Post:Arrest Made in Mollie Tibbetts Murder...An Illegal Alien

[Pop23]

Talk to Senator Warren about that. She's more interested in helping foreign nationals than worrying about Americans being killed.

I think we can actually multi-task and worry about both.

One more time. This guy was in the country because some Rich Republicans were paying him to be here.

I'm sorry you are too stupid to realize how you are being played by this issue. 2020 will roll around, the wall will still not be built, but the Rich will have ripped you off.

I'm sorry you are too stupid to understand a simple concept, but had we not had such an easy border to get over, the employer could not have hired the bastard in the first place.

 

[Hiryuu]

I think we can actually multi-task and worry about both.

One more time. This guy was in the country because some Rich Republicans were paying him to be here.

I'm sorry you are too stupid to realize how you are being played by this issue. 2020 will roll around, the wall will still not be built, but the Rich will have ripped you off.

I'm sorry you are too stupid to understand a simple concept, but had we not had such an easy border to get over, the employer could not have hired the bastard in the first place.

Oh come on, Joe isn't stupid as much as creative or just a little slow. His suggestion for stopping illegal immigrants from killing Americans is to stop calling them illegal immigrants.

 

[Pop23]

And what exactly could congress do to stop her murderer from coming in contact with her?

Go ahead, we will wait.

Not letting crazy people own guns would be a good start.

What does not letting crazy people have guns have to do with this? Mollie was stabbed multiple times.

1. How you going to keep "crazy people" from having anything that can be used to stab?

2. Had she been carrying a gun, which the left derides, she is alive today.

Next Joe?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

According to Washington Post
Twitter

Happens

The guy who just killed his two daughters and wife is a citizen

Most murder s are committed by citizens

Your point?

But thanks for yet another trumpian loon bigot thread, hack

Point?

The point is your slight of hand misdirection. And it ain't very good.

The internet is blowing up with your garbage, from most crimes happen in the United States by citizens of the United States" to, we shouldn't be focusing on the Killer, but on Mollie. What utter nonsense.

1. Of course most crimes are committed by legal residents. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE TO BE RESIDING IN THIS COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE! And the percent of crime by illegals? ALL ARE CRIMINALS, unless you don't understand what the word ILLEGAL means in the first place. You are aware that, an illegal is far less likely to provide information in regards to a crime committed by another illegal in fear of deportation? Correct. So you have no clue as to the percentage of crime committed by illegals. Snitches get stitches.

2. We should be focusing more on Mollie and less on the Killer? Good God, Mollies dead, and believe it or not, no amount of focus will bring her back to the loving hands of her parents and family. All we can do, at this point, IS TO FOCUS ON THE KILLER (OBTW this is EXACTLY THE SAME FOCUS WE GIVE TO EVERY MURDER VICTIM). After the crime is done WE FOCUS ON HOW TO STOP THE NEXT ONE FROM HAPPENING!. The problem is, that each and every time we come up with a solution, we are met with objections FROM THE LEFT.

My focus on Mollie started years before I even knew her name. I started thinking of the next victim of illegal alien Murder the day they buried Sarah Root. Her killer fled the country and is free today.

We will never be able to stop every Murder, but we can stop some. This one was 100% avoidable. 100%. If not for the insanity proctored by the LEFT, Mollie is alive today.

You are simply trying to wash the blood of Mollie's death , and the countless others from your hands, that the left are responsible for, by posting more nonsense. You'd have better luck using soap, cuz nobody but complete idiots are buying what you're selling.

The only person who is responsible for her death is the person who did it. Maybe you should have some compassion for the Americans who get murdered by Americans. Or were you waiting for this because it fits your political agenda. You are acting exactly like the far left when there is a mass shooting. Try to take advantage of a tragedy to further your aims.

What we have here is a crime, a crime that could have been prevented. Unfortunately we are having a debate with people that don’t want to prevent it in the future.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The sad thing is I'm reading Mollie was an open border supporter. Irony at the highest level.

And the party she was fighting with are now stabbing her in the back.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Happens

The guy who just killed his two daughters and wife is a citizen

Most murder s are committed by citizens

Your point?

But thanks for yet another trumpian loon bigot thread, hack

Point?

The point is your slight of hand misdirection. And it ain't very good.

The internet is blowing up with your garbage, from most crimes happen in the United States by citizens of the United States" to, we shouldn't be focusing on the Killer, but on Mollie. What utter nonsense.

1. Of course most crimes are committed by legal residents. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE TO BE RESIDING IN THIS COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE! And the percent of crime by illegals? ALL ARE CRIMINALS, unless you don't understand what the word ILLEGAL means in the first place. You are aware that, an illegal is far less likely to provide information in regards to a crime committed by another illegal in fear of deportation? Correct. So you have no clue as to the percentage of crime committed by illegals. Snitches get stitches.

2. We should be focusing more on Mollie and less on the Killer? Good God, Mollies dead, and believe it or not, no amount of focus will bring her back to the loving hands of her parents and family. All we can do, at this point, IS TO FOCUS ON THE KILLER (OBTW this is EXACTLY THE SAME FOCUS WE GIVE TO EVERY MURDER VICTIM). After the crime is done WE FOCUS ON HOW TO STOP THE NEXT ONE FROM HAPPENING!. The problem is, that each and every time we come up with a solution, we are met with objections FROM THE LEFT.

My focus on Mollie started years before I even knew her name. I started thinking of the next victim of illegal alien Murder the day they buried Sarah Root. Her killer fled the country and is free today.

We will never be able to stop every Murder, but we can stop some. This one was 100% avoidable. 100%. If not for the insanity proctored by the LEFT, Mollie is alive today.

You are simply trying to wash the blood of Mollie's death , and the countless others from your hands, that the left are responsible for, by posting more nonsense. You'd have better luck using soap, cuz nobody but complete idiots are buying what you're selling.

The only person who is responsible for her death is the person who did it. Maybe you should have some compassion for the Americans who get murdered by Americans. Or were you waiting for this because it fits your political agenda. You are acting exactly like the far left when there is a mass shooting. Try to take advantage of a tragedy to further your aims.

What we have here is a crime, a crime that could have been prevented. Unfortunately we are having a debate with people that don’t want to prevent it in the future.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The sad thing is I'm reading Mollie was an open border supporter. Irony at the highest level.

And the party she was fighting with are now stabbing her in the back.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Never ever trust a left tard, they'll sell you out in a NY minute

 

[EverCurious]

Admiral Rockwell Tory & Crixus

Okay, back, though I don't have a time to go into full details before I have to make dinner here. The problem is that basically everything the government touches goes to shit lol

One side pushes for illegal immigrant hiring, the other against, and the two are in basically eternal combat over what's allowed and what's not. Alleged discrimination plays a big part in it which is why I specifically talked about discrimination in the INA/IER. Anyway, here are a couple recent cases that go into the "case law" precedence regarding asking for proof of US citizenship upon hire:

March 2018 - Court Rules Illegal Aliens Can Sue over “Discriminatory Employment Policy” Requiring Green Cards - Judicial Watch

"For the second time in a few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants can sue American employers that refuse to hire them because they require workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents (green card holders). The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in south Florida, who handed a powerful open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a major U.S. company of discriminating against an illegal immigrant. [...] Judge Kathleen M. Williams, a former public defender agrees, citing MALDEF's other lawsuit in her ruling."​

The ruling is here - https://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/Case_117cv22652_MotiontoDismiss.pdf and relevant bits if you'd like to save some time:

Statement of Fact: "Moreno [the hiring person employed by Procter and Gamble - aka PG] told Plaintiff [illegal] that he was not eligible to be hired because "per P&G policy, applicants in the U.S. should be Iegally authorized to work with no restraints on the type, duration, or Iocation of employment."

Judge's Discussion: The only disputed issue,in the instant motion, is whether Plaintiff has stated a claim for alienage discrimination by sufficiently pleading that PG refused to hire him, and others similarly situated because of their non-citizen status. The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim.

