, and vice versa. I am also saying that no state has a law making it a violation of state law to be in the USA against federal law. Finally, I am saying that in a court of law, everyone is either guilty or not guilty. The state has no way to make that determination of the legal status of an alien, other than if a federal court has made that determination. Consequently, under state law, in a state courtroom, there is no such thing as an illegal alien, unless the feds have found someone guilty of that crime.

Now, if you want your state DA to go to court and try to convice a judge that a person is an "illegal alien" according to some internet dictionary definition, and therefor, his employer should be punished by the state...well, good luck with that.

Gotcha.  I have no clue what your point is, but I do understand what you are saying.   You joined this conversation in response to Dark's post regarding a possible solution to the illegal alien issue, which was to punish those who employ them.  I'm taking from all of the back and forth that you must believe that, for some reason, is not possible.  I'll just say I disagree and be done with this since I have truly lost track of what exactly I'm debating and because I know that is just not the case.

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 22, 2014 19:50:42 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Jan 22, 2014 18:21:44 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

I am saying, and have said this in as many ways that I know how, that a state can not prosecute anyone for breaking a federal law, and vice versa. I am also saying that no state has a law making it a violation of state law to be in the USA against federal law. Finally, I am saying that in a court of law, everyone is either guilty or not guilty. The state has no way to make that determination of the legal status of an alien, other than if a federal court has made that determination. Consequently, under state law, in a state courtroom, there is no such thing as an illegal alien, unless the feds have found someone guilty of that crime.

Now, if you want your state DA to go to court and try to convice a judge that a person is an "illegal alien" according to some internet dictionary definition, and therefor, his employer should be punished by the state...well, good luck with that.

Gotcha.  I have no clue what your point is, but I do understand what you are saying.   You joined this conversation in response to Dark's post regarding a possible solution to the illegal alien issue, which was to punish those who employ them.  I'm taking from all of the back and forth that you must believe that, for some reason, is not possible.  I'll just say I disagree and be done with this since I have truly lost track of what exactly I'm debating and because I know that is just not the case.

I still don't understand why we can't ask for documentation of citizenship. I would gladly provide mine if it meant ridding this country of the illegals.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 22, 2014 20:21:33 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 22, 2014 19:50:42 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Gotcha.  I have no clue what your point is, but I do understand what you are saying.   You joined this conversation in response to Dark's post regarding a possible solution to the illegal alien issue, which was to punish those who employ them.  I'm taking from all of the back and forth that you must believe that, for some reason, is not possible.  I'll just say I disagree and be done with this since I have truly lost track of what exactly I'm debating and because I know that is just not the case.

I still don't understand why we can't ask for documentation of citizenship. I would gladly provide mine if it meant ridding this country of the illegals.

an I9 pretty much covers that.  but as i have stated already, it in NO WAY guarantees that a person is a citizen. 

[djAdvocate]

Jan 22, 2014 18:27:34 GMT -5 NoNamePerson said:

We have to have an I9, New Hire form to Dept of Industrial Relations (unemployment) and E Verify in my state. And all have to be done within a certain time frame or employer is fined.

the fines are REALLY HIGH, too.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 22, 2014 16:20:45 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Our process is similar, but only because of Social Security.  All you need to open a bank account is a driver's license, and you get one without proving citizenship.  It's possible to get a driver's license, open a bank account, get a job, and have your checks deposited without being here legally.  However, when your employer withholds your FICA taxes and sends them in to the government they're going to need a SS number to send them with.  You could give your employer a bogus SS number, but it'll get flagged as bogus when your FICA taxes go in. 

unfortunately, no.  that does NOT happen.  the money ends up in the federal accounts, and gets paid out to SS recipients.

You could instead find some way to obtain a valid number that isn't assigned to you, and give that to your employer, but you'd be paying SS taxes for another person, and they might question that when they get their statement and it shows more income than they actually make.

again, no.  it is an open loop system, so there is no flag when that happens.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I feel the same way, Miss T.  Let's pretend I'm a redhead.  In my county, a very large group of redheads is running around the county causing havoc and costing the taxpayers millions.  Now let's pretend I'm driving to work.  A law enforcement officer, doing traffic patrol, sees that I'm a redhead and pulls me over to determine if I'm one of the redheads causing so much trouble.   This would be, undoubtedly, profiling.

Of course, I'm going to be irritated that I pay the earth shattering price of being pulled over just because some of the redheads in this county cause trouble.  After all, a large portion of us redheads are hard-working, law-abiding citizens who just want to make a living for ourselves and our family.  Again, I'm probably going to be irritated at the completely life-altering experience of being asked for my identification, to determine if I am one of the "bad" redheads.

