[bearishgurl]

[quote=deadzone]BG, there is no way some hotel or restaurant is “sponsoring” a minimum wage service employee for to get a temporary work visa through USCIS.

As you say, getting fraudulent SSN is easy and employers have no reason to investigate if it is legit or not because they know they won’t be held responsible (with the exception of the French Gourmet in PB, not sure what was going on there).

So bottom line, the vast majority of these service workers are illegal, working with fraudulent SSN, regardless of whether they are living in Mexico or San Diego.[/quote]

deadzone, I’m not too well-versed in immigration law so I’m currently studying the instructions for the I-765 form (used to apply for a work permit):

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-765instr.pdf

I DO know that deceased persons’ SSN proffering for employment purposes has been rampant in SoCal for at least 30 years. I have experienced this phenom first-hand working as a RE salesperson in the eighties and early nineties. I “represented” a couple of buyers (at different times) who had GREAT jobs and little debt who had applied for government-backed loan programs (in this case, the FHA 203b program). Both could EASILY qualify to buy the homes in which their offer was accepted and escrow was opened. Both had the funds on deposit for the small downpayment and closing costs. During the underwriting process, their SSNs were found to be belonging to a reported deceased US citizen.

This is after I spent many, many hours (in addition to my FT job) finding them a suitable house, getting their offer(s) accepted and opening escrow. Such are the perils of acting as a buyer’s agent, which I am reluctant to ever do again.

One of my buyers was actually the Controller of a well-established business in National City with more than 50 employees and had worked there for 8 years! She was a Filipina who was attempting to buy a very nice 3 bdrm home in National City for herself and her 6 year-old son, who was a US citizen. She couldn’t bear to leave him as the kid’s father lived locally and demanded to have visitation with him. He couldn’t live with them because he was married to someone else … with children. His spouse knew about her child. It was messy and she was stuck.

I didn’t get her whole story until she didn’t qualify for the loan. I have no idea if the FHA (or local underwriter) turned her into the INS but I doubt it. She quickly “ghosted me” for fear she would lose her job and be deported, leaving her son behind.

What is really sad is that she worked for 12 years in the US using that particular SSN after her visitor’s visa ran out. I’m not sure if her prior payroll deductions for FICA under the deceased woman’s SSN she was using could be converted to a legitimate SSN in her own true name. I don’t know what the “rules” are in this regard. She very well may have forfeited all her FICA contributions under the bogus SSN she was using.

My other client referred to above was a Mexican National who claimed to me to have a green card but only had a work permit at the time (but employed FT in SD County, as was his spouse). He and his spouse could easily qualify for the home in which they had an accepted offer on. When the FHA underwriter ran their SSN’s, the husband came up using a deceased person’s SSN and the wife’s SSN was legit. Both worked FT but they didn’t qualify for the loan.

Both buyers told me in the end that they had no idea that the SSN’s they reported as theirs on their mortgage applications for an FHA loan would be “investigated.” Neither did I before the first client. I honestly thought of her failed escrow as an isolated incident and did not think I would run across this situation again.

Had either of these buyers tried to go conventional at the time (Fannie or Freddie) I don’t know what would have happened. Had they tried to go with the several “portfolio lenders” in town at the time (mostly S&L’s), I feel both would have very likely been successful in qualifying. However, neither buyer had the necessary downpayment to go conventional.

Yes, even the young Swedish nanny working for a family in PL (SD) is desperate to stay in the US. If there is even a whiff of trouble in getting her visa extended, she is going to “hide out” in her employer’s home (or a new employer’s home) until she and/or her employer figure out how to make her “legal.”

That’s the way its always been, ESPecially in SD.

I’ve got other stories related to my actual former co-workers in this regard but I’ll just leave it at that.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I feel productive today. Just got rid of garbage disposal and redid the piping with black glued fittings instead of the white flimsy compression fittings.

If you want peace and quiet, rent your rentals without garbage disposal. It maybe convenient for users but it generates the most plumbing calls.[/quote]

Totally agree. When I managed my own rentals many moons ago, more than half of my maintenance calls were about the garbage disposal … and usually ended up being the tenant’s fault.

[bearishgurl]

Try a Body Pump class for triceps/biceps. Works fast if you go 2-3x per week for a 55 min class which switches from muscle group to muscle group with music!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]

That’s why there are checkpoints north of SD.

Nah, I’ve been pulled over in a car with US registration at one of the checkpoints. Their purpose is to harass people and sniff for truffles so to speak.

