http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=4615520 (forgive the crazy woman popup)

September 30, 2006 - A local group fighting for immigrant rights is calling for a boycott of two nationally known companies. Dunkin Donuts and Applebee's are accused of discriminating against immigrant workers whose names don't match their social security numbers.

Hmm I'm not sure I'm getting it (forgive my english).

Social security agency is sending "no match" letters to companies for mistakes in employees and ss numbers not matching exactly, which companies use this as an excuse to fire said employees because "they don't have a social security number"?

Sounds like the basic argument is, "We are going to boycott these companies because they fire people who lie on their applications, and who are breaking the law by using someone else's SSN."

I think I will be sure to have lunch this week at the local Applebee's to show my support of a business that does not support illegal activity.

Amen.

I think my wife and I will go to Applebee's this weekend.

"It looks to me like its racism," said Emma Lozano, Pueblo Sin Fronteras. -- No you fucking retard, it's not racism. It's getting rid of ILLEGAL workers that lied when they got the job. Don't these retards realize that the businesses could be fined heavily if they are found out to be using undocumented workers.

"I want President Bush to stop the raid and the deportation of my mom so she can stay with me," said Saul Arellano, Elvira's son. -- If she came here legally, she wouldn't be deported now, would she?

Dunkin Donuts and Applebee's are accused of discriminating against immigrant workers whose names don't match their social security numbers. -- It's not descriminating when you are getting rid of workers that aren't legally documented to work in this country. Illegal immigrants come here inherantly knowing the risks. They shouldn't EXPECT work being that they can't legally work here. If someone hires them, they should count their blessings, but it's not a right of theirs.

Since my big complaint has been not against immigrants, but the companies hiring illegals, I wish there were more businesses on that list, so I knew who to give business to. From just that article it sounds like the places are being responsible and firing people who don't have a valid SS number, one of the requirements for general employment in this country. In fact, I think I'll take Dunken Donuts to work today.

I had to get a food handler's card this weekend, and was once again struck by how the entire process is clearly geared towards illegals (no i.d. required, easy test, answers handed to you before you take the test, offered strictly in Spanish and English while most state documents cannot be obtained in Spanish, etc...).

The National Alliance for Immigration Rights wants an immediate moratorium on all workplace raids and deportations.In other words - please stop enforcing the laws of the country, they aren't fair and we have tear jerking stories to prove it!

I'm cranky this morning. Even still - it's about time we get realistic on immigration, and shut the damn boarder or open it wide. A few businesses start following the law and we're supposed to boycott them?

Well I just found were we are going to lunch tomorrow. Support folks who are actually following the law, what a concept.

Rev

Hmm I'm not sure I'm getting it (forgive my english).

Social security agency is sending "no match" letters to companies for mistakes in employees and ss numbers not matching exactly, which companies use this as an excuse to fire said employees because "they don't have a social security number"?It's not your English that's bad... rather it's bad journalism. I assume (shouldn't have to with a news article) there are double checks to make sure people who change their names after marriage or the simple typo mistakes are not fired.

It's not your English that's bad... rather it's bad journalism. I assume (shouldn't have to with a news article) there are double checks to make sure people who change their names after marriage or the simple typo mistakes are not fired.

Yeah no shit, Unbiased journalism anyone?

The article totally favors the whiny illegal worker's side. It makes a huge leap from, letters are sent out because of possible misspellings or name changes to, this is used to fire immigrant workers. Theres no logical connection there.
Basically:
Illegal workers are pissy because their scam was cut short, and they're twisting words to try and gain favor, fuck them.

Applebee's has *terrible*, plastic, food, but they (and Dunkin Donuts) should be commended for taking a stand here. I wish that more businesses actually followed the law here (and, further, that there were *actual* repercussions for those who don't) and that this 'boycott' doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Social Security number theft in this country is rampant and needs to be stopped; it's ludicrous that numbers get passed around, used hundreds of times by different illegals, and no-one at Social Security even notices for months or years (there was a case recently of a woman in Florida whose SSN had been used by over 200 different illegals at jobs from California to Minnesota and she was unaware of it until the IRS came calling :) ). How do you make a mistake of that magnitude? Did they really think that this woman had over 200 jobs in a two year period? As much as we resist the implementation of a national identification card in this country, it seems that, since the data is being reported anyway, that the very least they could do would be to check the numbers against a database and have *some* sort of red flagging system in place.

Regards,
Nydia

Im with Nydia, I wouldnt feed Applebee's to my dog..

