Is an SSN required to work?

[Thespis]

Take a look at the acceptable forms of identity you can use for fill out the I-9.  A voter registration card and a birth certificate are just as good as a drivers license and a SS card, and if you look at the instructions, the employer can not specify which documents they will accept.  They have to take any of the ones listed.

OK, I'm going to put this I-9 question to rest. I work next to the I-9 lead for my company. She's been trained up the wazoo about what has to be on the I-9 to be legal. No, you do not have to present an SS card as proof of citizenship, but you do have to fill in your SSN in Section 1 of the form. If your SSN is not in section 1, then that section is not considered complete. Trust me, if the company cares about being compliant, they will require you to put your SSN on the form.

I am in no way endorsing the use the SSN, or presenting it. I'm just telling you that to be considered legal in the eyes of the INS, you have to put it on there. Naturally, it is up to the business owner whether or not he/she wants to comply.

[Evil Twin]

OK, I'm going to put this I-9 question to rest. I work next to the I-9 lead for my company. She's been trained up the wazoo about what has to be on the I-9 to be legal. No, you do not have to present an SS card as proof of citizenship, but you do have to fill in your SSN in Section 1 of the form. If your SSN is not in section 1, then that section is not considered complete. Trust me, if the company cares about being compliant, they will require you to put your SSN on the form.

I am in no way endorsing the use the SSN, or presenting it. I'm just telling you that to be considered legal in the eyes of the INS, you have to put it on there. Naturally, it is up to the business owner whether or not he/she wants to comply.

You won't find out whats legal by asking your company I-9 lead, you will find out what your company policy is and what she has been told by the people who trained her. 

[tracysaboe]

Another +1 to Penguin.

No reason to be below zero.

Tracy

[Thespis]

You won't find out whats legal by asking your company I-9 lead, you will find out what your company policy is and what she has been told by the people who trained her. 

She was trained by the government, not my company. I'm telling you what the government wants on the form. Like I said, it is up to the business to comply or not, but if the government ever audits them (which they have done to my company) this will be an issue.

[Thespis]

I would like to clarify that I'm not trying to discourage anyone from trying not to give out their SSN. I just think that you should always be aware of the "rules" that your trying to break, so that you can be aware of possible roadblocks. More than likely if you're hired by a company that either is unaware, or doesn't care about how to properly fill out the form, the government will never know. But, the bigger the company the less likely that will happen. I work for a large multi-national corporation (yeah, one of those). We even have government contracts. FBI agents come into my office almost once a week to look at employee files to make sure they can have security clearance. Our I-9's have been audited by the government. Any employee who had forms that were not filled out correctly (e.g. they forgot to put their SSN in section 1) were told that they had to redo the I-9, and they wouldn't be allowed to work anymore until it was filled out completely.

Just be careful where you apply, and realize that many companies won't hire you if you don't fill out the government forms correctly, because they're afraid of the government coming after them. Personally, I got this job before I found libertarianism, and while the government entanglements bothered me a little, they didn't bother me as much as they do now. But, the problem has been taken care of as I'm being laid off in five months, and have to look for a new job anyway.

[tracysaboe]

You won't find out whats legal by asking your company I-9 lead, you will find out what your company policy is and what she has been told by the people who trained her. 

She was trained by the government, not my company. I'm telling you what the government wants on the form. Like I said, it is up to the business to comply or not, but if the government ever audits them (which they have done to my company) this will be an issue.

Our point is that the government doens't even know what the laws are. They just know what everybody assumes the laws are.

The save a patriot organization have gone over the laws with a fine tooth comb. There really is no law that says you have too. Just thatnobody knows thath and they assume the government's right because they're the ones with the guns.

Tracy

[Thespis]

Our point is that the government doens't even know what the laws are.

This isn't about the law, though, I'm talking about the procedure of what info they want on the form. The law is irrelevant to them.

[aries]

You won't find out whats legal by asking your company I-9 lead, you will find out what your company policy is and what she has been told by the people who trained her. 

She was trained by the government, not my company. I'm telling you what the government wants on the form. Like I said, it is up to the business to comply or not, but if the government ever audits them (which they have done to my company) this will be an issue.