[... talking about case law regarding DACA as "protected classes"]

As is the case here, the critical issue in Juarez [ie case law] was whether the plaintiff had properly plead that Nodhwestern Mutal purposefully discriminated against him based on alienage. The court explained that one way to plead intentional discrimination ''is to point to a Iaw or policy that expressly classifies people on the basis of a protected characteristic.'' Id. at 370. Therefore, the could concluded that ''allegations that [plaintiff's] application was rejected pursuant to a policy that expressly denies employment to lawfully present aliens without green cards- a protected subclass- suffice to state a claim under j 1981." The Court finds this reasoning persuasive.

Here, PG's policy, as alleged in the complaint, could be construed to discriminate against a subset of Iegal aliens, which are a protected class under section 1981. And it
is well established that plaintiff need not allege discrimination against the whole class to establish a section 1981 claim. See Connecticut vs. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 454 (1982)
(''under Title VII, a racially balanced workforce cannot immunize an employer from Iiability for specific acts of discrimination.")

Conclusion: "For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim under section 1981 and Defendant's motion to dismiss (DE 17) is DENIED."​

---

October 2017 - Denver Sheriff Department penalized for wrongful hiring practices – The Denver Post & Department of Justice Fines Sheriff Department for Hiring Only US Citizens

Denver Sheriff Department sued by U.S. Department of Justice because it made U.S. citizenship a job requirement for its deputies during a hiring spree in 2015 and early 2016.

Settlement agreement here ( https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/912421/download ) reads: "WHEREAS, the Office of Special Counsel concluded based' upon its investigation that there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent committed citizenship status
discrimination in violation of the Act during the period from approximately January 1, 2015, to March 23, 2016. Specifically, the Office of Special Counsel found that
Respondent limited applicants for deputy sheriff positions to U.S. citizens only, even though Respondent was not authorized by law to have such a citizenship requirement."

[... List of settlement agreements]

5. Respondent shall treat all individuals equally, without regard to citizenship or immigration status, or national origin, during the recruitment, hiring, firing, and employment
eligibility verification and re-verification process, as required by 8 U.S.C. §1324b.

The argument made by special council was:

The law that the Denver Sheriff’s Department supposedly violated is 8 U.S.C. §1324b, which makes it unlawful “to discriminate against any individual [except for illegal immigrants] with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment … because of such individual’s citizenship status.”

In other words, if someone is a noncitizen who is legally in the country and has a work authorization from the Department of Homeland Security, that person cannot be discriminated against in the employment context."​

Which, just as in the other cases, makes it 100% automatic discrimination to ask that an applicant for a job if they're a US citizen, nor to require they be a US citizen as I noted originally. It also makes it "discrimination" to ask a current employee their citizenship status, so basically not only can you not ask them, but once you hire them, you're stuck with them regardless of if it comes out that their illegal. Again, this is all because of DACA right, that's why I'd left out the section 3 -- it's /all/ going to have to be amended because DACA is gone - That reality will also kill the most recent cases when/if they're brought to the SCOTUS because you can't claim "DACA" non-citizenship as a "special class" anymore...

However, NONE of this stuff, the legal to work stuff actually applies to small business regardless - those with under 4 or 4-14 employees can actually hire illegals if they want. That's in the IRCA:

"The INA's citizenship status, unfair documentary practices, and retaliation provisions apply to employers with at least four employees. The INA's national origin discrimination provisions apply to employers who have at least four employees and who would not be covered by Title VII (in other words, they have fewer than 15 employees)."​

In those cases the courts would still be able to argue that a small business is discriminating against alienage or national origin by requesting/demanding citizenship status because they don't fall under the IRCA's employee numbers guidelines - aka not required to provide /any/ documentation that their employees are legal to work (regardless of if the state requires I-9/eVerify)

So yeah, politicians have made a fucking mess and no one wants to clean up the shit, or at least no one has wanted to clean up the shit thus far. Trump killed DACA (and Congress dropped it entirely) that will help businesses hire folks who are here legally and allowed to work - but it's not going to solve the whole mess until some EO or fed law is passed to undo the Obama era changes that gave so many loop holes to illegals - and gave illegals the power to sue for not hiring them.

You need reading lessons because what you posted does not support your argument at all. Try again after having someone else read it and explain it to you.

You are failing at the realizing the difference in an immigrant alien and and an illegal immigrant. You cannot discriminate against the former, but you can against the latter.

I think you're the one struggling with this son. I'm pretty sure your "ideology" about it, based on military practices (which have /never ever/ been the same as "civilian" business [or even government] practices,) interferes with /your/ ability to bother reading the evidence I provided. Hell one of the articles I posted even discusses (the Denver police case) that the Fed's were allowed to demand US citizen only applications and complains that there's a ridiculous double standard, not even just between government and private business, but between fucking fed government and local government. To wit:

There is also an exception that allows the hiring of only citizens if it is required “in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by federal, state, or local government contract, or which the attorney general determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the federal, state, or local government.” The exception for required compliance with a “law, regulation, or executive order” does not say a federal “law, regulation, or executive order.”​

Thus, local and state governments would seem to have the ability to get around this statute —- and the attention of the Civil Rights Division—by passing a law, issuing a regulation, or executing an executive order that makes citizenship a requirement for hiring law enforcement personnel.

Given the importance of the job done by law enforcement officers throughout all levels of government to protect the public from those who would harm them, ranging from common criminals to the terrorists who have killed many Americans inside our country in recent years, requiring citizenship seems like a basic, commonsense qualification.

The federal government certainly thinks so—because it does not apply this statute to itself. If you want to be a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which often works closely with local law enforcement, including sheriff’s departments like Denver’s, the FBI website specifically says that you “must be a United States citizen.”

The same is true of the U.S. Secret Service, which routinely discriminates against noncitizens in a manner that no doubt horrifies the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. The website for the Secret Service says that all candidates for employment, whether in the Uniformed Division or as special agents, “must be U.S. citizens.”

Oh, and by the way, all of the DOJ lawyers whose names are on the settlement agreement with the Denver Sheriff’s Department? They are also no doubt U.S. citizens. How do I know that? As a current job listing on the USAJOBS website for a position inside the Civil Rights Division explainsunder key requirements: “You must be a U.S. Citizen or National.”​

Look ART, if want to run about like a dumb ass start a business and ask your potential employee's if they're a US citizen, or put out an job posting that only US citizen's can apply, then you go right on with your bad self

- I'll be more than happy to add your "I know better than the federal EEOC, Judges, AND everyone who's done this shit for a living" loss in court to the above examples, no problem.


To any of you folks that run a private business, it is /very/ important that you ignore this dumb ass, alright? He's a sheltered government peon - and we know damned fucking well the military and feds and private business all play by different rules. I encourage you to talk to your lawyer if you don't want to take my word for it. Go read what the EEOC site says (EEOC.gov > "Employers/Small Business" drop down > "National Origin",) Read what the judges in the cases rule. Look at the other cases too - google "illegal alien hiring discrimination."

I reiterate - It is illegal for an employer to base hiring upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. As a business you /cannot/ demand that only US citizen's apply for a position. You cannot ask a potential hire if they are a US citizen (be that in an interview, on a job application, etc. You also cannot ask them to fill out an I-9 prior to actually hiring them either.)

[The head of the EEOC was a fucking MALDEF member for like a decade; illegal aliens are a "protected class", the case law is set, you /will/ lose in court.]

 

[Valerie]

Tibbett's accused killer was working for Republicans in Iowa. For 4 years. Passed e-verify.

So what did Congress do to stop him?

their GREAT "plan" is to build a YUUUGE wall and thump their chests!

that'll learn those bad hombres!




NOW just $ign right here thi$ big check for the wall contractor$

THEN innocents will never ever be stalked, raped & murdered ever again!

AND NEVER AGAIN will drugs be on the streets of America!

BELIEVE ME!