But I love DD in the morning!

Ewww.. I thikn I will have to have DD and Applebee's everyday this week and tip extra to show my gratitude to their fine company for doing their part to keep America clean.

As much as we resist the implementation of a national identification card in this country, it seems that, since the data is being reported anyway, that the very least they could do would be to check the numbers against a database and have *some* sort of red flagging system in place.


This strikes me as odd, that you don't mind a Government database for checking Social Security fraud, yet you are against the Government listening in on calls to suspected terrorists...
Just curious, what makes the Government trustworthy on one subject, yet not another?

Dear Sixee:

Quite simply, independent of the issue of trustworthiness, the Social Security system already exists as part of the social contract in this country, and provides obvious and tangible benefits for the betterment of the elderly and disabled in exchange for the privacy we, as citizens, give up to participate in it; the wiretapping system contributes nothing to anyone (except the nebulous benefit to a few of being able to spy on the public with little or no justification, I mean 'catch the terrorists' ;) ). There are those, of course, that advocate that we eliminate Social Security in favor of returning to the days where the working poor died in penury, but it seems unlikely to go away anytime soon.

As to the trustworthiness of such a checking system: for better or worse, all of our income data is *already* tracked throughout our lifetimes (to determine our level of benefits when we retire or become disabled) and our income data is *already* sent to the IRS for tax purposes, so making sure that such data is accurate is something that *should* be happening already. Granted, it isn't always, including with my own account/status, but at least there is a thorough reconsideration/appeals process in place for when errors are made where the person has the right to examine all of the evidence, unlike with the Warrantless Wiretapping act.

In any case, such a system of database checking upon submission of hire papers would not require the collection of *additional* data about individuals; merely that, when numbers are submitted, the collected data be checked to determing whether that *number* (one's name could and should be kept separately from that data unless a red flag is raised) is in use elsewhere and the employer, and the employer notified if there is an issue with the number. This would prevent the most egregious abuses of the system (it would be impossible for someone's number to get used 200 or more times in different places), and make it more difficult for this type of identity theft to occur; if a person had legitimately taken a second or third jobs (or moved and changed jobs, as many legitimate, as well as illegal, agricultural/contract workers do), these could be listed on the form sent in or personal data checked if and only if there was a discrepancy.

It is my opinion that most people would appreciate (or at least accept with a minimum of a feeling of invasion of privacy) a measure that would (in this case, and perhaps as a 'side benefit' to curbing abuses) help them to protect and defend their own personal property, in this case their Social Security number and tax/benefit data; to be sure, there are risks with any such program, but far riskier (the proof is in the pudding considering the current level of abuse) is failing to reform our current employment eligibility verification system.

Regards,
Nydia

If anything, the clusterfuck of Social Security administatration should be a clear example of why the national ID concept would be nothing BUT a method of abuse, as it would clearly provide no real authentication at all.

Dear Nydia,

So you are willing to trust 1 aspect of the Government in place, due to the fact is all ready in place.
What about if a person legitimately has to change jobs several times in a year? Who determines the "red flags"?
We've all heard about the man named Saddam Hussien that lives in Arizona, born in New Jersey that recieves phone calls from Government agencies, just because his name is on a list.
You somehow think that the Government will be efficient and forthwright in this regard? Have you ever had to go to a Social Security office for anything? It is an example of how things should not be done, when it comes to oversight and management.
Look to the U.S. Postal Service, if you want to see another example of how things shouldn't be done. If it wasn't for FED EX, UPS, or DHL, this country would come to a grinding halt, I believe.
The point of my previous post is, if you aren't willing to trust the Government with 1 aspect, you really shouldn't be willing to trust the government in this aspect as well.

Regards,
Sixee

The point of my previous post is, if you aren't willing to trust the Government with 1 aspect, you really shouldn't be willing to trust the government in this aspect as well.
Because...? It'd be interesting to read the argument for this affirmation.

All or nothing, enemy or ally, black or white?
Nah that can't be, right? ;)

Well, if the Government is bad in 1 aspect of things, what is the argument that it will be oh so much better in the handling of this?
The Government has prove its ineptitude with the Social Security Administration, and the Postal Service, where is the proof that it will be any better in tracking fradulent Social Security Numbers? Or wiretapping?
Why does 1 institution of the Government garner trust, but another facet does not? Government has proven time and time again, it is the least effecient method of accomplishing anything.

I think I will be sure to have lunch this week at the local Applebee's to show my support of a business that does not support illegal activity.