They even went as far to question a friend who had an accent one time.[/quote]

spd, did this incident take place at a checkpoint on I-5/I-15 in SD County, CA or on I-8/I-10 in SD or Imperial County CA, AZ or NM??

The former checkpoints have a completely different purpose than the latter checkpoints.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=deadzone]Excellent summary of the situation BG. Only point that I would contend is you implied the border crossers working in San Diego have work visa. That is not typically the case in my experience. I know many who have border crossing card (i.e. tourist Visa) but are working illegally. Absent a green card, what work permit or work visa do you think they have that would legally allow them to work in hotel/restaurant industry?[/quote] deadzone, my understanding is the vast majority of Mexican Nationals applying for jobs in SD County have at least a work permit which is reapplied for by their employer annually. Whatever identification they show (CA Driver License, which is easy to get for a Mexican National), MX birth certificate and work permit/visa is enough to satisfy the I-9 requirements and hire them. It is up to the employer if they want to renew their work permits/visa each year to retain their services.

More troubling is the lack of ability of the employer to tell at first blush if a border-crosser’s SSN number they are positing as their own was legitimately issued to them or was that of a deceased US citizen. As I recall, physical specimens of SS cards purchased in LA on the black market in the past 20 years were a pretty good facsimile of the real thing. My college-student kid, based in LA County just asked me to send them their “original” SS card ASAP last month, which I did (after taking a color copy of it). They had just gotten a new job and was slated for orientation in a few days where the employer needed to see their “original” SS card to complete their I-9. I thought that was odd as my kid didn’t have to produce it for the job they had last year and I have never been asked to produce mine to an employer, just my SS number. But employers are getting wise to the fake SS cards and now have guides and procedures in place to determine the legitimacy of SS cards which every applicant who is hired presents to them.

I have noticed that in the past (2+?) years the online US SS Death Index is now either by subscription only and/or closed to the public, so an employer who does not subscribe to it cannot immediately find out if the SSNs being presented to them by new hires were previously used by a now deceased person unless they (or their parent company) subscribe to it.

Sites of SS prefixes issued by state and year are out there. Example:

http://mrfa.org/ssn.htm

http://socialsecuritynumerology.com/prefixes.php

This is one of the better ones, imho, because it has a state/year decoder tool which has some limitations, but is, for the most part, pretty useful:

http://www.stevemorse.org/ssn/ssn.html

and this helpful site:

http://dataprivacylab.org/dataprivacy/projects/ssnwatch/samples.html

Another problem is a typical HR assistant taking the I-9 info from a new hire has little experience and therefore would very likely not recognize fraud if a 24 year-old applicant was attempting to use a CA issued SSN beginning with 555 (likely issued between 1955 and 1957), for example. Before 1986, US-born minors did not typically apply for a SS number until they were at least 15 years of age and seeking a work permit (so may or may not have been born in the state in which they received their assigned SSN).

In this case, our (fictitious) original SSN holder died at the age of 58 of cancer in 1999 in San Joaquin County and their SS number was subsequently sold on the black market off the street in LA in 2008 and ended up in the hands of this 24-year-old job applicant in San Diego County.

Now that the SS Death Index is no longer public, no new numbers of decedents can be easily be used to manufacture fraudulent SS cards (but older lists are probably still floating around underground).

This very important “I-9 completion business” for new hires really needs to be performed by the most senior HR representative of the organization. It is NOT a job for the HR “newbie.”

maybe brian/FIH can shed a little more light on this thorny subject for the Piggs. IIRC, he’s fairly knowledgeable in this area.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]Comparing San Diego to NYC or Boston, I’ve seen more first-generation immigrants working in hotels and restaurants in either of those two Northeastern cities than in San Diego.[/quote]spd, you were seeing the customer service end when you were here in SD. There are a LOT of bilinguals of every race/Nationality here. A 5-Star restaurant/hotel MAY have wait staff, bartenders and front desk staff of various races/Nationalities but the employees occupying nearly ALL of their other service jobs are predominately of ONE or TWO (incl Filipino) nationalities. A staff position which makes regular and good tips is difficult to obtain without at least 10 years experience, preferably local, with references (especially for dinner shift), so therefore it is not an entry-level service job. A few of these customer service jobs are occupied by border crossers where almost ALL of the other operational service-sector jobs are (which comprises 80-90% of the service jobs in any one establishment).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun] . . . most service worker immigrants are fairly young. Why not give them a shot at permanent residence? Chances are, if they’re legal, they’ll start out low, but some of them will get an education and move on to higher-paying jobs. More money into the social security system. What we’ll pay them after age 65-70 will be a comparative pittance.[/quote]

