Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » eric holder sues employers who check immigration status of noncitizens (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: eric holder sues employers who check immigration status of noncitizens
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.examiner.com/article/doj-sues-las-vegas-casino-for-screening-non-citizen-workers

Seneca and I don't usually agree on immigration issues, but here's a point where I suspect we'd agree.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, unbelievable. We're told there are so many illegal immigrants we can't afford to find them all, especially the ones over-staying their expired visas and other temporary permits. And this is a decade after 9-11 was committed by people doing that...

So in this environment of not enough resources to enforce that law, the government is wasting time and money making life hell for a private business who is trying to do the thing that they won't do: enforce our immigration law to help protect American jobs and our national security!

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just a quibble: they weren't trying to enforce immigration law. They were demanding documents not required by immigration law.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The ICE agent, who requested anonymity, stated that Holder and his illegal alien-friendly department is more interested in protecting illegal aliens than "in protecting Americans from the crimes perpetrated including workplace crimes."

“Employers must not treat authorized workers differently during the employment eligibility verification process based on their citizenship status or national origin,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The department vigorously enforces the anti-discrimination provisions of the INA so that authorized workers are treated fairly in the work place.”

According to several sources, Perez is a zealot for protecting illegal aliens as proven by his record of pursuing cases against entities that attempt to control or curtail illegal immigration.

Who needs reporting objectivity, when you have hard evidence from several anonymous sources?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The complaint further alleges that Tuscany subjected lawful permanent residents to unnecessary re- verification based on their citizenship status after requesting and entering into the payroll system the expiration date of their Permanent Resident Cards (green cards) for purposes of re verification.

Tracking when green cards expired? This. Must. Not. Stand.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What law(s) governs and supports the Casino's actions?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
The complaint further alleges that Tuscany subjected lawful permanent residents to unnecessary re- verification based on their citizenship status after requesting and entering into the payroll system the expiration date of their Permanent Resident Cards (green cards) for purposes of re verification.

Tracking when green cards expired? This. Must. Not. Stand.
Not tracking when they expired- re-verifying them despite the fact that they had not expired yet.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
What law(s) governs and supports the Casino's actions?

Since when does this administration care about enforcing immigration law? We're told over and over how they can't and they won't.

I'm also still waiting to hear how it's a bad thing to track expiring immigration papers given how 9-11 was committed and how many temporary immigrants overstay their papers every year and how Obama just "loses track of them."

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Since when does this administration care about enforcing immigration law? We're told over and over how they can't and they won't.
Only by people with potential for political gain from spreading that particular absurd lie.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Since when does this administration care about enforcing immigration law? We're told over and over how they can't and they won't.
Only by people with potential for political gain from spreading that particular absurd lie.
So Obama is spreading a lie? That seems odd because it isn't a lie, he is actually doing it...

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/15/12238794-obama-administration-wont-seek-deportation-of-young-illegal-immigrants?lite

And this federal judge, did he just make his ruling up out of thin air?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/24/judge-administration-cant-refuse-arrest-illegals/

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm also still waiting to hear how it's a bad thing to track expiring immigration papers
Why should anyone address your strawman that's completely unrelated to the issue at hand?

They wren't checking expiration dates, they were using the expiration dates to re-run the entire verification process unnecessarily despite the fact that the cards had not yet expired.

Now, if they were asking every employee to bring the extra documentation to re-verify their citizenship status on a weekly or monthly basis, then perhaps they could get away with saying they weren't being discriminatory, but it's not likely that most employees would stand for that kind of extraneous harassment.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Since when does this administration care about enforcing immigration law? We're told over and over how they can't and they won't.
Only by people with potential for political gain from spreading that particular absurd lie.
So Obama is spreading a lie? That seems odd because it isn't a lie, he is actually doing it...

