PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Another Fed Lawsuit?


T-post Tom
09-04-2010, 10:34 AM
WTF? Litigious mf'ers. Maybe it is time to change the name of the "Justice" Department.

Arizona colleges accused of immigrant discrimination
Before this year, Phoenix-area community colleges asked legal immigrants to show a green card before hiring them. The Justice Department calls the policy 'document abuse' and seeks damages.

Employers who hire illegal immigrants can be fined, but the Obama administration warned this week that they also can be fined for asking legal immigrants to show their green cards before hiring them.

The Justice Department's civil rights division sued the Maricopa County Community Colleges in Arizona, seeking damages from schools for having "intentionally committed document abuse discrimination."

Prior to this year, the local colleges in the Phoenix area asked job applicants who were not U.S. citizens to show a driver's license, a Social Security card and their permanent resident card, commonly called a green card.

The Justice Department said a valid driver's license and a Social Security card are usually sufficient to show that a person is authorized to work. Requesting a green card amounts to "immigration-related employment discrimination," said Thomas E. Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights.

Federal law forbids treating "authorized workers differently during the hiring process based on their citizenship status," Perez said. He said the department's Office of Special Counsel would bring legal actions against employers who impose "unnecessary and discriminatory hurdles to employment for work-authorized noncitizens."

Amid the fierce controversy over immigration, the Obama administration has launched three lawsuits this summer to protect the rights of Latinos and legal immigrants — all three targeting Arizona.

In July, the administration successfully blocked Arizona's law that authorized state and local police to check the immigration status of persons who were arrested. On Thursday, it sued Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio seeking documents that could show he has illegally targeted Latinos in the course of his immigration sweeps.

The suit against the Maricopa community colleges, announced Monday, and could affect employers across the nation.

"Employers are getting very mixed messages from the government," said Jessica Vaughan, a policy analyst with the Center for Immigration Studies.

On one hand, employers have been told they need to do more to verify that their workers are legal and authorized to work in the United States. Federal immigration law says hiring "an unauthorized alien" can result in fines of up to $3,000 per worker. However, another provision of the same law bars employers from requesting "more or different documents" than are needed to prove a noncitizen's legal status.

In the Maricopa college case, the Justice Department said it wanted "full remedial relief" for 247 noncitizens who applied for jobs with the community college district between August 2008 and January of this year, plus a civil penalty of $1,100 for each of them.

"We are extremely disappointed by the Justice Department's action. We had no intent to discriminate against any foreign national, and we feel we have been singled out for the maximum penalty under the law," said Charles Reinebold, a spokesman for the community colleges. "There was no actual harm here. This was a paperwork error, and we revised it after it was brought to our attention."

Vaughan said she was "very surprised the administration would resort to a lawsuit. In the past, the emphasis has been on mediation to resolve these issues."

But others applauded the administration's move to enforce the anti-discrimination parts of the immigration law.

Gening Liao, a lawyer for the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, said the law itself is clear.

"If you bring in a driver's license and a Social Security card, those documents are sufficient. Employers are prohibited from asking for extra documents or different documents," she said. "This is blatant discrimination, and we get calls about it all the time. We hope to see more lawsuits like this."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immigration-employers-20100904,0,5792545.story

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 10:36 AM
Disgusting. This is why we need nullification and return to Constitutional principals. This is a state right.

Bwana
09-04-2010, 10:56 AM
:facepalm:

Wow

Dear feds, FUCK OFF!

XOXOXO

The majority of the people who vote.

Taco John
09-04-2010, 11:10 AM
I wonder if they're going to start fire bombing Arizona soon like Waco...

Saul Good
09-04-2010, 11:12 AM
WWJRD? (What would Janet Reno do)

Bwana
09-04-2010, 11:13 AM
I wonder if they're going to start fire bombing Arizona soon like Waco...

Perhaps, but my guess is, they plan to go the Ruby Ridge route. :shake:

petegz28
09-04-2010, 06:19 PM
So let me get this straight, it's illegal to hire illegals, but it's illegal to have people prove they are legal before the hire them?

