Are social security cards mandatory?

[Famspear]

....The leap of logic that you cannot seem to grasp is that, in order to protect themselves, employers can quite reasonably decide to not hire you....

But.... b-b-b-b -but....

.....it's not faaaaiiiirrrrrr!



Dear "Patriotdiscussions": Let me put it yet another way -- in a way that you might understand on a more subconscious level.

You can't have the cookie until you eat all your vegetables.

If you do what Mommie says, then you get the cookie. It may not seem fair, but she's the Mommie, and she gets to make the rules, little guy.

[AndyK]

Question, what does a Customs and Immigration Service regulation have to do with US CITIZENS needing a SSN?:

Answer: Not a damn thing.

As usual, PD is mining quotes, misinterpreting (deliberately) what he mines, and misstating relevant information.

[Famspear]

Let’s cut through all the evasions by “Patriotdiscussions” and get to what’s bothering him:

It’s not fair that Congress passed a law that makes me use a social security number if I want to work for an employer. It’s not fair that the Congress gets to make the rules. I must find a way around the rule.

It’s not fair that the employer makes me fill out part of a Form I-9 if I want to work for him. I must find a way around this.

And here's the genesis for his feelings:

Mommie says I have to eat my vegetables before I get a cookie. It’s not fair that she gets to make the rule. I must find a way around Mommie’s rule.

Transference:

the inappropriate repetition in the present of a relationship that was important in a person's childhood.

--Leonard H. Kapelovitz, M.D., To Love and To Work/A Demonstration and Discussion of Psychotherapy, p. 66 (1987).

...the redirection of feelings and desires and especially of those unconsciously retained from childhood toward a new object.

--Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (8th ed. 1976).

...a reproduction of emotions relating to repressed experiences, especially of childhood, and the substitution of another person ... for the original object of the repressed impulses.

--Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (2d College Ed. 1970).

[Pottapaug1938]

He is also under the misapprehension that, if he can find real legal words which seem to support his position, they are just as valid as any other -- never mind that he is reading/taking them out of context, or focusing on dicta and ignoring the holdings in court cases.

[Gregg]

Question, what does a Cusstoms and Immigration Service regulation have to do with US CITIZENS needing a SSN?:

Answer: Not a damn thing.

As usual, PD is mining quotes, misinterpreting (deliberately) what he mines, and misstating relevant information.

Indeed, what does a SS number have to do with an I-9, you don't have to have one to complete the form, you can use a US Passport, which does not have a number on it and I'm pretty sure you can get without having a SS number either....

[JamesVincent]

Indeed, what does a SS number have to do with an I-9, you don't have to have one to complete the form, you can use a US Passport, which does not have a number on it and I'm pretty sure you can get without having a SS number either....

You can get a passport without a SSN, it's primary requirement is the dreaded birth certificate. However, when I asked about getting passports for me and the kids I believe one of the things they told me I needed was the kid's SS cards, maybe as secondary.

[jcolvin2]

Indeed, what does a SS number have to do with an I-9, you don't have to have one to complete the form, you can use a US Passport, which does not have a number on it and I'm pretty sure you can get without having a SS number either....

A US Passport does in fact have a number on it - just not the Number of the Beast!

[Arthur Rubin]

A US Passport does in fact have a number on it - just not the Number of the Beast!

Although there are no SSNs starting with 666....

[JennyD]

So ALL employees have to fill out a I-9 form? Why does the government come right out and say that then?



Employers must:
Verify the identity and employment authorization of each person hired after Nov. 6, 1986. For employment in the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands (CNMI), this verification requirement applies to persons hired after Nov. 27, 2009.
Complete and retain a Form I-9 for each em­ployee required to complete the form.


The clue would be, the bolded part does not say every employee hired, like if every employee had to fill one out.

It says for every employee REQUIRED, sort of like beating around the bush that some are not required.