Another drug tunnel between Arizona and Mexico was discovered

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Well done ICE, well done

ICE ARRESTS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN WORKERS UNION, INFURIATING ONE DNC MEMBER

“My union represents workers in a meatpacking plant in Salem, Ohio. One day, our members when to work processing bacon, as they do every day, and ICE showed up with semi-automatic weapons, with guns pointed in people’s faces, with a helicopter hovering overhead, and 146 people were detained,” the member said.

“Eighty of them are still in detention. Some of them were detained for the crime of not bringing their papers to work that day,” he continued.

The raid referenced took place in June at the meat supplier Fresh Mark. ICE agents arrested 98 men and 48 women, the majority of which came to the United States illegally from Guatemala and obtained employment using stolen or fraudulent documentation


ICE Arrests Illegal Immigrants In Workers Union, Infuriating One DNC Member

 

[Pop23]

Tibbett's accused killer was working for Republicans in Iowa. For 4 years. Passed e-verify.

So what did Congress do to stop him?

their GREAT "plan" is to build a YUUUGE wall and thump their chests!

that'll learn those bad hombres!




NOW just $ign right here thi$ big check for the wall contractor$

THEN innocents will never ever be stalked, raped & murdered ever again!

AND NEVER AGAIN will drugs be on the streets of America!

BELIEVE ME!

Another drug tunnel between Arizona and Mexico was discovered

So, I take it, you want to make it easier to cross the boarder so they don't have to dig tunnels?

You invested in the drug trade?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And because od

As it turns out he is indeed an illegal. The report that he had passed everify was in error.

It actually is not a report. This was the statement released by Yarrabee Farms where he worked.

“First and foremost, our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Mollie Tibbetts. This is a profoundly sad day for our community. All of us at Yarrabee Farms are shocked to hear that one of our employees was involved and is charged in this case.

This individual has worked at our farms for four years, was vetted through the government's E-Verify system, and was an employee in good standing. On Monday, the authorities visited our farm and talked to our employees. We have cooperated fully with their investigation.

Yarrabee Farms follows all laws related to verifying employees are legal to work in the United States, and we regularly seek outside counsel to ensure we stay up-to-date on employment law matters. We keep records on all employees and have shared that information with authorities.

We appreciate the hard work of law enforcement officials. We will continue to cooperate with authorities as the investigation moves forward.”

The company is owned by a Republican linked family as well.

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have blood on their hands because they want votes of an illegal dependency class.

You're blaming tibbets death on Schumer and Pelosi? You're straight up retarded. Let's get you a helmut. There are 10 to 20 M undocumented aliens here.

Of course they're to blame.

You cant be more stupid than that. Dems have supported immigration proposals including funding, personnel, tech, policy updates. I suggest you ditch the fail news that's lieing to you and manipulating you into hating people.

When did they ever vote for the wall? That cuts down on all of those stupid ideas.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well done ICE, well done

ICE ARRESTS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN WORKERS UNION, INFURIATING ONE DNC MEMBER

“My union represents workers in a meatpacking plant in Salem, Ohio. One day, our members when to work processing bacon, as they do every day, and ICE showed up with semi-automatic weapons, with guns pointed in people’s faces, with a helicopter hovering overhead, and 146 people were detained,” the member said.

“Eighty of them are still in detention. Some of them were detained for the crime of not bringing their papers to work that day,” he continued.

The raid referenced took place in June at the meat supplier Fresh Mark. ICE agents arrested 98 men and 48 women, the majority of which came to the United States illegally from Guatemala and obtained employment using stolen or fraudulent documentation


ICE Arrests Illegal Immigrants In Workers Union, Infuriating One DNC Member

That was one of two big ones we had this summer in our area. Trump making America great again.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Put all employers in jail who hire these people.

It's come out now, that this scumbag's employer DIDN'T use E-Verify afterall.

The guy used fake documents. They did not even know him by his true name. E-verify is not required. Had they checked, it may have been OK if he was using the correct SSN.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Admiral Rockwell Tory & Crixus

Okay, back, though I don't have a time to go into full details before I have to make dinner here. The problem is that basically everything the government touches goes to shit lol

One side pushes for illegal immigrant hiring, the other against, and the two are in basically eternal combat over what's allowed and what's not. Alleged discrimination plays a big part in it which is why I specifically talked about discrimination in the INA/IER. Anyway, here are a couple recent cases that go into the "case law" precedence regarding asking for proof of US citizenship upon hire:

March 2018 - Court Rules Illegal Aliens Can Sue over “Discriminatory Employment Policy” Requiring Green Cards - Judicial Watch

"For the second time in a few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants can sue American employers that refuse to hire them because they require workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents (green card holders). The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in south Florida, who handed a powerful open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a major U.S. company of discriminating against an illegal immigrant. [...] Judge Kathleen M. Williams, a former public defender agrees, citing MALDEF's other lawsuit in her ruling."​

The ruling is here - https://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/Case_117cv22652_MotiontoDismiss.pdf and relevant bits if you'd like to save some time:

Statement of Fact: "Moreno [the hiring person employed by Procter and Gamble - aka PG] told Plaintiff [illegal] that he was not eligible to be hired because "per P&G policy, applicants in the U.S. should be Iegally authorized to work with no restraints on the type, duration, or Iocation of employment."

Judge's Discussion: The only disputed issue,in the instant motion, is whether Plaintiff has stated a claim for alienage discrimination by sufficiently pleading that PG refused to hire him, and others similarly situated because of their non-citizen status. The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim.

[... talking about case law regarding DACA as "protected classes"]

As is the case here, the critical issue in Juarez [ie case law] was whether the plaintiff had properly plead that Nodhwestern Mutal purposefully discriminated against him based on alienage. The court explained that one way to plead intentional discrimination ''is to point to a Iaw or policy that expressly classifies people on the basis of a protected characteristic.'' Id. at 370. Therefore, the could concluded that ''allegations that [plaintiff's] application was rejected pursuant to a policy that expressly denies employment to lawfully present aliens without green cards- a protected subclass- suffice to state a claim under j 1981." The Court finds this reasoning persuasive.

Here, PG's policy, as alleged in the complaint, could be construed to discriminate against a subset of Iegal aliens, which are a protected class under section 1981. And it
is well established that plaintiff need not allege discrimination against the whole class to establish a section 1981 claim. See Connecticut vs. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 454 (1982)
(''under Title VII, a racially balanced workforce cannot immunize an employer from Iiability for specific acts of discrimination.")

Conclusion: "For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim under section 1981 and Defendant's motion to dismiss (DE 17) is DENIED."​

---

October 2017 - Denver Sheriff Department penalized for wrongful hiring practices – The Denver Post & Department of Justice Fines Sheriff Department for Hiring Only US Citizens

Denver Sheriff Department sued by U.S. Department of Justice because it made U.S. citizenship a job requirement for its deputies during a hiring spree in 2015 and early 2016.

Settlement agreement here ( https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/912421/download ) reads: "WHEREAS, the Office of Special Counsel concluded based' upon its investigation that there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent committed citizenship status
discrimination in violation of the Act during the period from approximately January 1, 2015, to March 23, 2016. Specifically, the Office of Special Counsel found that
Respondent limited applicants for deputy sheriff positions to U.S. citizens only, even though Respondent was not authorized by law to have such a citizenship requirement."

[... List of settlement agreements]

5. Respondent shall treat all individuals equally, without regard to citizenship or immigration status, or national origin, during the recruitment, hiring, firing, and employment
eligibility verification and re-verification process, as required by 8 U.S.C. §1324b.

The argument made by special council was:

The law that the Denver Sheriff’s Department supposedly violated is 8 U.S.C. §1324b, which makes it unlawful “to discriminate against any individual [except for illegal immigrants] with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment … because of such individual’s citizenship status.”

