PDA

View Full Version : U.S. files new suit on Ariz. immigration issue



Eric Johnson
08-31-2010, 02:53 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/30/AR2010083004923.html

http://tinyurl.com/29dqook

By Jerry Markon
Tuesday, August 31, 2010

The Justice Department filed another lawsuit against immigration practices by Arizona authorities, saying Monday that a network of community colleges acted illegally in requiring noncitizens to provide their green cards before they could be hired for jobs.

The suit against the Phoenix area Maricopa Community Colleges was filed less than two months after the Justice Department sued Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R) over the state's new immigration law. It also comes as the department is investigating Joe Arpaio, the sheriff in Maricopa County, who is known for tough immigration enforcement.

-more-

This is insane. The Federales will raid (and fine) an employer to get undocumented aliens yet....the employer can't make the would be employee prove that he's here legally?

Eric

M&K's Retrievers
08-31-2010, 03:33 PM
What do you expect from the Gestapo?

Franco
08-31-2010, 06:55 PM
Hopefully, the other 12 states can get thier Immigration Laws done in time to help Az from the attacks of the Federals.

Gerry Clinchy
08-31-2010, 07:19 PM
This sounds nuts! Aren't they just following protocol that this administration is saying what should be done ... make the employers responsible for not hiring illegal residents?

Or are they saying that the employer simply has to check the prospective employees against whatever database is provided by the Feds?

If anyone applies for a job it would be common to ask for something like a driver's license, in addition to a SS card. Why would non-citizens be treated differently?

Border Patrol is checking trains and busses in along the US/Canada border ... but green cards not required for a job? What is the need for a green card if it isn't used for anything?

YardleyLabs
08-31-2010, 08:06 PM
This sounds nuts! Aren't they just following protocol that this administration is saying what should be done ... make the employers responsible for not hiring illegal residents?

Or are they saying that the employer simply has to check the prospective employees against whatever database is provided by the Feds?

If anyone applies for a job it would be common to ask for something like a driver's license, in addition to a SS card. Why would non-citizens be treated differently?

Border Patrol is checking trains and busses in along the US/Canada border ... but green cards not required for a job? What is the need for a green card if it isn't used for anything?
I have not read any of the papers in this litigation and can't comment on the logic used at all. However, employers face two requirements. They are not permitted to discriminate in any manner based on national origins. They are also not permitted to employ anyone without completing an I-9 form indicating the documents that were examined for each employee demonstrating that they are legally permitted to work. If a law is established that requires some applicants to provide documentation other than that required for the I-9 of all prospective employees, could result in discrimination based on national origins. Requiring that all applicants provide the information required for an I-9 in the absence of a job offer, could be consdered an invasion of privacy and potentially as a basis for discrimination. For example, job applicants should not be asked for social security numbers if there is no reasonably immediate prospect of employment. Nor should applicants be asked about marital status and dependents in the absence of a job offer. Both are invasions of privacy and potentially the source of discrimination. However, both are required before a person can be placed on payroll.

dback
08-31-2010, 10:09 PM
I am just down the street from GCC and if the article is correct, it would appear that the Feds have a solid case against them. The revised 2007 Form I-9 list, clearly states that having provided a Driver's license (List B) AND a SS# (List C) they have fulfilled the requirements and no further documentation is necessary. I wouldn't dream of asking for 'Green Cards' or any other ID once they had completed the requirements. I'm not even allowed to verify documentation of any employee in my hire prior to the implementation of the Arizona laws which are much stricter then the Federal laws.

Gerry Clinchy
08-31-2010, 10:13 PM
However, both are required before a person can be placed on payroll.

If all applicants were asked to provide their work-eligibility it would assist the employers.

You hire someone ... then you find out that they are not eligible to work. Meanwhile, the other applicants (except in today's economy) have gone onto find employment elsewhere. The employer must start from scratch to fill the job opening.

It would seem reasonable that if any employee must be work-eligible, asking ALL applicants (not just non-citizens) to provide such eligibility evidence at the time of making application is reasonable when applied to all applicants.The idea is not to discriminate based on national origin ... but presumably the employer could use eligibility to work just as banks can use a credit report to decide on whether to give a loan.

I can recall that SS #s were typically asked for on all applications at one time ... before there today's problems with illegal immigration and identity theft became so prevalent.

dback
08-31-2010, 10:48 PM
If all applicants were asked to provide their work-eligibility it would assist the employers.

