POTUS & The I-9 Form

The Immigration Reform and Control Act was signed by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986.

All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

Is there an exemption in that law for the President of the United States?

No.

Is the President of the United States above the law?

No.

Does the President of the United States work in the United States?

Obviously yes.

Who is the employer of the President of the United States ?

We the people of the United States.

As the President’s employer, we have “standing” to expect our employee to follow the law and fill out a Form I-9.

Note these two questions and answers from the FAQ:

Do citizens and nationals of the U. S. need to prove, to their employers, they are eligible to work?

Yes. While citizens and nationals of the U.S. are automatically eligible for employment, they too must present proof of employment eligibility and identity and complete an Employment Eligibility Verification form (Form I-9). Citizens of the U.S. include persons born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Nationals of the U.S. include persons born in American Samoa, including Swains Island.

Do I need to complete a Form I-9 for everyone who applies for a job with my company?

No. You need to complete Form I-9 only for people you actually hire. For purposes of the I-9 rules, a person is “hired” when he or she begins to work for you for wages or other compensation.

 So, according to that, the I-9 is not required for everyone who applies for the job of POTUS, but is required of the POTUS when he or she begins to work for us.

Now, at first glance, this would seem like very good news for anyone who would like to see verification of Obama’s true birth certificate.  I fully understand that regardless of where Obama was born he was not born a Natural [Law] born citizen, because by Natural Law, natural born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was a British citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. That’s been discussed at length previously.

But if Obama cannot produce a valid birth certificate from the State of Hawaii (vs. a forged COLB from his campaign headquarters), then he would fail to prove even basic citizenship, let alone natural born citizenship. So again, this would seem to be very good news for anyone who would like to see verification of Obama’s true birth certificate.

But unfortunately, Obama could satisfy the I-9 requirements with the passport he was issued as a senator, and a recent GAO report reveals that one undercover GAO investigator was able to obtain four passports under four different names.  The passports were genuine but the supporting documents used to apply for these passports were counterfeit.

So even a passport for Obama would not prove that authentic documents were used to obtain that passport.

But perhaps the combination of the requirements from the Immigration Reform and Control Act (documents required) and from the Constitution (natural born citizenship required) can be used to require the verification of Obama’s original birth certificate. This doesn’t address the issue of Obama’s admitted British citizenship at birth (becuase he was legally subject to the British Nationality Act due to his father’s British citizenship), but if Obama can’t prove he was born in this country, then he is ineligible for that reason, too.

Now this is a completely different topic, but there is something else that many employers require of their new employees:

a drug screen.

UPDATE 2009-08-08: Earlier I said:

But unfortunately, Obama could satisfy the I-9 requirements with the passport he was issued as a senator

Now, while that is true in terms of satisfied the I-9 requirements, the I-9 merely confirms U.S. Citizenship, and does not confirm that someone is a Natural Born Citizen. Even naturalized U.S. citizens can have a passport. That brings us back to the need for Obama to release, directly from the State of Hawaii, a certified copy of his original birth certificate.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to POTUS & The I-9 Form

  1. Jonah says:

    I’ll jump on this opportunity to transition our discussion to drug policy. Red, what are your thoughts on the War on Drugs?

  2. I’m more interested in talking about how Obama is fighting the War on Capitalism.

  3. …turning his Assault Hope into Assault Reality.

  4. …but I will go ahead and share some thoughts on the War on Drugs.

    You can fight that war on many different fronts. Most of the government’s efforts seem to be on fighting the supply of drugs. That does not appear to have been very effective.

    You can also fight this battle on the demand side. If there were zero demand for the drugs, there would be no market for them, no trafficing of them, and eventually no production of them. But, clearly there is a market.

    Why?

    Because people use drugs to temporarily “escape” their reality. Whether due to a lack of hope or due to “experimentation”, once drug use starts it can quickly become a psychological and/or physical addiction, keeping the drug user in bondage.

    What can set them free?

    I know a man personally who was once both a drug user and a drug dealer, but he quit both cold turkey when he was saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

    That is an example of the War on Drugs being fought and won on the spiritual front.

    Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

  5. Jonah says:

    I’m mostly satisfied by that. So you’d agree with me when I say that the government’s involvement in the War on Drugs (and the corresponding spike in nonviolent offenders behind bars) has been a catastrophic waste of taxpayer dollars? And that the (finally discontinued, per Eric Holder) federal raids on medical marijuana facilities in states in which it’s legal were an egregious assault on states’ rights?

  6. tom says:

    Oh yeah, how wonderful. We have itooktheredpill, who based on his postings has obviously fried his brain on every drug imaginable, debating Jonah, who obviously likes his marijuana because without that he certainly wouldn’t find itooktheredpill’s blog interesting.