In other words, if someone is a noncitizen who is legally in the country and has a work authorization from the Department of Homeland Security, that person cannot be discriminated against in the employment context."​

Which, just as in the other cases, makes it 100% automatic discrimination to ask that an applicant for a job if they're a US citizen, nor to require they be a US citizen as I noted originally. It also makes it "discrimination" to ask a current employee their citizenship status, so basically not only can you not ask them, but once you hire them, you're stuck with them regardless of if it comes out that their illegal. Again, this is all because of DACA right, that's why I'd left out the section 3 -- it's /all/ going to have to be amended because DACA is gone - That reality will also kill the most recent cases when/if they're brought to the SCOTUS because you can't claim "DACA" non-citizenship as a "special class" anymore...

However, NONE of this stuff, the legal to work stuff actually applies to small business regardless - those with under 4 or 4-14 employees can actually hire illegals if they want. That's in the IRCA:

"The INA's citizenship status, unfair documentary practices, and retaliation provisions apply to employers with at least four employees. The INA's national origin discrimination provisions apply to employers who have at least four employees and who would not be covered by Title VII (in other words, they have fewer than 15 employees)."​

In those cases the courts would still be able to argue that a small business is discriminating against alienage or national origin by requesting/demanding citizenship status because they don't fall under the IRCA's employee numbers guidelines - aka not required to provide /any/ documentation that their employees are legal to work (regardless of if the state requires I-9/eVerify)

So yeah, politicians have made a fucking mess and no one wants to clean up the shit, or at least no one has wanted to clean up the shit thus far. Trump killed DACA (and Congress dropped it entirely) that will help businesses hire folks who are here legally and allowed to work - but it's not going to solve the whole mess until some EO or fed law is passed to undo the Obama era changes that gave so many loop holes to illegals - and gave illegals the power to sue for not hiring them.

You need reading lessons because what you posted does not support your argument at all. Try again after having someone else read it and explain it to you.

You are failing at the realizing the difference in an immigrant alien and and an illegal immigrant. You cannot discriminate against the former, but you can against the latter.

I think you're the one struggling with this son. I'm pretty sure your "ideology" about it, based on military practices (which have /never ever/ been the same as "civilian" business [or even government] practices,) interferes with /your/ ability to bother reading the evidence I provided. Hell one of the articles I posted even discusses (the Denver police case) that the Fed's were allowed to demand US citizen only applications and complains that there's a ridiculous double standard, not even just between government and private business, but between fucking fed government and local government. To wit:

There is also an exception that allows the hiring of only citizens if it is required “in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by federal, state, or local government contract, or which the attorney general determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the federal, state, or local government.” The exception for required compliance with a “law, regulation, or executive order” does not say a federal “law, regulation, or executive order.”​

Thus, local and state governments would seem to have the ability to get around this statute —- and the attention of the Civil Rights Division—by passing a law, issuing a regulation, or executing an executive order that makes citizenship a requirement for hiring law enforcement personnel.

Given the importance of the job done by law enforcement officers throughout all levels of government to protect the public from those who would harm them, ranging from common criminals to the terrorists who have killed many Americans inside our country in recent years, requiring citizenship seems like a basic, commonsense qualification.

The federal government certainly thinks so—because it does not apply this statute to itself. If you want to be a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which often works closely with local law enforcement, including sheriff’s departments like Denver’s, the FBI website specifically says that you “must be a United States citizen.”

The same is true of the U.S. Secret Service, which routinely discriminates against noncitizens in a manner that no doubt horrifies the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. The website for the Secret Service says that all candidates for employment, whether in the Uniformed Division or as special agents, “must be U.S. citizens.”

Oh, and by the way, all of the DOJ lawyers whose names are on the settlement agreement with the Denver Sheriff’s Department? They are also no doubt U.S. citizens. How do I know that? As a current job listing on the USAJOBS website for a position inside the Civil Rights Division explainsunder key requirements: “You must be a U.S. Citizen or National.”​

Look ART, if want to run about like a dumb ass start a business and ask your potential employee's if they're a US citizen, or put out an job posting that only US citizen's can apply, then you go right on with your bad self

- I'll be more than happy to add your "I know better than the federal EEOC, Judges, AND everyone who's done this shit for a living" loss in court to the above examples, no problem.


To any of you folks that run a private business, it is /very/ important that you ignore this dumb ass, alright? He's a sheltered government peon - and we know damned fucking well the military and feds and private business all play by different rules. I encourage you to talk to your lawyer if you don't want to take my word for it. Go read what the EEOC site says (EEOC.gov > "Employers/Small Business" drop down > "National Origin",) Read what the judges in the cases rule. Look at the other cases too - google "illegal alien hiring discrimination."

I reiterate - It is illegal for an employer to base hiring upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. As a business you /cannot/ demand that only US citizen's apply for a position. You cannot ask a potential hire if they are a US citizen (be that in an interview, on a job application, etc. You also cannot ask them to fill out an I-9 prior to actually hiring them either.)

[The head of the EEOC was a fucking MALDEF member for like a decade; illegal aliens are a "protected class", the case law is set, you /will/ lose in court.]

I am so sorry! You didn't tell me you rode the short bus to school.

The police department got smacked for only hiring US citizens and discriminating against legal immigrant aliens. Why are you such a dumbass?

 

[EverCurious]

Put all employers in jail who hire these people.

It's come out now, that this scumbag's employer DIDN'T use E-Verify afterall.

The guy used fake documents. They did not even know him by his true name. E-verify is not required. Had they checked, it may have been OK if he was using the correct SSN.

I heard they used the hand file "keep I-9s on record" method. Not that it matters, if the guys SSN looked legit the employer can't legally question it.

 

[Pop23]

Put all employers in jail who hire these people.

It's come out now, that this scumbag's employer DIDN'T use E-Verify afterall.

The guy used fake documents. They did not even know him by his true name. E-verify is not required. Had they checked, it may have been OK if he was using the correct SSN.

That is exactly how it works. I've posted this before.

And if you question one, you are immediately declared a racist.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Put all employers in jail who hire these people.

It's come out now, that this scumbag's employer DIDN'T use E-Verify afterall.

The guy used fake documents. They did not even know him by his true name. E-verify is not required. Had they checked, it may have been OK if he was using the correct SSN.

I heard they used the hand file "keep I-9s on record" method. Not that it matters, if the guys SSN looked legit the employer can't legally question it.

Whatever method they used, the murdering POS is an illegal. That is all that matters.

They only recognized him as being their employee because of his picture being on TV.

 

[EverCurious]

Admiral Rockwell Tory & Crixus

Okay, back, though I don't have a time to go into full details before I have to make dinner here. The problem is that basically everything the government touches goes to shit lol

One side pushes for illegal immigrant hiring, the other against, and the two are in basically eternal combat over what's allowed and what's not. Alleged discrimination plays a big part in it which is why I specifically talked about discrimination in the INA/IER. Anyway, here are a couple recent cases that go into the "case law" precedence regarding asking for proof of US citizenship upon hire:

March 2018 - Court Rules Illegal Aliens Can Sue over “Discriminatory Employment Policy” Requiring Green Cards - Judicial Watch

"For the second time in a few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants can sue American employers that refuse to hire them because they require workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents (green card holders). The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in south Florida, who handed a powerful open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a major U.S. company of discriminating against an illegal immigrant. [...] Judge Kathleen M. Williams, a former public defender agrees, citing MALDEF's other lawsuit in her ruling."​

The ruling is here - https://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/Case_117cv22652_MotiontoDismiss.pdf and relevant bits if you'd like to save some time:

Statement of Fact: "Moreno [the hiring person employed by Procter and Gamble - aka PG] told Plaintiff [illegal] that he was not eligible to be hired because "per P&G policy, applicants in the U.S. should be Iegally authorized to work with no restraints on the type, duration, or Iocation of employment."

Judge's Discussion: The only disputed issue,in the instant motion, is whether Plaintiff has stated a claim for alienage discrimination by sufficiently pleading that PG refused to hire him, and others similarly situated because of their non-citizen status. The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim.

