Immigration patrols on domestic Amtrak

In article ,
Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:

On 2007-08-03, Merritt Mullen wrote:

I have been asked for my SSN many times, but I have never been asked to
show my SS card. I don't know about newer cards, but mine is clearly
marked "This card is not to be used for identification".

You've never tried to get a driver's license in Illinois, I take it. it
certainly caught me off guard on that first visit to the Secretary of State.

As I understand it, by federal law, they are not supposed to do that.

Merritt

"Merritt Mullen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:

On 2007-08-03, Merritt Mullen wrote:

I have been asked for my SSN many times, but I have never been asked to
show my SS card. I don't know about newer cards, but mine is clearly
marked "This card is not to be used for identification".

You've never tried to get a driver's license in Illinois, I take it. it
certainly caught me off guard on that first visit to the Secretary of
State.

As I understand it, by federal law, they are not supposed to do that.

I know that federal agencies are not allowed to use SSNs as account numbers,
but I don't recall if that rule applies to state agencies as well. They're
all allowed to ask for your number for tax and other specific purposes.

For instance, Texas requires a valid SSN to get a DL, due to a state law
that requires it to reduce the number of people getting multiple licenses,
but your SSN is not your DLN.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ews.net,
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:


The post office is NOT a public corporation or any kind of corporation.
It's a government agency. Till the Nixon administration, it was a
cabinet-level executive department.

It is a government agency in the common meaning of the word, but it is
legally defined as "an independent establishment of the executive branch."

The law (39 U.S.C, sec. 201) says:

"There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive
branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal
Service."

I know, picky, picky. As you say it not any kind of corporation, such as
Amtrak is, and its employees are government employees paid by the Treasury
Department. Amtrak employees are not government employees and they are
paid by the corporation, not by the Treasury.

Merritt

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:15:25 GMT, Merritt Mullen
wrote:

In article ews.net,
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:


The post office is NOT a public corporation or any kind of corporation.
It's a government agency. Till the Nixon administration, it was a
cabinet-level executive department.

It is a government agency in the common meaning of the word, but it is
legally defined as "an independent establishment of the executive branch."

The law (39 U.S.C, sec. 201) says:

"There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive
branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal
Service."

I know, picky, picky.

More than "picky, picky". As I said, "agency" has a specific
legal meaning that does not apply to independent units such as
the USPS or the Federal Reserve.

As you say it not any kind of corporation, such as
Amtrak is, and its employees are government employees paid by the Treasury
Department. Amtrak employees are not government employees and they are
paid by the corporation, not by the Treasury.

Do the proceeds from postage sales go into Treasury, and are they
earmarked somehow for wages?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:00:55 GMT, Merritt Mullen
wrote:

In article ews.net,
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

This is an entirely unconvincing counter-argument. I gave an example of
its possible use as a form of identification. It's use, for immigration
law purposes, is to identify an individual that meets the criterion of
having a Social Security Number from the series given to citizens and
permanent residents.

In what why does a SS card identify anyone. All it has on it is a name
and a number. You need supplemental evidence before identification is
possible.

I have never, in my entire life, been asked for my SS card.

Great. If your employer receives a complaint about records mismatch, he
would ask to see something to verify a match between Social Security
Number and name.

He can easily do that without seeing a card. The SSA can match a name to
a number.

I have worked for the federal government all my life, either in the
military or as a civilian, and I can tell you the federal government has
never asked to see my card. What purpose would it serve? I could make
one myself if I needed to.

And, by the way, when you apply for SS benefits, as I have, the SSA
doesn't ask to see your card either (they do want to see your birth
certificate). The sole purpose of the card is to inform the holder of his
account number.

And, under changing requirements of identification for
employment, for giving evidence that one is part of the SS system
and has an SS number. For about the last fifteen years I have had
to present by SS card to propective empoyers. Needless to say,
they are easily fakeable, but the potential empoyers still
photocopy my SS card and birth certificate for their records. I
believe it gets them off the hook on certain federal
requirements.