But more than that?  I'm going to be glad that law enforcement is aggressively seeking out those redheads who are giving us all a bad name. 

[djAdvocate]

Jan 22, 2014 18:15:18 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 22, 2014 17:42:16 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

And I'd be fine with every single one of them being fined, and I'm talking fines big enough to shut down a small mom and pop, and losing their business license if they have repeat violations.

The government sets the rules.  Business compete by them.  You don't have to like all the rules, you don't have to agree with them, but there is an expectation that you follow them.  If business owners can start picking and choosing which laws to follow, there's no point in making any.  I'd claim I made no money and ignore all my taxes.  For that matter I could withhold deductions from our employees pay, but pocket them instead of sending them to Uncle Sam, and let the rest of you suckers cover the shortfall.

It's impossible to have fair competition if business are all playing by different rules.

I don't disagree with you. I am all for everyone following the law.

I am not sure how accurate the numbers are but according to United States Census, Statistics of U.S. Businesses (2011 stats), there are approximately 5,684,424 total firms/businesses in the U.S.  Of that number, 5,104,014 have less than 20 employees and 3,532,058 have 4 or less employees. 

United States Census/Statistics of U.S. Businesses

I have to wonder how many of those small businesses complete the I-9 form.  The state/federal manpower to ensure I-9 compliance with all these small businesses would be quite high.  It would be a monster of a task to determine compliance.

probably true.  but i think you are missing half the point.  who is the government there to serve?

[djAdvocate]

PS- they could start with the businesses with over 100 employees located in border states.  that should save some time. 

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 22, 2014 20:33:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

PS- they could start with the businesses with over 100 employees located in border states.  that should save some time. 

Sounds like profiling :-p

[djAdvocate]

Jan 22, 2014 21:03:17 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 22, 2014 20:33:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

PS- they could start with the businesses with over 100 employees located in border states.  that should save some time. 

Sounds like profiling :-p

precisely.  if you are looking for things like, say, organizations that are engaged in politics, you search common political names.  if you are searching for people crossing the border illegally, Oklahoma doesn't seem like the pace to begin. 

[Miss Tequila]

Jan 22, 2014 21:11:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 22, 2014 21:03:17 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Sounds like profiling :-p

precisely.  if you are looking for things like, say, organizations that are engaged in politics, you search common political names.  if you are searching for people crossing the border illegally, Oklahoma doesn't seem like the pace to begin. 

If you are searching for illegal aliens, maybe the red head speaking English isn't the place to start...but we can't target likely suspects because that's profiling...makes no sense to me

[Tennesseer]

Jan 22, 2014 21:03:17 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jan 22, 2014 20:33:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

PS- they could start with the businesses with over 100 employees located in border states.  that should save some time. 

Sounds like profiling :-p

No profiling necessary.  They are checking I-9s.

[vandalshandle]

In the world of law, laguage must be precise. If the state demands that an employer verify that an employee presented proof of citizenship before hiring him, then the state is looking for employers that hire UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. No court must be involved to determine that someone has no documentation that he is a citizen, but a court DOES have to determine if such person is an illegal alien. As stated above, and also in my previous post, anyone can obtain proof of citizensip, by taking a few simple steps, even if they are here illegally. The employer is not guilty of a crime if he has been given what a reasonable man would consider proof of citizenship, within the guidlines of the law.

 I assure everyone that anyone can get a birth certificate, driver's license, ss card, and voter registration card. None of the voter suppression bills being introduced by the GOP does anything to stop that from happening.

But to get precisely back to the OP, Sheriff Joe, and his merry band of deputies have nothing whatsoever to do with any of this. Inside his county, and outside of a municipality, they may detain someone who is breaking county law..not state law, not federal law, and not city law. Joe, however, does not see it that way, and the Feds have slapped his wrist hard, as a result.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I'm pretty sure police have the authority to detain somebody for breaking any law, including federal, but they have turn them over to the proper authority for charges. That's why federal law enforcement agencies send them wanted lists and whatnot.

[workpublic]

that a state can not prosecute anyone for breaking a federal law, and vice versa.

not sure if they are going to be "prosecuted". but they were "busted".

www.theolympian.com/2012/07/24/2637228/feds-bust-one-medical-marijuana.html

www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24570937/feds-involved-raid-at-denver-area-marijuana

[djAdvocate]

Jan 22, 2014 15:44:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 22, 2014 15:26:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

businesses are required to fill out an I9.  the I9 form requires two forms of ID, which are from a short list on that form.  HOWEVER, for reasons that i invite everyone to explore, there is no requirement that the ID be VERIFIED in most states.  therefore, if a person presents false documents, then they (the presenter) are guilty of such, but the business is guilty of nothing.

