What’s your point?
In Texas, I’ve heard about using fake SSN. The immigrant/illegal will pay into SS with no expectation of getting any benefit down the road.
The employer takes out the social security taxes from the paycheck and pays it to the Gov’t using the fake SSN provided by the employee. The gov’t takes the SS money, and reports back that the SSN is not valid - please provide a new one so they can match the money to a real person. The employer asks the employee about the SSN and the employee gives them a new SSN. The employer gives the new SSN to the Gov’t. The back and forth process is very slow. It never goes beyond asking for a new SSN. Repeat for eternity. Everyone knows, nobody cares.
Except many of us dont care. Mostly, Illegals are a boost to the economy. Less crime, pay into Soc Sec but dont take out, and mostly do jobs that Americans dont want.
Thank you for this, from the Dept. of Homeland Security.
“Employment authorized individuals” are the folks the employers have already hired? I guess they would get fussy about the needed documentation to avoid fines for hiring illegal workers? Although they could still argue “looks real to me”. That is pretty arbitrary.
“Employment authorized individuals” are people who are legally entitled to work in the United States - citizens, legal permanent residents or work visa holders. You’re not allowed to discriminate against them - that is, you can’t refuse to hire someone because they are a permanent resident rather than a citizen, except in very limited circumstances (mostly sensitive government jobs or jobs servicing government agencies) or because you don’t like their paperwork.
You can discriminate against unauthorized individuals, on the other hand.
Do you care to clarify what you might have been talking about in post #20?
What difference does it make if you’re only not allowed to discriminate against “employment-authorized” individuals? The whole point is that you don’t know who is or isn’t employment authorized until you’ve verified their documents. And that’s where you’re in a bind. Look too closely and you’re discriminating if the documents turn out to be real. Don’t look too closely and you’re probably employing a lot of illegal immigrants, many of whom have fake documents.
If would be nice if you would make some attempt to explain yourself, since you accused me of not reading the bulletin very clearly. At this point it looks rather like you yourself didn’t think things through very clearly.
The short answer is that they commit a felony, sometimes several felonies.
There is nothing that says you can be liable for “looking too closely.” The rule prohibits employers from rejecting documents that reasonably appear to be genuine, on the common sense basis that a hiring manager has no way of verifying whether a document is genuine or not other than establishing that it’s listed on the I-9 (not to mention no credentials).
In my experience, the threat of legal action or enforcement from regulatory agencies is enough to just make companies take the path of least resistance. If you have a government that is willing to overlook illegal hiring but not overlook discrimination, it just makes more sense to not look too closely at documents.
Looking too closely at and rejecting mean the same thing.
The point is that if you’re a guy in an industry where a lot of illegal immigrants work, and you pretty much know that a high percentage of them have fake documents. You’re damned if you do anything about it because you could be rejecting documents that some civil rights guy is going to decide “reasonably appear to be genuine”, and you’re damned if you don’t do anything about it because you will undoubtedly be employing a lot of illegal immigrants. So you need to pick your poison.
Under the Obama administration, civil rights and discrimination issues were given paramount consideration in many areas and especially in comparison to illegal immigration, and this would tend to make employers err on the side of accepting such documents.
And vice versa. This is really the nub of the issue stated in laymen’s terms. Businesses try to avoid doing whatever they think is the big deal du jour.
But as always there’s a meta-level. What matters for businesses’ behavior is not the reality of government enforcement of hiring illegals vs discriminating against citizens and non-illegals. What matters is businesses’ *perception *of that threat.
Which perception can be wildly out of sync with reality. Often aided and abetted by business lobby groups or “helpful” advisors such as Fotheringay-Phipp’s employer. Who gain something by fear-mongering in one direction or the other.
My wife’s an attorney specializing in banking compliance. An area with massive regulations often working at somewhat cross-purposes. There is a giant industry devoted to scaring the bankers into believing that anything they do (or don’t do) will result in instant destruction at the hands of the overbearing government.
The reality is far more mundane. And the reality of government enforcement are neither as vast, nor as draconian, as the fearmongers sell. But if your goal is to create widespread support for an agenda of comprehensive deregulation, filling industry with a fear of all regulations is ideal.
Yep, We’re seeing the same type of issue with opioid regulation. The DEA swears up and down that they aren’t doing anything to make it hard for legitimate patients to get meds, but wholesalers and pharmacists and doctors are scared, so the chilling effect means that patients don’t get their meds.
The law and the effects of the law are often two very different things. And I think often the authorities know exactly what they are doing. The law says what people want, the effects of the law are what the government wants, and since it’s bureaucrats making the law work that way, elected officials have deniability.
Not always the bureaucrats; audit companies and consultants of all ilks reap great benefits from exploiting managers’ fears.
A lot of the requirements that companies link to GxP or SOx are actually nowhere in those regulations, or even against their letter; the spirit is often not even in the same solar system. But alas, someone asked a question that was understood as a criticism; someone else thought that if the reg asks for something to be done twice it is better to do it three times (and someone else added a fourth, and…).
If you’re happy to make money by letting the problem keep compounding itself, you can make a real, real big lot of money.
This might be the case that triggered my company’s legal bulletin: Justice Department Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against Nebraska-Based Meat Packing Company
Here’s an article describing the change in focus by the Obama Administration.
Yes, SOX is another example. Businesses are being talked into doing so much stuff that they don’t have to do, either that or the rulemaking process is out of hand.
Wow. That’s just so far away from the letter and the spirit of immigration law that it’s astounding. The idea that it’s discriminatory to make immigrants prove their status but not citizens is ludicrous.
But here’s the point. The regulators come in and give a report, 'suggesting" changes. Pretty much, letter of the law, spirit of the law, doesnt matter. What they “suggest” goes. Unless it is sooooo expensive that fighting it is worthwhile.
You completely misunderstand what they’re saying.
The law says employers much check whatever specifics per the rules on the Form I-9 and supporting regulation. That requirement applies exactly equally to citizens and non-citizens. If the applicant can supply the required docs and they look good the applicant can be hired. If not, not.
After all, the only way the employer can tell the difference between a citizen, a non-citizen eligible to work and a non-citizen *not *eligible to work is by looking at those docs. It’s not like citizens have tattoos or implanted chips that show their status a priori. You’re only known to be a citizen after your papers prove you’re a citizen. Equally you’re only known to be a non-citizen eligible to work after your papers prove you’re a non-citizen eligible to work.
This is what’s illegal: After completing the I-9 process the employer goes on to say, “Hmm, your documents show you’re an eligible-to-work non-citizen. Before we’ll hire you we need to conduct a second investigation on the rest of your immigration details. The ones the I-9 process doesn’t ask about. And which, by immigration law, are none of our business. But we want to check anyhow.”
Since of course there are no standards for how that illegal check might be made, it’s open season for companies to decide not to hire any non-citizen for any reason or no reason. “Just in case”. That’s why it was made illegal to do rogue checks.
Or for the employer to say " Hmm, you have an employment authorization card issued by US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Too, bad, we want a Permanent Resident card" . The employer only needs to verify that the person is authorized to work in the US - it doesn’t matter whether he/she is authorized because they are a permanent resident or because they have a non-immigrant visa that allows them to work.
Just like it’s illegal to say " Hmm, you have a driver’s license and a birth certificate both issued by states of the US. Too bad, we want a US passport."
Yup.
All of which are really euphemisms for “Hmmm. You look brown. Sorry, your papers don’t check out. Next!”