W
T
F
?

petegz28
09-04-2010, 06:23 PM
I think it is safe to say Obama has pretty much ruined any chance of winning Arizona. And he is consistently spitting in the face of American's who think people should actually follow the law.

Norman Einstein
09-04-2010, 06:44 PM
The law only applies to areas he feels important. None of which the mainstream Americans feel are important.

2bikemike
09-05-2010, 02:14 PM
Sounds like total BS to me. The Fed Govt requires form I-9 for every employee. The instructions clearly list the Green Card has an Id. In fact it is #2 on the list.

orange
09-05-2010, 02:54 PM
Sounds like total BS to me. The Fed Govt requires form I-9 for every employee. The instructions clearly list the Green Card has an Id. In fact it is #2 on the list.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf

Anti-Discrimination Notice. It is illegal to discriminate against any individual (other than an alien not authorized to work in the United States) on hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee because of that individual's national origin or citizenship status. It is illegal to discriminate against work-authorized individuals. Employers CANNOT specify which document(s) they will accept from an employee.


In a big black box right at the very start of I-9. Can no one in Arizona read?

Clearly, the Feds are Fed up with Maricopa's bullshit.

"We are extremely disappointed by the Justice Department's action. We had no intent to discriminate against any foreign national, and we feel we have been singled out for the maximum penalty under the law," said Charles Reinebold, a spokesman for the community colleges. "There was no actual harm here."

That's an admission that they were violating the law. It's also a revelation - they don't think discrimination is "actual harm."

HonestChieffan
09-05-2010, 04:04 PM
is an illegal authorized to work if he/she/it/whatever has not yet been hired?

patteeu
09-05-2010, 05:50 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf

Anti-Discrimination Notice. It is illegal to discriminate against any individual (other than an alien not authorized to work in the United States) on hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee because of that individual's national origin or citizenship status. It is illegal to discriminate against work-authorized individuals. Employers CANNOT specify which document(s) they will accept from an employee.


In a big black box right at the very start of I-9. Can no one in Arizona read?

Clearly, the Feds are Fed up with Maricopa's bullshit.

"We are extremely disappointed by the Justice Department's action. We had no intent to discriminate against any foreign national, and we feel we have been singled out for the maximum penalty under the law," said Charles Reinebold, a spokesman for the community colleges. "There was no actual harm here."

That's an admission that they were violating the law. It's also a revelation - they don't think discrimination is "actual harm."

It's not discrimination to ask for the document.

orange
09-05-2010, 07:09 PM
It's not discrimination to ask for the document.

Yes, it is.

You can only ask for "authorization." Which documents are provided is up to the prospective employee. It's ALL right there on the I-9 pdf.

And Arizona is not being "singled out." This is the second suit like this Justice Dept. has filed this year. The Bush administration didn't do it, but the marshall is back in town.

While the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for policing employers who hire unauthorized workers, the Justice Department is committed to enforcing provisions of the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act that prohibit employers from imposing different employment eligibility verification standards on noncitizens than on citizens, said Alejandro Miyar, a spokesman for the department.

Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a statement: “Every individual who is authorized to work in this country has the right to know they will be free from discrimination as they look for a job, and that they will be on the same playing field as every other applicant or worker.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/nyregion/17johnjay.html

This thread is just funny. The spokesman for Maricopa Comm. Colleges ADMITS they were in violation, yet CPers "know" otherwise.

orange
09-05-2010, 07:21 PM
is an illegal authorized to work if he/she/it/whatever has not yet been hired?

Illegals are not authorized to work.

This lawsuit is about LEGAL immigrants.

What is there about the word "LEGAL" you don't understand?

patteeu
09-05-2010, 08:21 PM
Yes, it is.

You can only ask for "authorization." Which documents are provided is up to the prospective employee. It's ALL right there on the I-9 pdf.