Strange, here you experts say every employee has to, but the gov agency website who wrote the dang form says nothing about everyone, every employee,etc.


http://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/penalties

Actually it does.. in it's own Federal Govt speak way, which if you were Zen with, you would learn how to read... (I am sure they still teach how to read in school yes?)

Every employee required means to the employer (read: employer) anyone that they decide to hire that is not a) a volunteer or b) a contractor, those are the ONLY two that do not, hence the wording that states all employees required..

Now that being said, I have to agree with Famspear's breakdown of what's really bugging you with regards to this, you seem to have a want, for whatever reason, to nitpick every single Federal regulation to see if there's some sort of way you can get around (insert whatever it is you're trying to avoid here), or in some way divest yourself of being a citizen under the control of the United States Government.

Well, if you so desire that soooooo much, I have the perfect way for you to do it.

Fly to another country, walk into the US Embassy and denounce your US Citizenship, and then you would have to deal with all our pesky little laws any longer..

Sorry that i'm being so blunt but I've been reading all of your posts, and while I have dedicated the last 16 years of my life to protecting and enforcing the rights of ALL people in this country, I cannot bring myself to have any sympathy for someone that wants to thumb their nose at the laws designed to help the country function and give you those rights...

(Sorry guys, I finally snapped, you can flog me later if you wish.. )

[JamesVincent]

.... b) a contractor, those are the ONLY two that do not, hence the wording that states all employees required..

And a contractor has to provide a TIN or SSN, whichever one you work under so that your 1099s are issued correctly. So, double strike out.

[JennyD]

.... b) a contractor, those are the ONLY two that do not, hence the wording that states all employees required..

And a contractor has to provide a TIN or SSN, whichever one you work under so that your 1099s are issued correctly. So, double strike out.

I forgot about that

[Patriotdiscussions]

Lmfao you people do not have a frickin clue what a right is, if you had a clue you would understand why the founders included a clause that stated that every state in the union would have a republican form of government. Not a republic, not a democracy but a government with the power invested in the individual, not the group.

Being that your a cop and enforce a tiny fraction of the law, and being that these fine folks are tax nerds does not install confidence that any of you could write, much less understand your right to choose a domicile.

If your ideal of protecting the rights and the country is paying taxes, fines,fees and permits 6 months every year, asking permission from your public servants to do everything from fishing to marriage, all while locking up more people then the ussr for victimless crimes.

And I'm the one not living in reality?

You folks have some serious issues, good day to you.

[bmxninja357]

pd,
if you belive that russia has so much freedom perhaps you should move there. it would be fun to hear about you telling the gov there that they cant do anything cuz your a sovereign....

but you could look into how many people are quietly dispatched for 'victimless crimes'. maybe he will send his bike gang in to clean you up. you know thats how they roll there...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94e8-3S-HoY

enjoy your russia 'patriot'

ninj

[PeanutGallery]

We have issues? You are saying that a republican government isn't a way of defining a republic.

Republican is an adjective, it means (of a form of government, constitution, etc.) belonging to or characteristic of a republic.

It very plainly is. Now the founding fathers also intended that your nation be governed by a democratic vote. Thats made pretty plain in the first article of the constitution.

Section 2, clause 1 defines for the house of representatives "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" while Section 3 clause 1 defines the senate "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." Section 4 clause 1 describes how each state can choose how to conduct its elections "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators."

Those are the hallmarks of a democracy. I am not even close to being considered American, or an American Patriot (ok when I was but a child I did enjoy Hulk Hogan's great wrassling) but I firmly believe I know more about your constitution and have a better understanding of what rights and responsibilities you have as a citizen of the US. I certainly seem better able to read and comprehend your nation's founding document.

I suspect that your idea of a perfect US is one where everyone is completely free to take what they want from the guvment and never has to worry about putting back in or pay taxes or be in any way responsible for any negative actions their behaviour may cause. That is not how your society works. If you want that sort of lifestyle and you haven't been born an Emirati, a member of the Saudi Royal Family, or one of the high elite in North Korea I am afraid you are just plain out of luck.

