1
   

Illegal Immigrants not a burden to health care?

 
 
LittleBitty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 08:10 pm
roger wrote:
LittleBitty wrote:
To answer your question as to how I know that we do not hire illegal workers, this is is something in which we take great pride. We hire only temps and those temps can become permanent in their postions. The temp agency's computer system is tied into the SS office in some manner. When they enter a SS number that isn't valid, they have a window that pops up telling them to call the SS office.

I am familiar with the process. The first thing you should be aware of is that it is illegal to verify SSNs prior to hiring. I have what you might call "serious issues" with this, but that's the way it is. Furthermore, you can't take adverse action based on information from SSA regarding either a nonexistant number, or a number that fails to match the name. If this sounds stupid to you, well, it does to me too.

I've seen and touched SS cards that were obviously made on very light-weight copy paper in the past. Other documents, and drug testing are performed and examined prior to any temp hire. Additionally, any stolen or duplicate numbers are also caught in some manner.

What other documents? If you are presented with an I-9 document that meets the standards (resident alien card for example) of Column A, that's all you are entitled to. If you receive a Column A document, you are simply not allowed to demand more. In this case, as an employer, you are simply not permitted to demand a Social Security Card. Period. As an employer, you should be aware of this. The system sucks, but what can I say? Now, if you do not receive such a document, then you must, and I say must, demand a document for both Column B and Column C on the I-9. The SS Card is acceptable for column B.

We have production lines that take up three huge buildings and we'd rather raise prices and protect our existing workers than to explore any other avenues that might be available to us. There is also an employee referral program that has worked well for us, and the employee benefits from each referral.

Good. So long as your company demographics are more or less similar to that of similar companies, you are probably not open to charges of illegal discrimination in hiring


Truely, it sounds as though Immigration and Naturalization has conspired with the Social Security Administration to put the employer in the position of "Damned if you do; damned if you don't.


Thank you for the information. I'll pass it on to our Human Resources Department just in case we have any outstanding issues to address, but HR has assured the holding company that owns us (and everyone else in the company) that they have 100% compliance to the holding company's request of no illegal workers.

Granted, things weren't always this way, but we had a few things working in our favor that unfortunately, I can't discuss in detail.

When the holding company first bought us, a list was sent out, and on this list were individuals that had 30 days to get their paperwork in order or they had to leave. More lists followed. They are all gone, every one of them.

New hires, may last one shift, and be gone the next day, so I guess technically, we may have a temp that is illegal, but I guess (?) they wouldn't be asked to return. It was a revolving door for a long period of time, but soon, we no longer had applicants showing up in droves.

From what I can see, there must be some sort of loophole if you use temps? I honestly don't know the answer to that question though. I just know there is a big difference in the caliber of workers we now have employed at our facility be it right or wrong.
0 Replies
 
LittleBitty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 10:05 pm
This is from The Employee Benefit Research Institute. It's in a PDF format, dated June 2005. This is a comprehensive newletter that seems to ring true to me on many issues I consider to be outstanding on this matter.

One thing to note is the uninsured concentration being at the highest in New York, California, Texas and Florida. Beyond those states, the numbers drop dramatically.

One quote from page 4:

Quote:
The majority of uninsured foreign-born noncitizen population is composed of recent immigrants. About one-third of the uninsured noncitizens entered the United States during 2000-2004. About one-quarter entered during 1990-1999, while the remainder entered prior to 1990.


Also noteworthy to me were the conclusion on page 6 and figure 5 on page 7.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 10:19 pm
Who here is anti-immigrant? I am 100% anti ILLEGAL immigrant, & some here don't seem to know the difference in legal & illegal
No matter what their plight, no matter why they come here, if the are illegal, they need to be sent home, period. They need to get in the back of the line. How unfair is this to the people that stood in libe & came here legally????
0 Replies
 
LittleBitty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 10:36 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Who here is anti-immigrant? I am 100% anti ILLEGAL immigrant, & some here don't seem to know the difference in legal & illegal
No matter what their plight, no matter why they come here, if the are illegal, they need to be sent home, period. They need to get in the back of the line. How unfair is this to the people that stood in libe & came here legally????


I take it you're from Texas possibly near the border? I think that this topic might be viewed differently by those who don't have the same experience in their state - or where in proximity to the border they are within their state. It's just a thought.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 10:47 pm
LittleBitty wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Who here is anti-immigrant? I am 100% anti ILLEGAL immigrant, & some here don't seem to know the difference in legal & illegal
No matter what their plight, no matter why they come here, if the are illegal, they need to be sent home, period. They need to get in the back of the line. How unfair is this to the people that stood in libe & came here legally????