spd, only the very highest earners will put a substantial amount in the OASDI program of Social Security thru wages paid to them. A younger worker in the US only needs ten years worth of quarters to qualify for a SS benefit between 70 and 73 years old. Most immigrant workers crossing the border every day aren’t high-wage workers but service workers who will ostensibly be eligible for a SS benefit after ten years worth of quarters of wages reported, provided the SS number they are using to work is legitimately theirs. If they live past 75 years old (and the OASDI program is still in place at that time), this lower wage-earning group will have already likely collected the entire amount of their contributions thru their wages in monthly benefits. So, your last sentence is incorrect in that this (younger – GenX and below) group of current workers will be able to qualify for a SS benefit between 65 – 70 years old and that their benefit will be a “mere pittance” in relation to the monthly benefit they will receive if they live long enough.

I don’t believe for one second that there aren’t enough US born workers who reside on the US side of the border to take these thousands of SD County service jobs occupied by Mexican Nationals who have a legal right to work in the US. For example, there are a LOT of boomers (and older) who wouldn’t mind at all working as a laundry supervisor at the Hotel Del to supplement their (often meager) income or working in ANY of the many service-sector jobs in the county. The working conditions are actually pretty good at many of the hotels and restaurants throughout the county, especially those located in busy tourist areas. If the work visa program was not in place for this HUGE group crossing the border every day, these employers would HAVE to hire resident US citizens. They would have no choice. What has been happening over the last 40+ years (and much more pronounced the last 20 years) is that the vast majority of these jobs (a portion of these positions represented, with accompanying benefits) are given to border-crossing work visa holders and thus those US citizens who are “retired” or “semi-retired” or college students who need extra income know they won’t be considered for them so have given up. The employers use the guise of fluent Spanish being “required” for these jobs as a roadblock for many US-citizen applicants but that may only be partially true for customer service positions. It is NOT true for housekeeping, laundry and kitchen positions, among many other non-customer service positions.

I believe entry into service industry and retail positions has been “sewed up” in SD Metro and SD South/East County (and likely North County, as well) to the point where anyone who is not fluently bilingual cannot be considered for a job and that is just plain wrong and discriminatory because this is the US.

Service employers in SD County like the current system of having a never-ending supply of daily “border crossers” to choose from for their hiring-pool composition. They know this pool of applicants is able to live relatively cheaply, has other relatives back in MX to take care of their small children and don’t want anything changed in this regard. This hiring practice has resulted in their workforces consisting of 90-95% of ONE race/Nationality of employees and they don’t care. None of our state representatives have proposed any solutions to this problem because Americans don’t file EEOC claims and the like for “failure to hire.” Why? They have been conditioned to become complacent over the issue in past decades and thus no longer attempt to apply for these jobs. They know that if they should be successfully hired in the laundry room of XYZ 5-Star Hotel in SD County that they will be the black or the white sheep of ALL of their co-workers who are constantly speaking another language at the worksite in front of them and don’t want to deal with it.

In other major cities much further from the int’l border, hotel, restaurant and retail staff is comprised of a much broader range of employee races and Nationalities. The reality is that this huge “border-crossing” group DOES take good jobs away from Americans who want them but the employer-sanctioned practice of hiring only one race/Nationality for these jobs will continue to go on into perpetuity SD County, because, in all practicality, they CAN and have gotten away with this practice for many, many years.

[bearishgurl]

Yes, CAR, I have and DO hear this “unilateral decision” story or the “Unbeknownst to me, she reported to work after her maternity leave was up and then quit within a few hours/days/weeks and hasn’t worked since,” story often.

I believe there ARE a lot of communication problems in marriages, especially those with kids in the picture. A LOT of higher-earning parents absolutely cannot afford to support a family with kids by themselves (at least in the manner the household has been used to) and only agreed to have children if the the other parent continued to bring in their customary income after the children were born. They didn’t sign up for their spouse turning the tables on them in secret but this actually happens a lot.

I DID state that the payor spouse is to blame as well for allowing the problem to go on, thus being part of the cause of the problem in the event of divorce. “Support liability” is a HUGE OBSTACLE and many times the ONLY OBSTACLE to filing for divorce for many higher-earning spouses. That’s why we see more women filing for divorce than men and why we see so many “gray” divorce filings and filings shortly after the last kid graduates from HS. I feel it is a travesty that so many parents live in misery for a decade or more due to monthly CS payments typically ordered in CA being tied to child custody timeshare percentages ordered (which I feel is so wrong in so many ways). At its worst, it invites protracted child custody litigation.

