Illegal Alien Steals 5-Year-Old’s Identity; Mother Will Testify at Hearing Today

Posted on | April 18, 2012 | 34 Comments

Jennifer Andrushko will testify today at an 11:15 a.m. hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. Also testifying will be Dr. Ronald Mortensen, who tells the story of how an illegal alien stole the identity of Mrs. Andrushko’s 5-year-old son Carter:

The perpetrator is Lidia Aguirre, also known as Lidia Chavez.
Carter’s Social Security number has allegedly been used by Lidia Aguirre, who is unlawfully in the United States to illegally obtain jobs with a series of employers including T.J. Maxx and the Zermatt resort in Midway, Utah.
Ms. Aguirre faces three charges of identity fraud and two forgery charges for a total of five, third degree felony counts. . . .
Identity fraud and forgery are serious felonies that are committed by the vast majority of illegal aliens working in the United States. According to the Actuary of the Social Security Administration, three quarters of illegal aliens pay payroll taxes. Since they cannot legally obtain a valid Social Security number, they use forged documents and when the information on the document belongs to another person that is identity fraud under Utah law. . . .
In Utah, two high profile law enforcement officials, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Salt Lake Police Chief, Chris Burbank, both tend to justify and downplay the seriousness of these crimes. . . .
Chief Burbank justified the use of fraudulent documents by illegal aliens and found it humorous when audience members shouted out locations where fraudulent documents could be purchased.
Chief Burbank’s office reportedly refuses to even log-in identity theft cases and simply refers individuals to the Attorney General’s website for identity theft victims. Burbank then reports that there are no recorded instances of illegal alien driven identity theft in Salt Lake City.
With only limited exceptions, Attorney General Shurtleff, pursues policies that ensure that illegal aliens are able to obtain and use fraudulent documents without fear of arrest and prosecution.

Read the rest. The chairman of the subcommittee is Rep. Elton Gallegly, California Republican, who is an advocate of E-Verify:

Congress needs to pass and the president needs to sign into law the Legal Workforce Act immediately. The Legal Workforce Act would make it mandatory for all employers to use E-Verify – an easy-to-use, accurate, computer-based, employee verification system that ensures employees have a legal right to work in the United States. It will open millions of jobs for American workers while removing counterfeiting and fraud from the hiring process.

Comments

34 Responses to “Illegal Alien Steals 5-Year-Old’s Identity; Mother Will Testify at Hearing Today”

Bob Belvedere
April 18th, 2012 @ 8:57 am

Lawlessness and Disorder in the U.S.A.
GAHCindy
April 18th, 2012 @ 9:05 am

Unless e-verify comes with an implanted rfid chip or something, I don’t see how it would help matters much.
Doc
April 18th, 2012 @ 9:17 am

are you kidding? any SS# would show up as either being already used or the wrong age in this case.
GAHCindy
April 18th, 2012 @ 9:31 am

No, I’m not kidding. I don’t think it would be at all secure, and people would end up not only unable to use their own identities, but to correct the problem without a huge amount of trouble. I know we’re all supposed to trust government databases, as long as they’re proposed by the right party, but I just don’t.
DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Illegal Alien Steals 5-Year-Old’s Identity; Mother Will Testify at Hearing Today
April 18th, 2012 @ 9:36 am

[…] The Other McCain is on the case. Jennifer Andrushko will testify today at an 11:15 a.m. hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. Also testifying will be Dr. Ronald Mortensen, who tells the story of how an illegal alien stole the identity of Mrs. Andrushko’s 5-year-old son Carter…. […]
SDN
April 18th, 2012 @ 9:49 am

If you’re that concerned about security, you wouldn’t be on the Internet. You just want an excuse not to enforce immigration.
Adobe_Walls
April 18th, 2012 @ 10:10 am

