Skip to comments.DOJ Punishes Business for Verifying Employees’ Citizenship!
Posted on 09/03/2014 5:34:03 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
While everyone is focusing on what Obama will do with his upcoming illegal alien executive order, the rest of his administration is quietly working behind the scenes to enact amnesty through a piecemeal approach.
Now, we have learned that the Department of Justice is actively targeting businesses and punishing them for trying to verify an employees residency status!
Thats right, the DOJ has fined Culinaire International a restaurant-management company more than $20,000 because the business had the gall to ask employees to provide proof of legal residency in the United States!
In this case, this company sought to confirm the identity and residency status of one of its employees. The employee in question showed up with two documents: an expired permanent residency card and an up-to-date permanent worker card. The business thought this was fishy, so it required the employee to produce another document definitively proving citizenship or permanent residency.
This makes complete sense. Any business owner would agree with this decision. The DOJ apparently didnt.
According to Eric Holders Justice Department, this company engaged in citizenship-discrimination when it asked applicants and employees to prove their citizenship and/or legal residency.
Employers cannot discriminate against workers by requiring them to produce more documents than necessary in the employment eligibility verification and re-verification processes, says Molly Moran, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights division.
Yes, this is the same DOJ Civil Rights Division that was reprimanded by a New Orleans Judge for prosecutorial misconduct in its attempt to convict a New Orleans Police Officer of civil rights violations. This Civil Rights Unit was caught red-handed anonymously using social media to circumvent ethical obligations, professional responsibilities, and even to commit violations of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(Excerpt) Read more at advocacytoaction.com ...
Sounds to me like this person did not have the proper documents to even complete an I-9. So what was the business to do?
I'll bet that cleared the room in a hurry.
And where did all that Taitzian birther nonsense get you exactly?
So....?? I-9 forms are NOT required??
Someone needs to tell my HR department.
Danmed if you do danmed if you don’t. This administration hates businesses, and has as its goal the complete control of all of the means of production.
It got me to the lawless nation that the “cool kids” dragged me to. That’s my point. The lead horse went where it wanted to go and so here we are, because the lead horse ridiculed the warning given by the rest of us who - like it or not - were yoked to the same fate as the lead horse.
This is where y’all said you wanted to be - where there was none of this crazy stuff about legal documentation and the rule of law mattering...
And, of course, while we’re all watching the country go to Hell in a handbasket the “cool kids” are feeling really superior to those silly “birthers” who wanted us to go a different way, and were dragged kicking and screaming into this lovely place we’re now at. At least those people will know they’re the “cool kids” when they watch ISIS beheading the rest of us...
That’s my point.
If you have ever seen the required Federal workplace posters for the eVerify program, they are actually more about delivering a strong warning to employers NOT to dig into anyone’s legal status. And about encouraging illegal applicants to blow them in if they do.
He didn’t. They didn’t make him fill out anything. The voters weren’t supposed to vote him in if he wasn’t eligible. Of course, the voters aren’t allowed access to his records, to FIND OUT if he is or isn’t eligible. We’re just supposed to blindly trust the media.
IOW, the threatened media holds the fate of this nation in its hands. If THEY say Obama is fine, the laws be damned.
Nobody dragged you anywhere.
Some folks figured that birther crap to be ineffective from the start.
Then the kookery started, which made it more so. Don't blame
the folks who predicted your "cure" would amount to nothing.
Especially when they were proven right.
This is where yall said you wanted to be - where there was none of this crazy stuff about legal documentation and the rule of law mattering...
Flawed argument, and total bull.
Nobody said this was where we wanted to be.
It was said, however, that your solution was crap. Which has proven true.
At least those people will know theyre the cool kids when they watch ISIS beheading the rest of us...
OH NOES! ISIS is coming to lop off our heads because Orly Taitz was disrespected. Get over yourself.
Nobody here wanted Obama. Many however knew that crazed birther crap wasn't going to make him go away.
By your logic, anyone who thinks witchcraft is a stupid way to fight cancer must therefor be in favor of cancer.
Bizzare, the only word for this presidency.
Department of Jose
Those who said that requiring legal documentation from Obama is nuts/extreme/crazy/embarrassing have gotten EXACTLY what they said they wanted.
And I got exactly what you “cool people” said you wanted too, against my will.
It’s the bed you’ve made, and I’m stuck lying in it just like all the rest.
Consider that if you could not convince a cadre of conservatives
of the validity of your crusade, you have little hope with the rest of the nation.
