• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Employers could get sued for following the law

JasperL said:
Where is the conflict? You're required to verify work eligibility, aka "if they are legally here." You can't discriminate based on national origin or citizenship status.

These are different things.

1) Eligible to work
2) Black/hispanic/Muslim/Jew/non-citizen.

You're required to "discriminate" on 1), prohibited from discriminating based on 2).

I don't doubt that complying with 2) probably requires some BS compliance efforts in some cases, but that's not what you're saying.
Click to expand...

The conflict comes into the current confusion between your "1)" and the last item listed in your "2)" which is the primary topic of this thread.
 
JasperL said:
You said your expertise was in following the law, so quote the law, the reg, the conflicting EOs. At this point you haven't shown any conflict, and seem unable to distinguish between non-citizen eligible to work and and illegals.
Click to expand...

Dude, it's in the OP article. Why ask me? Read the OP.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Dude, it's in the OP article. Why ask me? Read the OP.
Click to expand...

The OP article was a piece of crap with five misleading or false statements out of 5 and no link to any law, reg, EO, or the guidelines that was the topic of the OP article.

You claim expertise but cannot quote the law, EO, reg. and refer me to a really awful article with zero references to the law. That tells me all I need to know about your expertise in this area. Mine is in tax, and when asked it's not a problem for me to cite the Code or Regs applicable.
 
JasperL said:
The OP article was a piece of crap with five misleading or false statements out of 5 and no link to any law, reg, EO, or the guidelines that was the topic of the OP article.

You claim expertise but cannot quote the law, EO, reg. and refer me to a really awful article with zero references to the law. That tells me all I need to know about your expertise in this area. Mine is in tax, and when asked it's not a problem for me to cite the Code or Regs applicable.
Click to expand...

Where do I send the invoice?
 
Beaudreaux said:
The conflict comes into the current confusion between your "1)" and the last item listed in your "2)" which is the primary topic of this thread.
Click to expand...

OK, then clear up my confusion. Millions of non-citizens ARE eligible to work.

Cite the law.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Where do I send the invoice?
Click to expand...

Well, if this is your actual job and you have expertise in this area, you wouldn't need to send an invoice since you'd have the information readily available and it would take no more time to find the reference than it has to type your replies on this thread. Furthermore, if you were an expert, no way in the world you refer me to Washington Examiner, which apparently hasn't learned how to insert links to source documents, as your authority for ANYTHING except incompetence in online media.
 
JasperL said:
Well, if this is your actual job and you have expertise in this area, you wouldn't need to send an invoice since you'd have the information readily available and it would take no more time to find the reference than it has to type your replies on this thread. Furthermore, if you were an expert, no way in the world you refer me to Washington Examiner, which apparently hasn't learned how to insert links to source documents, as your authority for ANYTHING except incompetence in online media.
Click to expand...

I don't work for free. Do your own research. I gave you the link above.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Well, then, don't. I understood it without any problem. There is always google.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine the Right Wing would 'understand' the 'a true Conservative Voice' as the Washington Examiner bills itself...

But for the rest of us it is a mish mash of Right wing whine.

The law the article references has been on the books for decades. Simply put a company can ask for two forms of ID from an approved list of forms of ID. They can't ask for a particular form of ID. The law about hiring undocumented workers is clear as well. The business will not be fined if they practice due diligence. If they have on file two forms of ID they are covered. If the business suspects a worker's documentation is bogus they can ask for another form of ID, but they can't demand a CERTAIN form.

The article is shot full of mays, mights, and coulds... but frankly the laws don't collide and are easy enough to understand and follow... if a HR manager doesn't know what a certain tribe's ID card looks like, he can educate him/herself quick enough...

There is always Google.... :peace
 
Beaudreaux said:
It was in the OP. Here's another article I found, although it happens to be TDC it actually has links to verify the claims. Employers May Be Hit With Lawsuits Over Immigration Law | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...

LOL, the OP was really an awful piece of journalism, as I demonstrated, and the Daily Caller article looks like they took the Washington Examiner piece and added a couple of links and quotes. Washington Examiner gets an F-, Daily Caller just a D (they did link to the guidelines!!).

And experts cite the law, people without any clue on a subject cite awful articles in the popular press.
 
JasperL said:
LOL, the OP was really an awful piece of journalism, as I demonstrated, and the Daily Caller article looks like they took the Washington Examiner piece and added a couple of links and quotes. Washington Examiner gets an F-, Daily Caller just a D (they did link to the guidelines!!).

And experts cite the law, people without any clue on a subject cite awful articles in the popular press.
Click to expand...

Bye bye.
 
cpwill said:
Naturally. When you criminalize everyone, it gives you the ability to prosecute anyone who runs afoul of you.
Click to expand...

Is that just a random observation? In case you didn't read further, the article is awful and misstates the law pretty badly.
 
JasperL said:
Well, there isn't any doubt the article was a POS - you quoted 5 statements, and 5 statements were false or misleading. So Washington Examiner is pretty pathetic, but we all knew that already.

Second, an I-9 audit is about one thing - is the person eligible to WORK in the U.S., and that has nothing to do with "citizenship status or national origin." I already explained that in the previous post but you ignored it and repeated the same nonsense.
Click to expand...

In one post I proved that the premise of the article was true, contrary to what you said.
 
Beaudreaux said:
It was in the OP. Here's another article I found, although it happens to be TDC it actually has links to verify the claims. Employers May Be Hit With Lawsuits Over Immigration Law | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...

By the way, it's not just this issue. As an employer, you must be very creative in order to obtain all manor of data from a perspective employee in order to make a sound determination on whether they would suit the post, and remain on the right side of the law. And I wouldn't be willing to indulge any further on that.
 
NonoBadDog said:
In one post I proved that the premise of the article was true, contrary to what you said.
Click to expand...

Well, no you didn't. You quoted and bolded this from your link:
"Internal audits should not be conducted on the basis of an employee’s citizenship status or national origin"
Click to expand...

But these are audits of I-9s and employment eligibility, and whether or not a person is eligible to work simply does NOT hinge on "citizenship status or national origin." Millions of legal residents are authorized to work, but are not citizens, and their national origin is not the U.S.

That kind of negates the reason for doing an audit since the employer could be sued for doing the audit based on "citizenship or status" which is the reason for doing an I9 audit in the first place. The wording is clear as mud so who knows.
Click to expand...

Again, these are different questions

1) Citizen?
2) Eligible to work?

An I-9 audit is ONLY concerned with 2). 1) is not relevant since millions of NON-citizens are here legally and eligible to work. Persons such as Adele, the singer. She's not a citizen, but I'll bet you she's here legally, can work legally, and will make $10s of millions on her upcoming tour all legally.
 
Deuce said:
Oldest trick in the book is to "have links to verify the claims" while grossly misrepresenting the information in those links. See, they know you're never going to actually check it out.
Click to expand...

What's worse here is I'd already debunked the claims. As you can see in the posts above, citing the actual guidelines still didn't work - there are unnamed laws and stuff (no links to those...) that still prove the point that the guidelines themselves (which we can see and read) conclusively debunk...:roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom