Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
Do I need to put you on ignore kido? You choose to personally attack me because I've more than proved my point.
Are you unable to comprehend that I am done discussing this matter with you because you're clearly not reading what is written all over the internet, on gov sites, in court cases, by lawyers, by HR people, etc?
Fuck off, seriously.
Business folks, ignore this dolts emphatic bullshit advice - he is WRONG. First two or three links on every question:
"Can I ask a potential employee if they are a US citizen?" - can I ask a potential employee if they are a US citizen - Bing
"ILLEGAL: “Are you a U.S. citizen?” LEGAL: “Are you authorized to work in the U.S.?” As a company representative, you’re not allowed to ask about national origin, and that includes inquiring about citizenship status."
Illegal immigrants have no status. This comment refers to resident aliens, dumbass!
"Can I ask an employee if they are a US citizen?" - can I ask an employee if they are a US citizen - Bing
"Asking if you're a citizen or not is technically legal."
Again, because that discriminates against resident aliens.
"Can I require that all employees be US citizens?" - - can I require that all employees be US citizens? - Bing
"Most employers should not ask whether or not a job applicant is a United States citizen before making an offer of employment."
Again, this applies to resident aliens.
"Can I demand proof of citizenship from potential employees?" - Can I demand proof of citizenship from potential employees? - Bing
"The employer cannot demand specific documents to provide that proof. Also, an employer cannot demand proof of US citizenship as a condition of work unless the employment requires it by law.""Can I require job applicants be US citizens?" - Can I require job applicants be US citizens? - Bing
The key word is specific. They can demand the documents listed on the I-9.
"Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), limiting employment to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (green card holders) can be a violation of law."
You can’t build a wall. It’s not feasible.He didn't pass everify. He was using a stolen identity.Tibbett's accused killer was working for Republicans in Iowa. For 4 years. Passed e-verify.Fuck off. You couldn't care less about Nia Wilson.The murder of this innocent girl is the last fucking straw in my book. Time to get tough...real tough. Time to go after other terrorists organizations like Antifa (Marxis) and BLM (generational crybabies, welfare scum).
And what exactly could congress do to stop her murderer from coming in contact with her?
Go ahead, we will wait.
So what did Congress do to stop him?
Congress should have built the wall long ago and put a bounty on illegals. We have traitorous democrats in Congress who should be hanged by the ankles and slit in the belly so they can see their intestines swinging as tbey die.
You can’t build a wall. It’s not feasible.He didn't pass everify. He was using a stolen identity.Tibbett's accused killer was working for Republicans in Iowa. For 4 years. Passed e-verify.Fuck off. You couldn't care less about Nia Wilson.The murder of this innocent girl is the last fucking straw in my book. Time to get tough...real tough. Time to go after other terrorists organizations like Antifa (Marxis) and BLM (generational crybabies, welfare scum).
And what exactly could congress do to stop her murderer from coming in contact with her?
Go ahead, we will wait.
So what did Congress do to stop him?
Congress should have built the wall long ago and put a bounty on illegals. We have traitorous democrats in Congress who should be hanged by the ankles and slit in the belly so they can see their intestines swinging as tbey die.
Being an illegal alien is a midemeanor punishable by a $10 fine. Yet you think a guy who has stolen millions of tax dollars is a poor victim.
Your butthurt makes me smile. As long as you’re upset about something I’m happy.You can’t build a wall. It’s not feasible.He didn't pass everify. He was using a stolen identity.Tibbett's accused killer was working for Republicans in Iowa. For 4 years. Passed e-verify.Fuck off. You couldn't care less about Nia Wilson.
And what exactly could congress do to stop her murderer from coming in contact with her?
Go ahead, we will wait.
So what did Congress do to stop him?
Congress should have built the wall long ago and put a bounty on illegals. We have traitorous democrats in Congress who should be hanged by the ankles and slit in the belly so they can see their intestines swinging as tbey die.
Being an illegal alien is a midemeanor punishable by a $10 fine. Yet you think a guy who has stolen millions of tax dollars is a poor victim.
Don't worry about the fine buttercup, Mollie paid it for him, and it was much more than a 10 spot.
Does that make you feel all better Junior?
Your butthurt makes me smile. As long as you’re upset about something I’m happy.You can’t build a wall. It’s not feasible.He didn't pass everify. He was using a stolen identity.Tibbett's accused killer was working for Republicans in Iowa. For 4 years. Passed e-verify.And what exactly could congress do to stop her murderer from coming in contact with her?
Go ahead, we will wait.
So what did Congress do to stop him?
Congress should have built the wall long ago and put a bounty on illegals. We have traitorous democrats in Congress who should be hanged by the ankles and slit in the belly so they can see their intestines swinging as tbey die.
Being an illegal alien is a midemeanor punishable by a $10 fine. Yet you think a guy who has stolen millions of tax dollars is a poor victim.
Don't worry about the fine buttercup, Mollie paid it for him, and it was much more than a 10 spot.
Does that make you feel all better Junior?
Are you upset?Your butthurt makes me smile. As long as you’re upset about something I’m happy.You can’t build a wall. It’s not feasible.He didn't pass everify. He was using a stolen identity.Tibbett's accused killer was working for Republicans in Iowa. For 4 years. Passed e-verify.
So what did Congress do to stop him?
Congress should have built the wall long ago and put a bounty on illegals. We have traitorous democrats in Congress who should be hanged by the ankles and slit in the belly so they can see their intestines swinging as tbey die.
Being an illegal alien is a midemeanor punishable by a $10 fine. Yet you think a guy who has stolen millions of tax dollars is a poor victim.
Don't worry about the fine buttercup, Mollie paid it for him, and it was much more than a 10 spot.
Does that make you feel all better Junior?
Whiny ass children do have that effect on us adults.
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
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 & 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.
"Employers may not refuse to accept lawful documentation that establishes the employment eligibility of an employee, or demand additional documentation beyond what is legally required, when verifying employment eligibility (i.e., completing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on the employee's national origin or citizenship status. It is the employee's choice which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to show to verify employment eligibility."
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.
"Employers may not refuse to accept lawful documentation that establishes the employment eligibility of an employee, or demand additional documentation beyond what is legally required, when verifying employment eligibility (i.e., completing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on the employee's national origin or citizenship status. It is the employee's choice which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to show to verify employment eligibility."
Aye and they can't demand specific documentation either (like a green card or birth certificate). There's a list on the back of the I-9; there's a few documents that cover both residency and eligibility for employment OR they can show one piece of document to show residency and one piece to show eligibility for employment from two lists. (Like a drivers license shows residency and a certified birth certificate from any state shows eligibility.) As long as the documents look legit you have to accept them, even if you think their fraudulent, else you're opening yourself to discrimination lawsuits.
What you think is that it would be better if we didn't call them illegal, and there weren't any rich Republicans, so I understand your desire to support Senator Warren on this. There is no need to pretend you make any more sense than she does. The problem isn't just the issues, but the priorities you and the Senator have towards how you want to approach the issues. That is all about nothing more than catering to foreign nationals in order to gain politically. It doesn't matter why you or the Senator want to do it.
Are you upset?Your butthurt makes me smile. As long as you’re upset about something I’m happy.You can’t build a wall. It’s not feasible.He didn't pass everify. He was using a stolen identity.
Congress should have built the wall long ago and put a bounty on illegals. We have traitorous democrats in Congress who should be hanged by the ankles and slit in the belly so they can see their intestines swinging as tbey die.
Being an illegal alien is a midemeanor punishable by a $10 fine. Yet you think a guy who has stolen millions of tax dollars is a poor victim.
Don't worry about the fine buttercup, Mollie paid it for him, and it was much more than a 10 spot.
Does that make you feel all better Junior?
Whiny ass children do have that effect on us adults.
Don't be so quick. He may have thought it was already done (not sure this is true in this case though.)
There are criminal rings in this country, using corporations to provide stolen or "borrowed for a fee" I.D.s to get the illegal jobs. Here is one recent example:
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.
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?
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.
"Employers may not refuse to accept lawful documentation that establishes the employment eligibility of an employee, or demand additional documentation beyond what is legally required, when verifying employment eligibility (i.e., completing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on the employee's national origin or citizenship status. It is the employee's choice which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to show to verify employment eligibility."
Aye and they can't demand specific documentation either (like a green card or birth certificate). There's a list on the back of the I-9; there's a few documents that cover both residency and eligibility for employment OR they can show one piece of document to show residency and one piece to show eligibility for employment from two lists. (Like a drivers license shows residency and a certified birth certificate from any state shows eligibility.) As long as the documents look legit you have to accept them, even if you think their fraudulent, else you're opening yourself to discrimination lawsuits.
Your parade of bullshit excuses for why you are wrong continues unabated!
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.
"Employers may not refuse to accept lawful documentation that establishes the employment eligibility of an employee, or demand additional documentation beyond what is legally required, when verifying employment eligibility (i.e., completing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on the employee's national origin or citizenship status. It is the employee's choice which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to show to verify employment eligibility."
Aye and they can't demand specific documentation either (like a green card or birth certificate). There's a list on the back of the I-9; there's a few documents that cover both residency and eligibility for employment OR they can show one piece of document to show residency and one piece to show eligibility for employment from two lists. (Like a drivers license shows residency and a certified birth certificate from any state shows eligibility.) As long as the documents look legit you have to accept them, even if you think their fraudulent, else you're opening yourself to discrimination lawsuits.
Your parade of bullshit excuses for why you are wrong continues unabated!
Are you still upset that you were wrong? Poor thing. Go find a coloring book and a safe space kido. This is the real world, it doesn't go the way /you/ want, nor the way /you/ "think" it should - it goes the way the courts say it does.
None of my statement is even debatable, it's actually written on the back of the I-9 for fucks sake. See also: Form I-9 - Wikipedia
Anti-discrimination provisions[edit]
The Immigration Reform and Control Act which introduced the requirement leading to the promulgation of the I-9 form also included anti-discrimination provisions.[3] Under the Act, most U.S. citizens, permanent residents, temporary residents, asylees or refugees who are legally allowed to work in the United States cannot be discriminated against on the basis of national origin or citizenship status.[3] This provision applies to employers of three or more workers and covers both hiring and termination decisions.[3] In addition, an employer must accept any valid document or combination of documents specified in the I-9 form as long as the documents appear genuine.[3]
For example, an employer could not refuse to hire a candidate because his I-9 revealed that he was a non-citizen (such as a permanent resident or a refugee) rather than a U.S. citizen. For this reason some immigration lawyers advise companies to avoid requiring an I-9 until a candidate is hired rather than risk a lawsuit.[3] As another example, a company could not insist that an employee provide a passport rather than, say, a driver's license and social security card. Another anti-discrimination provision requires that employers must enforce I-9 compliance in a uniform manner.[3] For example, an employer must not require some employees to complete an I-9 before being hired, but allow others to complete the form after starting employment.[3]
Employers must not assume that the employee is unauthorized to work just because the individual either could not bring the proof of employment authorization or has brought the unaccepted documents until the start date of the employment. Instead, employers should encourage that employee to bring the acceptable documents which are under the List A, B and C. Employers may terminate the employment only if the employee cannot attest the person's work authorization by bringing the proof after the start date.
The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices ("OSC") is a section within the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division that enforces the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). The OSC can help workers by calling employers and explaining proper verification practices and, when necessary, by providing victims of discrimination with charge forms. Upon receipt of a charge of discrimination, OSC investigations typically take no longer than seven months. Victims may obtain various types of relief including job relief and back pay.
