Posted on 09/02/2015 6:39:36 PM PDT by markomalley
In its crusade to protect and assist illegal immigrants, the Obama administration has accused an American company of discrimination for requiring employees to furnish proof that they are eligible to work legally in the United States.
You know the nation is in trouble when a U.S. business gets investigated by its own government for following the law. The case involves a Nebraska meat packing company that demanded workers to furnish proof of immigration status for the federal employment eligibility verification process. The Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) went after the company, accusing it of engaging in employment discrimination.
In particular the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices objected to non-U.S. citizens being “targeted” because of their citizenship status. “The department’s investigation found that the company required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility,” the DOJ claims. This could constitute a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the feds assert, because its anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from making documentary demands based on citizenship or national origin when verifying an employee’s authorization to work.
With the feds breathing down its neck the business, Nebraska Beef Ltd, agreed to pay Uncle Sam a $200,000 civil penalty and establish an uncapped back pay fund to compensate individuals who lost wages because they couldn’t prove they are in the county legally. Additionally, the business will undergo “compliance monitoring,” which means big brother will be watching very closely. The head of the DOJ’s civil rights division explains that the agency is on a mission to eliminate “unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment” so workers can support their families and contribute to the U.S. economy.
This case is part of a broader effort by the Obama administration to helps illegal aliens in the U.S. Besides shielding tens of millions from deportation via an executive amnesty order, the president has also expanded the DOJ to help carry out part of this mission. It’s why the agency’s civil rights division has grown immensely under Obama. A few years ago Judicial Watch reported that the DOJ’s civil rights division launched a secret group to monitor laws passed by states and local municipalities to control illegal immigration. Because the measures are viewed as discriminatory and anti-immigrant by the administration, the DOJ has spent huge sums of taxpayer dollars to track them and legally challenge them as it did in Arizona.
The federal tentacles have reached deeply into the workplace. A few years ago the DOJ civil rights division, under the leadership of renowned illegal alien advocate Thomas Perez, launched a plan to eliminate tests that supposedly discriminate against minorities in the workplace. The administration defines them as having a “disparate impact,” a racial discrimination created by the various written exams. The tests disproportionately screen out people of a particular race, even though they “present the appearance of objective, merit-based selection,” according to the Obama DOJ.
Last year a federal audit disclosed that the Obama administration was letting businesses that hire undocumented workers off the hook by drastically reducing fines and enforcement. During a three-year period the administration slashed by 40% the amount of fines collected from employers caught with illegal immigrants on their payroll, according to the probe which was conducted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General. This inconsistent implementation hinders the government’s mission to prevent or deter employers from violating immigration laws, the DHS watchdog wrote in its report. Now the DOJ is taking it a step further by going after employers that try to ensure their workers are in the U.S. legally.
Inmates ... Asylum ... yadda yadda yadda ...
That’s the law! As if that mattered.
Boy!
Just wait until McConnell or Boehner finds about this! They’re really gonna get mad and do something about it!
Should we tell Bush?
e-verify and I-9 should be mandatory
There certainly are penalties (still) on the books for not verifying eligibility; they have to toss those rules first before they attack companies for following them...
Okay, was the fine because they selectively chose who to get I-9 from? Should have gotten them from all to avoid charge of discrimination. Besides, the law says all. That they chose only those they thought might be illegal, suggestions discrimation. Shame on them. Any lawyers or fellow company owners that read this differently?
Ping.
Spelling it out once more for these a-holes but I do believe the only thing they get from it is a good laugh.
From https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
(1)
(A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
I’m not understanding this at all. I-9s (Homeland Security doc# OBM1615-0047) have been a mandated element of business records since 1986. A list of documents that establish identity and work eligibility is given to each hire candidate (list A, list B or List C) who makes his/her own selection of what original documents to present. The employer doesn’t make up the list, DHS does. Why is this meatpacker being singled-out for complying with Homeland Security/IRS law? And how is it NOT discrimination against citizens to allow illegals to have job preference? (is the DOJ action a form of affirmative action for illegals?)
The employee is supposed to be the one who picks out the form of ID from list A or list B and list C. It says right on the I-9: "Employers cannot specify which document(s) employees may present from the Lists of Acceptable Documents, found on the last page of Form I-9, to establish identity and employment authorization."
Sooooo glad I retired in 1999. The gvt was just starting the I-9 program. I remember thinking this would take care of the illegal problem. Naive me :)
The problem this company ran into was that they didn’t do I-9s for everyone. If they had, this wouldn’t be a thing. They picked and chose based on presumed legal citizen status and that’s a no-no in today’s world.
We have many more pressing concerns, of course, but that won’t stop the Left from going after stuff like this.
That’s just stupid
A meat packing plant. Well that means they are hiring Somalis. In other words, muslims......
What happened to e-verify???
I think you have pointed out the catch in all of this stuff. You cannot use good logic for your actions and instead are forced to go the whole way with whatever the costs.
Time to put all the democrats to death, especially the ones running sanctuary cities. Subparagraph B, section iv.
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
B.
(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
Citizens arrest???
Going to need a BIG posse for that, hoss. I doubt there is one big enough available, anywhere. I know there isn't one available in Philadelphia.
actually from the article it appears they had 2 policies which was the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.