Perhaps the families you are familiar with in this regard have one parent with substantial wages or other income in their own right, large enough to support a family with multiple kids. But that is not reflective of parents as a whole, especially those raising kids in coastal CA counties.

My prior post has no bearing on whether I “respect” or don’t respect SAHP’s. I honestly don’t have a position on it or a personal problem with it. It was just to bring up that in CA, BOTH parents are expected to support their children in the event of a divorce (or in the case of never-married parents). There is no provision in the law for recompense (in the form of back wages) for the prior services of a SAHP ordered because it is assumed that their own support was paid by the payor-party all during the time their household and child-caring services were rendered.

If the SAHP is eligible for spousal support, this may be ordered if they are not paid a lump sum in lieu out of community property. However, in the garden-variety divorce of the “non-rich,” it is unlikely that this lump sum or monthly payment is anywhere near enough to support the previously dependent spouse either short term or long term and it isn’t meant to be. It’s meant to help them get on their feet with the short-term goal of self-sufficiency.

My post wasn’t aimed at you or any Pigg in particular. It was just to illustrate the way the “system” operates, which none of us can do anything about. I apologize if you took it personally.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]So this whole anti-immigration thing is about your quiet lifestyle. You want the world frozen in time to protect your lifestyle.

See, I like it lively and busy. I want change and I want people already born on this earth to do better. Let them come and create something new. And let us be surprised by the new creations.

You may enjoy this article about people retiring in NY:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/realestate/accidental-new-yorkers-grandparents-relocate.html%5B/quote%5D

Interesting article. All but one of these grandparents who relocated to NYC to take care of grandchildren while their parents worked sold very cheap homes in FL to do so. The other sold a home in MD a couple of years after relocating (which isn’t that expensive if located >40 mi from DC). They are ALL paying at least $2750 in monthly rent in NYC/Brooklyn. Unless these grandparents have a really large pension, I can’t see how they can go from minimal housing expense to ~$3K month just for rent. So their children must be paying their rent (or a big portion of it).

What happens when their grandkids get too old to need (or want) a caregiver? Are the children’s parents still going to pay their mom’s (exorbitant) rent every month?

If I was already over 65 yrs old, I would NOT want to sell my <=$170K home to take a chance like this as there are so many variables that could blow up my housing situation. It's sheer folly. Glad that these women are happy in their golden years.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]More total income per household is better than less. There’s a correlation, but marriage in of itself doesn’t guarantee that. Marriage is just social engineering for pooling of resources.[/quote]

Wow, I find myself actually agreeing with brian, here! I DO believe in marriage but I see so many people (especially parents of minor child(ren)) who feel they are “trapped” in their marriages, precisely due to divorce laws, which are patently unfair to the higher-earner spouse and too lax with the lower/non-earner spouse.

I think a lot of people enter marriages (esp 1st marriages) thinking that their new working spouse who is currently taking care of themselves will always be that way. As the years go by, one (or both) of the spouses changes in a manner which wasn’t what the other party signed up for (absent long-term illness). Nothing in this regard was ever discussed between them while one party quietly and unilaterally decided to quit their jobs and/or one (or both) parties (consciously or unconsciously) stopped taking care of themselves.

Life can be short … wa-a-a-y too short to spend the bulk of it with a “roommate” who is only still with you because they (as an able-bodied adult), choose not to bring in their fair share of support and thus are too insecure to leave. The complaining higher earner who allows this behavior in their spouse is also to blame for the mess they are in.

I find it sad that many, many people staying in marriages for the long haul are only doing so for financial reasons. Long-dissatisfied dads are also staying in their marriages in droves because they have (erroneously, in CA) been told that they will only see their kids a few days per month if they divorce. Many of them believe this bunk but nothing could be further from the truth. In CA, absent a few very specific reasons having to do with incarceration and hospitalization of a parent, BOTH parents are each entitled to a 50% timeshare of the children in the event of a divorce (or in the case of never-married parents).

In short, if the CA legislature repealed and reformed the legislation on child support being based upon the timeshare percentage(s) with the child(ren), it would completely eliminate time-consuming and costly custody battles. Also, legislation needs to be reformed on basing the amount of CS (and SS, if applicable) on current income of each party and instead base it on imputed income to a party who is deliberately underemployed or unemployed solely for the purpose of qualifying for more support from (or paying less support) to the other party. Some judges already do this but there is no practical enforcement mechanism in place in the law.