[... talking about case law regarding DACA as "protected classes"]

As is the case here, the critical issue in Juarez [ie case law] was whether the plaintiff had properly plead that Nodhwestern Mutal purposefully discriminated against him based on alienage. The court explained that one way to plead intentional discrimination ''is to point to a Iaw or policy that expressly classifies people on the basis of a protected characteristic.'' Id. at 370. Therefore, the could concluded that ''allegations that [plaintiff's] application was rejected pursuant to a policy that expressly denies employment to lawfully present aliens without green cards- a protected subclass- suffice to state a claim under j 1981." The Court finds this reasoning persuasive.

Here, PG's policy, as alleged in the complaint, could be construed to discriminate against a subset of Iegal aliens, which are a protected class under section 1981. And it
is well established that plaintiff need not allege discrimination against the whole class to establish a section 1981 claim. See Connecticut vs. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 454 (1982)
(''under Title VII, a racially balanced workforce cannot immunize an employer from Iiability for specific acts of discrimination.")

Conclusion: "For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim under section 1981 and Defendant's motion to dismiss (DE 17) is DENIED."​

---

October 2017 - Denver Sheriff Department penalized for wrongful hiring practices – The Denver Post & Department of Justice Fines Sheriff Department for Hiring Only US Citizens

Denver Sheriff Department sued by U.S. Department of Justice because it made U.S. citizenship a job requirement for its deputies during a hiring spree in 2015 and early 2016.

Settlement agreement here ( https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/912421/download ) reads: "WHEREAS, the Office of Special Counsel concluded based' upon its investigation that there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent committed citizenship status
discrimination in violation of the Act during the period from approximately January 1, 2015, to March 23, 2016. Specifically, the Office of Special Counsel found that
Respondent limited applicants for deputy sheriff positions to U.S. citizens only, even though Respondent was not authorized by law to have such a citizenship requirement."

[... List of settlement agreements]

5. Respondent shall treat all individuals equally, without regard to citizenship or immigration status, or national origin, during the recruitment, hiring, firing, and employment
eligibility verification and re-verification process, as required by 8 U.S.C. §1324b.

The argument made by special council was:

The law that the Denver Sheriff’s Department supposedly violated is 8 U.S.C. §1324b, which makes it unlawful “to discriminate against any individual [except for illegal immigrants] with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment … because of such individual’s citizenship status.”

In other words, if someone is a noncitizen who is legally in the country and has a work authorization from the Department of Homeland Security, that person cannot be discriminated against in the employment context."​

Which, just as in the other cases, makes it 100% automatic discrimination to ask that an applicant for a job if they're a US citizen, nor to require they be a US citizen as I noted originally. It also makes it "discrimination" to ask a current employee their citizenship status, so basically not only can you not ask them, but once you hire them, you're stuck with them regardless of if it comes out that their illegal. Again, this is all because of DACA right, that's why I'd left out the section 3 -- it's /all/ going to have to be amended because DACA is gone - That reality will also kill the most recent cases when/if they're brought to the SCOTUS because you can't claim "DACA" non-citizenship as a "special class" anymore...

However, NONE of this stuff, the legal to work stuff actually applies to small business regardless - those with under 4 or 4-14 employees can actually hire illegals if they want. That's in the IRCA:

"The INA's citizenship status, unfair documentary practices, and retaliation provisions apply to employers with at least four employees. The INA's national origin discrimination provisions apply to employers who have at least four employees and who would not be covered by Title VII (in other words, they have fewer than 15 employees)."​

In those cases the courts would still be able to argue that a small business is discriminating against alienage or national origin by requesting/demanding citizenship status because they don't fall under the IRCA's employee numbers guidelines - aka not required to provide /any/ documentation that their employees are legal to work (regardless of if the state requires I-9/eVerify)

So yeah, politicians have made a fucking mess and no one wants to clean up the shit, or at least no one has wanted to clean up the shit thus far. Trump killed DACA (and Congress dropped it entirely) that will help businesses hire folks who are here legally and allowed to work - but it's not going to solve the whole mess until some EO or fed law is passed to undo the Obama era changes that gave so many loop holes to illegals - and gave illegals the power to sue for not hiring them.

You need reading lessons because what you posted does not support your argument at all. Try again after having someone else read it and explain it to you.

You are failing at the realizing the difference in an immigrant alien and and an illegal immigrant. You cannot discriminate against the former, but you can against the latter.

I think you're the one struggling with this son. I'm pretty sure your "ideology" about it, based on military practices (which have /never ever/ been the same as "civilian" business [or even government] practices,) interferes with /your/ ability to bother reading the evidence I provided. Hell one of the articles I posted even discusses (the Denver police case) that the Fed's were allowed to demand US citizen only applications and complains that there's a ridiculous double standard, not even just between government and private business, but between fucking fed government and local government. To wit:

There is also an exception that allows the hiring of only citizens if it is required “in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by federal, state, or local government contract, or which the attorney general determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the federal, state, or local government.” The exception for required compliance with a “law, regulation, or executive order” does not say a federal “law, regulation, or executive order.”​

Thus, local and state governments would seem to have the ability to get around this statute —- and the attention of the Civil Rights Division—by passing a law, issuing a regulation, or executing an executive order that makes citizenship a requirement for hiring law enforcement personnel.

Given the importance of the job done by law enforcement officers throughout all levels of government to protect the public from those who would harm them, ranging from common criminals to the terrorists who have killed many Americans inside our country in recent years, requiring citizenship seems like a basic, commonsense qualification.

The federal government certainly thinks so—because it does not apply this statute to itself. If you want to be a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which often works closely with local law enforcement, including sheriff’s departments like Denver’s, the FBI website specifically says that you “must be a United States citizen.”

The same is true of the U.S. Secret Service, which routinely discriminates against noncitizens in a manner that no doubt horrifies the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. The website for the Secret Service says that all candidates for employment, whether in the Uniformed Division or as special agents, “must be U.S. citizens.”

Oh, and by the way, all of the DOJ lawyers whose names are on the settlement agreement with the Denver Sheriff’s Department? They are also no doubt U.S. citizens. How do I know that? As a current job listing on the USAJOBS website for a position inside the Civil Rights Division explainsunder key requirements: “You must be a U.S. Citizen or National.”​

Look ART, if want to run about like a dumb ass start a business and ask your potential employee's if they're a US citizen, or put out an job posting that only US citizen's can apply, then you go right on with your bad self

- I'll be more than happy to add your "I know better than the federal EEOC, Judges, AND everyone who's done this shit for a living" loss in court to the above examples, no problem.


To any of you folks that run a private business, it is /very/ important that you ignore this dumb ass, alright? He's a sheltered government peon - and we know damned fucking well the military and feds and private business all play by different rules. I encourage you to talk to your lawyer if you don't want to take my word for it. Go read what the EEOC site says (EEOC.gov > "Employers/Small Business" drop down > "National Origin",) Read what the judges in the cases rule. Look at the other cases too - google "illegal alien hiring discrimination."

I reiterate - It is illegal for an employer to base hiring upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. As a business you /cannot/ demand that only US citizen's apply for a position. You cannot ask a potential hire if they are a US citizen (be that in an interview, on a job application, etc. You also cannot ask them to fill out an I-9 prior to actually hiring them either.)

[The head of the EEOC was a fucking MALDEF member for like a decade; illegal aliens are a "protected class", the case law is set, you /will/ lose in court.]

I am so sorry! You didn't tell me you rode the short bus to school.

The police department got smacked for only hiring US citizens and discriminating against legal immigrant aliens. Why are you such a dumbass?

Again, read the fucking EEOC website, it's a fucking government website, not me "making shit up"

Citizenship Discrimination & Workplace Laws
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. The law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract.