However in return for being unfortunate enough to be born an ordinary, normal citizen in the United States you have a better chance at life than a lot of people in the world. Sure you have a bit more responsibility but that comes with the great many freedoms you have been given, certainly more than a great many people in this world will know or have in their lifetime. Perhaps you could try being a bit less resentful about what the government stops you from doing and a bit more grateful for the freedoms you actually have.

[JamesVincent]

Lmfao you people do not have a frickin clue what a right is, if you had a clue you would understand why the founders included a clause that stated that every state in the union would have a republican form of government. Not a republic, not a democracy but a government with the power invested in the individual, not the group.

Being that your a cop and enforce a tiny fraction of the law, and being that these fine folks are tax nerds does not install confidence that any of you could write, much less understand your right to choose a domicile.

If your ideal of protecting the rights and the country is paying taxes, fines,fees and permits 6 months every year, asking permission from your public servants to do everything from fishing to marriage, all while locking up more people then the ussr for victimless crimes.

And I'm the one not living in reality?

You folks have some serious issues, good day to you.

You know, you came to this forum with the intent of finding someone to tell you how right you are and marvel at your legal prowess, no matter your claim to be "learning". Every single topic you have started you have been shown, sometimes in great legal detail, why that view is not the legal view, or sometimes even wrong by common sense. You have demonstrated a great dislike for learning, have shown an incredible lack of reading comprehension, and have shown yourself to be nothing but an ignorant troll. And for someone who claims to have "researched" all of your claims you actually know very little about the topics you want to talk about. You have, technically, been a self-entitled fucknut. I have a piece of advice for you:

You don't like it, you don't have to stay. In the forum or the country. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Patriotdiscussions]

We have issues? You are saying that a republican government isn't a way of defining a republic.

Republican is an adjective, it means (of a form of government, constitution, etc.) belonging to or characteristic of a republic.

It very plainly is. Now the founding fathers also intended that your nation be governed by a democratic vote. Thats made pretty plain in the first article of the constitution.

Section 2, clause 1 defines for the house of representatives "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" while Section 3 clause 1 defines the senate "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." Section 4 clause 1 describes how each state can choose how to conduct its elections "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators."

Those are the hallmarks of a democracy. I am not even close to being considered American, or an American Patriot (ok when I was but a child I did enjoy Hulk Hogan's great wrassling) but I firmly believe I know more about your constitution and have a better understanding of what rights and responsibilities you have as a citizen of the US. I certainly seem better able to read and comprehend your nation's founding document.

I suspect that your idea of a perfect US is one where everyone is completely free to take what they want from the guvment and never has to worry about putting back in or pay taxes or be in any way responsible for any negative actions their behaviour may cause. That is not how your society works. If you want that sort of lifestyle and you haven't been born an Emirati, a member of the Saudi Royal Family, or one of the high elite in North Korea I am afraid you are just plain out of luck.

However in return for being unfortunate enough to be born an ordinary, normal citizen in the United States you have a better chance at life than a lot of people in the world. Sure you have a bit more responsibility but that comes with the great many freedoms you have been given, certainly more than a great many people in this world will know or have in their lifetime. Perhaps you could try being a bit less resentful about what the government stops you from doing and a bit more grateful for the freedoms you actually have.

Um no brother you do not have a better ideal then me, unless of course you have read bancrofts series history of the United States or any of the other 100+ year old history books that I own like Illinois and the nation.

Tell you what, read this section of California code and try to fit your head around it.


CAL. GOV. CODE § 11120 : California Code – Section 11120
Search CAL. GOV. CODE § 11120 : California Code – Section 11120

Government agencies and organizations are exclusively created to perform the work of the people. (California Constitution) Those employed to staff these public agencies are public servants. The job assignment of every public servant is exclusively created to serve the public in what ever capacity is required to perform the work of the people.

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies or the public servants which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.




Wow, did a law just say that the PEOPLE are sovereign and not subject to its servants?

