Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
mrplunkey
New member
Here's you a chance to do a little independent research: Find-out how the ACLU feels about pushing responsibility for citizenship verification onto employers.
USA suing Arizona
- Thread starter binö
- Start date
Here's you a chance to do a little independent research: Find-out how the ACLU feels about pushing responsibility for citizenship verification onto employers.
digimon7068
New member
you fella's need to have a drink and mellow out a bit...maybe sit in some lawn chairs in the the back of a pickup truck on a nice rise overlooking the border...and shoot a few messicans 
redsamurai
Banned
No, I don't give a fuck what the ACLU thinks. The ACLU thinks that keeping the worst criminals humanity has to offer in isolated 23 hr/day lockup is "mean". Why would I nor anyone give a fuck? This problem is "well" beyond what the ACLU thinks at this point. And lol at you bringing them up in the first place. As if you now agree with their ideals.....ngr please.
Still haven't seen one shred of any substance from you so it's only a matter of time till we hear about the vibrams again cause you're a pathetic pussy who falls back on off topic insults when he's got nothin.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm actually torn. You see, while I do agree something needs to be done, I'm just not sure what. I think it sounds like a good idea to have an employer verify citizenship in some way other than asking a question and getting a SSN. But, I also do see plunkey's point about it being a foothold to open a door into a very big invasion of privacy issue.
mrplunkey
New member
Now see? That suprises me. I figured you'd like the ACLU. There are a bunch of hippie libtards that get one right every now and then. They remind me of you actually -- except for the occasionally getting one right part.
Last edited by a moderator:
mrplunkey
New member
That's the same issue the feds have been wrestling with for years. On balance, I believe limiting information is the way to go because the less employers know, the better. Companies operate around holding people financially responsible and it's unfair to hold a manager to the bottom line while he knows who may or may not present undue benefit risks.
redsamurai
Banned
If you can show a birthcertificate, liscense, SS card.....well if you're still illegal and you've managed to procure all that, welcome to america. But CEO...and plunkey knows this.....they don't even ask for any sort of ID. So I see your point that alot of those documents "can" be faked....but I guarantee it costs money, alot of money. Most of these poor people coming over the border have to work off their "transport" fee for years already.....add to that what must be a pretty exhorbitant cost to procure all those documents and have them look legit, I just don't see where this is giving companies any sort of free leg into your private life. And it's absurd to even think that companies would spend the money to hire people to investigate every single day worker that comes to their door. They're simply going to require that the staff who hire these people be trained professionaly in counterfeit documents. I mean please, a bouncer at a nightclub has just about all the tools necessary and the one hour training necessary to detect most fraudulent forms of ID.
redsamurai
Banned
It bugs the living shit out of you that you can't paramaterize me. I am the unboxeable. It's not really that hard....you just have to develop the ability to think for yourself, that's all. Maybe one day you'll be there but there's not all that many days left for you ole boy....at least not the way you eat. lol
mrplunkey
New member
Yeah, those laser printer pages can cost upwards of $1/piece.
I realize that may be "alot" of money, but most people don't consider $11/month outside of their budget either.
Maybe this is a perspective thing.
redsamurai
Banned
Now I'm calling bullshit. When I was in CA in 05..and that's like Mecca for fake documents....I distinctly remember hearing prices of thousands for a "good" set of fakes. I'm not an expert on this but from what I gathered there was some extensive work to be done....it's not just lasering off a few copies you monkey. Hell, when I got my visa to canada they specifically said your birth certificate must be an original...no copies. You think faking a 20-30 year old piece of paper is as easy as scanning it and running a copy? Dude please use your brain.
mrplunkey
New member
Unboxable???
There are so many words you could have put in that spot: irrational, illogical, inexplicable, unemployable, destitute, helpless, disconnected...
Why you'd go with "unboxable" is beyond all reason.
mrplunkey
New member
Yeah, I bet when someone orders a replacement certified birth certificate (with a raised seal), someone digs all the way back to the original set produced at the hospital at the day of their birth.
But what if some poor soul runs out of those originally-produced certificates???? I guess that person doesn't exist anymore!!!????!!!
I sure hope they have a stack of my original birth certificates somewhere.
