Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alright, so to take it to another level, would you invite law enforcement into your home every week for an inspection, provided the resources were available?
I'm just astonished that the "leave me alone" Republican party is willing to support a government database of every person in the country, which is checked every time you seek employment.
"Don't make me register my gun, but register my fingerprints? Sure!" -- seems inconsistent.
Unfortunately, Bouncing . . . this is a Different World compared to only a few decades ago.
I understand your concern . . . OUR FREEDOM IS IN DANGER but not from our own Government as much as from the Thug Governments and Groups outside.
If Law Enforcement Officers feel the need to inspect my home, since I have absolutely nothing to hide . . . GO FOR IT.
I have to agree with you and this was my first thought too.If they have the database available and then fail to do what is required then the burden rests squarely on the shoulders of the employer.I understand also where bouncing is coming from too,although I have never been a drug user of any kind I still feel as if my rights are violated by having to take a pre employment or random drug test.I do not however see where these two meet,one is of national interest and keeps SOME of the illegals out of our country while the other snags an occasional weed smoker who bothers nobody but him/herself....and laughs a lot at inappropiate times.Major difference imo
I agree with the drug testing also. In many working environments is an inherent danger. One needs to be focused or you can be injured or you might injure a co-worker. Showing up stoned would definitely pose a hazard for others as well as yourself. Its also a good policy. Where I work if you get injured its very common to also be tested for drugs and alcohol.
In other environments folks deal with sensitive material. A pot head is not exactly someone you would want handling said materials. Imagine a hospital. Does anyone really want a pot head in the ER or OR? How about a coke addict? Not me.
I am for the data base because it does lend to a greater accountability. It can give law enforcement an ability to hold questionable employers to a very high accountability. Its not unique. The SS# is the key to every individual citizen in the nation. It would not really be a huge increase in gov and for a change it would be a gov program that actually served a valid purpose other than a way to waste more taxpayer dollars.
Conversly the left would require at a minimum registration of all fire arms and with an ultimate goal of a ban on all private ownership.
And yet they would not want to see a data base in place. A data base is no more intrusive than a national ID card which is what a passport is.
The bottom line is too many illegals are taking advantage of weak enforcement. We are required to pay taxes, take part in the census. This is not a big stretch. Every US serviceman has been finger printed. If its fair for those willing to die for their country it should be fair for all others.
I support the data base 100%.
I see a lot of differences between a passport and a national ID card, but that's another matter. (For one, most Americans don't even have passports.) Also, the project of building a gun database no more furthers banning guns than the already-existing national automobile database is being used to ban cars.
The census was specifically designed to be anonymous; the framers of the Constitution made sure of it.
Look, if you think the government has a role in indexing all your personal data, I'm not saying that's necessarily an invalid position to have. I'm just asking how such an idea can be held by a party that claims to value personal freedom, limited government, and libertarianism above all else.
Unfortunately, Bouncing . . . this is a Different World compared to only a few decades ago.
I understand your concern . . . OUR FREEDOM IS IN DANGER but not from our own Government as much as from the Thug Governments and Groups outside.
If Law Enforcement Officers feel the need to inspect my home, since I have absolutely nothing to hide . . . GO FOR IT.
I'll grant you that controlled borders and national security are related, but you seem to be implying that the database would help deter terrorism. How so?
I'll be the first to say the border should be enforced, but I don't like the idea of "papers please" check points throughout the country or government databases to be checked in the everyday course of life.
limited government, individual freedom, and laissez-faire economics?
Just wondering.
Identity/Citizenship-checks before employment does mean bigger government but it also safeguards jobs for American citizens.
Identity/Citizenship-checks do not affect a person's freedom. You can apply to any job as long as you are who you say you are. That means no illegals, no runaways, no fugitive from the law, etc. etc. (that's a good thing).
Identity/Citizenship-checks do not affect laissez-faire economics because free trade is about trade and not employment...
Identity/Citizenship-checks before employment does mean bigger government but it also safeguards jobs for American citizens.
Identity/Citizenship-checks do not affect a person's freedom. You can apply to any job as long as you are who you say you are. That means no illegals, no runaways, no fugitive from the law, etc. etc. (that's a good thing).
Identity/Citizenship-checks do not affect laissez-faire economics because free trade is about trade and not employment...
1. All big government projects have some justification. Social security means big government, but it also means the elderly aren't out cold. Gun control means big government, but it also means fewer guns are likely to fall into the hands of criminals.
The premise of conservatism, as I understand it, is that the trade-off isn't worthwhile in the long run. Why is there an "immigration exception" to the limited government rule?
2. By that standard, NO searches intrude on personal freedom. If you have nothing in your backpack, then why oppose it being searched when you get on a bus? If you have no drugs in your home, why oppose random searches by the DEA? Again, why the exception?