If these two areas of CA law were reformed, it would eliminate much of the tremendous amount of fear (mostly unfounded, IMO) over getting a divorce. In other words, I feel being a single person (with no mindfvckery and drama in their lives) is far preferable to being married, whether a parent of minors … or not.

I think kids do fine when their parents divorce as long as they can continue to stay with each parent regularly, especially if it is palpable to them that their parents don’t even like each other. This doesn’t work as well if the parents live more than 10 miles apart and a 50/50 timeshare situation doesn’t really work if one parent relocates too far from their kid(s) school(s).

I don’t have any issues with the CA property division laws in the event of divorce.

[bearishgurl]

I have no problem with Mexicans shopping in SD and yes, I KNOW it adds to our economy, exponentially.

I just don’t like dealing with crowds to do mundane errands. I’ve gotten to the point where I’m really tired of them. That’s why I want to “retire” to a locale with a much smaller population.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]What’s wrong with Mexicans shopping in SD? Tijuana is a big metro are with plenty of middle class and above. We should be happy they are shopping here.

If the school district is happy with the current arrangement, what is the polemic?

Btw, I know a couple who live in temecula. They drop off their kids at school in SD everyday. After school the kids stay with the grandparents until the parents pick them up. What’s wrong with that? The grandparents could well be the legal guardians.[/quote]Our posts crossed, brian. See my latest post. Yes, the “caregiver” or “guardianship” affidavit is the main type of ruse used to get one’s children enrolled in a public school outside of their home attendance area … especially for those students who can’t qualify for any other transfer programs.

[bearishgurl]

I’m sure there are a lot of US-born parents fraudulently “stealing” seats in certain public schools which their children don’t have the right to attend.

The “caregiver affidavit” is widely used for this. Especially for grandparents’ homes, which are often located in a better school attendance area than the parents can afford.

For example, I’ve witnessed a family name a “grandparent” as a “caregiver” for their kids to attend a certain elementary school and had them sign the affidavit. But the signer was actually was a “great grandparent” who was using a walker (couldn’t drive) and had a caregiver themselves!

This 89-year old couldn’t possibly pick up these children from school, make them lunch or snacks or do anything for these kids. Her great-grandchildren never stayed with her after school but simply used her address for enrollment and mail purposes.

So, yes, today parents (US born or otherwise) will do anything to get their kids enrolled in what they perceive is a “better” public school than the one they have a right to attend.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I live in NV because everything has lined up well for me as far as rental investments. But I would not live in NV just to avoid CA income taxes. That’s a bonus, because every year that is don’t pay CA taxes, I can buy/finance an investment condo in LV. So I get a “free” condo every year.

BTW, I love the Vegas bling. It’s raining and nice and cool now. Heat is only 3 months. Better than cold. My utility bill is never over $200. I still have business in SD, so I come back many months each year If I had kids, they could and go to school in SD. There are many ways to setup household, which is what I suspect Mexican immigrants are doing. Maybe the kids do live in San Diego and visit relatives several times per week. You have no way of knowing for sure unless you start a gestapo like investigation.[/quote]

The “gestapo-like investigations” should be done by the school districts. But they won’t ever consider this idea cause they’ll lose a LOT of money if all these students are disenrolled. If it’s been at least 40 years since any housing units were built in the Chula Vista High attendance area because there hasn’t been any room to build housing there and there were only about 378 eligible-age students living in the attendance boundaries (which haven’t been changed) in school year 2000-2001 and now the school has an enrollment of 2788 students (after being “heavily remodeled” instead of closed).

Where do you think all these students are coming from, brian?

CVHS isn’t among the top API-scoring high-schools in the district or county so its not like it had/has hundreds of intra/interdistrict transfer applicants waiting to get a seat there. And only so many students are qualified to participate in their show choirs.

[bearishgurl]

I haven’t gone into any of my local Dept store “supersales” (usually 9-1 pm Sats) in YEARS because the lines to the registers have two dozen or more people in them at all times, more from 12 noon to 1 pm) and the stores are a wreck where you can’t find anything. WHY? One has to only take a look at the parking lot for the answer to this question.

This “border-crossing shopping group” has a LOT MORE discretionary income (cash sales, NOT credit) than their co-workers, who live in the US. Why?? Their cost of living is so much lower. It’s not uncommon to see several customers at once during these “supersales” with a dozen boxes of shoes sitting on top of one another on the floor next to them in line at the register at Macys … taller than they are.

They whip out $100 bills to pay for them.

[Author]

Posts