Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

Horn6721 said:
Yes there are people and entities everywhere violating the law
.Was his fake ID from another person?
Click to expand...

I don't remember. I wasn't there to ask him about his fake ID. I was there to handle his car wreck.

I will say that virtually all fake Social Security cards I handled didn't look or feel real at all. They weren't the right colors and were on totally different paper. It's because they weren't meant to actually fool anybody. They were meant to copy well, so employers would have a copy that looked plausible if they were investigated by ICE. Otherwise the "I'm stupid" defense won't fly.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It's a good article, but it's more of an explanation as to why the laws are weak rather than on why it's a bad idea in general. There is a corruption problem here - both on the part of the government and the businesses.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed the part on how easy it is to cheat the system. :D
 
So an attorney can not inform authorities of crimes they know occured but had nothing to do with the case they were hired for?
 
Horn6721 said:
So an attorney can not inform authorities of crimes they know occured but had nothing to do with the case they were hired for?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I was a fiduciary with duties of confidentiality and loyalty. There are exceptions to the confidentiality rule, but they can get dicey. It also makes a big difference if the crime was previously committed or if it's going to be committed (meaning I'm in a position to actually stop a crime rather than just help bust him for something he has already done).

For example, if I clearly knew a client was going to do kill or inflict serious bodily harm on somebody, I'd have a duty to rat him out. If this guy had said when he left, "I'm taking a baseball bat to my wife's face tonight. That ***** has burned my arroz y frijoles for the last time," then I'd have to a duty to call the cops. If he says, "I was in such a hurry to get here I literally drove 100 mph on 360 to get here," do you think I have a duty to report his speeding (even if it's borderline reckless driving)? No.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Of course not. I was a fiduciary with duties of confidentiality and loyalty. There are exceptions to the confidentiality rule, but they can get dicey. It also makes a big difference if the crime was previously committed or if it's going to be committed (meaning I'm in a position to actually stop a crime rather than just help bust him for something he has already done).

For example, if I clearly knew a client was going to do kill or inflict serious bodily harm on somebody, I'd have a duty to rat him out. If this guy had said when he left, "I'm taking a baseball bat to my wife's face tonight. That ***** has burned my arroz y frijoles for the last time," then I'd have to a duty to call the cops. If he says, "I was in such a hurry to get here I literally drove 100 mph on 360 to get here," do you think I have a duty to report his speeding (even if it's borderline reckless driving)? No.
Click to expand...

I don't want to downplay violence against women but burned arroz y frijoles is really infuriating.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It's a good article, but it's more of an explanation as to why the laws are weak rather than on why it's a bad idea in general. There is a corruption problem here - both on the part of the government and the businesses.
Click to expand...
This.^^^ that article points to all the ways that the users are ALLOWED to circumvent the system, not that the E-Verify system doesn't work. Just a few occasions of auditing a few big KNOWN evaders will very quickly put a chill on the evasion. And using it in more than just a few places would have the same kind of effect it did in Arizona when they first implemented it. they saw a HUGE outflux of illegal immigrants. If we had E-Verify nationwide and just took a few audit and punishment steps it would work wonders.

It would be a VERY simple audit to go to a suspected employer and look at 2 things.
1. did you use E-Verify for all hires in the last 3 months. If not, why?
2. I'd like to interview a random sample of your new hires in the last 90 days to see if your use of E-Verify was a reasonable best effort.

If either of those things looks like they are being deceitful, penalize the employer $1,000 per instance and then put them on the radar for a repeat audit in 6 months with doubled fines. The practice would go away in less than a year.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Of course not. I was a fiduciary with duties of confidentiality and loyalty. There are exceptions to the confidentiality rule, but they can get dicey. It also makes a big difference if the crime was previously committed or if it's going to be committed (meaning I'm in a position to actually stop a crime rather than just help bust him for something he has already done).

For example, if I clearly knew a client was going to do kill or inflict serious bodily harm on somebody, I'd have a duty to rat him out. If this guy had said when he left, "I'm taking a baseball bat to my wife's face tonight. That ***** has burned my arroz y frijoles for the last time," then I'd have to a duty to call the cops. If he says, "I was in such a hurry to get here I literally drove 100 mph on 360 to get here," do you think I have a duty to report his speeding (even if it's borderline reckless driving)? No.
Click to expand...
It's a social contract Deez. You let a rapist/murderer go!
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
This.^^^ that article points to all the ways that the users are ALLOWED to circumvent the system, not that the E-Verify system doesn't work. Just a few occasions of auditing a few big KNOWN evaders will very quickly put a chill on the evasion. And using it in more than just a few places would have the same kind of effect it did in Arizona when they first implemented it. they saw a HUGE outflux of illegal immigrants. If we had E-Verify nationwide and just took a few audit and punishment steps it would work wonders.