Think about this for a second. Let's say your apartment (or refrigerator box, as the case may be) burns down and 100% of your documentation is lost. How would you ever go about getting a new raised-seal birth certificate?
redsamurai
Banned
well then you better remember the hospital you were born at cause they do have that on record. Or they've microed it. Ever heard of iron mountain? That's what they do. So your birth certificate.....even though it's from the late 1800's
lmao.....still resides somewhere.
lmao.....still resides somewhere. Yeah, I bet when someone orders a replacement certified birth certificate (with a raised seal), someone digs all the way back to the original set produced at the hospital at the day of their birth.
But what if some poor soul runs out of those originally-produced certificates???? I guess that person doesn't exist anymore!!!????!!!
I sure hope they have a stack of my original birth certificates somewhere.
Think about this for a second. Let's say your apartment (or refrigerator box, as the case may be) burns down and 100% of your documentation is lost. How would you ever go about getting a new raised-seal birth certificate?
mrplunkey
New member
well then you better remember the hospital you were born at cause they do have that on record. Or they've microed it. Ever heard of iron mountain? That's what they do. So your birth certificate.....even though it's from the late 1800's
Yeah, someone could never get a bunch of raised-seal certified ones and sell them. Good thing they are bound to you for life.
redsamurai
Banned
If you listened to what I was saying you'd get that I"m not claiming it's absolutely impossible to get any sort of faking documents at all....of course anything is possible. But it's not cheap...at least not "good ones".
And here's another one I just thought of yet it's pretty fucking inane......how about just talking with the people and seeing if they speak any fucking english? Half the immigrants that come over here dont' SPEAK A FUCKING LICK OF OUR LANGUAGE. That boils me to no end but it's also fucking retarded that people can just show up and grunt something and get a job. It's not exactly racial profiling if you ask the person to hold a conversation in english with you. I'll bet that solves at least 40% of our problem. Do you have any mealy mouthed sort of objections to that? Is that too much of an invasion of privacy to expect that if someone passed their naturalisation exams that chances are they speak some fucking english. I know that wouldn't solve all of it but it would solve enough.
I've seen several fake ss cards and greencards. They are laughably bad, but the employers take them anyways.
mrplunkey
New member
This would help you someday should you ever decide to become a productive member of society.
Yeah, let's let employers discriminate on the basis of your vocabulary and enunciation. Let's let 'em kick out everyone who speaks ebonics too.
redsamurai
Banned
more mealy mouthed arguements. This is about knowing the english language...not about "enunciation" or "dialect". If you can't understand the english language it's a pretty good sign you weren't born and raised here so maybe a little digging is in order? By the way I can tell the difference between jive and broken non intelligible "I never bothered to learn" english. If you can't that's just because you're an idiot.
mrplunkey
New member
Oh I'm sure employers wouldn't mind digging. They'd love to know if you're married, considering children or have any relatives with long-term medical liabilities they'll have to pay for.
Considering what an anti-corporate libtard you normally are, it baffles me that you'd want an employer to be able to do a "little digging".
Speaking English is only required to naturalize. Many, many people who immigrate legally, and have greencards can't speak English.
redsamurai
Banned
Of course because all they have to say is "he showed me something"...I"m not an expert on what's real and whats fake. Like I said....bouncers are not "highly trained" professional counterfeit spotters. They have a book which they can look up and see how every liscense/ID is supposed to look...then they have other scanners and whatnot to double verify. If a fucking bar/strip club can afford this "high technology".....I mean what am I even arguing this for, it's ridiculous. What an utterly ridiculous argument you're putting up plunkey, just retarded and worthless. No valid points in this entire thread...not a one.
Employers do have those books. But they're not held liable for hiring undocumented people because they can argue the card wasn't clearly false "on its face." You're right in that bartenders get in more trouble for accepting fake IDs.
redsamurai
Banned
yeah how does that fucking work? Some underage kid gets in with a good ID and the bartender get a royal up against the wall yet companies down south don't even look at teh people in line they just stamp em a company ID. wtf?
When I was bouncing, if we missed a good ID....it was still on the bartender. Maybe that's an Ohio law...but the bartender was responsible in the end if he served a minor that he assumed was legit cause he got in through the door. Fucked up....a company doesn't have shit happen to them if they get raided and illegals are found. All that happens is the illegals get deported and the company reopens the employment line the next morning with the same standing orders. But if a bartender serves alcohol to a minor.....holy fuck look out.