Its the bed youve made, and Im stuck lying in it just like all the rest.
I made? I'm not that powerful, sweetiecakes.
I'm just one guy who thinks that birfer majic mojo ain't gonna work to make Obama disappear.
So far it looks like my opinion was correct.
Who said anything about birther stuff making Obama disappear? From the very outset I have said this isn’t even about Obama but is about the rule of law. If we have the rule of law we can hold an idiot tyrant in check even if he gets elected. If we don’t have the rule of law we’ve got NOTHING.
The people who were busy mocking us “rule of law” people by calling us “birthers” and saying what we stood for is an “embarrassment” managed a double-whammy: not only did we get Obama in office, but we got a LAWLESS Obama in office. We sold our ability to hold him in check, because we deemed “the rule of law” people to be too embarrassing for the “cool kids”.
And that was (and apparently still is) you. You would not stand for the rule of law requiring Obama to prove his eligibility, and it is hypocrisy now if you expect anybody else to have to follow the rule of law.
You’re big on 2nd amendment (one of the few issues you ever address, other than mocking us “rule of law” people). Give me one good reason that Obama and his shills shouldn’t treat you the same way as you have treated us “rule of law” people who said that the Constitution matters - using the exact same language and techniques as you and your ilk have employed against those of us who believed the Constitution and rule of law matter. If those who support the 2nd Article (and forgery, identity fraud, perjury, murder etc laws) are too “embarrassing” for those who want to be popular (get elected), then why shouldn’t those who support the 2nd amendment likewise be too “embarrassing”? The same reasons you give to berate my “cause” would be used by a non-hypocrite to berate the 2nd Amendment also. Either the Constitution is a rug for politicians and the society to wipe their feet on as they laugh their fool heads off.... or it’s not.
I support the 2nd Article AND the 2nd Amendment. Why do you support only one of those?
I use the term “cool kids” because that’s how that Alinsky crap always goes. It’s junior high all over again. If you wanna get elected homecoming queen you make fun of other people’s cooties - whether they really have them or not. Juvenile. When are there finally going to be some adults in charge?
Has anybody figured out yet that this is serious? How many 9-11’s is it gonna take before we wake the heck up and realize we’ve got enemies who are NOT giggling about cooties?
What I do or do not mock is irrelevant to the law.
We sold our ability to hold him in check, because we deemed the rule of law people to be too embarrassing for the cool kids
Ah. I see. It's my fault for not upholding your majic birfer mojo.
Had I but embraced Orly Taitz and "who be his daddy this week" then the world would be full of unicorns pooping out cheeseburgers.
And that was (and apparently still is) you. You would not stand for the rule of law requiring Obama to prove his eligibility
Again, you assign too much power to me.
I'm just one guy. I control nothing in law or government.
You sound like my ex-wife, who blames my lack of enthusiasm for Sarah Palin for causing her not to run.
Give me one good reason that Obama and his shills shouldnt treat you the same way as you have treated us rule of law people
Don't they? Seems like they do. You don't see me whining about it.
using the exact same language and techniques as you and your ilk have employed against those of us who believed the Constitution and rule of law matter.
I have ilks? Who knew?
Of course the Constitution matters. What does NOT matter is my opinion of kookery.
There are serious means of accomplishing things.. and also kookery.
When you trot out lunatics like Taitz and folks who claim Obama's
daddy was Frank Marshall Davis last week and Jimi Hendrix or
James Earl Jones or somebody else the next.. you won't be taken seriously.
That's how the world works.
Why do you support only one of those?
Just covered that, see above.
I use the term cool kids because thats how that Alinsky crap always goes
Ah, jeez.. not that tired old Alinsky crap again.
Got news, sweeticakes.. Alinsky didn't invent mockery.
Mockery predates that guy by thousands of years.
Has anybody figured out yet that this is serious?
Then I'd suggest that you should have gotten someone to present the case that wasn't a smacktard clown.
Being consistent and on-message counts too.
"He's Kenyan! He's Indonesian! Frank Marshall Davis! Subud!"
Pick one. When you have a new "theory" every week how can you expect to be taken seriously?
I have stayed out of the theories. What I have said is that having a foreign enemy combatant as commander-in-chief is the business of every person in this country - and right now I’ll add that it is our business even BEFORE we get our heads sawed off by the Islamists that Obama has funded, trained, armed, and made excuses for. There is no frickin’ way that any court or judge in this nation should be saying that as long as everybody is being screwed it’s no big deal. No. Frickin’. Way.
