I've heard you don't have to get a SSN for your kid when they are born...?

[muh_roads]

Isn't needing to report an SSN to get a job just as unconstitutional as something like Obamacare?

 

[aGameOfThrones]

uhhhh, no. The term has been around for many, many decades. It's the term "undocumented foreigner"/"undocumented alien" that have only been coined in recent years.

[h=2]illegal alien[/h] 

noun 1.a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.

To add...

Legal definition:

Alien. A foreigner; one born abroad.

A person who owes allegiance to a foreign government. De Cano v. State, 7 Wash.2d 613,110 P.2d 627, 631, 633.

In this country is a person born not of the United States and unnaturalized under our Constitution and laws, 2 Kent, Comm. 50. Caparell v. Goodbody, 132 N.JEq. 559, 29 A.2d 563, 569.

Black's law 4th edition.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Technically don't need one, i.e. Constitutionally? Do people get harassed and or jailed for not having one (and like not having a license plate)? If a person wants to live as a sovereign in New Hampshire will he be able to find adequate employment and housing? (I'll study more at the FSP web site)

People that are learning to drive in NH don't need a DL as long as someone 25 years or older with a DL is in the passenger seat. However, if you had a DL in the past but don't currently have one and the cops find out about it, they may be able to do something. I don't really recommend that method of driving and I wouldn't be surprised if someone was harassed by cops if the cops found out about the issue. If someone was pulled over the told the cops that they are a sovereign, it might not end well. If someone was pulled over and said they were be taught how to drive, it would likely end fine. http://www.dmv.org/nh-new-hampshire/teen-drivers.php

It's pretty easy to find housing in NH (likely most places?) if you don't have a social security number. Just have a roommate that is on the lease. I'm at my 3rd place since moving to NH and I've done it every time without a problem. I've never had to go through a background check or even sign a lease. Even families can do this. I live with a pro-liberty family right now.

As for employment, there is a chance you could find a traditional employer that breaks the rules for you. You could work in the black or grey market. You could also be your own boss (sales, construction, yard work, snow removal, consulting, reporter...)

Honestly, I recommend against trying to live without a social security number. It seems like it would be too much work for too little reward. However, if someone wants to do, more power to them

 

[Jake Ralston]

Look, its a huge pain in the ass if you don't have one.

Yes, freedom is sooo inconvenient.

Okay wiseguy, so I'm assuming you've already put your money where your mouth is and abandoned your SSN?

LOL you must be living in a trailer, using candlelight by night and drinking filtered piss in place of water.

Wait a sec, are you the Ungrip guy, or just a poser???

 

[ghengis86]

Okay wiseguy, so I'm assuming you've already put your money where your mouth is and abandoned your SSN?

LOL you must be living in a trailer, using candlelight by night and drinking filtered piss in place of water.

Wait a sec, are you the Ungrip guy, or just a poser???

To some, that may be an agreeable alternative to being a ward of the state.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Unfortunately, if you want a private market job or any job at all, you will need one. It does not make logical or moral sense, but unfortunately most if not nearly all jobs will not hire without one.

That may be true with the Patriot Act, but it didn't used to be the case. I learned this as an employer when an applicant refused to provide their SSN. I checked with Human Resources and found out, nope, they didn't have to.

 

[pcosmar]

That may be true with the Patriot Act, but it didn't used to be the case. I learned this as an employer when an applicant refused to provide their SSN. I checked with Human Resources and found out, nope, they didn't have to.

When I lived under an alias, I just made one up.

 

[Enforcer]

uhhhh, no. The term has been around for many, many decades. It's the term "undocumented foreigner"/"undocumented alien" that have only been coined in recent years.

[h=2]illegal alien[/h] 

noun 1.a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.

You did not leave a proper cite; however, if you will research the term "illegal alien / immigrant" you will NOT find it to be very old. Actually, it could not have factually been invented until AFTER the Kennedy Immigration Laws of the 1960s - kind of gives us an indication of which side of the fence you sit on (ugh... another closet Democrat.)

Here's what is wrong with the term, sir.

In the definition, it clearly states that it refers to someone who enters the United States unlawfully.

The word unlawful is defined as:

"That which is contrary to prohibited, or unauthorized by law. That which is not lawful. The acting contrary to, or in defiance of the law; disobeying or disregarding the law..." (Black's Law Dictionary)


The word "illegal" is much different. In order for an action to be "illegal," it must contain an element of criminality. Defying the law is perfectly legal. Disobeying and disregarding the law are not crimes:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

If you do not obey an unconstitutional law, it may be unlawful; however since no criminal penalties attach, it most assuredly is not "illegal."