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/15/12238794-obama-administration-wont-seek-deportation-of-young-illegal-immigrants?lite

And this federal judge, did he just make his ruling up out of thin air?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/24/judge-administration-cant-refuse-arrest-illegals/

Because that one edge case represents the entirety of immigration law, or the record rate at which Obama has been enforcing the overall law and deporting people to the point that the court system doesn't have the funding or capacity to handle the rate at which people are being lined up for deportation?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I'm also still waiting to hear how it's a bad thing to track expiring immigration papers
Why should anyone address your strawman that's completely unrelated to the issue at hand?

They wren't checking expiration dates, they were using the expiration dates to re-run the entire verification process unnecessarily despite the fact that the cards had not yet expired.

Now, if they were asking every employee to bring the extra documentation to re-verify their citizenship status on a weekly or monthly basis, then perhaps they could get away with saying they weren't being discriminatory, but it's not likely that most employees would stand for that kind of extraneous harassment.

No, that wasn't what was happening. Read again:
quote:
The complaint further alleges that Tuscany subjected lawful permanent residents to unnecessary re- verification based on their citizenship status after requesting and entering into the payroll system the expiration date of their Permanent Resident Cards (green cards) for purposes of re verification.
They were trying to get the exact expiration date so they knew when it WOULD expire and then they could re-check immediately. Sounds like a good idea!

quote:
Now, if they were asking every employee to bring the extra documentation to re-verify their citizenship status on a weekly or monthly basis, then perhaps they could get away with saying they weren't being discriminatory, but it's not likely that most employees would stand for that kind of extraneous harassment.
Regular US citizens don't have expiration dates on citizenship...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Verifying the green cards were still valid prior to expiration? My god, will the injustices never stop!?!
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Since when does this administration care about enforcing immigration law? We're told over and over how they can't and they won't.
Only by people with potential for political gain from spreading that particular absurd lie.
So Obama is spreading a lie? That seems odd because it isn't a lie, he is actually doing it...

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/15/12238794-obama-administration-wont-seek-deportation-of-young-illegal-immigrants?lite

And this federal judge, did he just make his ruling up out of thin air?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/24/judge-administration-cant-refuse-arrest-illegals/

Because that one edge case represents the entirety of immigration law, or the record rate at which Obama has been enforcing the overall law and deporting people to the point that the court system doesn't have the funding or capacity to handle the rate at which people are being lined up for deportation?
Did you even read the ruling? It specifically addressed the largest swath of Obama's policy justifications that he has discretion to completely ignore immigration law and not arrest whole groups of illegal aliens.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Since when does this administration care about enforcing immigration law? We're told over and over how they can't and they won't.
This kind of response is completely void of any information, and typical of how you try to distract when asked questions you don't have answers for.

You were asked a factual question about laws. Can you answer it?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Did you even read the ruling? It specifically addressed the largest swath of Obama's policy justifications that he has discretion to completely ignore immigration law and not arrest whole groups of illegal aliens.
That's very nice rabbit hole. How about you come out of it to where the point is? You're still trying to point to one particular item as if it represented the whole of the law, which, at the moment, is actually being enforced more than under any previous administration, to the point where there aren't enough resources to keep up with the degree to which it's being used. The quibbles over the degree to which that strain on capacity gives the executive the discretion to pick how to allocate what it can handle only serves to emphasize the point that, there's no valid case that Obama is ignoring the law in general, only that he's using the lack of capacity to do everything to try to shift away from parts of the law that offer the least value (if not being outright bad).

A broad slice out of a very narrow corner is still very narrow.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Did you even read the ruling? It specifically addressed the largest swath of Obama's policy justifications that he has discretion to completely ignore immigration law and not arrest whole groups of illegal aliens.
That's very nice rabbit hole. How about you come out of it to where the point is? You're still trying to point to one particular item as if it represented the whole of the law, which, at the moment, is actually being enforced more than under any previous administration, to the point where there aren't enough resources to keep up with the degree to which it's being used. The quibbles over the degree to which that strain on capacity gives the executive the discretion to pick how to allocate what it can handle only serves to emphasize the point that, there's no valid case that Obama is ignoring the law in general, only that he's using the lack of capacity to do everything to try to shift away from parts of the law that offer the least value (if not being outright bad).

