There Law in the US ensures that the currenly unemployed may never again be employed.

First, I must apologize to my opponent and to the readers for failing to submit an argument in time for Round 2. I cut my time too close and missed the deadline by a matter of seconds. In any event, I posted my Round 2 argument in segments in the comments section, and I thank my opponent for continuing to engage me as if I had posted on time.Unfortunately, my opponent has been ignoring or dodging the majority of the arguments I have made throughout this entire debate. For any remaining undecided voters, allow me to summarize my arguments and Pro's failure to respond:1. Background credit checks / "ICRs" were legal well before the existence of the laws he criticizesPro still doesn't seem to grasp the major fallacy of his argument. If a law doesn't prohibit conduct which was perfectly legal to do before the passage of that law, you cannot blame the law for that conduct. Pro asserted in Round 2 that background credit checks / "investigative consumer reports" (ICRs) were prohibited before the year 2000, without offering any legal citations or a shread of historical evidence showing that such conduct used to be illegal. Let me set the record straight on this point by citing the legislative history of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, as recounted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center:"The FCRA was passed to address a growing credit reporting industry in the United States that compiled 'consumer credit reports' and 'investigative consumer reports' on individuals. The FCRA was the first federal law to regulate the use of personal information by private businesses.The first major credit reporting agency, Retail Credit Co, was started in 1899. Over the years, Retail Credit purchased smaller CRAs and expanded its business into selling reports to insurers and employers. By the 1960s, significant controversy surrounded the CRAs because their reports were sometimes used to deny services and opportunities, and individuals had no right to see what was in their file.By the late 1960s, there was abuse in the industry. . . . [I]nvestigators were collecting "lifestyle" information on data subjects, including their sexual orientation, marital status, drinking habits, and cleanliness. The CRAs were maintaining outdated information, and in some cases, providing the file to law enforcement and to unauthorized persons. Public exposure of the industry resulted in Congressional inquiry and federal regulation of CRAs.Years of legislative leadership by Representative Leonor Sullivan and Senator William Proxmire resulted in the passage of the FCRA in 1970... [1]As this history makes clear, investigative consumer reports were legal and part of a "growing industry" well before the enactment of the consumer protection laws my opponent criticizes. If anything, Pro should be grateful that Congress has addressed the abuses of this industry at all.2. Privacy-obsessed job applicants can simply work for employers who don't require background checks / ICRsMy opponent failed to address this argument entirely.3. Most employers don't perform background checks / ICRsDitto.4. Prohibiting ICRs might increase unemployment by scaring certain employers from hiring any new employeesDitto. As an aside, I find it ironic that my opponent (a self-identified libertarian) stated that "employers have no rights under law," but that's an issue for another debate.To conclude, I would like to briefly address my opponent's argument that ICRs create a "class of people who . . . may never work again." To the extent that there are people in the world being penalized for never having used a credit card or taking out any kind of a loan, this is an extraordinarily small "class" of people. But, unlike other classes who have faced real employment discriminaton in the past (i.e., women, racial minorities, etc), Pro's "class" of cash-only zealouts can actually do something about their plight: buy a credit card. Is that really so hard to do?Vote Con.[1] http://epic.org...