Wednesday, September 1, 2010

The Obama War On Arizona

The Obama Regime Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, has filed a series of lawsuits against Arizona and its officials, and has added another lawsuit. This time it is against Arizona community colleges who demanded of job applicants who were aliens that they prove their authorization for employment. The wrinkle here is that there has been a change in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' regulations on documents for aliens authorized to work and no coordination with the Social Security Administration.
The back story:
In Monday's lawsuit, Justice officials said the colleges discriminated against nearly 250 noncitizen job applicants by mandating that they fill out more documents than required by law to prove their eligibility to work. That violated the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, the department said.

The law's anti-discrimination provision "makes it unlawful to treat authorized workers differently during the hiring process based on their citizenship status," said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for Justice's Civil Rights Division. He said the government "is acting now to remedy this pattern or practice of discrimination."
The wrinkle:
The Social Security Adminstration when they issue Social Security Cards to aliens notates those cards as either not authorized for employment or as authorized for employment with USCIS permission (previously annotated as employment authorized only with INS permission). So, no employer could accept the SS card that is annotated without supporting documentation.
The other wrinkle:
Previously, the legacy INS and USCIS did not accept an annotated SS card as proof of employment authorization unless it was accompanied by the legacy INS or USCIS document that provided proof of employment authorization.
Now one of the cases that the DOJ CRD is so excised about:
The lawsuit was filed Tuesday before the Executive Office for Immigration Review, a Justice Department unit that adjudicates immigration cases. It was filed on behalf of Zainul Singaporewalla, a U.S. permanent resident who was offered a math teaching position at Glendale Community College, part of the Maricopa network.

After filling out a federal form attesting to his immigration status and producing a driver's license and Social Security card, he was told to complete another form with more immigration-related information, the lawsuit said.

That form required other documents and his green card. When he couldn't present his green card, the suit said, the college would not process his paperwork and would not let him work.
The first question that should be asked is why Singaporewalla did not have his Form I-551, Alien Registration Card (green card)? There is no reason, other than he had lost it and was waiting for a replacement, but then he would have a receipt for the replacement card application. The receipt is acceptable as temporary proof of legal permanent residence.
Note also that the SS card is required for tax purposes, not as proof of employment authorization. A Form I-551 is proof of identity and work authorization. Why was he so intent on not using it? And why was he walking around without the card? He is required by law to carry it at all times in public.
Add to this the wrinkle that USCIS no longer differentiates between SS cards and annotated SS cards that inform the employer that the holder requires permission from USCIS to work.
Obviously the personnel people at the community college saw a SS card that was annotated and asked for the supporting documents. Now they are being sued for asking for the supporting documents.
Even worse is that the community colleges stopped the above practice in January, but are being sued anyway by the thugs at CRD. And the proposed fine? $1,100.00. To what purpose is this legal action? To harass the people of Arizona? To waste hundreds of thousands of dollars in filing the lawsuit? The CRD has no offices in Arizona so must send attorneys on travel status, incurring tens of thousands of dollars of direct costs, not to mention the indirect costs of the time of the attorneys and support staff.
But there may be a more pernicious motivation. There is a good chance that CRD and USCIS are conspiring to assist illegal aliens to obtain employment. State driver licenses and SS cards are easy to counterfeit, much easier than green cards. DLs and SS cards can easily be purchased at in any city, flea market, or where there are large numbers of illegal aliens. Perhaps the reason Singaporewalla could not or would not present his green card is because he doesn't have one. All of this could have been avoided if he had presented his green card, but he didn't. Very strange. Prehaps this is part of the Obama Regime support for illegal immigration. There certainly is a problem at USCIS. They should not allow the use of a SS card as evidence of employment authorization at all. If an employee cannot present proof of citizenship such as a birth certificate and an identification card, a U.S. passport, or a validly issued employment document issued by DHS then the person should not be employed. A SS card is just for tax payment purposes. In any event, an employer should not be held liable for demanding employment authorization from USCIS if a SS card is annotated as employment not authorized without USCIS authorization.
The other unasked question is why are aliens authorized to work in state government jobs? Since federal jobs are restricted to U.S. citizens, why aren't state jobs?


Nicholas said...


Am I missing something? Perez' rationale (see below) sounds irrelevant to me. It's not the guy's citizenship status that got him into trouble, but his inability or refusal to show that he's a permanent, lawful alien. It sounds to me like Perez is lying about the law, in order to eliminate the distinction between illegal aliens and permanent lawful aliens, in order to impose the lie that it is illegal to require that aliens prove their legal status. Thus, he is seeking to intimidate even public employers out of checking job applicants for green cards.

I realize that you were heading to the same destination, but I just wanted to check and see if you agree with my interpretation of what games Perez is playing with the law.

"The law's anti-discrimination provision 'makes it unlawful to treat authorized workers differently during the hiring process based on their citizenship status,' said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for Justice's Civil Rights Division. He said the government 'is acting now to remedy this pattern or practice of discrimination.'"


Nicholas Stix

Federale said...


Perez is actually completely wrong about the law in his public comment. The law is clear that aliens show different documents from citizens. A citizen would show proof of citizenship, e.g. a passport, officially issued photo ID plus a birth certificate, certificate of citizenship or some other minor documents not normally encountered.

An alien must show different documents: among them Alien Registration Card (ARC), temporary ARC or receipt (valid only 90 days and must show the card then), Employment Authorization Card, or some other minor documents associated with non-immigrants authorized employment.

In fact aliens are treated by the law differently; they show different documents.

I think the case I discussed revolved around a Social Security card that was annotated, restricting employment to those with DHS authorization.

However, the issue would have been mute if the alien in question had present his ARC or temporary ARC.

It is clear to me that the lawsuit is only being used as a political weapon and not based on any pattern and practice that injured any alien.

I even think that there is a good chance that the alien in question is illegal. Or it was a set up from the beginning.