A broad slice out of a very narrow corner is still very narrow.

No, you are completely ignoring the ruling. The issue at hand is that Obama's own ICE was suing because they were being ordered not to do their jobs even though they had the resources to be doing it. That's a broad policy directive of this administration, not some narrow issue.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's a broad policy directive of this administration, not some narrow issue.
The people they were being told to leave alone in favor of pursuing targets of real value represent a narrow margin, no matter who you slice it, particularly when ICE is already detaining people at record rates and the rest of the system can't keep up.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So then explain this judge's ruling. Where did it come from and why does it exist?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
So then explain this judge's ruling. Where did it come from and why does it exist?

It came from a disagreement over whether ICE can be directed to focus its attention on high value targets over low value targets. Something that has no relevance to the fact that, on the whole, the administration has been showing the highest overall level of commitment to and investment in enforcement of immigration in history.

The fact that there is a dispute over this narrow issue does not support your claim that the administration is not enforcing the law overall. And all of the actual data regarding enforcement, detention, and deportation actively belie the assertion that you're making, never mind the fact that you have to try to resort to misrepresenting this issue as representing more than an edge case of resource allocation to try to back the false claim.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
What law(s) governs and supports the Casino's actions?

That's the ultimate statist lefty question. Every action is presumed unlawful unless there's a statute making it legal.

Fortunately we are not yet living in that maoist wet dream.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmmm, "maoist wet dream". I'm merely inquiring why it is wrong for the JD to investigate what might be illegal activities. Is it your professional opinion that there is no legal basis for their action?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All reduces suit g to "investigating" but doesn't change his earlier premise that laws are required to create legality, rather than illegality. I don't think even Eric Holder is that hardcore.

[ September 17, 2014, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I had a boss who's evil incompetent immigration attorney Reza Athari botched his renewal issues, causing my boss to land in jail. Me and a dozen others were suddenly out of work. I can understand why an employer would want to check continuity. It costs money and harms the business cycle and clients to have a key employee suddenly get hauled off in cuffs like my boss (Eric holder was running things then too, BTW.)

i

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
All reduces suit g to "investigating" but doesn't change his earlier premise that laws are required to create legality, rather than illegality. I don't think even Eric Holder is that hardcore.

You can't answer the question, then? What relevant law governs this situation? Is the JD correct in their action or not?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
All reduces suit g to "investigating" but doesn't change his earlier premise that laws are required to create legality, rather than illegality. I don't think even Eric Holder is that hardcore.

When it comes to what a company- a public legal construct- can require of a private citizen, then laws to give it the power to require information from people should absolutely required. A company can only require your social security number from you if it has an explicit legal interest in doing so (employment or credit validation). Green cards should be governed by a similar set of regulations- the company should only be allowed to request it when the law specifically states they need to do so for compliance reasons, and not on an arbitrary basis to run checks above and beyond what they're legally required and authorized to do.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More statist lefthink. Not all businesses are corporations. If I do business as an individual, that is part of my individual rights. Life liberty property per the 5th and 14th amendments. Some employees are more easily replaced than others. A business has a legitimate interest (as my personal experience above illustrates) in assuring itself that key employees aren't going to get hauled off the job by ICE.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
All reduces suit g to "investigating" but doesn't change his earlier premise that laws are required to create legality, rather than illegality. I don't think even Eric Holder is that hardcore.

You can't answer the question, then? What relevant law governs this situation? Is the JD[sic] correct in their action or not?
My last sentence did answer your question. The *AG* isn't as hardcore as you, and there is a plausible albeit strained argument in law for his prosecution; he isn't using your Maoist construct that it's illegal because there's no specific law allowing it. Nevertheless, just because there's a plausible argument in law for a prosecution (I got charged with DUI for *pushing* a car while intoxicated, and a sister in Detroit was charged with drive by shooting for using a water pistol from a car windows) does not mean that the people who the AG supposedly represent can't complain that he's being an outrageous bastard.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
More statist lefthink. Not all businesses are corporations. If I do business as an individual, that is part of my individual rights. Life liberty property per the 5th and 14th amendments. Some employees are more easily replaced than others. A business has a legitimate interest (as my personal experience above illustrates) in assuring itself that key employees aren't going to get hauled off the job by ICE.

