Is Your Social Security Number Correct?

Assuming your are a legitimate citizen, or non-citizen worker and your Social Security number is mis-recorded, wouldn't you want, if not need to correct that, or eventually face being unable to draw benefits? So, how is preventing a process designed to set the record straight a protection? Failing to have it corrected would seem to present the greater risk, assuming you are working legally, of course.

A federal judge yesterday barred the Bush administration from launching a crackdown Tuesday on U.S. employers who hire illegal immigrants while she considers a lawsuit by the AFL-CIO that charges that the plan will harm citizens and other legal workers.

The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney in San Francisco, prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from starting to mail notices to 140,000 employers about suspect Social Security numbers. The "no- match" letters warn of penalties employers face by having discrepancies in their paperwork.

Comments

[bloodrage bob]

and just who exactly was it that elected this self-important judge to represent us? where exactly does it say that a mere judge - nothing more than an asswipe *lawyer* - gets to determine national policy for us?

where are the checks and balances on judges? oh. i see: "other judges review their rulings." so in other words, judges have done a grossly unconstitutional power grab and made themselves the final arbiter of what can and cannot be done in this country. no WONDER liberals want their judges seated. no WONDER they care less about elections than judicial appointments.

[Dale in Atlanta]

I didn't even have to guess she was a Clinton appointee; this will be overtuned by the way, when it is appealed!

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California
Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 24, 1995, to a seat vacated by John P. Vukasin, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on May 8, 1995, and received commission on May 10, 1995.

Education:
University of California, Berkeley, B.A., 1964

University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, J.D., 1967

Professional Career:
Attorney, Office of the San Francisco District Attorney, California, 1968-1979
Trial attorney, 1968-1969
Senior trial attorney, 1969-1971
Principal trial attorney, 1971-1976
Head trial attorney, 1976
Assistant chief deputy, 1976-1979
Judge, San Francisco Municipal Court, California, 1979-1983
Judge, Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, appointed and subsequently elected, 1983-1995

Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 1994; Senate took no action

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Female

[Observer]

One thing I would like to see added to the mix, is when they eventually send out the letters of the no match SSN's they also send a letter to the real holder of that SSN notifying them that their SSN has been claimed somewhere by someone else to give them a heads up to check their accounts for a possible risk of identity theft.

[iwabwu]

I think the best thing to do is to fix the mis-match as soon as possible.

Why would anyone want to wait?

[southdakotaboy]

As normal the libs do everything they can to give legal, law abiding American citizens the shaft so that they can pander to criminals. I can hear the howls of outrage even now from the left "thier not criminals". Yes they are, they have broken our immigration laws and now they are commiting fraud and identity theft.
By the way if you don't think using someone elses name is a big deal, talk to a minor who tries it to get into bars. The cops really, really hate it. I have worked as a bartender off and on over the years and the cops and judges really crack down on this. The reason I make the comparison is the fact that in both cases the victim is not "hurt" by the crime. Just getting a head start on the libs who will say these people weren't hurting anyone.

[Bill]

Yet another reminder of the damage that stretches into the future when bad appointments to the bench are made. I can see little reason for this delay.

It provides significant protection for an employer (unless he is purposefully employing illegals; it provides benefit protection to legal workers where some bureaucratic process has messed up social security records for that individual. The only down side is for those here illegally, who are taking jobs to which they are not entitled under existing law.

The liberals seem to think that law is endlessly elastic, to be bent to fit the liberal mantra of the moment.

[seekeronos]

"--- The liberals seem to think that law is endlessly elastic, to be bent to fit the liberal mantra of the moment. ---"

Indeed, just elastic enough to cover their ponderous buttocks, and little else.

[tally]

just think, in 2008, the dems get to add more asswipes.

[BR]

As an employer, slowing down the roll out of a law that requires me to fire employees at the whim of the DHS with no avenue of recourse is a good thing. It can take months for state and federal bureaucrats to sort out problems with SSN's, SSI, tax and the like. Who pays for all of the work required by my HR staff if it's a government screwup? Who pays for the paperwork every time someone gets married, changes their name and there is suddenly a 'no match' letter? Does the employee stand in line at the Social Security office on my dime, or on their own? It smacks of a socialist scheme gone haywire.

From what I've read, there are 12 million US citizens who are likely to be at risk of bureaucratic termination of their employment based on this poorly thought out and hastily implemented scheme. I have no problem checking ID's when people are hired, but I think this law is far too onerous for honest employers and employees. Cracking down on hiring of illegal immigrants is fine but this isn't the right way to do it.

[Cindi]

No need to stand in line at SSA with a SS# problem, all the person has to do is send in the required documents in a set amount of time. The first three years of my marriage I was required by the IRS to provide my marriage license for proof of marital status (because I never changed my last name when I married) it wasn't a big deal, just a matter of sending them a copy of my marriage license, although it started to be a PIA the second year.

Should someones life and documentation of who they are become so complex that it causes problems, you should ask yourself if that person should be working for you anyway. Simple is as simple does ;).

AFSCME AND AFLCIO says it all.

[bloodrage bob]

actually, br, the *right* way to crack down on illegal aliens is quite simple. merely announce a date, say 6 months in the future, when after that date any business caught employing a wetback will be fined $1 million *per wetback employed*. just to help that process along, also institute a reward system for whistleblowers. "you rat out a business that hires wetbacks, you get 25% of the fine levied against them." something like that.

business will undoubtedly whine that "it'll be real hard for us to check!". tough shit. business can pay for that 'cost of doing business' with the money they've saved from the last 20 years of zero (real) wage growth, which is due pretty much entirely to the presence of wetbacks holding (non-executive) wages down. (*executive* salaries are another matter entirely, of course. the executive royalty can't be held hostage to the same rules as everyone else! don't be ridiculous.)

business seems to think nothing about the "high cost!" of testing employees for drugs, right? bringing/adding security into the workplace to fight theft & drugs is just part of business, right? "the laws must be obeyed", right? so why mount resistance against *immigration* laws, and ONLY immigration law?