And Arizona is not being "singled out." This is the second suit like this Justice Dept. has filed this year. The Bush administration didn't do it, but the marshall is back in town.

While the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for policing employers who hire unauthorized workers, the Justice Department is committed to enforcing provisions of the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act that prohibit employers from imposing different employment eligibility verification standards on noncitizens than on citizens, said Alejandro Miyar, a spokesman for the department.

Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a statement: “Every individual who is authorized to work in this country has the right to know they will be free from discrimination as they look for a job, and that they will be on the same playing field as every other applicant or worker.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/nyregion/17johnjay.html

This thread is just funny. The spokesman for Maricopa Comm. Colleges ADMITS they were in violation, yet CPers "know" otherwise.

I didn't say it's allowable. I said it's not discrimination and it isn't. It's against the rules, but it's not discrimination unless you use the information that you get from the response to the request to *discriminate*. If you ask everyone for either a birth certificate or a green card, you're treating everyone the same. If you treat everyone who provides either a birth certificate or a green card the same, you're not discriminating. That's why they're right when they say there's no "actual harm".

HonestChieffan
09-05-2010, 09:48 PM
Illegals are not authorized to work.

This lawsuit is about LEGAL immigrants.

What is there about the word "LEGAL" you don't understand?

So...asking for the green card is not allowed to prove they have a green card?

petegz28
09-05-2010, 10:08 PM
Illegals are not authorized to work.

This lawsuit is about LEGAL immigrants.

What is there about the word "LEGAL" you don't understand?

hmm, good question. What is it about the world LEGAL the Feds don't understand as they support ILLEGAL immigration on a daily basis?

T-post Tom
09-05-2010, 10:11 PM
Yes, it is.

You can only ask for "authorization." Which documents are provided is up to the prospective employee. It's ALL right there on the I-9 pdf.

And Arizona is not being "singled out." This is the second suit like this Justice Dept. has filed this year. The Bush administration didn't do it, but the marshall is back in town.

While the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for policing employers who hire unauthorized workers, the Justice Department is committed to enforcing provisions of the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act that prohibit employers from imposing different employment eligibility verification standards on noncitizens than on citizens, said Alejandro Miyar, a spokesman for the department.

Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a statement: “Every individual who is authorized to work in this country has the right to know they will be free from discrimination as they look for a job, and that they will be on the same playing field as every other applicant or worker.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/nyregion/17johnjay.html

This thread is just funny. The spokesman for Maricopa Comm. Colleges ADMITS they were in violation, yet CPers "know" otherwise.

Maybe it's time to change the rules. Especially since the employers are NOT trying to discriminate and are also trying to avoid the fines of hiring illegals.

It's important to note that as of 2008, AZ had the highest incidence of identity theft. And 33% of that was due to illegal immigration and employment. Nationally, 15% of identity theft is due to illegal immigration and employment.

It's also interesting that the Feds choose to litigate this instead of finding a more prudent, less confrontational and cost-effective resolution.

Are you willing to acknowledge this? Or are you just taking a position?

orange
09-05-2010, 11:54 PM
It's also interesting that the Feds choose to litigate this instead of finding a more prudent, less confrontational and cost-effective resolution.

Are you willing to acknowledge this? Or are you just taking a position?

They have been in negotiations since January, but they're going nowhere - just like the "negotiations" with Arpaio, who was also sued this week.

"Less confrontational" - tell that to the people who filed the complaints. There are 247 victims who are going to be paid damages. That's my position.

T-post Tom
09-05-2010, 11:57 PM
They have been in negotiations since January, but they're going nowhere - just like the "negotiations" with Arpaio, who was also sued this week.

"Less confrontational" - tell that to the people who filed the complaints. There are 247 victims who are going to be paid damages. That's my position.

Victims? Please, lets not devalue the meaning. Save it for the real victims of the world.

orange
09-05-2010, 11:58 PM
I said it's not discrimination and it isn't. It's against the rules, but it's not discrimination unless you use the information that you get from the response to the request to *discriminate*.