And on basis can they justify re-verifying a valid green card over and over again that couldn't equally apply to any other person's citizenship? The best you've pointed to was a botched renewal, which would still make the normal verification when it was set to expire relevant, not multiple checks just for the sake of doing so.

Would you consider it just behavoir if every time you, and only you were about to get into your car a police officer showed up and asked you to prove your license and registration were still valid? He leaves everyone else alone, but, without fail, he's there every time you want to get into your car, asking for evidence that your paperwork hasn't been revoked since the last time he saw you.

That's the situation that's being taken to task here. Not doing the regular and prudent checks needed, but actively targeting and harassing people well above and beyond that baseline.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Over-documentation on I9 forms IS illegal. The complaint filed by the DOJ alleged that the company "(2) Required employees to who elected to present List B and List C documents to also provide List A documents expiration dates;" - which is explicitly against the law.

http://www.lawlogix.com/blog/learned-lessons-doj-sues-tuscany-hotel-and-casino-llc

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a specific cite from the law:

quote:
SEC. 535. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ACTIONS AS DISCRIMINATION.
(a) Documentation Abuses.--Section 274B(a) (8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)), as
amended by section 534, is further amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
"(6) Treatment of certain documentary practices as employment practices.--
For purposes of paragraph (1), a person's or other entity's request, for purposes
of satisfying the requirements of section 274A(b), for more or different documents
than are required under such section or refusing to honor documents tendered
that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine shall be treated as an unfair
immigration-related employment practice relating to the hiring of individuals."

http://www.justice.gov/eoir/IMMACT1990.pdf
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(BTW, it didn't take very long to track down the text of the actual complaint, the fact that it was later settled, and the law involved. I recommend tracking down the facts! Though I fail to do it myself quite often.)
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like I said, holder is stretching the law. Nothing in the statute prohibits checking every 10 years if the green card was renewed.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" more or different documents" does not encompass asking for expiration date of a green card. That's not a different doc; that's information on the same doc.

Why do you object to a business asking how long it will be able.to lawfully employ someone?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" And on basis can they justify re-verifying a valid green card over and over again that couldn't equally apply to any other person's citizenship"
Citizenship doesn't expire and need to be renewed, with fees and paperwork and legal reqs, every 10 years.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" The best you've pointed to was a botched renewal, which would still make the normal verification when it was set to expire relevant, not multiple checks just for the sake of doing so"

I have no idea what, if anything, you are trying to say beginning at the word "which". Someone please translate..

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
" more or different documents" does not encompass asking for expiration date of a green card. That's not a different doc; that's information on the same doc.

Why do you object to a business asking how long it will be able.to lawfully employ someone?

You're ignoring or missing that the DOJ complaint indicated that they WERE asking for more or different documents. The problem cannot be reduced to asking for expiration dates on green cards. The Examiner article (editorial?) doesn't do a good job explaining this.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Look at it this way: the law says you can ask for documentation from the A list, OR from the B & C lists. It is up to the employee to decide which option to take. If the employee elects to provide documentation from the B & C lists, the employer may not ask for a document from the A list.

The specific violation in the complaint was that for non-citizen employees, the employer was asking those who elected to provide documents from B & C lists to *also* provide expiration dates for a document on the A list, and was storing that information. That is more/different. They weren't allowed to ask for the A list document, or any part of it, if the employee elected to go with the B & C option.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That isn't a stretch of the law - it's a clear violation. The casino might contest the allegation that they did this in the first place, but if they did, they violated the law.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1