--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:03:20 GMT, Merritt Mullen
wrote:

In article ,
Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:

On 2007-08-03, Merritt Mullen wrote:

I have been asked for my SSN many times, but I have never been asked to
show my SS card. I don't know about newer cards, but mine is clearly
marked "This card is not to be used for identification".

You've never tried to get a driver's license in Illinois, I take it. it
certainly caught me off guard on that first visit to the Secretary of State.

As I understand it, by federal law, they are not supposed to do that.

For a while some states required it for drivers licenses. But
they seem to have backed off.

My private medical insurance number used to be my SSN, but they
changed their system an now assign me a near-incomprehensible
number.

Now if we could just convince the SSA to use a code number on
Medicare cards. All that effort to cleanse my wallet of my SSN,
and there sits my Medicare card with my SSN in large bold
numerals.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message
reenews.net...
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
so they're not even "public" corporations like the USPS or NPRC.

The post office is NOT a public corporation or any kind of corporation.
It's a government agency. Till the Nixon administration, it was a
cabinet-level executive department.

My mistake. Strike USPS from my message; it doesn't affect the accuracy of
the rest.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
For about the last fifteen years I have had to present by SS card
to propective empoyers.

No, you haven't, unless you have no other way to prove you're elligible to
work in the US.

Technically, you are not required to provide your SSN to an employer at all;
federal courts have ruled that's unlawful discrimination if they try to
force you to. US citizens are only required to provide (or even have) an
SSN if they want their employment to count towards SS benefits when they
retire. This "voluntary" nature is how Congress got it past SCOTUS, since
it'd otherwise be unconstitutional (or at least would have been considered
so when the program was created), and that has never been changed.

Needless to say, they are easily fakeable, but the potential
empoyers still photocopy my SS card and birth certificate for
their records. I believe it gets them off the hook on certain
federal requirements.

They're required to ask, but you're not required to provide it and there's
no penalty to either you or the employer if it's not on the forms. Few
employers, however, are actually versed on those details since it's very
obscure case law.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:45:04 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk"
wrote:

"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
For about the last fifteen years I have had to present by SS card
to propective empoyers.

No, you haven't, unless you have no other way to prove you're elligible to
work in the US.

I'm telling you what I had to do. Don't tell me I didn't.

Technically, you are not required to provide your SSN to an employer at all;
federal courts have ruled that's unlawful discrimination if they try to
force you to. US citizens are only required to provide (or even have) an
SSN if they want their employment to count towards SS benefits when they
retire. This "voluntary" nature is how Congress got it past SCOTUS, since
it'd otherwise be unconstitutional (or at least would have been considered
so when the program was created), and that has never been changed.

Needless to say, they are easily fakeable, but the potential
empoyers still photocopy my SS card and birth certificate for
their records. I believe it gets them off the hook on certain
federal requirements.

They're required to ask, but you're not required to provide it and there's
no penalty to either you or the employer if it's not on the forms. Few
employers, however, are actually versed on those details since it's very
obscure case law.

I have no idea why I should take what you say at face value.


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:

And, under changing requirements of identification for
employment, for giving evidence that one is part of the SS system
and has an SS number.

Why not just tell them your number, let them punch it into the computer
and let the SSA come back with the name of the holder of that number (or
vice versa, for that matter). Why trust a battered piece of paper that
has been in someone's wallet for years?

For about the last fifteen years I have had
to present by SS card to propective empoyers.

You seem to be fairly unusual in that regard given the responses I have
seen so far on this group.

As I said the federal government does not ask that of their prospective
employees. But on the other hand, the federal government and military
employees did not participate in the Social Security System until about
1957, and then just for the medicare provisions. In fact, many jobs used
to not be covered by SS, so having a SS account was not a requirement for
employment.

Merritt