Continuing on, Attorney General Michael Mukasey (appointed by George W. Bush) told the American Bar Association:

“Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,”

http://lawyersusadcdicta.wordpress....y-‘not-every-violation-of-the-law-is-a-crime/

What you are advocating on this board is a Democrat / liberal interpretation of the law. No serious, strict constructionist would ever support it. If we create a precedent contrary to what Mukasey said, then you would lose the Right to disobey unconstitutional laws. Immigration violations are found in Title 8 of the United States Code and they deal with CIVIL law, not criminal law. Again, you're taking an Obama view of the laws in this country and making disobedience a crime. It may be unlawful to disobey unconstitutional civil laws, but it is NEVER a crime.

 

[Enforcer]

Okay wiseguy, so I'm assuming you've already put your money where your mouth is and abandoned your SSN?

LOL you must be living in a trailer, using candlelight by night and drinking filtered piss in place of water.

Wait a sec, are you the Ungrip guy, or just a poser???

FWIW, My father died three years ago. At the time he died, he had not paid federal income taxes nor used an ssn for at least 17 years that I can personally attest to.

The old man was pissed at my mother and took it out on the whole family, leaving his 2 MILLION DOLLAR estate to malcontents, drunks, and drug addicts. The money was paid out and most of those people blew their good fortunes in short order. We have much richer relatives, but the old man did not live in a trailer and from what I could tell, he ate whatever in the heck he wanted to.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What you are advocating on this board is a Democrat / liberal interpretation of the law.

Nope. I just use dictionaries. You can use specialized dictionaries to fit your argument if you want, but I generally prefer to use the English language properly.

 

[Enforcer]

Nope. I just use dictionaries. You can use specialized dictionaries to fit your argument if you want, but I generally prefer to use the English language properly.

The most authoritative and accepted legal dictionary in the legal community is Black's Law Dictionary. If I were using "specialized" dictionaries, they would be something like Cokes or Ballentines.

I'm guessing you don't have much legal knowledge. So, allow me to prove, unequivocally, that your position is a liberal / Democrat position. You clearly believe that coming into the United States is a crime. Well, crimes are tried in criminal courts. I've told you that immigration is not criminal, it is civil. If you are tried in a criminal court, you and I both know that the Miranda warnings let an accused know, "you have the Right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you." Crimes = criminal process.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey RULED:

"I conclude, as have a growing number of federal courts, that the Constitution does not confer a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings," ... The reason is simple: Under Supreme Court precedent, there is no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel under the Due Process Clause or any other provision where -- as here and as in most civil proceedings -- there is no constitutional right to counsel, including Government-appointed counsel, in the first place."

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/01/mukasey-aliens-have-no-right-to-effective-assistance.html

So, if you're charged with a crime, you are guaranteed representation by an attorney; however, if you violate a civil statute, no crime has been committed.

When Obama came to power, he appointed Eric Holder in Mukasey's stead. Holder reversed the Mukasey decision, giving undocumented immigrants a court appointed attorney in civil immigration proceedings. In DEBEATHAM v. HOLDER, No. 09-0205-ag. argued in April of 2010, Holder reversed Mukasey:

http://www.civilrighttocounsel.org/advances/other/

In essence, Holder gave potentially 12 MILLION undocumented immigrants a court appointed attorney for a civil infraction of the law. It really sets a piss poor precedent and the government doesn't like to pursue these civil infractions due to their cost. You are still taking a liberal / Democrat position.

Bear in mind, before the anti - immigrant lobby got so powerful, Attorney General Michael Mukasey told the American Bar Association (the most liberal - communist loving organization in America):

"Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/justice-staffers-wont-be_n_118423.html

So, get yourself a Black's Law Dictionary and study up on the differences between civil law and criminal law. Deportations are not a criminal process. They are clearly a civil administrative procedure for a violation of a civil statute (i.e. 8 USC 1325.)

I've mentioned this before, heavenlyboy34, I worked in immigration law for six years and came from the same side you're on. I had 13 years experience from YOUR side of the fence (working in politics) before having to work on the other side of the aisle and learning the whole subject over again from a legal perspective. Once again, I assure you: a general dictionary has no citing authority in any court whereas Black's Law Dictionary does. But, I urge you to study the differences between civil law / process / procedure and criminal law / process / procedure.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

If you could get by w/0 an SSN you will live a very free life, but very inconvenient.

 

[Danke]

//

 

[mrsat_98]

Isn't needing to report an SSN to get a job just as unconstitutional as something like Obamacare?

Legally a job working for a corp is supposed to request a SSN at least twice and if they don't get it they are to put an affidavit in the file that says they requested it. There is no need for why they didn't get it just that they requested it. No affidavit on file subjects them to a $50 fine.

If you could get by w/0 an SSN you will live a very free life, but very inconvenient.

Its fun. I just have not started carrying tax exempt papers to Wal Mart yet.

 

[osan]

Nope. I just use dictionaries. You can use specialized dictionaries to fit your argument if you want, but I generally prefer to use the English language properly.

Black's Law Dictionary IS the proper use of the English language in the context of legal practice. I am not at all confident that a court will hold with you if perchance your common definitions of terms vary even in the most modest ways and degrees with that of Black's. I may be wrong on this point, but do not think I am.