  7. Jonah says:

    tom, dude, you’re seriously harshing my mellow right now.

  8. LOL, you’re a funny man, Jonah.
    :-)

  9. tom says:

    Jonah — you should stay away from drugs. That kind of thing isn’t good for you. Do you want to go to jail? You seem like a nice fellow. I wouldn’t want to hear that end up doing some hard time for a drug rap.

  10. Jonah says:

    The rapidity with which you forget that I live in Massachusetts is astounding.

  11. Ryan says:

    Tom, we finally have a couple of people respectfully debating two very opposing viewpoints. It’s interesting and refreshing. Don’t ruin it.

  12. tom says:

    Ryan — what blog are you reading? Please send me the link, I’d like to check it out. I know you aren’t talking about this monstrosity.

  13. Ryan says:

    Tom, read some of my posts. I agree that there has been a whole lot of crazy around here, and I’ve been pretty vocal about it. But regardless of My Pill’s opinions on things, he had been respectful, and a whole lot of people agree with him. I’d like to know why. I think that’s the best way for us all to get along.

  14. Ryan says:

    Tha’s supposed to read “Mr Pill” not “My Pill”. Cue the jokes…

  15. tom says:

    Ryan — the reason why a lot of people agree with Mr. Pill is that there is a high population of morons in this country. Now that you know the answer to your question, you won’t have to read this blog anymore.

  16. Tom,

    Moby much?

    Most of us would prefer if you didn’t read this blog anymore.

  17. Pingback: Is the President above the law? « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  18. tom says:

    Itooktheredpill — I will keep on reading your blog. Making fun of you makes me feel better about myself.

  19. tom says:

    Itooktheredpill — let me explain this to you. I am not a Moby. I am a Republican with a brain who has zero tolerance for the ramblings of a lunatic like you. It is people like you that give the Republican party a bad name. Anybody who stumbles across your blog is going to conclude that Republicans are a bunch of tinfoil hat wearers who see a lot of black helicopters flying overhead. That makes me sick.

  20. tom,

    Interesting. In another thread, you called yourself a conservative. When I asked you to explain what being a “conservative” means to you, you never responded.

    So tell us now… what does being a “conservative Republican” mean to you?

  21. tom says:

    Itooktheredpill — the funniest thing about your Moby link is that it says that the goal of a Moby is to discredit the blog in question. That implies that the blog in question already has a certain level of inherent credibility. Your blog has zero credibility. Why would I waste my time (if I was a Moby) trying to “discredit” your blog? You do a good enough job at that already. Maybe you’re a Moby? Who knows? Maybe this is all an act to discredit Republicans/conservatives. You start an incoherent right-wing blog to secretly further your leftist leanings by making the right look like total morons. I have you figured out, Pill.

  22. Tom

    You are a Moby/Troll.

    November 22, 2008 at 2:59 am

    Tom Says:

    Boy, I knew conservatives were pretty dumb, but this itooktheredpill person really takes the cake.

    You’ve come here as “Tom”, “Phil” and “Mohammed“, and left 39 comments of pure garbage. A less tolerant person would have banned you months ago. Perhaps I have let you stay because you reveal the lack of maturity, lack of civility and lack of intelligence of many of Obama’s young supporters.

  23. naturalborncitizen says:

    ITTRP,

    Interesting. I just saw your comment at my blog today. You need to look further into this. Perhaps a freedom of information act request would reveal something as to the I9? let me know what you find.

    Leo C. Donofrio

  24. Starbeau says:

    If Obama was born in Hawaii, he was either a citizen, or he was not. Obama was not a citizen of the United States “at birth”.

    Obama’s Citizenship Status

    Amendment XIV of the Constitution states:
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

    US Law States:

    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401.

    Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:
    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    1 (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    US law § 1401 1(a) is simply a restatement of the Constitution!

    What do the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” mean?

    In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone.
    Both Sen. Lyman Trumbull and Sen. Jacob Howard, key figures in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, responding to questions of the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States declared it to mean “complete” jurisdiction.

    Senator Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now”.

    Senator Trumbull, declared:

    The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’

    “Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

    Obama was born in the United States under limited jurisdiction and therefore not a citizen at birth!

    The opinion rendered by Chief Justice John Marshal in the landmark case, Marbury v. Madison stated:

    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible…”

    Chief Justice Marshall opinion means that the words of Section 1 of Amendment XIV have effect and any construction that changes the intention of those words is inadmissible!