You hire someone ... then you find out that they are not eligible to work. Meanwhile, the other applicants (except in today's economy) have gone onto find employment elsewhere. The employer must start from scratch to fill the job opening.

It would seem reasonable that if any employee must be work-eligible, asking ALL applicants (not just non-citizens) to provide such eligibility evidence at the time of making application is reasonable when applied to all applicants.The idea is not to discriminate based on national origin ... but presumably the employer could use eligibility to work just as banks can use a credit report to decide on whether to give a loan.

I can recall that SS #s were typically asked for on all applications at one time ... before there today's problems with illegal immigration and identity theft became so prevalent.

List C provides 7 documents that establish 'Employment Eligibility' including a SS card which according to the article the man provided. List A provides an additional 5 documents that establish both Identity AND Employment Eligibility in a single document. When I interview anyone for hire....I always present the Revised I-9 and ask if they can provide the necessary documentation before we proceed. Once they have met the legal requirements I require nothing further....it'll get your butt in trouble. According to the article the 245 plaintiffs provided the necessary documents and if so......it doesn't appear to me the CC system has a leg to stand on.

Gerry Clinchy
09-01-2010, 05:58 PM
a U.S. permanent resident who was offered a math teaching position at Glendale Community College, part of the Maricopa network.

After filling out a federal form attesting to his immigration status and producing a driver's license and Social Security card, he was told to complete another form with more immigration-related information, the lawsuit said.

That form required other documents and his green card. When he couldn't present his green card, the suit said, the college would not process his paperwork and would not let him work.


dback says that there are specific things you can ask for, and I guess a green card is not one of them. So, I'm still wondering what a green card is for.

luvmylabs23139
09-01-2010, 06:45 PM
I wonder if his social security card is stamped not valid for employment purposes or some such wording. I know that newer ones say that for green card holders.
Drivers licenses in NC also now have an I-9 restriction printed on them for non-citizens.

Gerry Clinchy
09-01-2010, 07:26 PM
This may sound like a stupid question ...

If it is not allowed to discriminate for employment based on "national origin", then isn't any regulation on employment for illegal immigrants automatically not allowed? Maybe that's Holder's next lawsuit? :-)

Perhaps the govt specifically allows the Immigration Service to make such a regulation?

dback
09-01-2010, 08:51 PM
Gerry....I'm not arguing with you and I probably gave a much too simplified answer. For employment an individual must provide two things to a prospective employer...Federally accepted Identification Documents AND Federally accepted Employment Eligibility Documents. The Feds provide a list B which are documents that are acceptable for the ID portion and a person may choose any one of the 9 which may include a Driver's license, School ID card with Photo, US Military Card, etc.. In addition he must provide one document from list C to establish Employment Eligibility....there are 7 on this list which include US SS card, Native American tribal document, Certification of Birth Abroad issued by the Dept of State, etc. Any combination of documents....one from each list does the trick.....end of story....no further documents needed. There is also a list A, which are documents that are accepted that fulfill both ID AND Eligibility in a single document....they include a US Passport (expired or unexpired), an unexpired foreign passport with a temporary I-551 stamp or a Permanent Resident Card ("Green Card" which are now pink :-))

So my poorly made point was that he had already fulfilled the requirements by providing one document from list B and one from list C.....asking for further documentation was unnecessary and illegal. Had he simply provided the Permanent Resident Card (Green Card) from list A first, that also would have satisfied the requirements and again no further documentation would have been necessary. This whole thing is 'Sensationalized Journalism' anyway. The suit isn't against the state.....it's against a school district within the state that screwed up and has already stopped the practice.

Gerry Clinchy
09-01-2010, 09:07 PM
Thanks, dback, now I understand ... the fellow had already provided documentation equivalent to his "Pink Card". Would actually seem just as easy to use the "Pink Card".

Do not quite understand why the additional request would become an invasion of privacy or discrimination, since documents had already been provided which have given the same, or similar, information. Those other documents had already revealed the national origin of the employee that was something other than US.

Not arguing with you at all. Just seems a peculiar regulation ... or is over-zealous a better word?

Now, back to my stupid question ... any Immigration employment regulation pertaining to non-citizens (i.e. national origin other than US) is, by its very nature, discriminatory of national origin. I'm waiting for someone to come along and challenge that discrimination. Or maybe it can just be justified by the Constitutional basis for defending the borders. Which part of the Constitution trumps the other part?