Actually E-Verify is quite effective. The system had problems in the mid aughts but now has a very high degree of accuracy. For it to truly be effective all employers have to use it. When I would interview prospective hires (construction) and tell them that we actually checked documents many would just walk away but I’m sure they got hired somewhere.
Adobe_Walls
April 18th, 2012 @ 10:15 am

Trust it or not all that info is already in a government database. Social Security numbers were already being cross checked by immigration long before E-Verify.
GAHCindy
April 18th, 2012 @ 10:17 am

So the answer to the problems government has created is more government?
The Mark of the Beast (of Tax Burdens) | Daily Pundit
April 18th, 2012 @ 10:25 am

[…] Mark of the Beast (of Tax Burdens) Posted on April 18, 2012 7:24 am by Bill Quick Illegal Alien Steals 5-Year-Old’s Identity; Mother Will Testify at Hearing Today : The Other McCai… Jennifer Andrushko will testify today at an 11:15 a.m. hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration […]
GAHCindy
April 18th, 2012 @ 10:37 am

Oh, shucks, you caught me. Guess I’ll just run back to the leftist blogs where I belong now.
Adobe_Walls
April 18th, 2012 @ 10:58 am

Actually in this case it isn’t more government its less. Unless one considers being audited twice yearly less government than contacting a database. Are you also against background checks? E-verify is merely a more efficient use of the governments already existing database. Many companies were already dealing with SS and immigration in an effort to avoid the chaos the audits produced. Further more it is far less disruptive than have to fire workers and lose the time and money invested in training them due to periodic audits. Not using E-verify universally give an unfair advantage to those employers who are not trying to do the right thing.
Thomas L. Knapp
April 18th, 2012 @ 11:30 am

So there’s a federal “law” for which there is zero, zip, zilch, nada authority (the federal government has no constitutional power to regulate immigration).

And one unintended consequence of this unconstitutional law is that those trying to get around it violate another unconstitutional law (there’s no federal authority to run a national pension system tied to a universal ID scheme, either).

Gallegly’s solution to the consequences of two bad laws is to conscript every employer in the United States as an unpaid agent of the illegal, unconstitutional police force responsible for enforcing the first unconstitutional law.

So the real question is, is Gallegly a) a mental retard, b) a moral reprobate, or c) both?
richard mcenroe
April 18th, 2012 @ 12:38 pm

“Lawlessness and Disorder in the U.S.A” ARE the law. Why are those two grifters still in office?
The Stark Contrast Between Wisconsin and Illinois [UPDATED]
April 18th, 2012 @ 1:34 pm

[…] all the “structural disadvantages” the administration is imposing on American citizenship, it’s no wonder, really, that […]
richard mcenroe
April 18th, 2012 @ 1:40 pm

So, Thomas, given that the Congress has the obligation to provide for the common defense (Article 1, section 8), to regulate commerce with foreign nations (Article 1, section 8) and (Article 1, section 9) Congress’s written prohibition against impeding immigration ended in 1808, how do you say immigration laws are unconstitutional?
Thomas L. Knapp
April 18th, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

Richard,

We’ve been through this before, but:

1) Immigrants are not invaders;

2) Immigrants are not foreign nations; and

3) See the tenth amendment. A prohibition expiring does not magically create a new federal power.

Whether or not the federal government should have a power to regulate immigration was debated by the framers, argued for by the anti-federalists, argued against by the federalists, and the federalists won. The reason the federalists won was simple: The Constitution would not have been ratified with such a power.

Congress well understood that it had no such power for the better part of a century, which is why it passed no immigration regulations other than those allowing federal port officials to enforce STATE immigration laws and collect fees/fines for doing so.

It was an activist Supreme Court that imagined up a federal power to regulate immigration in 1875, and even then most such regulation was done through treaty provisions at first since the matter was so doubtful even with a SCOTUS ruling. It wasn’t until after the US government pretty much completely dispensed with the Constitution during the New Deal that Congress started imagining itself empowered to just do whatever it wants regarding immigration.
Ron
April 18th, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

The E-Verify law gives you ninety days to resolve errors. But if you have an error and can’t resolve it, everyone knows, see. The employer knows, and the government knows the employer knows, so the government can tag the employer for letting things slide. This way, the employer has a disincentive to hire the illegal in the first place and the illegal has a disincentive to ever be hired at all.