    The interpretation in TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 >1 (a) of the meaning of ” and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” may not override the effect or eliminate the words in the Constitution. It would be inadmissible!

    Not only are the words clearly stated in Amendment XIV, but the meaning of those words is clearly defined by the framers.

    Neither Congress NOR ANY court has the power to change the meaning of those words! Only We The People can by an Amendment to the Constitution.

    Posted on Obama’s website is this admission:

    When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    By Obama’s own statement, his citizenship was subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom “at birth”. That is limited, not complete, US jurisdiction.

    By definitions of the requirement, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” supplied by Senators Trumbull and Howard of the word “jurisdiction”:

    OBAMA WAS NOT A US CITIZEN AT BIRTH!

    OBAMA WAS A UK CITIZEN AT BIRTH!

    Bottom line:
    Obama was not a citizen of US at birth (Nor is he a “National”)
    Obama was a citizen of the UK at birth (not a dual citizen)
    Obama remained in the US with his mother until she married Soetoro.
    Soetoro adopts Obama and takes him to Indonesia. (Kenyan or some other passport?)
    Obama returns to US ~9 years old. Traveling with citizen mother.

    How did he get in?

    Obama never becomes a naturalized citizen, Obama is an illegal alien.

    If (and there is no record of it) Obama returned and was naturalized, then he would be a naturalized citizen, ineligible to be President of the United States.

  25. Starbeau,

    Thank you for your comment.

    It is amazing how our members of Congress believed untruths spread by the Obama campaign, Annenberg Political Fact Check, and the Associated Press.

    Even for those who wrongly think that the admitted British citizenship at birth is irrelevant (and wrongly believe that birth in Hawaii is sufficient to be a “natural born citizen”), it is amazing how our members of Congress inspected one Certificate from the state of Hawaii (the certificate of the electoral college vote) and not another Certificate from the state of Hawaii (Obama’s original birth certificate on file there).

    It’s amazing that they “outsourced” that verification to an organization with prior ties to Obama (Annenberg), and believed the untruths spread by both that group and the Associated Press.

  26. Why are there still questions about qualifications?
    Arguments of president’s defenders never actually addressed eligibility

  27. Real letter:
    —————

    From: [Employer]
    To: [Prospective New Employee who has just accepted offer of employment]
    Subject: Welcome New Hire

    Dear [Prospective New Employee],

    Before starting work, for purposes of federal immigration law, you are required to provide documentary evidence of your identity and eligibility for employment in the United States. This is done by completing an Employment Eligibility Form (Form I-9).

    Follow the steps below to complete the Form I-9 prior to your first day of work.

    1) Click the secure link provided below to complete the Form I-9.
    You are required to indicate the official forms of identification that you will bring with you on your first day of work in order to complete the employee section of the Form I-9.

    2) On your first day of work, bring:
    a. Confirmation page that you are instructed to print while completing the Form I-9 online.
    b. Official form(s) of identification that you indicated when completing the online Form I-9. The identification documentation will be examined and the authenticity will be confirmed by your employer.

    Click Here to Complete the Form I-9

    [Employer] Human Resources

  28. Pingback: No Exceptions « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  29. Papoose says:

    If the POTUS was on the up and up and had nothing to hide, he would have provided his long form BC upon word one.

    That’s the thing that bugs people. What are you hiding and why are you hiding it?

  30. yo says:

    One this is for certain. After this is all over, I will have a very, very different perception of who I can trust and who I cannot trust.

    Just look at all of the people, institutions, etc, that are doing their level best to prevent discovery of someone who is hiding something.

    What news i’ll look at and who i’ll vote for, (if i can even find anyone to vote for) will forever be changed.

  31. Leza says:

    Pill,

    Great post regarding Obama and the I-9. When I click on the FAQ you have posted above I get this message –

    The OID specified in the request parameters is either null or invalid. No content item selected The OID specified in the request parameters is either null or invalid.

    You have this update above-

    [UPDATE: The I-9 form was revised on 02/02/09, shortly after Obama took office, and the old link no longer works. Here is the link to the newly revised I-9 form.]

    Which makes since as to why the old FAQ link is no longer working.