It IS discrimination as defined by the law. It's not "against the rules" - it's against the law.

Arizona can't seem to figure that out any better than you can. THEY are going to be paying fines and damages as a result.

orange
09-05-2010, 11:59 PM
Victims? Please, lets not devalue the meaning. Save it for the real victims of the world.

See above:

they don't think discrimination is "actual harm."

Apparently you don't, either. But...

It IS discrimination as defined by the law. It's not "against the rules" - it's against the law.

Arizona can't seem to figure that out any better than you can. THEY are going to be paying fines and damages as a result.

orange
09-06-2010, 12:04 AM
Especially since the employers are NOT trying to discriminate

Oh really? That's kind of what the lawsuit is all about, isn't it?

The Justice Department's civil rights division sued the Maricopa County Community Colleges in Arizona, seeking damages from schools for having "intentionally committed document abuse discrimination."

T-post Tom
09-06-2010, 12:05 AM
See above:



Apparently you don't, either. But...

You're going in circles. And why even mention Arpaio? He's not related to this case. Guilt by association?

T-post Tom
09-06-2010, 12:06 AM
Oh really? That's kind of what the lawsuit is all about, isn't it?

That's the claim. Has a judge ruled on it?

orange
09-06-2010, 12:07 AM
You're going in circles. And why even mention Arpaio? He's not related to this case. Guilt by association?

Did you bother to read your own OP?

In July, the administration successfully blocked Arizona's law that authorized state and local police to check the immigration status of persons who were arrested. On Thursday, it sued Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio seeking documents that could show he has illegally targeted Latinos in the course of his immigration sweeps.

They're certainly related. They're all of one piece.

orange
09-06-2010, 12:09 AM
That's the claim. Has a judge ruled on it?

Already answered.

Oh really? That's kind of what the lawsuit is all about, isn't it?

T-post Tom
09-06-2010, 12:20 AM
Did you bother to read your own OP?
They're certainly related. They're all of one piece.

No they are not. In a news article reporting background info, yes. In a debate on the merits of the specific lawsuit vs. the colleges, no. There's a difference.

A judge has not ruled on this case.

The colleges stopped asking for the additional info back in January. The current crop of folks at the Justice Department are using all of this as a political tool. Very sad.

patteeu
09-06-2010, 07:50 AM
It IS discrimination as defined by the law. It's not "against the rules" - it's against the law.

Arizona can't seem to figure that out any better than you can. THEY are going to be paying fines and damages as a result.

It isn't even discrimination as defined by the law. Let's not get sidetracked on "rules" vs. "law" semantics. I'm not disputing that part of your argument. The law is presumably in place to prevent the type of discrimination that would be made possible by requiring people to show a green card (if they have one), but that doesn't mean that any discrimination has taken place just because the request has been made.

Analogy: Asking a job applicant if they are gay or straight isn't discrimination, but deciding to hire only gay people would be. You can pass a law against asking this question, but that doesn't make asking the question discrimination. It just makes asking it illegal.

patteeu
09-06-2010, 07:52 AM
It's good to see T-post Tom on the right side of an issue. It's par for the course to see orange overflowing with wrongness. :)

orange
09-06-2010, 11:05 AM
The actual complaint:


http://www.justice.gov/crt/osc/pdf/publications/MaricopaCmpl.pdf

"the Form"

LOL

*sniff sniff* - Is that Arizona I spell burning?

CoMoChief
09-06-2010, 12:02 PM
ROFL wtf?????

Employers who hire illegal immigrants can be fined, but the Obama administration warned this week that they also can be fined for asking legal immigrants to show their green cards before hiring them.

So either way employers are fucked? Or are they just supposed to hire illegals and "hope" they're in legal status of being here w/ proper ID etc.

This BO admin is a fucking god damn joke.

Amnorix
09-07-2010, 08:24 AM
It's not discrimination to ask for the document.

Right, but "the document" is license and social security card.

Just as a prospective employer cannot ask you for a birth certificate, they can't ask someone else for a green card.

If it's a big deal, then change the law, but the law doesn't seem THAT difficult to understand.

Amnorix
09-07-2010, 08:26 AM
I do agree with Pat that it's not "discrimination" however. Document discrimination....? :spock:

ROYC75
09-07-2010, 09:25 AM
Leave it to our POTUS, his administration to be double tongued.

They just do not know what they are doing, it's just that simple.

orange
09-07-2010, 10:42 AM
The Justice Department's civil rights division sued the Maricopa County Community Colleges in Arizona, seeking damages from schools for having "intentionally committed document abuse discrimination."



TYPES OF DISCRIMINATION

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices ("OSC") investigates charges of job discrimination related to an individual's immigration status or national origin.

The three categories of discrimination are:


Citizenship status discrimination--when individuals are rejected for employment or fired because they are or are not U.S. citizens or because of their immigration status or type of work authorization. U.S. citizens, permanent residents, temporary residents, asylees and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination.

National origin discrimination--when individuals are rejected for employment or fired based on their place of birth, country of origin, ancestry, native language, accent or because they are perceived as looking or sounding "foreign." All work authorized individuals are protected from national origin discrimination. OSC has this jurisdiction over smaller employers, not covered by the EEOC.

Document abuse discrimination--when employers request more or different documents than are required to verify employment eligibility and identity, reject reasonably genuine-looking documents or specify certain documents over others. All work authorized individuals are protected from document abuse.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/osc/htm/types.htm


Don't some of the posters here claim to be lawyers?

orange
09-07-2010, 10:50 AM
LMAO

HonestChieffan
09-07-2010, 10:56 AM
Final proof that the devil has entered our system and this sort of thing will destroy the very fabric of society. My God My God what has happened to simple decency and morals? Shame. The shame we should all feel. Take to the streets. Demand this be changed . For horror. I weep.

orange
09-07-2010, 11:10 AM
Types of Employment Discrimination Prohibited Under the INA

Document Abuse
Discriminatory documentary practices related to verifying the employment authorization and identity of employees during Form I-9 process is called document abuse. Document abuse occurs when employers treat individuals differently on the basis of national origin or citizenship status in Form I-9 process. Document abuse can be broadly categorized into four types of conduct:

1. . Improperly requesting that employees produce more documents than are required by Form I-9 to establish the employee’s identity and employment authorization;

2. . Improperly requesting that employees present a particular document, such as a “green card,” to establish
identity and/or employment authorization;

3. . Improperly rejecting documents that reasonably appear to be genuine and belong to the employee presenting them; and

4. . Improperly treating groups of applicants differently
when completing Form I-9, such as requiring certain groups of employees who look or sound “foreign” to produce particular documents the employer does not require other employees to produce.

These practices may constitute unlawful document abuse and should be avoided when verifying employment authorization. All employment-authorized individuals are protected against this type of discrimination. The INA’s provision against document abuse covers employers with 4 or more employees.

Handbook for Employers
Instructions for Completing Form I-9
(Employment Eligibility Verification Form) (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/m-274.pdf)

orange
09-07-2010, 11:13 AM
Leave it to our POTUS, his administration to be double tongued.

Final proof that the devil has entered our system and this sort of thing will destroy the very fabric of society. My God My God what has happened to simple decency and morals? Shame. The shame we should all feel. Take to the streets. Demand this be changed . For horror. I weep.

The law was passed in 1986 during the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION. It was amended in 1996 requiring a higher level of proof to sanction employers. But the activities Maricopa Comm. College engaged in have been illegal for 24 years.

p.s. BEFORE the law was passed in 1986, employers could hire illegal aliens at will.

HonestChieffan
09-07-2010, 11:20 AM
Praise the lord the evil is exposed to the bright light of freedom and good.

patteeu
09-07-2010, 11:32 AM
Right, but "the document" is license and social security card.

Just as a prospective employer cannot ask you for a birth certificate, they can't ask someone else for a green card.

If it's a big deal, then change the law, but the law doesn't seem THAT difficult to understand.

What is so hard to understand about what I've been saying? I'm not, nor have I ever been, disputing that this is against the law. I'm disputing orange's position that merely asking for a green card is discrimination. It's not discrimination to ask for a green card or for a birth certificate.

patteeu
09-07-2010, 11:37 AM
TYPES OF DISCRIMINATION

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices ("OSC") investigates charges of job discrimination related to an individual's immigration status or national origin.

The three categories of discrimination are:


Citizenship status discrimination--when individuals are rejected for employment or fired because they are or are not U.S. citizens or because of their immigration status or type of work authorization. U.S. citizens, permanent residents, temporary residents, asylees and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination.

National origin discrimination--when individuals are rejected for employment or fired based on their place of birth, country of origin, ancestry, native language, accent or because they are perceived as looking or sounding "foreign." All work authorized individuals are protected from national origin discrimination. OSC has this jurisdiction over smaller employers, not covered by the EEOC.

Document abuse discrimination--when employers request more or different documents than are required to verify employment eligibility and identity, reject reasonably genuine-looking documents or specify certain documents over others. All work authorized individuals are protected from document abuse.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/osc/htm/types.htm


Don't some of the posters here claim to be lawyers?

Perhaps you've forgotten that this started with the statement quoted in the article that no harm had been done. "Document abuse discrimination" is not something that harms someone on it's own. It's written into the law to avoid the potential harm of "citizenship status discrimination" or "national origin discrimination" that might take place if an employer asks for the prohibited documents. Yes, it's discrimination as to what document is being requested, and yes it's illegal, but no, it's not harmful discrimination against actual people. "No actual harm", check.

orange
09-07-2010, 11:44 AM
"No actual harm", check.

The complainant - Zainul Singaporewalla - was refused a job because he did not comply with this ILLEGAL requirement. ACTUAL HARM.

It is also ACTUAL HARM to require people to jump through hoops due to profiling, but I don't expect a Birther to understand this.

p.s. Oh, I was wrong in a previous post - I said Justice Dept. has filed one other similar suit this year; in fact, it's at least three others, including a settlement already by Macy's in Orlando. http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/emergingissues/blogs/focusonimmigration/archive/2010/07/09/justice-department-files-a-lawsuit-alleging-non-citizen-authorized-workers-employment-discrimination-by-georgia-rug-manufacturer-and-seller.aspx

I was right, though, when I said the Marshall's back in town.

http://rlv.zcache.com/new_sheriff_in_town_mousepad-p144054733809644225trak_400.jpg

Amnorix
09-07-2010, 11:54 AM
What is so hard to understand about what I've been saying? I'm not, nor have I ever been, disputing that this is against the law. I'm disputing orange's position that merely asking for a green card is discrimination. It's not discrimination to ask for a green card or for a birth certificate.

Right, which is why I said "right" before.

Though the pattern of how/when emplyoers do what they do could indeed be discriminatory. If employers ONLY asked those of hispanic origin for green cards, then what is the conduct going on here? That may well be discriminatory conduct. I frankly am not sufficiently familiar with anti-discrimination laws to be certain but if the reason for doing something otherwise legal (i.e. firing someone) is predicated solely on their race, then the otherwise legal conduct itself may be deemed illegally discriminatory, right?

vailpass
09-07-2010, 11:54 AM
obama is so fucking tone deaf it is hard to believe. Bring on the general elections, bring on the presidential elections.

vailpass
09-07-2010, 11:55 AM
The complainant - Zainul Singaporewalla - was refused a job because he did not comply with this ILLEGAL requirement. ACTUAL HARM.