We were debating where to take the kida for dinner tonight. While there are no DDs here in south ga, they'll be getting their chicken fingers from Applebees this evening.

At least I can have a dinner of beer since the food sucks :p

In nonscientific writing, spell out exact numbers of less than 10; use figures for numbers of 10 or more. Follow this rule for both ordinal and cardinal numbers.

http://www1.umn.edu/urelate/style/numbers.html

Sorry, pet peave.

Dear Sixee:

I did not spell it out, as I did not want to be perceived as potentially inflammatory in the previous posts, but if someone is 'red flagged' because their Social Security number is being used elsewhere, it is as likely to *help* the person (if they are the legitimate owner of the number) as harm them. Furthermore, if they are mistakenly identified as engaging in Social Security fraud (under the current system), there is an open appeals process with appropriate oversight and unfettered rights to representation.

In the case of the Warrantless Wiretapping Act, there *is* no benefit for the person being wiretapped, and no such safeguards exist; the person, indeed, is *not* supposed to know he is being spied upon, they can be wiretapped *without* previous authorization from a court, and oversight is nonexistant. In the case of the Military Tribunals Act, the oversight and protections have been gutted - not only can people be mistakenly 'extraordinarily rended' to a third world country for torture, but this can be done without even as much concrete evidence as a fraudulent Social Security number - furthermore, there is *no transparent appeals process, evidence can be concealed from the accused, and he is deprived of many of his rights under this Act.

While I agree with your premise that any government institution can and will make egregious mistakes with data from time to time and has the potential to abuse the public trust, not all goverment edicts/programs are created equal with regard to this risk - not only does one have to consider the potential risk vs benefit to the public (and their civil rights) of any such program, but, and this is extremely important with regard to the current 'hot-button' issues being discussed - the *construction* of that program should contain appropriate safeguards, oversight, and transparency of process in cases where errors are (and they will be) committed.

Bushco and his lawyers have systematically tried to gut precisely those protections from every addition and modification to government infrastructure that they have introduced - and as such, I do *not* see a contradition between supporting Social Security (which, as I have said, has such protections) and failing to support the Warrantless Wiretapping and Military Tribunals Acts. That *isn't* to say, of course, that at some point someone could not limit or gut protections with regard to future programs initiated by Social Security. As I already explicitly stated in the thread on the latter topic, I do not object to military tribunals under clearly defined and limited circumstances *provided* there is independent and adequate oversight, and that the right of appeal is maintained and clearly defined; but the MCA makes a mockery of those protections and the rights of anyone unfortunate enough to be caught up in its net (one can't say charged, because they don't actually have to *do* that).

I suspect that you are merely trying to bait me, or label me a hypocrite with your black/white brush; but I hope that I have made clear why and how it is not only possible, but eminently sensible, to weigh the evidence and hence support some government programs/institutions and not others.

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. I'm well acquainted with how well the Social Security Administration can foul things up; indeed, they made a 15,000 dollar error two years ago with regard to my own disability payments (and not to my benefit). Fortunately, there exists a well-defined process where I was able to ask for a reconsideration and later an appeal. While that system is slow and error-prone, they *do* do their best to help individuals out and eventually get things straightened out in the overwhelming majority of cases, and, most importantly, every step in the process is documented.

Dear Nydia,

While it may seem that I'm trying to bait you, I am in essence trying to understand how a person who is so vehemently against the warrentless wiretapping issue, can still put the trust you seem to in the Government to do the right thing when it comes to data gathered by the Social Secutiry Administration.
If I understand you correctly, the documentation the Social Security Administration employs, seems to give you a sense of security that the right thing will be done, albiet in a clunky manner. Someone, somewhere down the line will notice that something has gone wrong, and because "While that system is slow and error-prone, they *do* do their best to help individuals out.."
So, if the wiretapping situation had the same rules applied to it as does the Social Security Administration, then you'd be more at ease with it?

Regards,
Sixee

There were clear, and more or less rubber-stamp, guidelines in place with FISA with regard to conducting wiretapping. I do not believe that an expansion of, or end-run around the provisions set forth in FISA were necessary, nor do they serve a potential benefit that outweighs the potential risks. However, *if* there was appropriate documentation of the need to wiretap someone (um, grounds for a warrant perhaps, in which case, why need the WWA?), *and* the program were appropriately, *independently* (hint: not by the Executive) and thoroughly overseen, then I might be more inclined to support such.