It would be a VERY simple audit to go to a suspected employer and look at 2 things.
1. did you use E-Verify for all hires in the last 3 months. If not, why?
2. I'd like to interview a random sample of your new hires in the last 90 days to see if your use of E-Verify was a reasonable best effort.

If either of those things looks like they are being deceitful, penalize the employer $1,000 per instance and then put them on the radar for a repeat audit in 6 months with doubled fines. The practice would go away in less than a year.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just like going after billion dollar drug lords has made the drug trade stop.

You can come up with every excuse that you want but E-Verify hasn't worked and won't work because it's easy to evade. I bought into the hype too at first but it's a failed program. Move on.
 
Garmel said:
Yeah, just like going after billion dollar drug lords has made the drug trade stop.

You can come up with every excuse that you want but E-Verify hasn't worked and won't work because it's easy to evade. I bought into the hype too at first but it's a failed program. Move on.
Click to expand...
it is not too costly. it is not too time consuming. it is not too error prone. the only thing that keeps it from working is that there is dang near zero enforcement happening. this is nothing like the drug trade. There is just an effort to turn a blind eye because so many businesses want to continue to hire illegal labor and because democrats want open borders. this is the extent of enforcement in S.C. the state that theoretically has among the most "strident" approach to E-Verify.

"Which businesses gets audited? Each year, the SC Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation randomly selects about 2,500 S.C. employers to check for E-Verify compliance. Under state law, employers must check E-Verify, a federal database, to ensure all of their new hires are authorized to work in the country. What happens if a business failed to E-Verify their employees? The business is placed on probation for one year and must submit quarterly reports, proving it E-Verified all new hires for each of the quarters. The company’s name is also listed on LLR’s website for six months. No fines are issued. Repeat offenders can have their business licenses suspended for up to 30 days — although that has never happened. Are many businesses audited each year? Placed on probation? About 2 percent of SC employers are audited annually and about 11 percent are cited, according to state data."

And with a staff of 3 people for all of S.C. all they really do is compare two numbers. # of new hires against # of E-Verify runs. If those match...you pass the audit.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I don't remember. I wasn't there to ask him about his fake ID. I was there to handle his car wreck.
Click to expand...

EXCEPT that:

1) if it went to deposition, it puts you in a potential bind unless you get a favorable ruling
2) potential risk would have existed about whether funds were properly disbursed.

It isn't my area of law, but those are just two of the issues right off my head that come with playing ostrich to a client knowingly perpetuating a fraud upon the courts...
 
mb227 said:
1) if it went to deposition, it puts you in a potential bind unless you get a favorable ruling
Click to expand...

You're slippin' mb. This came up in virtually every case involving an illegal alien. Don't you think I knew what to do?

mb227 said:
2) potential risk would have existed about whether funds were properly disbursed.
Click to expand...

This is a risk in every case. We took very careful and deliberate steps to ensure that funds were distributed correctly. Never had an issue.

mb227 said:
It isn't my area of law, but those are just two of the issues right off my head that come with playing ostrich to a client knowingly perpetuating a fraud upon the courts...
Click to expand...

Having a fake ID is not a fraud on the courts unless he's using the fake ID to get something out of the court. Obviously I'd never allow something like that.
 
To the average person not in law it seems wrong that an officer of the court of law would ignore proof someone was breaking the law
Since the fake ID had nothing to do with the reason you were hired.

The law is strange,
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
it is not too costly. it is not too time consuming. it is not too error prone. the only thing that keeps it from working is that there is dang near zero enforcement happening. this is nothing like the drug trade. There is just an effort to turn a blind eye because so many businesses want to continue to hire illegal labor and because democrats want open borders. this is the extent of enforcement in S.C. the state that theoretically has among the most "strident" approach to E-Verify.

"Which businesses gets audited? Each year, the SC Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation randomly selects about 2,500 S.C. employers to check for E-Verify compliance. Under state law, employers must check E-Verify, a federal database, to ensure all of their new hires are authorized to work in the country. What happens if a business failed to E-Verify their employees? The business is placed on probation for one year and must submit quarterly reports, proving it E-Verified all new hires for each of the quarters. The company’s name is also listed on LLR’s website for six months. No fines are issued. Repeat offenders can have their business licenses suspended for up to 30 days — although that has never happened. Are many businesses audited each year? Placed on probation? About 2 percent of SC employers are audited annually and about 11 percent are cited, according to state data."

And with a staff of 3 people for all of S.C. all they really do is compare two numbers. # of new hires against # of E-Verify runs. If those match...you pass the audit.
Click to expand...

South Carolina's numbers aren't low in illegals compared to the rest of the southeast. Is it making much of a difference because it sounds like people are avoiding the system.

Turning our businesses into lawbreakers deserving of fines when it's the damn job of the feds to handle illegals burns my ***.
 
Horn6721 said:
To the average person not in law it seems wrong that an officer of the court of law would ignore proof someone was breaking the law
Since the fake ID had nothing to do with the reason you were hired.

