I-9

If you've done any hiring (or been hired) since the 1986 amnesty given to illegal aliens, you're probably familiar with the form known as an I-9. If not . . .

Part of the law required that an I-9 had to be completed on all new hires to prove that they were in the United States legally, and therefore allowed to work.

Initially it was a big deal. If the Feds ever questioned the legal status of one of the people we hired (they never did) I figured I'd end up in the slammer since it was my signature on the form saying I'd examined the specific, original documents it required, if they turned out to be bogus.

Not that long after, though, it just became another bothersome piece of paper that had to be stuck in the person's personnel file when Human Resources, facing the threat of a lawsuit, said although I was still required to view specific documents all new hires were required to submit, they didn't have to be the originals. The law, it seems, said photocopies of the documents could also be accepted which, in my humble opinion, made the requirement completely worthless.

Not that I liked the requirement to start with. First off, I'm not a trained document examiner. How would I possibly know if the document handed to me was authentic? Counterfeit documents of that nature weren't as prevalent as they are now, but still. It was my butt on the line.

But more than that I just resented the whole damned thing.

Thanks to this new requirement, now I -- a citizen of the United States -- would have to prove that I was every single time I went for a job. And every other person legally in the United States would have to do the same thing.

I felt like we were being punished, instead of those who'd broken the law. And, we were and still are.

~~~~~
Fast forward 21 years to the No-Illegal-Alien-Left-Behind bill and some of its provisions:

All an illegal alien had to do was prove that they'd gotten into the United States before January 1, and they were eligible to file an application for amnesty. The Feds would have 24 hours to complete a background check and, if sufficient reason was found, deny the application, or, the applicant would receive "legal status."

Whut.ever that is.

Anyway, many of we "racist-nativists" who opposed the bill thought this provision was particularly funny.

Having also done eligibility determinations for social service programs (I have a checkered past), I know it can take hours (and sometimes days) to track down verifications on just one application. And now thousands (perhaps millions) had to be completed in one day?

Even better, or worse, the applicant could prove that they were in the United States before January 1 simply by providing "bank records, records from a day-labor center and sworn affidavits from known relatives."

Talk about stringent, fraud-proof, requirements!

~~~~~
Anticipating passage of the No-Illegal-Alien-Left-Behind bill, Julio Leija-Sanchez, a Mexican national in the United States (illegally, of course) expanded his already-lucrative business to meet a new demand:

Julio Leija-Sanchez, who ran a $3 million-a-year forgery operation before he was arrested in April, was expecting Congress to pass a legalization program, which he called "amnesty," and said he could forge documents to fool the U.S. government into thinking illegal aliens were in the country in time to qualify for amnesty, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent said in the affidavit.

Quite obviously, Mr. Leija-Sanchez was not alone in identifying this new market, but not particularly pleased with his competition:

He also was accused of paying $3,000 and conspiring with others to kill two fledgling competitors for stealing computers used to make the phony documents.

Not to worry, though. While the franchise Mr. Leija-Sanchez ran might have experienced a difficulty or two recently, the <polite cough> parent company located IN Mexico has not been affected.

"It's clear that the most capable fraud document cartel in Mexico has been gearing up for comprehensive immigration reform at the same time we have been here on Capitol Hill — only they're ahead of the game," said Michael Maxwell, senior policy analyst for homeland security for Rep. John Culberson, Texas Republican. "They're already making money and will continue to do so." -- Washington Times

h/t Corruption Chronicles