Bushco and friends designed, constructed and pushed through the WWA precisely *because* they did not want to be hampered by such pesky things as concrete evidence, the judiciary, or independent oversight, in their zeal to 'catch the terrorists', or anything else they might 'happen' to pick up in the process. Additionally, the most chilling part of these acts is not the areas they cover, or that protections are minimal, but the fact that liberally sprinkled all through both of these acts are statements like 'The President/Secretary of State is the final arbiter of/has discretion to... effectively negating/potentially nullifying any protections that do exist.

Say what you like about the faults of the Social Security Administration or the Post Office, but they aren't, at least currently, intentionally working (or designed to work) invisibly and without oversight to deprive people of their rights.

Regards,
Nydia

If one cop beats you, do you not trust all cops?

Rev

Not if you live in Mexico City! But Rev's point is well taken, as well as concise :). Do you, just because one government program or edict is poorly constructed and/or inherently harmful, decide just to pitch the whole idea of representative government and opt for anarchy instead? For better or worse, there are some things that we need to do collectively as a nation, that we have mutually deemed require government programs, and therefore it is not only in our best interest, but our duty to the democratic process, to ensure that any such programs are 1) necessary and 2) constructed so as to minimize the potential for abuse.

Lummus is absolutely correct in the other thread that one of my main concerns with both the WWA and the MCA is that they concentrate too much power in too few hands, and don't provide the public, or other branches of government, the right/ability to even *see* what those hands are doing.

Regards,
Nydia

Dear Nydia,
You articulated your point well. I see where your concern lies, and it is not unfounded. Clearly, you have to wonder why so much needs to go on without oversight.
In regards to the Social Security Administration, and the Post Office not being intentionally depriving people of their rights, if you've ever stood in line at either place, you really begin to wonder....

Neither have anything on the DMV. Talk about people in need of rendition...

Aren't the DMVs state, rather than Federally, run? I have to confess to near complete ignorance on that one, but all of the above organizations seem sometimes to be deliberately constructed as torture devices in their own right ;). In any case, thanks Sixee for the compliment; I think that all you can really hope or ask for in a debate is that eventually the participants can at least understand clearly what the other is/are communicating (even if they don't agree with them).

On the topic of articulate/longwindedness...

Last December, I took my younger sister (who is nothing like me, tempermentally) on a cruise for her 40th birthday, going out of Houston. I forcibly dragged her along to the Andrea Zittel exhibit at the Contemporary Museum of Art while we were there, and amidst all the junk in the museum shop, she located a vintage-style refrigerator magnet by Anne Taintor, depicting a smiling woman in a '50s 'shampoo and set' hairdo wagging her finger, with the legend in newspaper cutout blocks: "she wasn't always right, but she was always articulate." We both giggled when we saw it and it graces my refrigerator today...

Thanks for staying with my meanderings to their conclusion (or conceding the point, take your pick) :).

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. I'm down to the NOAA facility down in Brownsville for some water sampling and beach time for the weekend, have a good weekend, all...

Well, if the Government is bad in 1 aspect of things, what is the argument that it will be oh so much better in the handling of this?
The Government has prove its ineptitude with the Social Security Administration, and the Postal Service

Please cite your data on the ineptitude the government has shown with the Postal Service. As an employee, I know many examples of them screwing up things, but I would like to see the basis on which you make your statement.
Do you know anything about the PS profit/loss numbers over the last 10 years? Do you know the number of new addresses added to delivery routes each year vs. the number of new hires. Do you know anything about any of our Presidents' taking money from the Postal Service coffers to balance other accounts, or Congress not paying the Postal Service for years for the Non Profit Groups they authorize to mail at discounted rates, but are supposed to allocate funds for? Please, share your info Sixee, and not just a link to some columnist who has spent no more time than you studying the isssue.

Sorry, I only have my own observations to make the statements that I have.
I would figure that if the Postal Service were doing a bang up job at what it was designed to do, UPS, FED EX, and DHL wouldn't have a share of the marketplace. Free enterprise is the name of the game. If you are doing a great job, your customers will remain loyal.
Also, the degree of customer service in a Post Office leaves a lot to be desired. I can't remember the last time I went into one and saw it fully staffed during the peak hours. Standing in line for at least 30 mins seems to be the name of the game.
I'm not sure who to blame for these problems. The apathetic employees of the Postal Service who are only there to make a buck? The US Government, who, as you said, tend to pillage the coffers of the Postal Service to fund other projects? The People of the United States for not supporting one of the basic services of the Government?