- National Origin Discrimination


Now, I'm done with you on this subject, no business in their right mind is going to blow off EEOC guidelines because /you/ "know better" than what the EEOC tells businesses.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Admiral Rockwell Tory & Crixus

Okay, back, though I don't have a time to go into full details before I have to make dinner here. The problem is that basically everything the government touches goes to shit lol

One side pushes for illegal immigrant hiring, the other against, and the two are in basically eternal combat over what's allowed and what's not. Alleged discrimination plays a big part in it which is why I specifically talked about discrimination in the INA/IER. Anyway, here are a couple recent cases that go into the "case law" precedence regarding asking for proof of US citizenship upon hire:

March 2018 - Court Rules Illegal Aliens Can Sue over “Discriminatory Employment Policy” Requiring Green Cards - Judicial Watch

"For the second time in a few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants can sue American employers that refuse to hire them because they require workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents (green card holders). The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in south Florida, who handed a powerful open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a major U.S. company of discriminating against an illegal immigrant. [...] Judge Kathleen M. Williams, a former public defender agrees, citing MALDEF's other lawsuit in her ruling."​

The ruling is here - https://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/Case_117cv22652_MotiontoDismiss.pdf and relevant bits if you'd like to save some time:

Statement of Fact: "Moreno [the hiring person employed by Procter and Gamble - aka PG] told Plaintiff [illegal] that he was not eligible to be hired because "per P&G policy, applicants in the U.S. should be Iegally authorized to work with no restraints on the type, duration, or Iocation of employment."

Judge's Discussion: The only disputed issue,in the instant motion, is whether Plaintiff has stated a claim for alienage discrimination by sufficiently pleading that PG refused to hire him, and others similarly situated because of their non-citizen status. The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim.

[... talking about case law regarding DACA as "protected classes"]

As is the case here, the critical issue in Juarez [ie case law] was whether the plaintiff had properly plead that Nodhwestern Mutal purposefully discriminated against him based on alienage. The court explained that one way to plead intentional discrimination ''is to point to a Iaw or policy that expressly classifies people on the basis of a protected characteristic.'' Id. at 370. Therefore, the could concluded that ''allegations that [plaintiff's] application was rejected pursuant to a policy that expressly denies employment to lawfully present aliens without green cards- a protected subclass- suffice to state a claim under j 1981." The Court finds this reasoning persuasive.

Here, PG's policy, as alleged in the complaint, could be construed to discriminate against a subset of Iegal aliens, which are a protected class under section 1981. And it
is well established that plaintiff need not allege discrimination against the whole class to establish a section 1981 claim. See Connecticut vs. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 454 (1982)
(''under Title VII, a racially balanced workforce cannot immunize an employer from Iiability for specific acts of discrimination.")

Conclusion: "For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim under section 1981 and Defendant's motion to dismiss (DE 17) is DENIED."​

---

October 2017 - Denver Sheriff Department penalized for wrongful hiring practices – The Denver Post & Department of Justice Fines Sheriff Department for Hiring Only US Citizens

Denver Sheriff Department sued by U.S. Department of Justice because it made U.S. citizenship a job requirement for its deputies during a hiring spree in 2015 and early 2016.

Settlement agreement here ( https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/912421/download ) reads: "WHEREAS, the Office of Special Counsel concluded based' upon its investigation that there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent committed citizenship status
discrimination in violation of the Act during the period from approximately January 1, 2015, to March 23, 2016. Specifically, the Office of Special Counsel found that
Respondent limited applicants for deputy sheriff positions to U.S. citizens only, even though Respondent was not authorized by law to have such a citizenship requirement."

[... List of settlement agreements]

5. Respondent shall treat all individuals equally, without regard to citizenship or immigration status, or national origin, during the recruitment, hiring, firing, and employment
eligibility verification and re-verification process, as required by 8 U.S.C. §1324b.

The argument made by special council was:

The law that the Denver Sheriff’s Department supposedly violated is 8 U.S.C. §1324b, which makes it unlawful “to discriminate against any individual [except for illegal immigrants] with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment … because of such individual’s citizenship status.”

In other words, if someone is a noncitizen who is legally in the country and has a work authorization from the Department of Homeland Security, that person cannot be discriminated against in the employment context."​

Which, just as in the other cases, makes it 100% automatic discrimination to ask that an applicant for a job if they're a US citizen, nor to require they be a US citizen as I noted originally. It also makes it "discrimination" to ask a current employee their citizenship status, so basically not only can you not ask them, but once you hire them, you're stuck with them regardless of if it comes out that their illegal. Again, this is all because of DACA right, that's why I'd left out the section 3 -- it's /all/ going to have to be amended because DACA is gone - That reality will also kill the most recent cases when/if they're brought to the SCOTUS because you can't claim "DACA" non-citizenship as a "special class" anymore...

However, NONE of this stuff, the legal to work stuff actually applies to small business regardless - those with under 4 or 4-14 employees can actually hire illegals if they want. That's in the IRCA:

"The INA's citizenship status, unfair documentary practices, and retaliation provisions apply to employers with at least four employees. The INA's national origin discrimination provisions apply to employers who have at least four employees and who would not be covered by Title VII (in other words, they have fewer than 15 employees)."​

In those cases the courts would still be able to argue that a small business is discriminating against alienage or national origin by requesting/demanding citizenship status because they don't fall under the IRCA's employee numbers guidelines - aka not required to provide /any/ documentation that their employees are legal to work (regardless of if the state requires I-9/eVerify)

So yeah, politicians have made a fucking mess and no one wants to clean up the shit, or at least no one has wanted to clean up the shit thus far. Trump killed DACA (and Congress dropped it entirely) that will help businesses hire folks who are here legally and allowed to work - but it's not going to solve the whole mess until some EO or fed law is passed to undo the Obama era changes that gave so many loop holes to illegals - and gave illegals the power to sue for not hiring them.

You need reading lessons because what you posted does not support your argument at all. Try again after having someone else read it and explain it to you.

You are failing at the realizing the difference in an immigrant alien and and an illegal immigrant. You cannot discriminate against the former, but you can against the latter.

I think you're the one struggling with this son. I'm pretty sure your "ideology" about it, based on military practices (which have /never ever/ been the same as "civilian" business [or even government] practices,) interferes with /your/ ability to bother reading the evidence I provided. Hell one of the articles I posted even discusses (the Denver police case) that the Fed's were allowed to demand US citizen only applications and complains that there's a ridiculous double standard, not even just between government and private business, but between fucking fed government and local government. To wit:

There is also an exception that allows the hiring of only citizens if it is required “in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by federal, state, or local government contract, or which the attorney general determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the federal, state, or local government.” The exception for required compliance with a “law, regulation, or executive order” does not say a federal “law, regulation, or executive order.”​

Thus, local and state governments would seem to have the ability to get around this statute —- and the attention of the Civil Rights Division—by passing a law, issuing a regulation, or executing an executive order that makes citizenship a requirement for hiring law enforcement personnel.

Given the importance of the job done by law enforcement officers throughout all levels of government to protect the public from those who would harm them, ranging from common criminals to the terrorists who have killed many Americans inside our country in recent years, requiring citizenship seems like a basic, commonsense qualification.

The federal government certainly thinks so—because it does not apply this statute to itself. If you want to be a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which often works closely with local law enforcement, including sheriff’s departments like Denver’s, the FBI website specifically says that you “must be a United States citizen.”

The same is true of the U.S. Secret Service, which routinely discriminates against noncitizens in a manner that no doubt horrifies the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. The website for the Secret Service says that all candidates for employment, whether in the Uniformed Division or as special agents, “must be U.S. citizens.”

Oh, and by the way, all of the DOJ lawyers whose names are on the settlement agreement with the Denver Sheriff’s Department? They are also no doubt U.S. citizens. How do I know that? As a current job listing on the USAJOBS website for a position inside the Civil Rights Division explainsunder key requirements: “You must be a U.S. Citizen or National.”​

Look ART, if want to run about like a dumb ass start a business and ask your potential employee's if they're a US citizen, or put out an job posting that only US citizen's can apply, then you go right on with your bad self

- I'll be more than happy to add your "I know better than the federal EEOC, Judges, AND everyone who's done this shit for a living" loss in court to the above examples, no problem.