Yep, that is how it is in the states I have bartended in too.
redsamurai
Banned
It happened once on my shift and i was so happy I wasn't at the door that night cause it could have easily been me. The bartender looked "devestated" as he was being talked to by the police. But so did the bouncer who realized he got the bartender fucked.
mrplunkey
New member
In last Thursday's Wall Street Journal...
Illegal Immigration News: Policing Citizenship and Worker Status Puts Employers in a Bind - WSJ.com
Policing Illegal Hires Puts Some Employers in a Bind
By MIRIAM JORDAN
Even as the Obama administration cracks down on companies that hire illegal immigrants, it is simultaneously going after employers that it says go too far in vetting job applicants to ensure they are entitled to work in the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security currently is auditing employment records of many companies suspected of hiring undocumented workers. Yet in an emerging paradox for businesses, the Justice Department and other agencies have stepped up probes of employers—including restaurant groups, factories and retailers—for allegedly violating anti-discrimination laws by demanding too many identity documents from applicants who aren't U.S. citizens.
To fend off lawsuits or enforcement actions, several companies have recently reached out-of-court settlements with the government; in some instances they paid fines.
"The message is: Employers beware. You need to worry just as much about asking for too many immigration documents as you do about not asking for enough," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law scholar at Cornell University.
The current tension arose from provisions in the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The IRCA prohibits employers from knowingly or intentionally hiring illegal immigrants; companies must verify a person's work eligibility through the "I-9" form process, in which new hires present identity documents and employers examine them for authenticity.
[IMMIGDOX]
Anti-discrimination protections in the INA, meanwhile, guarantee "all individuals authorized to work in the U.S. have the right to seek employment without the added burden of special rules or document demands based on their citizenship status or national origin," said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights. He said his unit is prioritizing enforcement of the INA provisions.
"The monkey is on the back of employers to make the call," said Mary Pivec, a Washington, D.C., attorney who is defending several companies with immigration-related problems. "We have more enforcement paired with insufficient and inconsistent guidance. Companies are in the crossfire."
By the end of 2010, the Justice Department will have boosted by 25% the total number of attorneys and investigators in its Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-related Unfair Employment Practices. The department doesn't disclose how many companies it is investigating, but a spokesperson didn't deny claims by immigration attorneys that there has been a surge in cases.
"The Obama administration has been much more active in enforcing the immigration law's anti-discrimination provisions than the Bush administration," Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
Companies face a maximum $1,100 civil monetary penalty for each individual from whom they demanded too many documents to prove work eligibility.
"It's a Catch-22," said Randy Johnson, senior vice president for labor and immigration at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the big business trade group. "Innocent employers get caught up in this snare of enforcement."
Businesses also face a proliferation of state laws designed to punish employers that hire undocumented immigrants. The U.S. Supreme Court is to consider this fall whether Arizona had the right to enact a 2007 law that empowers the state to revoke the business license of any employer found to knowingly hire illegal workers. The court is to determine whether federal immigration law preempts the state's statute.
On July 8, the Justice Department sued Garland Sales Inc., a rug manufacturer in Dalton, Ga., alleging it "engaged in a pattern of bias by imposing unnecessary and discriminatory hurdles" to employment for foreigners who were authorized to work in the U.S, according to a statement by the agency.
The government alleges that Garland required all non-U.S. citizens applying for jobs to present additional documents, in violation of the law. The Justice Department also said Garland "retaliated" against a naturalized U.S. citizen who has limited English skills by rescinding his job offer after he failed to produce a green card, which proves lawful U.S. residency for non-citizens. The person had presented a Social Security card and driver's license.
The company, which employs 300 people, denied the accusations and said it will defend itself.
"Garland Sales does not discriminate against individuals because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin in its hiring process and categorically denies the allegations," the rug maker said in a news release.
In late June, the Justice Department announced it had reached an agreement with Morton's Restaurant Group Inc. to settle allegations that an outlet in Portland, Ore., had required two noncitizens authorized to work in the U.S. to present more documents than legally required to establish their work eligibility. Both were fired after working for a time while the company reviewed their documentation.
"Morton's fired the workers after it rejected their valid Social Security cards and demanded to see additional documentation establishing their work authorization. In contrast, Morton's routinely permitted U.S. citizens to present their Social Security cards for this purpose," according to a Justice Department statement.