Our point is that the government doens't even know what the laws are. They just know what everybody assumes the laws are.

The save a patriot organization have gone over the laws with a fine tooth comb. There really is no law that says you have too. Just thatnobody knows thath and they assume the government's right because they're the ones with the guns.

Tracy

The internal revenue code is de facto law. It is technically a "regulation" since Congress has the power to create certain regulatory agencies such as the FCC whose "regulations" on things like what words you can say on TV don't have to go through congress.

And nobody can really say the scope of the 16th amendment, whether congress is supposed to write the rules of taxation, or if they can create an agency to do it for them.

More importantly - which law is it that established the IRS?

[tracysaboe]

Our point is that the government doens't even know what the laws are.

This isn't about the law, though, I'm talking about the procedure of what info they want on the form. The law is irrelevant to them.

OK

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

You won't find out whats legal by asking your company I-9 lead, you will find out what your company policy is and what she has been told by the people who trained her. 

She was trained by the government, not my company. I'm telling you what the government wants on the form. Like I said, it is up to the business to comply or not, but if the government ever audits them (which they have done to my company) this will be an issue.

Our point is that the government doens't even know what the laws are. They just know what everybody assumes the laws are.

The save a patriot organization have gone over the laws with a fine tooth comb. There really is no law that says you have too. Just thatnobody knows thath and they assume the government's right because they're the ones with the guns.

Tracy

The internal revenue code is de facto law. It is technically a "regulation" since Congress has the power to create certain regulatory agencies such as the FCC whose "regulations" on things like what words you can say on TV don't have to go through congress.

And nobody can really say the scope of the 16th amendment, whether congress is supposed to write the rules of taxation, or if they can create an agency to do it for them.

More importantly - which law is it that established the IRS?

That's what I'm talking about though. The actual regulations don't require it.

Tracy

[Gabo]

The internal revenue code is de facto law. It is technically a "regulation" since Congress has the power to create certain regulatory agencies such as the FCC whose "regulations" on things like what words you can say on TV don't have to go through congress.

Which of the enumerated powers is the one that allows the creation of alphabet agencies to control everything under the sun?

And nobody can really say the scope of the 16th amendment, whether congress is supposed to write the rules of taxation, or if they can create an agency to do it for them.

The Constitution clearly states that "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Therefore it is clear that the 16th amendment, which has been ruled to provide no new taxing powers to Congress, does not apply the the several states of the Union.  Therefore it could only have been created under Congress's power to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District of Colombia and other federal territories.

[aries]

The internal revenue code is de facto law. It is technically a "regulation" since Congress has the power to create certain regulatory agencies such as the FCC whose "regulations" on things like what words you can say on TV don't have to go through congress.

Which of the enumerated powers is the one that allows the creation of alphabet agencies to control everything under the sun?

And nobody can really say the scope of the 16th amendment, whether congress is supposed to write the rules of taxation, or if they can create an agency to do it for them.

The Constitution clearly states that "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Therefore it is clear that the 16th amendment, which has been ruled to provide no new taxing powers to Congress, does not apply the the several states of the Union.  Therefore it could only have been created under Congress's power to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District of Colombia and other federal territories.

Precedent supports the legitimacy of congressionally created agencies.

The 16th amendment supersedes this "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

[Gabo]

Precedent supports the legitimacy of congressionally created agencies.

Show me a precedent then, please, where an alphabet agency is shown to have jurisdiction over a Citizen of one of the several states of the Union.
I'm not saying alphabet agencies aren't legitimate, I'm just showing that the only area they can be legitimate is under the exclusive legislation clause.

The 16th amendment supersedes this "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

The requirement for the apportionment of taxes is the only part of the Constitution that is repeated.  They found it so important, in fact, that they put it in there 3 times.  Do you really believe that it was intended to be inferior?

And where, exactly, is the 16th amendment granted power to supercede this part of the Constitution?  Rulings have shown that the amendment granted no new taxing powers, and nowhere in the amendment does it repeal any other part of the Constitution.

[Dreepa]

how many times do I have to read about this 'US citizen' shit?

[Gabo]

how many times do I have to read about this 'US citizen' shit?

I'll stop it when I feel you have reasonably refuted my claims.
Until then I will continue to support what makes sense to me.