(Page 2 of 18)
“Every time an American gives a merchant a MasterCard or Visa or Amex, the merchant performs an immediate and instantaneous electronic check on the validity of the card. This simple, inexpensive and painless process has been in place for decades. It is now time for American employers to have an analogous capability to validate the social security number of an employment applicant. By Presidential directive, I hereby create a program, administered by the Treasury Department, that enables employers to call in their employer ID number and the employment applicant’s name, address and social security number. That information is instantly validated. If validation fails, because the social security number does not exist, or is not registered to the named individual, or the named individual does not reside at the address provided, or the social security number has been used more than once for employment validation in a specified time period, that social security number is blocked and the employment applicant is refused employment.
“The Treasury Department will begin intensive audits of companies known to have disregarded existing laws prohibiting the employment of individuals who are neither citizens nor have work visas. Companies found to have demonstrated such disregard will be fined to a sufficient extent to make it too expensive to continue to disregard the law. It is my hope that those same companies will then offer the same employment to citizens or individuals with work visas.”
As a practical matter, shortly after the above becomes effective policy, the twelve million will emigrate back to their native lands, solving America’s illegal immigration problem, and solving the problem of family unification, since the unification will be re-established upon re-entry of the illegal immigrants to their native lands.
A fence would become superfluous, except to bribe the construction trades to support the above policy.
p>The end. br> — Frank Natoli br> Newton, New Jersey /p>In your article; “Up From Amnesty” the only thing I don’t agree with is the guest worker part. It’s not that I’m against guest workers, it’s that we have many guest worker programs already and that is the problem for those who demand guest worker programs — they really want cheap labor so they don’t have to pay a living wage. They don’t want all the hassle that comes with the current guest worker provisions as they cost money, yes money! You see we blue collars SEE our jobs taken, and we are not fooled, that “Guest Worker” really means “Displacement Workers”!!!
p>I won’t vote for anyone who advocates displacing Americans from their Job’s. The only way I would ever consider this, would be when we have no Americans getting unemployment or any government assistance and we don’t have enough workers after that, then we could, but only under much supervision and proof that there is no citizen to fill the position, consider another additional guest worker program or just expand the ones in place. br> — Jon Healy /p> p> OH YES, that is the message I want to hear, not the one Bush has been using, give America to Mexico. We have already fought this battle once, REMEMBER THE ALAMO, and finally won. Now they want that land back and our Government wants to give it to them.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?