    Do you know if this was in the old version of the FAQ –

    List of the new version –

    Documentation
    A variety of documents acceptable for I-9 purposes. The employee must supply either:

    One document that establishes both identity and employment eligibility (on List A on the I-9) OR
    One document that establishes identity (on List B), together with another document that establishes employment eligibility (on List C)
    All documentation must be unexpired as of April 3, 2009[2]
    Documents that may be used under “List A” of the I-9 form to establish both identity and employment eligibility include:

    U.S. Passport
    U.S. Passport Card
    An unexpired foreign passport with an I-551 stamp, or with Form I-94 attached which indicates an unexpired employment authorization
    A Permanent Resident Card (often called a “green card”) or Alien Registration Receipt Card with photograph
    An Unexpired Temporary Resident Card
    An Unexpired Employment Authorization Card
    An Unexpired Employment Authorization Document issued by the Dept. of Homeland Security that includes a photograph (Form I-766)
    Documents that may be used under “List B” of the I-9 to establish identity include:

    Driver’s license or I.D. card issued by a U.S. state or outlying possession of the U.S., provided it contains a photograph or identifying information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color and address.
    Federal or state I.D. card provided it contains a photograph or identifying information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color and address.
    School I.D. with photograph
    Voter’s registration card
    U.S. Armed Services identification card or draft record
    U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Card
    Native American tribal document
    Driver’s license issued by a Canadian government authority
    For individuals under the age of 18 only, the following documents may be used to establish identity:

    School record or report card
    Clinic, doctor or hospital record
    Day-care or nursery school record
    Employees who supply an item from List B must also supply an item from List C

    Documents that may be used under “List C” of the I-9 to establish employment eligibility include:

    A U.S. Social Security card issued by the Social Security Administration (Note: cards that specify “not valid for employment” are not acceptable.)
    A birth certificate issued by the U.S. State Department (Form FS-545 or Form DS-1350) Original or certified copy of a birth certificate from the U.S. or an outlying possession of the U.S., bearing an official seal
    Native American tribal document
    U.S. Citizen I.D. Card (Form I-197)
    An I.D. Card for the use of a Resident Citizen in the United States (Form I-179)
    An unexpired employment authorization card issued by the Dept. of Homeland Security (other than those included on List A)
    U.S. citizens who have lost their social security card can apply for a duplicate at the Social Security Administration.

    ———————

    **** Native American tribal document

    ——————–

    I do not remember this – Native American tribal document being in the old version of the FAQ. Regardless even if it was, which may or may not be the case, does his adoption by the Crow tribe and this Native American tribal document seem to raise some questions?

    Was this adoption by the Crow tribe the only way he could pass the I-9 requirement?

    Your thoughts on this?

  32. Leza,
    Thank you for your comment. I don’t know what happened to the FAQ, but this page may be helpful.

    I used the Internet Archvide to find two older versions of the I-9 that did include “Native American tribal document” under “Documents that EstablishEmployment Eligibility” (see the last page of the I-9 form).

    But, if Obama tried using a Native American tribal document as his documentation, instead of releasing an initial birth certificate proving birth in Honolulu, Hawaii, I think there would be an uproar.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20061128032324/http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080331172226/http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf

  33. Pingback: Hawaii Sent Two Certificates to Congress, Won’t Send the Third « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  34. There are regulations concerning the seal that should be on any COLB that was actually issued by the State of Hawaii:

    The Seal of the Hawaii Department of Health has been in effect since 1988 when it was made a part of the HDOH Title 11-1 administrative rules: “§11-1-2 Seal of the department of health. a) The official seal of the department of health shall be circular in shape, two and one-fourth inches in diameter. At the curve on the top portion there shall be the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and at the curve on the bottom portion there shall be the words “STATE OF HAWAII .” At the curve on each side portion shall be a star. In the center of the seal shall be the Caduceus, a winged rod entwined with two serpents, which has long been recognized as a universal symbol of medicine. The Caduceus shall be encircled by an indentation, which shall separate it from the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and “STATE OF HAWAII .”

    At long last, a copy of the Hawaii Department of Health seal has been disclosed by the department directly. And this seal is consistent with the description of the seal in the Title 11-1 Administrative rules.

    But guess what? The “seal” on the “COLB” that was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago does NOT match the seal that was released directly from Hawaii, and the “Obama COLB seal” is NOT consistent with the description of the seal in the Title 11-1 Administrative rules.

    The pResident is a fraud and usurper.

    Unveiling the HDOH Seal

  35. Examining Documents

    If an employee

    Employer should

    Tips

    Provides documentation that reasonably appears to be genuine, relates to the employee, and is on the List of Acceptable Documents Accept the documentation
    Provides a document that does not reasonably appear to be genuine or relate to the employee or is not on the List of Acceptable Documents Reject the document and ask for other document(s) that satisfy Form I-9 requirements Employers should only reject documents that do not reasonably appear to be genuine or to relate to the employee, or that are not on the List of Acceptable Documents
    Provides a document that does not reasonably appear to be genuine and/or to relate to the individual or if he or she cannot present other documents to satisfy the requirements of
    Form I-9
    The employer may terminate employment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s