I take it you're from Texas possibly near the border? I think that this topic might be viewed differently by those who don't have the same experience in their state - or where in proximity to the border they are within their state. It's just a thought.

Yes, an hour & a half, two hours from the border. Unless people experience the carnage, pillaging, & loss of resources in these communities, they truly do not understand how dangerous it is.
Let some of the inland people or people far removed from these borders have a little experience with the M13 gang, or the murder rate rising 41% in a year, then they might change their thinking.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 11:03 pm
I skimmed you link, and found no surprises, LittleBitty.

For your own company's situation my guess, and it's only a guess, is that temps are employees of your agency, and you would be shielded. I could be wrong. For those that become full time employees, faithfully complete the I-9, and examine the documents even of those who have been more or less blessed by the outside agency. For I-9 purposes, you must see the documents, and may make photo copies. I do, and keep them attached to the W-4 forms. This makes it easy to answer queries from the SSA in the year after which you submit forms W-2.

That leads me back to my long standing gripe. When you formulate your response, you can call SSA for advice. They will advise you to send the employee to the local office. You do. Nothing happens. At all. It's as if everyone is going through a series of required, but meaningless motions.

Quote:
When the holding company first bought us, a list was sent out, and on this list were individuals that had 30 days to get their paperwork in order or they had to leave. More lists followed. They are all gone, every one of them.


That sounds tempting, but I'm guessing they essentially left voluntarily after seeing the list. I prepare individual memos. Seems safer than a list in case someone feels their privacy has been violated.
0 Replies
 
LittleBitty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 11:13 pm
roger wrote:
I skimmed you link, and found no surprises, LittleBitty.

For your own company's situation my guess, and it's only a guess, is that temps are employees of your agency, and you would be shielded. I could be wrong. For those that become full time employees, faithfully complete the I-9, and examine the documents even of those who have been more or less blessed by the outside agency. For I-9 purposes, you must see the documents, and may make photo copies. I do, and keep them attached to the W-4 forms. This makes it easy to answer queries from the SSA in the year after which you submit forms W-2.

That leads me back to my long standing gripe. When you formulate your response, you can call SSA for advice. They will advise you to send the employee to the local office. You do. Nothing happens. At all. It's as if everyone is going through a series of required, but meaningless motions.

Quote:
When the holding company first bought us, a list was sent out, and on this list were individuals that had 30 days to get their paperwork in order or they had to leave. More lists followed. They are all gone, every one of them.


That sounds tempting, but I'm guessing they essentially left voluntarily after seeing the list. I prepare individual memos. Seems safer than a list in case someone feels their privacy has been violated.


Good points. I don't know that I'm supposed to have any knowledge of these lists, and I can't guarantee the reason that they leave. I had heard about their parent's SS numbers being an issue and I don't understand at all how that could be so Prior to this, I'd left it out of the overall equation.

I'm sure you have a better command of what is and what is not allowable in these situations.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 01:38 am
roger wrote:
Walter, you staked out the guest room before I was inside the city limits.

dyslexia wrote:

there are no rules, everything is open to challenge.


:wink:
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 11:47 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Who here is anti-immigrant? I am 100% anti ILLEGAL immigrant, & some here don't seem to know the difference in legal & illegal
No matter what their plight, no matter why they come here, if the are illegal, they need to be sent home, period. They need to get in the back of the line. How unfair is this to the people that stood in libe & came here legally????


Funny thing Madam, is that legal immigrants (i.e. "those people that stood in libe and came here legally") are against you.

By a significant majority, more than two to one, legal immigrants are in favor of a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally.

These arguments over terminology get kind of confusing... but you could say that legal immigrants are mostly legal anti-anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant immigrants.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 12:11 pm
sick people are a burden to our health care system
0 Replies
 
LittleBitty
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 01:02 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Who here is anti-immigrant? I am 100% anti ILLEGAL immigrant, & some here don't seem to know the difference in legal & illegal
No matter what their plight, no matter why they come here, if the are illegal, they need to be sent home, period. They need to get in the back of the line. How unfair is this to the people that stood in libe & came here legally????


Funny thing Madam, is that legal immigrants (i.e. "those people that stood in libe and came here legally") are against you.

By a significant majority, more than two to one, legal immigrants are in favor of a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally.



Pertaining to illegal entry- when Haitians and Cubans are subject to the same experiences as Mexicans compared to Guatamalans, I could, with more ease, entertain this argument.

I do believe all legal immigrants from South America have banned together for what they believe to be a common cause, however, a close examination of each country will find that Human Rights aren't practiced to these individuals equally.

Of course the common goal is citizenship, but I believe that question should be asked of all American citizens, not just a few.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 01:06 pm
LB wrote: Of course the common goal is citizenship, but I believe that question should be asked of all American citizens, not just a few.