It is also ACTUAL HARM to require people to jump through hoops due to profiling, but I don't expect a Birther to understand this.

p.s. Oh, I was wrong in a previous post - I said Justice Dept. has filed one other similar suit this year; in fact, it's at least three others, including a settlement already by Macy's in Orlando. http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/emergingissues/blogs/focusonimmigration/archive/2010/07/09/justice-department-files-a-lawsuit-alleging-non-citizen-authorized-workers-employment-discrimination-by-georgia-rug-manufacturer-and-seller.aspx

I was right, though, when I said the Marshall's back in town.

http://rlv.zcache.com/new_sheriff_in_town_mousepad-p144054733809644225trak_400.jpg


obama as a Marshall? LMAO
I like his red horse...

orange
09-07-2010, 12:03 PM
tone deaf

tone deaf === enforcing the law

vailpass
09-07-2010, 12:09 PM
tone deaf === enforcing the law

Enjoy it while it lasts Orange, your time grows shorter.

Bwana
09-07-2010, 12:12 PM
I was right, though, when I said the Marshall's back in town.

http://rlv.zcache.com/new_sheriff_in_town_mousepad-p144054733809644225trak_400.jpg

The Marshall my ass. LMAO

More like the limp nipple.


http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06_16/obama_bike.jpg

fan4ever
09-07-2010, 12:23 PM
A point that's not being discussed is that the community colleges here, from what I understand, are hurting for enrollment; I really doubt they are trying to circumvent the law in order to keep those darn illegals out of their colleges...don't want their money? :hmmm:

go bowe
09-07-2010, 12:23 PM
Enjoy it while it lasts Orange, your time grows shorter.your time grows shorter?

are you turning into sara palin now?

how 'bout a reference to 'reload', or 'in the crosshairs'?

as far as the upcoming elections, the republicans should regain control of the house and reduce the democrat majority in the senate...

but b/c of the elections, the democrats have i admit it's a comb over lost control of the house already in terms of getting any new legislation passed, but they might try anyway (like the infrastructure legislation)...

go bowe
09-07-2010, 12:25 PM
The Marshall my ass. LMAO

More like the limp nipple.


http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06_16/obama_bike.jpgbiden looks kinda cool in the hat...

obama, not so much...

orange
09-07-2010, 12:26 PM
A point that's not being discussed is that the community colleges here, from what I understand, are hurting for enrollment; I really doubt they are trying to circumvent the law in order to keep those darn illegals out of their colleges...don't want their money? :hmmm:

This involves employees - not students.

Although there have certainly been plenty of colleges historically who have turned away potential students due to discrimination in spite of those potential students' money.

orange
09-07-2010, 12:27 PM
your time grows shorter?

are you turning into sara palin now?

how 'bout a reference to 'reload', or 'in the crosshairs'?

as far as the upcoming elections, the republicans should regain control of the house and reduce the democrat majority in the senate...

but b/c of the elections, the democrats have i admit it's a comb over lost control of the house already in terms of getting any new legislation passed, but they might try anyway (like the infrastructure legislation)...

Sara - vailpass - Will

All great wordsmiths. Birds of a quill pen.

vailpass
09-07-2010, 12:30 PM
your time grows shorter?

are you turning into sara palin now?
how 'bout a reference to 'reload', or 'in the crosshairs'?

as far as the upcoming elections, the republicans should regain control of the house and reduce the democrat majority in the senate...

but b/c of the elections, the democrats have i admit it's a comb over lost control of the house already in terms of getting any new legislation passed, but they might try anyway (like the infrastructure legislation)...

Huh? I don't listen to a word that numb twat says so don't get your reference.

I'm just counting the days until America can wipe the dog shit we stepped in a couple of Novembers ago off our collective shoe.

orange
09-07-2010, 12:32 PM
Whatever makes you feel better Orange. I'm just counting the days until America can wipe the dog shit we stepped in a couple of Novembers ago off our collective shoe.

I'M IN YOUR HEAD!

:evil:

vailpass
09-07-2010, 12:33 PM
I'M IN YOUR HEAD!