The law is strange,
Click to expand...

I understand that, but this goes to the heart of why we have the attorney-client privilege. We want people to be able to be completely candid with their lawyers. I can't do my job If my client is bullshitting me, and every time one tried to, it ended badly for him. If the lawyer is going to suddenly turn into a cop and rat you out because he finds out you've done something wrong, you aren't going to seek counsel and you're not going to be honest with him if you do.

There is also a balancing of other interests on this, and it's not absolute. I can't rat my client out just because I know something like this. However, I cannot allow him to present evidence I know to be false to the court. Accordingly, if he testifies under oath that he doesn't have a fake ID or never used one, I'm approaching the bench and ratting him out.

There's also a gray area if I have confidential information and must disclose it to prevent the client from performing a criminal or fraudulent act. This is not like the finding out the client is going to inflict death or serious bodily harm scenario that I mentioned before. If I become aware of that, I must rat him out. There is no more confidentiality on that issue. He's screwed. If the possible criminal or fraudulent act is not as big of a threat, I have a discretion. "Discretion" doesn't mean I can do whatever I want with my confidential information or whatever I think is morally right. It means I have to consider a mess of predetermined factors to determine if the interest of preventing the harm outweighs the interest in preserving confidentiality, and I will have to be prepared to defend my decision before the grievance committee and in court when I get sued for breach of fiduciary duty. Knowing that my client has a fake ID or might use it to get a job when that has nothing to do with my representation isn't going to cut it. The grievance committee will screw me if I do that, and I will lose in court when the client sues me for breach of fiduciary duty.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Do you actually expect me NOT to make a lewd comment in response to a statement like that?
Click to expand...

Go ahead, buddy because I don't really give a **** what you think. It's not a surprise that the two biggest RINOs on here are doing what they are usually doing.
 
Mr D
But you knew they were going to commit a fraudulent act using the fake again.
It would be as disingenuous of you to deny it as you accuse all those Homebuilders of saying they didn't know anyone was illegal.
 
Garmel said:
Go ahead, buddy because I don't really give a **** what you think. It's not a surprise that the two biggest RINOs on here are doing what they are usually doing.
Click to expand...

Relax. This is all hypothetical. Nobody's going to pass my suggestion into law. Way too much interest in both sides in the problem not being solved.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
Okay, but it's not a reason to act like a dick.
Click to expand...
I find this whole argument silly. Prevention is the best medicine here, like arresting folks at the border or building the wall. Once here, the only way to remove illegals is hire roving gangs of vigilantes to bust various locations where the illegals congregate, such as the ***** houses, the late night bars playing tejano music, taco stands at construction sites, etc. Yes, I am being snarky, but unless there is political will to roundup the illegals with whips, you guys are just pissing in the wind. Okay, enough offensive language.
 
Last edited:
mchammer said:
I find this whole argument silly. Prevention is the best medicine here, like arresting folks at the border or building the wall. Once here, the only way to remove illegals is hire roving gangs of vigilantes to bust various locations where the illegals congregate, such as the ***** houses, the late night bars playing tejano music, taco stands at construction sites, etc. Yes, I am being snarky, but unless there is political will to roundup the illegals with whips, you guys are just pissing in the wind. Okay, enough offensive language.
Click to expand...
Agree. The real way to prevent it is to shut off the supply of jobs.
 
Horn6721 said:
Mr D
But you knew they were going to commit a fraudulent act using the fake again.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. He used the fake ID to get his job with the City, but the act had already been done at that point. Unless he gets fired by the City (virtually never happens), there's a good chance he won't use it again. Why would he?

But even if I suspected that he would, that's not going to cut it when I'm hauled before they grievance committee. On an individual level, they aren't going to see that as harmful enough to justify breaching my duties to him, and they're going to view my suspicion as speculation.

Horn6721 said:
It would be as disingenuous of you to deny it as you accuse all those Homebuilders of saying they didn't know anyone was illegal.
Click to expand...

Deny what? I knew many of my clients were illegal. I don't deny that at all, and I'm not playing dumb. Most didn't present a fake ID. They simply told me they were illegal (as they often tell their employers). The big difference between me and the homebuilder is the nature of the relationship. I'm a fiduciary with legal and ethical duties to the client that prohibit doing what you're suggesting. I can't turn into an ICE agent just because someone tells me he's illegal. Furthermore, it is not illegal for me to represent an illegal alien. I am not breaking the law.

An employer is not a fiduciary, and he wouldn't want to be, because a fiduciary has to put someone else's interest (in this case the worker's) interests ahead of his own. And of course, you're forgetting that the employer is breaking the law. He is as illegal as the illegal alien is. You sorta slop over that while wanting to throw the book at the illegal alien himself. They are both lawbreakers - much the buyer and seller is drugs both are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top