Whitman's housekeeper

[Jiro]

Initially asking, perhaps. But once the applicant states that she is "legal" and shows documentation, then the employer can't continue to question the applicant about status.

Interesting that Whitman is taken to task for not questioning her housekeeper but Arizona policemen are taken to task for questioning people incident to their having broken laws.

here's a prime difference. What police officer did was illegal. What Whitman could have done is exactly what any other corporations do.

Examples:

ILLEGAL: Are you US citizen?
LEGAL: "Would you be able to provide proof of authorization to work in US?"

ILLEGAL: How long have you lived here?
LEGAL: What is your current location and phone number?

ILLEGAL: Have you ever been arrested?
LEGAL: Have you ever been convicted of -----?

 

[Reba]

here's a prime difference. What police officer did was illegal. What Whitman could have done is exactly what any other corporations do.

Examples:

ILLEGAL: Are you US citizen?
LEGAL: "Would you be able to provide proof of authorization to work in US?"

ILLEGAL: How long have you lived here?
LEGAL: What is your current location and phone number?

ILLEGAL: Have you ever been arrested?
LEGAL: Have you ever been convicted of -----?

From what legal source did you get those examples?

 

[Jiro]

From what legal source did you get those examples?

any employment paper and human resource

Google

 

[Reba]

any employment paper and human resource

Google

It seems according to those sites that Whitman went as far as she could with ascertaining the housekeeper's status for legally working in the US.

 

[Jiro]

It seems according to those sites that Whitman went as far as she could with ascertaining the housekeeper's status for legally working in the US.

what did she do?

 

[TXgolfer]

not really. I thought you would know better especially especially in your line of work.

I know exactly what must be asked.......I have sent in many I-9 forms.

Reba was pointing out the incongruent thinking in expecting employers to ask job seekers for more information while expecting LEOs to ask people breaking the law for less info.

 

[TXgolfer]

what did she do?

She has an I-9 form and copies of IDs. The links are in this thread.

 

[Jiro]

I know exactly what must be asked.......I have sent in many I-9 forms.

Reba was pointing out the incongruent thinking in expecting employers to ask job seekers for more information while expecting LEOs to ask people breaking the law for less info.

1. Employers are not out there, alienating people by interrogating and arresting the people
2. People VOLUNTARILY come to employers and VOLUNTARILY provide their proper work document
3. Many employers conveniently turn a blind eye on obvious thing despite of paperwork

 

[Reba]

1. Employers are not out there, alienating people by interrogating and arresting the people....

I'm sure all criminals find the police to be "alienating" when they got caught doing wrong. :roll:

If a person is doing something illegal or behaving in a suspicious manner, then he should expect to be interrogated and arrested.

 

[TXgolfer]

1. Employers are not out there, alienating people by interrogating and arresting the people

LEOs are not out there to alienate people either....

Unless one is uncooperative or dishonest an interrogation is usually shorter and less painful than a job interview

2. People VOLUNTARILY come to employers and VOLUNTARILY provide their proper work document

No, workers are required to give their paperwork by law if they wish to be employed.

3. Many employers conveniently turn a blind eye on obvious thing despite of paperwork

Perhaps you should read the instructions for the I-9 form. There is only so much employers can ask. If you don't like it change the law.

 

[jillio]

The standard IS the law. The government says you must do "these things" to verify that the employee is permited to work in the US.....she did them.....she's complied with the law....period. Otherwise what would be the purpose of collecting 2 IDs and an I-9 form.....

Not always. The interpretation of the law, or the application of the law is more often the standard.

 

[jillio]

Initially asking, perhaps. But once the applicant states that she is "legal" and shows documentation, then the employer can't continue to question the applicant about status.

Interesting that Whitman is taken to task for not questioning her housekeeper but Arizona policemen are taken to task for questioning people incident to their having broken laws.

She can ask for documentation.

 

[jillio]

I'm sure all criminals find the police to be "alienating" when they got caught doing wrong. :roll:

If a person is doing something illegal or behaving in a suspicious manner, then he should expect to be interrogated and arrested.

Getting caught doing wrong, and being continually stopped and questioned based of physical appearance are two very separate things. Racial profiling does occur, and until you have been subjected to it, you fail to understand the implications of the practice.

 

[TXgolfer]

Not always. The interpretation of the law, or the application of the law is more often the standard.

Perhaps you should READ the form.

She can ask for documentation.

Really? So you are saying that if the employee signs the I-9 form, provides a DL and a SS card she can STILL ask for documentation????

 

[Jiro]

I'm sure all criminals find the police to be "alienating" when they got caught doing wrong. :roll:

yea especially to those American-born citizens who look like illegals :roll:

I'd feel alienated and discriminated if the officer pulled me over for speeding and then asked me if I'm an illegal :roll:

If a person is doing something illegal or behaving in a suspicious manner, then he should expect to be interrogated and arrested.

behaving in a suspicious manner? great... a discrimination simply because he's not a Caucasian or he looks like a hobo or he speaks bad English. great :roll:

beside... the current law already allowed LEO to check for immigration status after the crime has been committed.

 

[Jiro]

No, workers are required to give their paperwork by law if they wish to be employed.

yes but employers are not ORDERING them to submit the paperwork. They are free to walk away if they do not wish to submit their paperwork.

Perhaps you should read the instructions for the I-9 form. There is only so much employers can ask. If you don't like it change the law.

I'm confused by your previous posts....

As I have stated before.....that really doesn't help much.

It takes months....or at least it did 2 years ago.....doubt it's changed. You can of course run their credit and this will catch fake cards but not stolen cards.

but.. it DID help. The article in OP said - her SSN document did not match with her name.... therefore she was fired. and... she was employed for what? 9 years? and.... $23/hr? Have you ever heard of such wage for housekeeper?

 

[jillio]

Perhaps you should READ the form.




Really? So you are saying that if the employee signs the I-9 form, provides a DL and a SS card she can STILL ask for documentation????

I do read the forum. Must you continually make ad hominem attacks?
Yes.

 

[Reba]

She can ask for documentation.

Which she did, and the housekeeper provided.

It's not up to the employer to know that it was forged.

 

[jillio]

Which she did, and the housekeeper provided.

It's not up to the employer to know that it was forged.

False documentation. Someone of Whitman's position could not see suspicious documentation when it is presented?

 

[posts from hell]

False documentation. Someone of Whitman's position could not see suspicious documentation when it is presented?

I wouldnt be surprised. They don't deal with that stuff on a daily basis. I wouldn't be well aware of what is real and false.