obamaland

[scottw]

thought we wanted to discourage businesses from hiring illegals as part of the effort to reduce the flood in a more thoughtful and meaningful way?....

September 3, 2015 4:29 pm

The Department of Justice has accused a business of discrimination due to the company requiring employees to show proof of citizenship for employment.

The DOJ claims that Nebraska Beef Ltd., a Nebraska-based meat packing 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.”

After receiving pressure from the government, Nebraska Beef agreed to pay $200,000 in a civil penalty settlement and said they will establish an uncapped back pay fund for people who lost wages because they could not prove they are in the country legally.

The settlement also requires the business to undergo compliance monitoring for two years, train employees on the anti-discrimination provision within the Immigration and Nationality Act, and to revise policies within its office. re-education camp...nice!

Judicial Watch reports:

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.

[Slipknot]

Absurd

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

thought we wanted to discourage businesses from hiring illegals as part of the effort to reduce the flood in a more thoughtful and meaningful way?....

Discrimination is "thoughtful and meaningful?"

The company appears to have violated Federal law. Had they followed it they wouldn't have been fined and also likely no employed as many illegals.

[justplugit]

Judicial Watch reports:

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.[/QUOTE]

Am I missing something here, it's a civil right for a job applicant
to get a job from a company when they can't identify themselves?

[spence]

Read more please.

[scottw]

it's painful...this might be the dumbest ...

“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.

sounds like that's how you'd determine eligibility of non-citizens for employment ... "similarly-situated U.S. citizens"...are apparently "US Citizens" and therefore have shown proof of citizenship and eligibility for employment...it's the "U S Citizen thing"...why would a "US Citizen" need to show proof of their immigration status ???


this is stupid...but not surprising...we're turning American Businesses into Sanctuary Businesses

[spence]

If you'd taken my advice and "read more" on the subject you'd realize that the people were in fact were authorized to work in the USA.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If you'd taken my advice and "read more" on the subject you'd realize that the people were in fact were authorized to work in the USA.

and if you'd read what the doj said...you's see that the company was fined for asking non-citizens to confirm their immigration status as a condition of employment while not asking U S Citizens to confirm their immigration status, immigration status/guest worker status, which you may or not know, can change with time....it's not a permanent situation or arrangement....well....maybe,,,depends on whether someone chooses to obey or enforce federal law

“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

again...

non- citizens SHOULD be required "to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility"


I can't think of a single reason why a.... U S citizen should be required to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility


but we are living in strange times

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

I can't think of a single reason why a.... U S citizen should be required to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility


but we are living in strange times

A US Citizen, by default and by law, would have the right and eligibility to work in the US, no?

That does not mean other factors would make a US Citizen (Hillary for example) ineligible for specific employment criteria (say Security Clearance).

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

A US Citizen, by default and by law, would have the right and eligibility to work in the US, no?

.

yup....... and that is why the logic is absurd..

but looking at it through the prism of progressive leftism and victimology ..the problem here actually...is the obvious unfairness of not asking for a U S Citizen for confirmation their immigration status but then having the audacity to ask a Non-citizen for confirmation their immigration status......

left logic....gotta think backwards to keep up