:evil:

I was giving goBowe shit by calling him "Orange" but thought better of it. He's one of the good guys, didn't want him to think I was insulting him. :D

go bowe
09-07-2010, 01:14 PM
Huh? I don't listen to a word that numb twat says so don't get your reference.

I'm just counting the days until America can wipe the dog shit we stepped in a couple of Novembers ago off our collective shoe.man, i hate it when i get dog shit in my treads (sneakers)...

it's really hard to get off...

as far as sara, she says things that can be interpreted as referencing the shooting of opposition political leaders, they're "in the crosshairs", "reload", etc.

patteeu
09-07-2010, 01:16 PM
The complainant - Zainul Singaporewalla - was refused a job because he did not comply with this ILLEGAL requirement. ACTUAL HARM.

It is also ACTUAL HARM to require people to jump through hoops due to profiling, but I don't expect a Birther to understand this.



That's self-inflicted harm, not harm from being discriminated against. This is a reasonable, if not legal, effort to appropriately discriminate against people who aren't legally here. What it's not is any kind of harmful discrimination against people who are legally here.

Who's the Birther you're talking about?

go bowe
09-07-2010, 01:16 PM
I was giving goBowe shit by calling him "Orange" but thought better of it. He's one of the good guys, didn't want him to think I was insulting him. :Dwhy thank, thank you very much /elvis
:toast: :toast: :toast:

patteeu
09-07-2010, 01:19 PM
Right, which is why I said "right" before.

Though the pattern of how/when emplyoers do what they do could indeed be discriminatory. If employers ONLY asked those of hispanic origin for green cards, then what is the conduct going on here? That may well be discriminatory conduct. I frankly am not sufficiently familiar with anti-discrimination laws to be certain but if the reason for doing something otherwise legal (i.e. firing someone) is predicated solely on their race, then the otherwise legal conduct itself may be deemed illegally discriminatory, right?

Sure, but the question that orange and I were debating, at least afaic, is whether there is any actual harm, not whether it can or can not be deemed illegal discrimination.

orange
09-07-2010, 01:33 PM
That's self-inflicted harm, not harm from being discriminated against.

This is simply laughable. "It's his fault, your honor! He shouldn't have bought a house with windows if he didn't want me to break in!"

This is a reasonable, if not legal, effort to appropriately discriminate against people who aren't legally here. What it's not is any kind of harmful discrimination against people who are legally here.

Having to supply extra documentation that other people don't have to - that IS ACTUAL HARM. Like a "long form birth certificate."

You obviously don't agree.

The LAW does.

Who's the Birther you're talking about?

You.

The document that's been released isn't the document people are calling for him to release. Saying that he's already released document A when people are calling for the release of document B is irrelevant. It's no more complicated than that.


He is blocking something. You just don't want to talk about it for some reason.

and many more.

orange
09-07-2010, 01:58 PM
Sure, but the question that orange and I were debating, at least afaic, is whether there is any actual harm, not whether it can or can not be deemed illegal discrimination.

Aside from this philosophical issue, in this case there is also fraud involved - the PHONY "tax form" and misrepresentations that the Feds required it. In addition to the Federal action, Singaporewalla seems in my mind to have a real good chance of collecting sizable real and punitive damages - as well as anyone else who's been turned away/fired as a result.

The question Arizonans should be asking is "who authorized this incredible waste of our tax dollars?"

HonestChieffan
09-07-2010, 02:34 PM
I hope they seek death for the evil ones who did this. Stoning.

patteeu
09-07-2010, 11:19 PM
This is simply laughable. "It's his fault, your honor! He shouldn't have bought a house with windows if he didn't want me to break in!"

Your analogy is laughable.

Having to supply extra documentation that other people don't have to - that IS ACTUAL HARM. Like a "long form birth certificate."

You obviously don't agree.

The LAW does.

You're right, I don't agree. And I don't agree that the law magically makes non-harm into harm. We're talking about real harm here, not the "deemed harm" that you seem to be clinging to.



You.



and many more.

I'm not a birther. That's just another thing you're wrong about in this thread.