That is a different line from what you boot lickers are saying

[Patriotdiscussions]

Lmfao you people do not have a frickin clue what a right is, if you had a clue you would understand why the founders included a clause that stated that every state in the union would have a republican form of government. Not a republic, not a democracy but a government with the power invested in the individual, not the group.

Being that your a cop and enforce a tiny fraction of the law, and being that these fine folks are tax nerds does not install confidence that any of you could write, much less understand your right to choose a domicile.

If your ideal of protecting the rights and the country is paying taxes, fines,fees and permits 6 months every year, asking permission from your public servants to do everything from fishing to marriage, all while locking up more people then the ussr for victimless crimes.

And I'm the one not living in reality?

You folks have some serious issues, good day to you.

You know, you came to this forum with the intent of finding someone to tell you how right you are and marvel at your legal prowess, no matter your claim to be "learning". Every single topic you have started you have been shown, sometimes in great legal detail, why that view is not the legal view, or sometimes even wrong by common sense. You have demonstrated a great dislike for learning, have shown an incredible lack of reading comprehension, and have shown yourself to be nothing but an ignorant troll. And for someone who claims to have "researched" all of your claims you actually know very little about the topics you want to talk about. You have, technically, been a self-entitled fucknut. I have a piece of advice for you:

You don't like it, you don't have to stay. In the forum or the country. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

I have learned, learned that most of you can not read the law or understand simple terms of art.

PleAse professor school me on the right to choose a domicile if your so smart.

Not a damn one of you will understand that right eh?

[PeanutGallery]

Shall we start by quoting the section in full, because I note you omitted a couple of bits of it.

11120. It is the public policy of this state that public agencies
exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and the
proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public
may remain informed.
In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that
it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken
openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the
agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do
not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for
the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people
insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the
instruments they have created.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene
Open Meeting Act.

Now that extra information shows that you found a bit of preamble that you think means one thing when it's legislative intent is actually rather clear. That doesn't say that people are sovereign and above the law, but rather describes that the law below is effectively about freedom of information.

The preamble is basically a description of what the law hopes to achieve which aids judicial interpretation because they are given a clear picture of the legislative intent. The preamble has been held to not be binding. In other words the laws/legal code enacted by the legislation would be the same with or without that preamble.

Try to get your head around this, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act was enacted to create open government, the people are only sovereign (by which the interpretation clearly must be that they are the supreme power) in the context of open governance. That is that this act makes it unlawful for a civil servant to withhold information or to have closed sessions (unless of course otherwise stipulated in the subsequent code). The people are not sovereign or made sovereign by this law in any other way.

Further having quickly read the entire section (11120 to 11132) no provision struck me as existing that conferred any form of any sovereignty on the citizens of the state of california. Equally even if it did such a law would likely be struck down as unconstitutional/ultra vires due to it conflicting with the articles of the constitution and the power demised in that document to the federal government.

As for calling us boot-lickers, we may well be, but at least we aren't the ones licking the windows clean on the short bus.

[Famspear]

I have learned, learned that most of you can not read the law or understand simple terms of art.

PleAse professor school me on the right to choose a domicile if your [sic] so smart.

Not a damn one of you will understand that right eh?

No, that's not what you've "learned," widdle feller. What you're learned in your brief sojourn in this forum is that you are clueless when it comes to understanding our legal and political system. And your ability to read and understand legal materials -- including words of art found in legal materials -- is no better than your ability to express yourself in writing.

You have a problem relating to Authority Figures, little guy. You have anger boiling inside you. Whatever it was with Mommie or Daddy that's still bothering you after all these years is being re-directed to other people and to concepts such as the law, the government, and so on.

It is not psychologically normal for you to be this upset about the things that you claim upset you, such as paying taxes, fees, etc., to government.

[Famspear]

PD's use of the term "boot licker" is also telling. Of course, none of the regulars in this forum are "boot lickers" when it comes to Authority Figures. The fact that PD lashes out at us for explaining the law to him is telling.

We're not your Mommie or your Daddy, little feller. Grow up.