3. I'm pretty sure employment is the very basis of trade.
man i been talking about databases for ever!!! you guys barely up on this?
i think there should be comprehensive criminal databases. i think they should be cross referenced(hopefully using biometric data) with consular databses that hand out those MATRICULA cards. i think this info should be made availabe to all gov't agencies, federal, state or otherwise.
i said it once, i'll say it again.
THE US SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO PULL THE ROLLS OF ALL FOREIGN CONSULS AND CROSSREFERNCE FOR PEOPLE IN OTHER [CRIMINAL] DATABASES.
as for the worker DB. it might cause headaches creating it, but thats ok.
just some thoughts. would those found previously guilty of hiring undocumented workers be made to subsidize such a program/database? wheres the money coming from? how would this list be compiled? will there be an age specification (so that illegal parents dont use legal childrens SSN's? just some thoughts.
i have no problem with this. then again i also have no problem with CC surveilance on the streets.
1. All big government projects have some justification. Social security means big government, but it also means the elderly aren't out cold. Gun control means big government, but it also means fewer guns are likely to fall into the hands of criminals.
The premise of conservatism, as I understand it, is that the trade-off isn't worthwhile in the long run. Why is there an "immigration exception" to the limited government rule?
I think you misunderstand the role of "limited government"... the Federal government should be of a limited government in the protection of the US citizen from outsiders... The citizenship check is protection of citizens from outsiders... limited government is a small government but it also has a duty/function to fulfill and legal immigration IS a role of the federal government therefore cracking down on illegal immigration is part of its authority... Saying that.. citizenship check is part of that authority therefore the government is STILL a limited government as it has not expanded its role, its simply modernizing its role... true, it did get a little bit bigger but the size it has grown is remotely small in comparison to its more efficient function... so there you go...
Quote:
2. By that standard, NO searches intrude on personal freedom. If you have nothing in your backpack, then why oppose it being searched when you get on a bus? If you have no drugs in your home, why oppose random searches by the DEA? Again, why the exception?
Identity and searches are as different as apples and oranges. You claim to be this person, then the job recruiter has a right to verify who you are. You don't have to apply for a job. You have opted to apply to a job that has checks in place to make sure they aren't hiring an illegal or felon. This is similar to background checks when renting an apartment. The government is NOT asking you to get a job. You are asking the employer for a job and if you are asking for a job (i.e. give an application with your credentials then you have already given latitude that they check that you are correctly representing yourself). There is no invasion of privacy when you apply for a job unless people like to hire people without knowing who they are or where they came from... It is a formality for getting a job...
Quote:
3. I'm pretty sure employment is the very basis of trade.
Nope the basis of trade is value... You offer one thing and I offer you another and if we are in agreement then the trade is completed... free and clear... free trade is not about employment... it is about trade.. adding anything else makes it NOT a free trade...
I think you misunderstand the role of "limited government"... the Federal government should be of a limited government in the protection of the US citizen from outsiders... The citizenship check is protection of citizens from outsiders... limited government is a small government but it also has a duty/function to fulfill and legal immigration IS a role of the federal government therefore cracking down on illegal immigration is part of its authority... Saying that.. citizenship check is part of that authority therefore the government is STILL a limited government as it has not expanded its role, its simply modernizing its role... true, it did get a little bit bigger but the size it has grown is remotely small in comparison to its more efficient function... so there you go...
Oh, come on! You're saying that a massive government database of every single person, along with their personal information, employment history, and current residency is small government!?
If the exception to small government is that the expansion of government has to be something the government has an interest in, like immigration, you've written a blank check to infinite government size.
Quote:
Identity and searches are as different as apples and oranges. You claim to be this person, then the job recruiter has a right to verify who you are. You don't have to apply for a job. You have opted to apply to a job that has checks in place to make sure they aren't hiring an illegal or felon. This is similar to background checks when renting an apartment. The government is NOT asking you to get a job. You are asking the employer for a job and if you are asking for a job (i.e. give an application with your credentials then you have already given latitude that they check that you are correctly representing yourself). There is no invasion of privacy when you apply for a job unless people like to hire people without knowing who they are or where they came from... It is a formality for getting a job...
The recruiter has every right to ask whatever he or she wants. At issue is whether the GOVERNMENT should step in and tell the employer what steps he should take.
The scenario is this. I'm painting a fence, you walk buy, and I offer you $20 to help me finish painting my fence. Then I'm arrested for failing to validate your citizenship status before employing you.
Quote:
Nope the basis of trade is value... You offer one thing and I offer you another and if we are in agreement then the trade is completed... free and clear... free trade is not about employment... it is about trade.. adding anything else makes it NOT a free trade...
You're trading money for labor. That's not any different than trading money for services.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
