The recent dust-up between Mark Levin and Gloria Allread (audio link here) shows two things:
1. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has extensive records as to who is qualified to work in the US, and could easily pinpoint how many people are working under false social security numbers (as well as tell us EXACTLY how many illegals are here working right now.)
2. ICE is not enforcing the law with regards to using a false or stolen social security numbers. In fact, if an employer receives notification from the SSA, they are told explicitly that the offending employee cannot be fired for using a false or stolen social security number.
Working under a false or stolen SS number is Identity Theft. In October 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deference Act of 1998. This act makes it a felony to use or transfer the identity (including the SSN) of another person. OIG's Strategic Enforcement Division (SED) say they are also targeting scams run by immigrant groups and foreign nationals. Except in May of 2009, the supreme court ruled that the courts had to prove that the illegal who purchased a social security number from a third party, had to know that he was purchasing a false or stolen SS number. From The Center for Immigration Studies:
May 2009 Supreme Court ruling in Flores-Figueroa v. United States.1 Flores crippled prosecutors’ longstanding practice of using the aggravated identity theft statute by requiring that prosecutors now also prove that a defendant knew he was using a real person’s identity information, as opposed to counterfeit information not connected to an actual person. The statute is an important tool for immigration enforcement. Proving a defendant’s knowledge about his crime is always difficult, and impossible in some cases, even where there is substantial harm and clear victims. This is especially the situation with illegal aliens who buy identity information from third parties. The inevitable result of the Flores decision is to enable perpetrators an easy defense and to tie prosecutors’ hands. The defendant in the case was an illegal alien working at a steel plant in Illinois.
So OIG is 'targeting' illegals but the Flores decision effectively emasculates their enforcement powers. The fact is, we are doing very little to enforce CURRENT immigration laws. About the only positive thing Obama has done is increase deportations of illegal aliens. He's deported 10% more than Bush did.
So where are we at this immigration?
Arnold Ahlert writes a brilliant piece on the absurdities of our elite leadership in their attempts to justify shoving immigration reform down our throats.
|You've got to hand it to our cultural elitists. They are so suffused with a sense of their own superiority, they think they can sell something that almost three-quarters of the public stand firmly against. Thus, it should surprise no one that two of the "anointed few," New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch, testified Thursday before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration about the necessity of providing amnesty, as Murdoch put it, for "law-abiding, illegal immigrants." Law-abiding illegals? George Orwell would be proud.|
Full story here.
Let's spend $57 billion-a-year strictly enforcing the provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the last sucker's bet in which complete amnesty was followed up by half-hearted attempts to enforce that law's provisions for border control and taking businesses to task for hiring illegals. But don't take my word for it, just look at far more relevant "statistics:" .
What it comes down is the myth of cultural diversity, and the Democrats wanting to use illegals and the hispanic vote as a power base.
There are few positives to having 'diversity' in your work force. Just ask James Watson.