Now, More Background Checks On Civilians Than Criminals Since 9/11

[DeSwiss]

Millions undergo background checks under post-9/11 laws

Ohio.com
By JULIE CARR SMYTH AP Statehouse Correspondent
Published on Saturday Nov 10, 2007

Already this year, 25 million Americans have had background checks by the federal government, a number that's risen every year since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Amid the rise, a notable shift has occurred: More civilians are now checked each year than criminals. And checks on the vast majority come back clean, even as states allot more money for their growing screening operations.

And, in rare cases, predators still slip through the cracks. Take Timothy Stephen Keil, an Ohio church camp counselor recently convicted of molesting two young boys. Or Ralph Fiscale, a New Hampshire soccer coach, and Stephen Unger Jr., a Texas schoolteacher, both of whom committed similar offenses in the past year. All were either not run through a check by their superiors, or they passed one.

Civil libertarians say the tradeoffs of such a system, built largely through state mandates enacted since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, have become too high. State background check laws _ applied to groups as varied as professional nursing home workers, reading tutors, bankers and even volunteer dog walkers _ are becoming so numerous as to be almost meaningless, said Christine Link, executive director of the ACLU of Ohio.

In Ohio, nearly 4 million background checks have been conducted since 2001, for instance, a figure equivalent to nearly half the state's 8.7 million adult population. "The sheer volume of them tells us that they're not working, because to be effective these background checks have to be looked at very carefully," Link said. "I wouldn't be surprised if there's a terrorist or two in there, but you're not going to find them when you're doing so many."

http://www.ohio.com/news/ap?articleID=205736&c=y">More

- The Repukes are in a bind here. They want to be Big Brother and listen in on your phone conversations. Check the websites you visit. And snoop through your underwear drawers, and all that. But they hate giving people jobs. Especially government jobs. Well, all except for the good ones, like Brownie was. But they pass these laws mandating more and more background checks, but won't hire enough people to read them. This is Republican thinking. Or what passes for it....

[Gman]

1. This is nothing more than gifts to the companies

that do the checks. The government created a market where nothing significant existed before by wanting us to be scared.

[DeSwiss]

2. And its also been used....

...as political cover whenever someone commits an infamous crime and the public demands the government "do something."

That "something" that they've done, has been to force applicants for government jobs to give up background information which is supposed to "prove" you haven't broken the law in the past. Problem is, its not always accurate and doesn't provide much help if no one reads them. And which is also mistakenly seen as a determining factor as to whether one will commit a future crime.

In government service areas where the clients are unable to vet the caregivers themselves (which are classed as "protected groups"), such as children and the elderly, I agree that we shouldn't be hiring pedos and elder abusers. But it doesn't seemed to have curtailed acts against these "protected groups" by using background checks. And are useless if they aren't in the system to begin with.

It seems that every time some outrageous act by a miscreant occurs, politicians use background checks as some sort of holy grail to placate the public. They're saying "we'll see that this doesn't happen again by doing background checks." Fine. So we continue to do background checks and eventually everyone in the country will have had one done. Will we all be safer after that???

[truedelphi]

4. Here's some additional caveats with the current sytem

So the sweet and supposedly gentle care giver the nursing agency sent over
to take care of your great aunt, she assures you that she underwent the
background check including finger prints.

The big problem here is that the nursing agency does not usually do this
service in house. So the woman calling herself Maria Hernandez may really be
Rita Hernandez - but to work in this country she has been using her cousin's
green card and her cousin's driver license - and when it comes to being finger
printed, Maria the cousin now goes in on Rita's behalf.

So how does this affect you? Well, if Rita/Maria is really as sweet and gentle as she looks, probably not much at all.

But what if the sweetness and gentleness is an act? And you are so convinced that things
are working smoothly at Great AUntie Em's that you don't worry your self
over the day to day operations.

Then Rita/maria quietly begins channelling a lot of AUntie Em's savings down south across
the border. You may have a lawsuit against the agency. But you'll never see Rita/Maria again.
Or the embezzled money. If Auntie Em was very rich, your lawsuit might bankrupt the
small agency that you're suing. So you have just learned the hard way that unless the
finger printing is done in house, it is not much good. (In Rita/Maria's case, with in-
house finger printing, you'd have learned about her past embezzlement charges.)

For the average perosn all this checking of one's background is a major hassle. You apply for a job, wait two or three weeks for them to select you over the others, and THEN wait over a month sometimes for the background check to clear.

Only then can you start working. It's disastrous for people who were broke starting
around the time of the initial interview.

[DeSwiss]

5. A very good point....

...and very good example as well.

And then there's that Baby Boom bubble to consider with repsect to elder caregivers. The bubble will begin to hit the elder care institutions in a couple of decades. So with a much smaller population behind us and with medical advances extending the average lifespan, whose going to care for all these people if they can't pass a background check? Immigrants?

Oh, wait. We don't want those do we?

{And btw, I knew that I'd seen the Seth link on someone's sigline. I started reading Jane Roberts in 1976. It changed everything.}

[truedelphi]

9. I am hoping that the possible inference of what I was saying

Would not be taken as a slur against immigrants.

After all the large majority of them are honest. But those who are not honest can escape with the loot to the country of origin. Often there aren't any extradition treaties for theft.

Whereas an American citizen usually has no where to go and will get caught and possibly the money will be returned.

My anger is actually at the nursing agencies. I WAS trying to show the total absurdity of the present system - that the means to override the system are simple everyday measures that are already being taken by those not native to our country.

So by CAVEAT I guess I am saying that if your Auntie Em or Uncle George is worth protecting, (And why wouldn't they be?) go the one step farther - arrange to take whoever you hire (regardless of race religion or creed) in to be fingerprinted on your day off from work.

The Agencies claiming to do this are doing it in a far too incompetent manner.

BTW I read Seth back in those days too and am amazed that he si now part of my everyday life again.

[Quantess]

3. This is becoming a huge, yet insidious, problem.

It's been happening so gradually and slowly, people don't even seem to notice.

[DeSwiss]

7. With no end in sight.

And it seems as though our civil liberties are succumbing to fear and a desire for a level of security that cannot be purchased with background checks...

[bbgrunt]

6. the jobs? no problem--they just take OUR $ and outsource

the job of surveillance to China

[DeSwiss]

8. The way things are going....

...the Chinese will own it all shortly anyway.