Several polls have been taken on this very subject.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 01:26 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
roger wrote:
Walter, you staked out the guest room before I was inside the city limits.

dyslexia wrote:

there are no rules, everything is open to challenge.


:wink:


Of course, on a good day, quoting dyslexia is akin to consulting the I Ching, or the Bible.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 01:35 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Women have been having babies without doctors present for thousands of years.
Nobody should be turned away if they have a life threatening emergency,but having a baby does not,in most cases,fall into that category.
When it does,then the expectant mother should be admitted,if it doesnt,she can have her baby at home.
If an illegal immigrant does go into the hospital to deliver,she should be returned to her home country ASAP after the baby is born.


I agre: newborn stations/maternity rooms should be closed or used for better, things, generally, I agree. (Just leave a small unit for emergencies.)

A question would be, what to do with the new born Amercian citizen, when her/his mother is her home country ASAP.
Of course, she/he has all oportunities open and should work hard to get along - but what jobs are there for a some days old?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 01:38 pm
But prenatal care is important for both the mother and baby.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 01:41 pm
What MM said:

Quote:
Women have been having babies without doctors present for thousands of years.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 01:42 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
.. . (Deleting what I didn't want to respond to)By a significant majority, more than two to one, legal immigrants are in favor of a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally.


That doesn't say alot, though, brown, without defining what that path to citizenship might be. Simply putting them on the path, without prejudice is a great disservice to anyone putting up with the expense and complexities of the the more conventional and legal routes. Payment of a stiff civil fine, and immediately starting at the beginning of the process might work for me. After all, they are here illegally, or at least working here illegally. In most cases, they do have the advantage of solid work and legal histories, which can be easily verified.

There are, of course, at least two separate issues here. We seem to be addressing talking about citizenship right now. There is also the issue of those who want to work in the U.S. either temporarily, or indefinately. We could well make our consulates more accessible and more efficient. Nevertheless, it is our country and we have the absolute right to decide who is going to be eligible to work and reside here.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 01:43 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
What MM said:

Quote:
Women have been having babies without doctors present for thousands of years.


Oops - why do we need hospitals at all? We got along for thousands of years without any .... Shocked
0 Replies
 
LittleBitty
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 02:36 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
LB wrote: Of course the common goal is citizenship, but I believe that question should be asked of all American citizens, not just a few.

Several polls have been taken on this very subject.


Are Rasmussen Reports considered credible here?

April 7, 2006

---snip---

A Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey asked Americans to choose between two hypothetical candidates with differing positions on the immigration issue.

"One candidate favors building a barrier along the Mexican border and forcing illegal aliens to leave the United States. The other candidate favors expanding the ways that foreign workers can legally get jobs in the United States."

Forty-six percent (46%) of Americans said that they prefer the candidate with the harder line on illegal aliens while 38% opt for the candidate who wants to expand legal opportunities for foreign workers to find jobs.

However, those who say the immigration issue is very important in determining their vote prefer the pro-enforcement candidate by a much larger margin, 67% to 23%. This suggests that the short-term political advantage on the immigration issue lies with those who want a tougher enforcement policy.

Fifty percent (50%) of Americans say the immigration issue is very important. Another 32% say it is somewhat important.

-------

An survery conducted in March 2006 is also noted.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/March%20Dailies/Immigration%20March%2030-31.htm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 02:49 pm
LB, The first paragraphs from your link:
Enforcement First Favored on Immigration
Survey of 1,000 Adults

March 30-31, 2006

Possible to Reduce Illegal Immigration

Yes 68%
No 20%
RasmussenReports.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before debating new laws, first control borders/enforce existing laws

Agree 66%
Disagree 21%
RasmussenReports.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forcibly Require All 11 Million Illegal Aliens to Leave US

Yes 40%
No 44%
RasmussenReports.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 1, 2006--On the divisive topic of immigration reform, the latest Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey found at least some common ground among the general public.

Two-thirds (68%) of Americans believe it is possible to reduce illegal immigration while just 20% disagree. The belief that the issue could be addressed adds to the intensity of the debate.

A similar number (66%) believe it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. Just 21% disagree with that approach.

However, those who are seeking a compromise on the issue may be underestimating the public desire to reduce the number of illegal aliens already living in the country as well as stopping the flow of future illegal immigration.

In our survey, we informed respondents that there are 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States and that more than half have lived here for more than five years. Upon hearing those facts, 40% favored forcibly requiring all 11 million to leave the United States. Just 44% are opposed to a forcible removal of illegal aliens.

This does not mean that 40% would support whatever actions are required to remove the current population of illegal aliens. However, it clearly indicates that there is no broad support for a policy that begins with an assumption that those who already live here should be allowed to stay.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2025 at 07:59:40