Under terms of the out-of-court settlement, Morton's agreed to provide full back pay of $2,880 and $5,715.62 to the employees, pay a $2,200 civil penalty and train Morton's employees in Portland on federal protections for workers against citizenship-status and national-origin discrimination. Morton's also agreed to properly train employees nationwide who have any role in evaluating someone's work eligibility.
Roger Drake, communications chief for Morton's, declined to comment on the case.
Illegal Immigration News: Policing Citizenship and Worker Status Puts Employers in a Bind - WSJ.com
Policing Illegal Hires Puts Some Employers in a Bind
By MIRIAM JORDAN
Even as the Obama administration cracks down on companies that hire illegal immigrants, it is simultaneously going after employers that it says go too far in vetting job applicants to ensure they are entitled to work in the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security currently is auditing employment records of many companies suspected of hiring undocumented workers. Yet in an emerging paradox for businesses, the Justice Department and other agencies have stepped up probes of employers—including restaurant groups, factories and retailers—for allegedly violating anti-discrimination laws by demanding too many identity documents from applicants who aren't U.S. citizens.
To fend off lawsuits or enforcement actions, several companies have recently reached out-of-court settlements with the government; in some instances they paid fines.
"The message is: Employers beware. You need to worry just as much about asking for too many immigration documents as you do about not asking for enough," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law scholar at Cornell University.
The current tension arose from provisions in the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The IRCA prohibits employers from knowingly or intentionally hiring illegal immigrants; companies must verify a person's work eligibility through the "I-9" form process, in which new hires present identity documents and employers examine them for authenticity.
[IMMIGDOX]
Anti-discrimination protections in the INA, meanwhile, guarantee "all individuals authorized to work in the U.S. have the right to seek employment without the added burden of special rules or document demands based on their citizenship status or national origin," said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights. He said his unit is prioritizing enforcement of the INA provisions.
"The monkey is on the back of employers to make the call," said Mary Pivec, a Washington, D.C., attorney who is defending several companies with immigration-related problems. "We have more enforcement paired with insufficient and inconsistent guidance. Companies are in the crossfire."
By the end of 2010, the Justice Department will have boosted by 25% the total number of attorneys and investigators in its Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-related Unfair Employment Practices. The department doesn't disclose how many companies it is investigating, but a spokesperson didn't deny claims by immigration attorneys that there has been a surge in cases.
"The Obama administration has been much more active in enforcing the immigration law's anti-discrimination provisions than the Bush administration," Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
Companies face a maximum $1,100 civil monetary penalty for each individual from whom they demanded too many documents to prove work eligibility.
"It's a Catch-22," said Randy Johnson, senior vice president for labor and immigration at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the big business trade group. "Innocent employers get caught up in this snare of enforcement."
Businesses also face a proliferation of state laws designed to punish employers that hire undocumented immigrants. The U.S. Supreme Court is to consider this fall whether Arizona had the right to enact a 2007 law that empowers the state to revoke the business license of any employer found to knowingly hire illegal workers. The court is to determine whether federal immigration law preempts the state's statute.
On July 8, the Justice Department sued Garland Sales Inc., a rug manufacturer in Dalton, Ga., alleging it "engaged in a pattern of bias by imposing unnecessary and discriminatory hurdles" to employment for foreigners who were authorized to work in the U.S, according to a statement by the agency.
The government alleges that Garland required all non-U.S. citizens applying for jobs to present additional documents, in violation of the law. The Justice Department also said Garland "retaliated" against a naturalized U.S. citizen who has limited English skills by rescinding his job offer after he failed to produce a green card, which proves lawful U.S. residency for non-citizens. The person had presented a Social Security card and driver's license.
The company, which employs 300 people, denied the accusations and said it will defend itself.
"Garland Sales does not discriminate against individuals because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin in its hiring process and categorically denies the allegations," the rug maker said in a news release.
In late June, the Justice Department announced it had reached an agreement with Morton's Restaurant Group Inc. to settle allegations that an outlet in Portland, Ore., had required two noncitizens authorized to work in the U.S. to present more documents than legally required to establish their work eligibility. Both were fired after working for a time while the company reviewed their documentation.