In Canada, if you have an employee on payroll, you pay them by obtaining their SIN or work permit number, which allows you to send them cheques or deposit money in their accounts. If the information they give you is fake, you'd find out as soon as you issued their first paycheque.

If you're in the unusual situation of an all-cash business, there are situations where you can pay employees in cash, but you still have to report to the federal government that Joe Blow with SIN #123 or work visa #456 received a certain amount of payment from you. And again you would quickly discover that Joe's information was fake when the government contacted you.

The only way you wouldn't find out if Joe's information wasn't legitimate is if you were paying him in cash under the table without reporting the transaction to the government. That, for obvious reasons, is illegal. And if you're willing to carry on with that kind of illegal activity, you probably wouldn't care about the legitimacy of Joe's information anyway.

So it seems to me that verifying Joe's information is "built in" to the process of paying him legally, no? Does it not work the same way in the US?

no.  there is no feedback loop in the US.  the government never (or, as phoenix would have me say, rarely) discerns whether an employee is even ALIVE: only that their ss# exists.  the employer is never (rarely) informed of such things.  so, he just goes on paying the payroll taxes, and the employee keeps on working, and some dead (or living) person gets their account stuffed with cash they will never collect.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 23, 2014 12:57:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 22, 2014 15:44:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

In Canada, if you have an employee on payroll, you pay them by obtaining their SIN or work permit number, which allows you to send them cheques or deposit money in their accounts. If the information they give you is fake, you'd find out as soon as you issued their first paycheque.

If you're in the unusual situation of an all-cash business, there are situations where you can pay employees in cash, but you still have to report to the federal government that Joe Blow with SIN #123 or work visa #456 received a certain amount of payment from you. And again you would quickly discover that Joe's information was fake when the government contacted you.

The only way you wouldn't find out if Joe's information wasn't legitimate is if you were paying him in cash under the table without reporting the transaction to the government. That, for obvious reasons, is illegal. And if you're willing to carry on with that kind of illegal activity, you probably wouldn't care about the legitimacy of Joe's information anyway.

So it seems to me that verifying Joe's information is "built in" to the process of paying him legally, no? Does it not work the same way in the US?

no.  there is no feedback loop in the US.  the government never (or, as phoenix would have me say, rarely) discerns whether an employee is even ALIVE: only that their ss# exists.  the employer is never (rarely) informed of such things.  so, he just goes on paying the payroll taxes, and the employee keeps on working, and some dead (or living) person gets their account stuffed with cash they will never collect.

It seems to me, then, that the government verifying the aliveness (a real word; who knew?) of a reported income earner and following up complaints about taxes on unearned income for live income earners would go a long way to informing businesses that they had fraudsters on the payroll.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 23, 2014 13:21:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 23, 2014 12:57:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

no.  there is no feedback loop in the US.  the government never (or, as phoenix would have me say, rarely) discerns whether an employee is even ALIVE: only that their ss# exists.  the employer is never (rarely) informed of such things.  so, he just goes on paying the payroll taxes, and the employee keeps on working, and some dead (or living) person gets their account stuffed with cash they will never collect.

It seems to me, then, that the government verifying the aliveness (a real word; who knew?) of a reported income earner and following up complaints about taxes on unearned income for live income earners would go a long way to informing businesses that they had fraudsters on the payroll.

i agree, but here is the problem: the government is there to serve the interests of businesses far more than to serve the interests of individuals.  i think that if you will check the congressional record, you will find as many bills introduced to fix this problem as you will bills for campaign finance reform.  the sum total of these bills that made it to the president are pretty much ZILCH. 

it is upsetting to me, so i am going to go do something productive for a while, rather than think about it.

[vandalshandle]

Jan 22, 2014 22:43:30 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I'm pretty sure police have the authority to detain somebody for breaking any law, including federal, but they have turn them over to the proper authority for charges. That's why federal law enforcement agencies send them wanted lists and whatnot.

As a uniformed member of the sheriff's auxcilary in my county, I can assure you that a deputy has no authority to arrest or detain anyone breaking the law outside of his jurisdiction. Nor does he have the authority to arrest or detain anyone for breaking a law that is not on the books of the COUNTY, in which he is a deputy.

[Sum Dum Gai]

So, if you were out on patrol and saw somebody from the FBI most wanted list you couldn't arrest them unless you also witnessed them breaking some county ordinance?  That doesn't sound right.