The lawsuits - especially by the military folks who could end up being framed for Extortion-17-type extermination via Obama’s Islamist friends - should have resulted in legal standing, the issue being heard on the merits, the evidence sorted out, and a legal answer given.
That’s what I have been saying all along.
But no, Orly Taitz has cooties so ISIS can have the nation without even a fight, because the people of this nation have no brains and no b@lls.
Every person has the power to control one person: him/herself. If you saw fit to pick on Orly Taitz’ cooties rather than stand for the rule of law BEFORE the invasion of ISIS, then you are responsible for that decision - as are all the others who made that decision. You didn’t have to start fawning over Orly or anybody else; all you had to do was refuse to mock THE ISSUE of Constitutional eligibility and the rule of law. Just being quiet would have been enough.
Who on Free Republic is saying that 2nd Amendment supporters are engaged in “kookery”? If they said it, would you agree? After all, the “cool people” in the media don’t like the 2nd Amendment, and that seems to be the going definition of “kookery” - anything the “cool people” think is stupid or “extreme”.
I’ll ask it flat-out: Should documentation of eligibility be required, to earn a wage in this country - including for the position of POTUS? Is it “crazy” to expect the law which requires documentation to be enforced - from the lowliest janitor to the POTUS and beyond? Should an employer be legally prevented from obeying that law and prosecuted if they try to obey it? Should they be ridiculed as a nutcase if they say they take the law and their responsibility seriously?
We are Obama’s employer. As some of us have been saying all along, if he’s able to kick us in the rear while all the “conservatives” yuk it up with him over his great superiority over the rubes who think we the people still matter.... that tells us exactly what he’s going to do on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. And we were right.
I don’t say this to gloat but to say it’s time for the rest of y’all to wake the heck up, unite, and fight this beast. This lawless beast who laughs at laws, the Constitution, and we the people. The first thing we need to do is take that sickening smirk off his face and tell him we’re not laughing at his lawlessness any more. The second thing we need to do is throng every Congress-critter’s car, house, office, etc until THEY take that putrescent smirk off his face by impeaching - and CONVICTING - him of treason.
The putrescent smirk has to go. From all of us. We need to fight in earnest, before the window of opportunity is gone, if it isn’t already gone.
I don't know about Esq. Taitz personal hygeine.
I imagine it lapses a bit from time to time.
Her infestation with lice has nothing to do with ISIS.
My personal failure to take her seriously similarly has nothing to do with ISIS.
all you had to do was refuse to mock THE ISSUE of Constitutional eligibility and the rule of law. Just being quiet would have been enough.
Ah. I should just shut my mouth.
Screw my opinion.. just let whatever kookery rolls around to go ahead.
ll ask it flat-out: Should documentation of eligibility be required, to earn a wage in this country - including for the position of POTUS?
Never said it shouldn't.
What I doubt is that some drooling wild-eyed Taitz is going to enforce it.
I dont say this to gloat
Good, because your birther stuff hasn't helped JACK.. and gloating over failure would be pretty ate-up.
Orly Taitz has her problems. At least she was doing what she thought she could, for the rule of law.
What were you doing for the rule of law? How did your actions uphold the need for the rule of law, and enforce the Founders’ vision that lawless men be held in check by the Constitution and a vigilant citizenry and legal infrastructure?
I have no problem with somebody mocking incompetence - if they’ve got something better to offer. You’ve got scathing wit; why not direct it at Obama’s law-breaking rather than at Orly? Or cut down Orly so you can support somebody more capable of doing what was needed?
And what is DESPERATELY needed now - as was needed all along - is people who would force laws and the Constitution to be obeyed.
You didn’t answer the point-blank questions I asked. Where do you stand on those questions?
Voting against Obama, hopefully the same as you.
That would be the extent of my influence. Same as you.
I have no problem with somebody mocking incompetence - if theyve got something better to offer.
So if I can't swim, I should shut up about it when a non-swimmer jumps into the deep end?
My opinion is invalid because I've never done that job?
Then how can you criticize Obama, since you've never been president?
Youve got scathing wit; why not direct it at Obamas law-breaking rather than at Orly?
There are no Obama supporters here. He doesn't post here.
Raging against machines seems kind of pointless.
And what is DESPERATELY needed now - as was needed all along - is people who would force laws and the Constitution to be obeyed.
True enough. Those would be some elected officials.
I'm not one of those. So why hang all this mess on me?
You're the one with the failed product, don't blame me for not buying it.
I answered those which I thought relevant.
I'm not subject to interrogation by you. True story.
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.