To any of you folks that run a private business, it is /very/ important that you ignore this dumb ass, alright? He's a sheltered government peon - and we know damned fucking well the military and feds and private business all play by different rules. I encourage you to talk to your lawyer if you don't want to take my word for it. Go read what the EEOC site says (EEOC.gov > "Employers/Small Business" drop down > "National Origin",) Read what the judges in the cases rule. Look at the other cases too - google "illegal alien hiring discrimination."

I reiterate - It is illegal for an employer to base hiring upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. As a business you /cannot/ demand that only US citizen's apply for a position. You cannot ask a potential hire if they are a US citizen (be that in an interview, on a job application, etc. You also cannot ask them to fill out an I-9 prior to actually hiring them either.)

[The head of the EEOC was a fucking MALDEF member for like a decade; illegal aliens are a "protected class", the case law is set, you /will/ lose in court.]

I am so sorry! You didn't tell me you rode the short bus to school.

The police department got smacked for only hiring US citizens and discriminating against legal immigrant aliens. Why are you such a dumbass?

Again, read the fucking EEOC website, it's a fucking government website, not me "making shit up"

Citizenship Discrimination & Workplace Laws
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. The law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract.

- National Origin Discrimination


Now, I'm done with you on this subject, no business in their right mind is going to blow off EEOC guidelines because /you/ "know better" than what the EEOC tells businesses.

Tell me what the red text I have highlighted above means to you. If you don't understand what it is saying, you are the epitome of being a dumbass.

Where does it say illegal aliens anywhere in your treasure trove of misunderstood documents?

 

[EverCurious]

Admiral Rockwell Tory & Crixus

Okay, back, though I don't have a time to go into full details before I have to make dinner here. The problem is that basically everything the government touches goes to shit lol

One side pushes for illegal immigrant hiring, the other against, and the two are in basically eternal combat over what's allowed and what's not. Alleged discrimination plays a big part in it which is why I specifically talked about discrimination in the INA/IER. Anyway, here are a couple recent cases that go into the "case law" precedence regarding asking for proof of US citizenship upon hire:

March 2018 - Court Rules Illegal Aliens Can Sue over “Discriminatory Employment Policy” Requiring Green Cards - Judicial Watch

"For the second time in a few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants can sue American employers that refuse to hire them because they require workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents (green card holders). The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in south Florida, who handed a powerful open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a major U.S. company of discriminating against an illegal immigrant. [...] Judge Kathleen M. Williams, a former public defender agrees, citing MALDEF's other lawsuit in her ruling."​

The ruling is here - https://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/Case_117cv22652_MotiontoDismiss.pdf and relevant bits if you'd like to save some time:

Statement of Fact: "Moreno [the hiring person employed by Procter and Gamble - aka PG] told Plaintiff [illegal] that he was not eligible to be hired because "per P&G policy, applicants in the U.S. should be Iegally authorized to work with no restraints on the type, duration, or Iocation of employment."

Judge's Discussion: The only disputed issue,in the instant motion, is whether Plaintiff has stated a claim for alienage discrimination by sufficiently pleading that PG refused to hire him, and others similarly situated because of their non-citizen status. The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim.

[... talking about case law regarding DACA as "protected classes"]

As is the case here, the critical issue in Juarez [ie case law] was whether the plaintiff had properly plead that Nodhwestern Mutal purposefully discriminated against him based on alienage. The court explained that one way to plead intentional discrimination ''is to point to a Iaw or policy that expressly classifies people on the basis of a protected characteristic.'' Id. at 370. Therefore, the could concluded that ''allegations that [plaintiff's] application was rejected pursuant to a policy that expressly denies employment to lawfully present aliens without green cards- a protected subclass- suffice to state a claim under j 1981." The Court finds this reasoning persuasive.

Here, PG's policy, as alleged in the complaint, could be construed to discriminate against a subset of Iegal aliens, which are a protected class under section 1981. And it
is well established that plaintiff need not allege discrimination against the whole class to establish a section 1981 claim. See Connecticut vs. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 454 (1982)
(''under Title VII, a racially balanced workforce cannot immunize an employer from Iiability for specific acts of discrimination.")

Conclusion: "For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim under section 1981 and Defendant's motion to dismiss (DE 17) is DENIED."​

---

October 2017 - Denver Sheriff Department penalized for wrongful hiring practices – The Denver Post & Department of Justice Fines Sheriff Department for Hiring Only US Citizens

Denver Sheriff Department sued by U.S. Department of Justice because it made U.S. citizenship a job requirement for its deputies during a hiring spree in 2015 and early 2016.

Settlement agreement here ( https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/912421/download ) reads: "WHEREAS, the Office of Special Counsel concluded based' upon its investigation that there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent committed citizenship status
discrimination in violation of the Act during the period from approximately January 1, 2015, to March 23, 2016. Specifically, the Office of Special Counsel found that
Respondent limited applicants for deputy sheriff positions to U.S. citizens only, even though Respondent was not authorized by law to have such a citizenship requirement."

[... List of settlement agreements]

5. Respondent shall treat all individuals equally, without regard to citizenship or immigration status, or national origin, during the recruitment, hiring, firing, and employment
eligibility verification and re-verification process, as required by 8 U.S.C. §1324b.

The argument made by special council was:

The law that the Denver Sheriff’s Department supposedly violated is 8 U.S.C. §1324b, which makes it unlawful “to discriminate against any individual [except for illegal immigrants] with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment … because of such individual’s citizenship status.”

In other words, if someone is a noncitizen who is legally in the country and has a work authorization from the Department of Homeland Security, that person cannot be discriminated against in the employment context."​

Which, just as in the other cases, makes it 100% automatic discrimination to ask that an applicant for a job if they're a US citizen, nor to require they be a US citizen as I noted originally. It also makes it "discrimination" to ask a current employee their citizenship status, so basically not only can you not ask them, but once you hire them, you're stuck with them regardless of if it comes out that their illegal. Again, this is all because of DACA right, that's why I'd left out the section 3 -- it's /all/ going to have to be amended because DACA is gone - That reality will also kill the most recent cases when/if they're brought to the SCOTUS because you can't claim "DACA" non-citizenship as a "special class" anymore...

However, NONE of this stuff, the legal to work stuff actually applies to small business regardless - those with under 4 or 4-14 employees can actually hire illegals if they want. That's in the IRCA:

"The INA's citizenship status, unfair documentary practices, and retaliation provisions apply to employers with at least four employees. The INA's national origin discrimination provisions apply to employers who have at least four employees and who would not be covered by Title VII (in other words, they have fewer than 15 employees)."​

In those cases the courts would still be able to argue that a small business is discriminating against alienage or national origin by requesting/demanding citizenship status because they don't fall under the IRCA's employee numbers guidelines - aka not required to provide /any/ documentation that their employees are legal to work (regardless of if the state requires I-9/eVerify)

So yeah, politicians have made a fucking mess and no one wants to clean up the shit, or at least no one has wanted to clean up the shit thus far. Trump killed DACA (and Congress dropped it entirely) that will help businesses hire folks who are here legally and allowed to work - but it's not going to solve the whole mess until some EO or fed law is passed to undo the Obama era changes that gave so many loop holes to illegals - and gave illegals the power to sue for not hiring them.

You need reading lessons because what you posted does not support your argument at all. Try again after having someone else read it and explain it to you.

You are failing at the realizing the difference in an immigrant alien and and an illegal immigrant. You cannot discriminate against the former, but you can against the latter.

I think you're the one struggling with this son. I'm pretty sure your "ideology" about it, based on military practices (which have /never ever/ been the same as "civilian" business [or even government] practices,) interferes with /your/ ability to bother reading the evidence I provided. Hell one of the articles I posted even discusses (the Denver police case) that the Fed's were allowed to demand US citizen only applications and complains that there's a ridiculous double standard, not even just between government and private business, but between fucking fed government and local government. To wit:

There is also an exception that allows the hiring of only citizens if it is required “in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by federal, state, or local government contract, or which the attorney general determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the federal, state, or local government.” The exception for required compliance with a “law, regulation, or executive order” does not say a federal “law, regulation, or executive order.”​

Thus, local and state governments would seem to have the ability to get around this statute —- and the attention of the Civil Rights Division—by passing a law, issuing a regulation, or executing an executive order that makes citizenship a requirement for hiring law enforcement personnel.