No conscientious employee with a minor clerical error will be harmed. They have three months to fix the error.
Rob Crawford
April 18th, 2012 @ 3:10 pm

You inhale more cannabis smoke than oxygen, don’t you?
stevo1
April 18th, 2012 @ 3:11 pm

When did we lose our common sense? Our Government, has allowed the invasion of 30 million criminals in direct violation of Article IV, Section IV of our Constitution. they force American tax payers to pay Billions to provide Welfare, Prison cells, Educate the invaders children, free medical care,massive document fraud, & are destroying our schools, hospitals, communities, culture while Robbing, Raping, Killing & Assaulting American Citizens WE ARE BEING INVADED! WAKE UP PEOPLE!
An education is a good thing.

step #1 http://bit.ly/oBuTUd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsH8xvjTAlo

http://immigrationcounters.com/
http://ojjpac.org/memorial.asp
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty580.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/
http://www.rense.com/general81/dtli.htm
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41045
http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/003335.html
Every Non-representative including obama and holder are not upholding the oath of office! they swore to defend the Constitution! If these clowns were to do their job, this would all be a Moot point!
Anchors and their criminal parents go, period, you knew you were breaking the law when you crossed the border.
Next shut down any business hiring illegal labor. Oh and owners go to jail.
any better ideas? lets hear them!

I come for visit, get treated regal,
So I stay, who care I illegal?
I cross border, poor and broke,
Take bus, see employment folk.
Nice man treat me good in there,
Say I need to see welfare.
Welfare say, “You come no more,
We send cash right to your door.”
Welfare checks, they make you
wealthy,

Medicaid it keep you healthy!
By and by, I got plenty money,
Thanks to you, American dummy.
Write to friends in motherland,
Tell them come as fast as you can.
They come in rags and Chebby
trucks,

I buy big house with welfare bucks.
They come here, we live together,
More welfare checks, it gets better!
Fourteen families they moving in,
But neighbor’s patience wearing thin.
Finally, white guy moves away,
Now I buy his house, and then I say,
“Find more aliens for house to rent.”

And in the yard I put a tent.
Send for family (they just trash),
But they, too, draw the welfare cash!
Everything is mucho good,
And soon we own the neighborhood.
We have hobby–it’s called breeding,
Welfare pay for baby feeding.
Kids need dentist? Wife need pills?
We get free! We got no bills!

American crazy! He pay all year,
To keep welfare running here.
We think America darn good place!
Too darn good for the white man
race.

If they no like us, they can go,
Got lots of room in Mexico
Thomas L. Knapp
April 18th, 2012 @ 3:26 pm

Actually I’ve never liked cannabis much. I’m not sure that the fingers of one hand would be sufficient to count the number of times I’ve tried it, but definitely in that range.

But whatever. The Constitution says what it says, and its history is not a secret. Conservatives seem to think of immigration restrictions like liberals think of Obamacare — they must be constitutional, because we want them soooooooooooo bad.
richard mcenroe
April 18th, 2012 @ 3:35 pm

By what definition are people who sneak across a border in the dead of night not invaders? By your definition the 5th Guards Army Group could roll into DC as long as they didn’t shoot anyone on the way and Putin’s latest puppet didn’t actually declare war.

Can you cite any legislation or SCOTIA ruling stipulating the victory cannot regulate immigration?
richard mcenroe
April 18th, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

Ah. That explains Ellis Island in the 19the century.
richard mcenroe
April 18th, 2012 @ 6:10 pm

SCOTUS. Me and my tablet’s smart editor are still meeting one another.
ThePaganTemple
April 18th, 2012 @ 6:47 pm

Its a national security issue Thomas. And yes, since the original provision expired in 1808 then Congress can pass whatever laws or restrictions it likes in those regards. Moreover, the President, even without consent of Congress, as Commander-In-Chief has a right to enforce immigration restrictions as an emergency measure, much like Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation as a wartime emergency measure.