"Morton's fired the workers after it rejected their valid Social Security cards and demanded to see additional documentation establishing their work authorization. In contrast, Morton's routinely permitted U.S. citizens to present their Social Security cards for this purpose," according to a Justice Department statement.
Under terms of the out-of-court settlement, Morton's agreed to provide full back pay of $2,880 and $5,715.62 to the employees, pay a $2,200 civil penalty and train Morton's employees in Portland on federal protections for workers against citizenship-status and national-origin discrimination. Morton's also agreed to properly train employees nationwide who have any role in evaluating someone's work eligibility.
Roger Drake, communications chief for Morton's, declined to comment on the case.
redsamurai
Banned
well then I guess we'll just have to tell our state representatives in washington to make sure the govt. stays off companies backs that are doing their best to ensure they hire no illegal workers. Pretty simple isn't it.
This is where I part ways with organizations like the ACLU. We have an immigration problem and this is how to fix it. And the costs are still nonexistent to a company as the honus is on the employee to prove that he/she is a citizen. Either they show the documentation or the don't.....no company is going to hire PI's to go talk to your 4th grade teacher in her retirement home. It's not like there's going to ever be a process in vetting employees like there is for politicians.....so I still don't see the problem.
This is where I part ways with organizations like the ACLU. We have an immigration problem and this is how to fix it. And the costs are still nonexistent to a company as the honus is on the employee to prove that he/she is a citizen. Either they show the documentation or the don't.....no company is going to hire PI's to go talk to your 4th grade teacher in her retirement home. It's not like there's going to ever be a process in vetting employees like there is for politicians.....so I still don't see the problem.
mrplunkey
New member
I realize you don't see the problem, but a broad swath of constituencies ranging from the federal government, Wall Street Journal, employers and the ACLU does see the problem. That's not exactly a chorus of opinion that normally sings in unison.
redsamurai
Banned
It's not that I don't see a problem it's that I don't see a problem with enacting the regulations....the govt. just has to put this oversight with one branch so that companies aren't getting mixed signals when one branch of govt. comes at them for doing one thing and another comes at them for doing what the first wanted them to do. I see the problem in what's currently going on but you want to dwell on that instead of acknowledging that the solution is quite simple it just has to "get done". And taht's what this thread is about....Arizona is "getting it done". In fact, Arizona is helping companies out in that state by taking some of the work load off of them. I would think you'd be all for this but then I realize that in some threads you're all about teh illegals and then in others you're against.....you slyly work both sides of the argument and I'm the only it seems that's caught on to that. Oh well...
mrplunkey
New member
It's not that I don't see a problem it's that I don't see a problem with enacting the regulations....the govt. just has to put this oversight with one branch so that companies aren't getting mixed signals when one branch of govt. comes at them for doing one thing and another comes at them for doing what the first wanted them to do. I see the problem in what's currently going on but you want to dwell on that instead of acknowledging that the solution is quite simple it just has to "get done". And taht's what this thread is about....Arizona is "getting it done". In fact, Arizona is helping companies out in that state by taking some of the work load off of them. I would think you'd be all for this but then I realize that in some threads you're all about teh illegals and then in others you're against.....you slyly work both sides of the argument and I'm the only it seems that's caught on to that. Oh well...
This would be one of those ramblings I referred to in point (2) of a response I made to you about one minute ago on another thread.
HTH
redsamurai
Banned
you call it rambling I call it pointing out facts. You really don't like that I remember your past arguments do you? Makes it hard to waffle around various topics when someone recalls what you said the prior month or in alot of cases with you, the prior week.
mrplunkey
New member
He's quite original that way.
PICK3
New member
Wait ... aren't you using Plunkey's same argument against him by rearranging his words?
You two are so cute, soon you'll be finishing each other's sentences.
mrplunkey
New member
Of course I remember my past arguments.
And the best part is if I ever need a refresher, I just do a plat search to look for it. Know how you too can get access to plat search?
redsamurai
Banned
And you know what's hilarious....you just acknowledged that you need an internet search function to periodically refresh your brain on how it thinks. Other people call it integrity but whatever...lol. That's pretty bad homie, all jokes aside.
mrplunkey
New member
Yeah, I guess it is far better to do it the redsamauri way and let my own board comments bite me in the ass every few posts.
At least it's more entertaining to me when you do it, so please -- carry on.
Similar threads