Given the importance of the job done by law enforcement officers throughout all levels of government to protect the public from those who would harm them, ranging from common criminals to the terrorists who have killed many Americans inside our country in recent years, requiring citizenship seems like a basic, commonsense qualification.

The federal government certainly thinks so—because it does not apply this statute to itself. If you want to be a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which often works closely with local law enforcement, including sheriff’s departments like Denver’s, the FBI website specifically says that you “must be a United States citizen.”

The same is true of the U.S. Secret Service, which routinely discriminates against noncitizens in a manner that no doubt horrifies the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. The website for the Secret Service says that all candidates for employment, whether in the Uniformed Division or as special agents, “must be U.S. citizens.”

Oh, and by the way, all of the DOJ lawyers whose names are on the settlement agreement with the Denver Sheriff’s Department? They are also no doubt U.S. citizens. How do I know that? As a current job listing on the USAJOBS website for a position inside the Civil Rights Division explainsunder key requirements: “You must be a U.S. Citizen or National.”​

Look ART, if want to run about like a dumb ass start a business and ask your potential employee's if they're a US citizen, or put out an job posting that only US citizen's can apply, then you go right on with your bad self

- I'll be more than happy to add your "I know better than the federal EEOC, Judges, AND everyone who's done this shit for a living" loss in court to the above examples, no problem.


To any of you folks that run a private business, it is /very/ important that you ignore this dumb ass, alright? He's a sheltered government peon - and we know damned fucking well the military and feds and private business all play by different rules. I encourage you to talk to your lawyer if you don't want to take my word for it. Go read what the EEOC site says (EEOC.gov > "Employers/Small Business" drop down > "National Origin",) Read what the judges in the cases rule. Look at the other cases too - google "illegal alien hiring discrimination."

I reiterate - It is illegal for an employer to base hiring upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. As a business you /cannot/ demand that only US citizen's apply for a position. You cannot ask a potential hire if they are a US citizen (be that in an interview, on a job application, etc. You also cannot ask them to fill out an I-9 prior to actually hiring them either.)

[The head of the EEOC was a fucking MALDEF member for like a decade; illegal aliens are a "protected class", the case law is set, you /will/ lose in court.]

I am so sorry! You didn't tell me you rode the short bus to school.

The police department got smacked for only hiring US citizens and discriminating against legal immigrant aliens. Why are you such a dumbass?

Again, read the fucking EEOC website, it's a fucking government website, not me "making shit up"

Citizenship Discrimination & Workplace Laws
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. The law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract.

- National Origin Discrimination


Now, I'm done with you on this subject, no business in their right mind is going to blow off EEOC guidelines because /you/ "know better" than what the EEOC tells businesses.

Tell me what the red text I have highlighted above means to you. If you don't understand what it is saying, you are the epitome of being a dumbass.

Where does it say illegal aliens anywhere in your treasure trove of misunderstood documents?

Last time. A business is not allowed to ask if their potential hire is a US citizen, they are not allowed to require only US Citizen can have said job. It's discrimination according to the EEOC - because of "fringes" like DACA who don't have "legal citizenship"

I will be ignoring any future questions you have for me on this. I do not have the time nor patience to listen to your bullshit that you know better than the EEOC. Done.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You need reading lessons because what you posted does not support your argument at all. Try again after having someone else read it and explain it to you.

You are failing at the realizing the difference in an immigrant alien and and an illegal immigrant. You cannot discriminate against the former, but you can against the latter.

I think you're the one struggling with this son. I'm pretty sure your "ideology" about it, based on military practices (which have /never ever/ been the same as "civilian" business [or even government] practices,) interferes with /your/ ability to bother reading the evidence I provided. Hell one of the articles I posted even discusses (the Denver police case) that the Fed's were allowed to demand US citizen only applications and complains that there's a ridiculous double standard, not even just between government and private business, but between fucking fed government and local government. To wit:

There is also an exception that allows the hiring of only citizens if it is required “in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by federal, state, or local government contract, or which the attorney general determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the federal, state, or local government.” The exception for required compliance with a “law, regulation, or executive order” does not say a federal “law, regulation, or executive order.”​

Thus, local and state governments would seem to have the ability to get around this statute —- and the attention of the Civil Rights Division—by passing a law, issuing a regulation, or executing an executive order that makes citizenship a requirement for hiring law enforcement personnel.

Given the importance of the job done by law enforcement officers throughout all levels of government to protect the public from those who would harm them, ranging from common criminals to the terrorists who have killed many Americans inside our country in recent years, requiring citizenship seems like a basic, commonsense qualification.

The federal government certainly thinks so—because it does not apply this statute to itself. If you want to be a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which often works closely with local law enforcement, including sheriff’s departments like Denver’s, the FBI website specifically says that you “must be a United States citizen.”

The same is true of the U.S. Secret Service, which routinely discriminates against noncitizens in a manner that no doubt horrifies the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. The website for the Secret Service says that all candidates for employment, whether in the Uniformed Division or as special agents, “must be U.S. citizens.”

Oh, and by the way, all of the DOJ lawyers whose names are on the settlement agreement with the Denver Sheriff’s Department? They are also no doubt U.S. citizens. How do I know that? As a current job listing on the USAJOBS website for a position inside the Civil Rights Division explainsunder key requirements: “You must be a U.S. Citizen or National.”​

Look ART, if want to run about like a dumb ass start a business and ask your potential employee's if they're a US citizen, or put out an job posting that only US citizen's can apply, then you go right on with your bad self

- I'll be more than happy to add your "I know better than the federal EEOC, Judges, AND everyone who's done this shit for a living" loss in court to the above examples, no problem.


To any of you folks that run a private business, it is /very/ important that you ignore this dumb ass, alright? He's a sheltered government peon - and we know damned fucking well the military and feds and private business all play by different rules. I encourage you to talk to your lawyer if you don't want to take my word for it. Go read what the EEOC site says (EEOC.gov > "Employers/Small Business" drop down > "National Origin",) Read what the judges in the cases rule. Look at the other cases too - google "illegal alien hiring discrimination."

I reiterate - It is illegal for an employer to base hiring upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. As a business you /cannot/ demand that only US citizen's apply for a position. You cannot ask a potential hire if they are a US citizen (be that in an interview, on a job application, etc. You also cannot ask them to fill out an I-9 prior to actually hiring them either.)

[The head of the EEOC was a fucking MALDEF member for like a decade; illegal aliens are a "protected class", the case law is set, you /will/ lose in court.]

I am so sorry! You didn't tell me you rode the short bus to school.

The police department got smacked for only hiring US citizens and discriminating against legal immigrant aliens. Why are you such a dumbass?

Again, read the fucking EEOC website, it's a fucking government website, not me "making shit up"

Citizenship Discrimination & Workplace Laws
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. The law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract.

- National Origin Discrimination


Now, I'm done with you on this subject, no business in their right mind is going to blow off EEOC guidelines because /you/ "know better" than what the EEOC tells businesses.

Tell me what the red text I have highlighted above means to you. If you don't understand what it is saying, you are the epitome of being a dumbass.

Where does it say illegal aliens anywhere in your treasure trove of misunderstood documents?

Last time. A business is not allowed to ask if their potential hire is a US citizen, they are not allowed to require only US Citizen can have said job. It's discrimination according to the EEOC - because of "fringes" like DACA who don't have "legal citizenship"

I will be ignoring any future questions you have for me on this. I do not have the time nor patience to listen to your bullshit that you know better than the EEOC. Done.

Your inability to understand the written language is amazing. I suggest you file a lawsuit against the schools system that gave you a diploma, assuming you are not a dropout, for educational malpractice. You are so fucking stupid that you cannot find the words to back up anything you are claiming in a plethora of words you quoted from a website that you simply don't understand.