Just because you don’t like federal immigration restriction doesn’t make them unconstitutional either, does it Thomas?
Thomas L. Knapp
April 18th, 2012 @ 8:08 pm

“By what definition are people who sneak across a border in the dead of night not invaders?”

By any reasonable English definition, “invader” refers to a military formation with belligerent intent, not a guy hoping to get work mowing your lawn.

“Can you cite any legislation or SCOTIA ruling stipulating the victory cannot regulate immigration?”

I have no idea what SCOTIA is or who victory is. But the Supreme Law of the Land is clear: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Constitution delegates no power to the United States to regulate immigration. That’s a fact. It’s been a fact for 225 years. You not liking it makes it no less a fact.
Thomas L. Knapp
April 18th, 2012 @ 8:13 pm

Yes, it does.

The federal government formally assumed control of immigration in 1890 — 15 years after SCOTUS fantasized the power for them to do so into the Constitution — and opened Ellis Island to take over immigration processing from the state of New York (which, up to that point, had handled things itself as per the Constitution, processing immigrants entering New York at Castle Clinton in what is now Battery Park).
ThePaganTemple
April 18th, 2012 @ 10:31 pm

By any reasonable English definition, “invader” refers to a military
formation with belligerent intent, not a guy hoping to get work mowing
your lawn.

What about the guy that comes over here hoping to gain power and money as a member of an organized crime syndicate and who doesn’t mind chopping off your head if you get in his way?
Thomas L. Knapp
April 18th, 2012 @ 10:33 pm

I thought we were talking about immigrants, not politicians.
Adobe_Walls
April 18th, 2012 @ 11:37 pm

The Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t passed it was proclaimed and Lincoln had no right to do so.
That’s why it only freed the slaves who were in states deemed to be in rebellion and even there only in areas that hadn’t been reconquered. It did not free the slaves in the four states that remained in the Union.
Bob Belvedere
April 19th, 2012 @ 8:20 am

Lincoln had the power, as CinC, to do exactly what he did in the limited areas he did. But you’re quite right: it was a wartime proclamation and not a law. It’s justification rested in it being a measure designed to sow Chaos behind enemy lines – a tactic of war.
Stan Burton
April 19th, 2012 @ 11:30 am

Identity theft of children accounts for over 70% of all identity theft. Problem is, that the credit reporting agencies are complicit in this. my daughter started getting pre-approved credit card applications in the mail when she was 14 years old. when i called the credit card companies to inquire why they were sending them to her they said the credit reporting agencies sold them the mailing list data. so i called all three reporting agencies only to be told that they don’t keep records on people under 18 years old, but obviously they DO because they were selling my daughter’s data. SOMEONE was using that number, we have yet to figure out who. Further there was a guy here in Houston a couple years ago that got a bill from the IRS for over a million in back taxes, as it turned out, there were something like 21 different people in 9 different states using his SSN to work, all at the same time. You don’t think e-Verify wouldn’t have caught that?
ThePaganTemple
April 19th, 2012 @ 1:35 pm

I know all that, I just misspoke when I said he “passed” it. My point was any President has the right to do the same thing when it comes to guarding the borders, as an emergency measure. And it is an emergency.

And yes, Lincoln had the right to do as he did. There was a war going on.
chester
April 19th, 2012 @ 1:48 pm

Gee whiz,why not just quit requiring parents to register their non-working small children with a social security number.That was the way it was until tax ‘reform’ by our democrat friends in 1987.If they don’t have numbers,there would be far fewer opportunities for identity theft.They claimed it stopped tax cheats from creating fictitious dependents,but if they couldn’t be caught without babies being registered with ssn’s,how did they know about the fraud?We need less government,less intrusiveness,not more.