Whitman's housekeeper

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
Click to expand...

Except the Government didn't follow up after the inital "letter"

I also posted a blank of that initial "letter" (form) and it specifically says NOT to assume that the immigration status is in question and that terminating an employee based on the "letter" (form) COULD BE a violation of Federal law.

$23/hr? Have you ever heard of such wage for housekeeper?
Click to expand...

Yes I pay mine more actually. ($30/hr)
 
Reba said:
Which she did, and the housekeeper provided.

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

but her husband knew about it

But the handwriting on the letter, Allred said, indicates Whitman's husband was aware that their housekeeper of nine years was in the country illegally.
Click to expand...
 
Jiro said:
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:
Click to expand...
Did I say those were suspicious behaviors? No.

Peering into car windows, following someone, putting a stocking over one's head before entering a convenience store, etc., are suspicious behaviors. Appearance is not a behavior.
 
posts from hell said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that goes right back to the premise that ignorance is no excuse for violating the law. A principle that has been used to determine guilt in our courts numerous times.
 
TXgolfer said:
Except the Government didn't follow up after the inital "letter"

I also posted a blank of that initial "letter" (form) and it specifically says NOT to assume that the immigration status is in question and that terminating an employee based on the "letter" (form) COULD BE a violation of Federal law.



Yes I pay mine more actually. ($30/hr)
Click to expand...

I paid mine 30 an hour too but there wasnt that many hours
 
jillio said:
And that goes right back to the premise that ignorance is no excuse for violating the law. A principle that has been used to determine guilt in our courts numerous times.
Click to expand...

Not really. If i obtained the documents from the person and sent it in, i did my part.
 
Reba said:
Did I say those were suspicious behaviors? No.

Peering into car windows, following someone, putting a stocking over one's head before entering a convenience store, etc., are suspicious behaviors. Appearance is not a behavior.
Click to expand...

suspicious behavior for criminal activity.... not illegal immigration. What would constitutes a "suspicious behavior" for illegal immigration?
 
posts from hell said:
Not really. If i obtained the documents from the person and sent it in, i did my part.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there are numerous judges who disagree with that, and apply the premise if "ignorance is no excuse."
 
jillio said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

You are wrong! As I pointed out the I-9 form states that an employer can not determine which forms of proof they will accept and which they will not.

The DL and SS card come from lists B and C. That an employee can provide ONE doc from list A or a combination of any 2 from lists B and C......But again the employer can not stipulate which docs they will accept.

So an employer following your advice would be violating Federal Law.....It is all very clear in the I-9 instructions which I linked for you.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf
 
Jiro said:
suspicious behavior for criminal activity.... not illegal immigration. What would constitutes a "suspicious behavior" for illegal immigration?
Click to expand...

Looking like someone of another ethnic persuasion, apparently.
 
Reba said:
The letter said it was a mismatch of SSN; it didn't say the documents were forged.
Click to expand...

doesn't matter if it's forged or mismatch or fake. If the paperwork didn't check out - one with reasonable intelligence and common sense especially in that privileged position can easily deduce that this person is most likely an illegal.
 
Jiro said:
doesn't matter if it's forged or mismatch or fake. If the paperwork didn't check out - one with reasonable intelligence and common sense especially in that privileged position can easily deduce that this person is most likely an illegal.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I would certainly be suspicious if an employee I was considering hiring came back with a mismatched SS # on the paperwork.
 
TXgolfer said:
You are wrong! As I pointed out the I-9 form states that an employer can not determine which forms of proof they will accept and which they will not.

The DL and SS card come from lists B and C. That an employee can provide ONE doc from list A or a combination of any 2 from lists B and C......But again the employer can not stipulate which docs they will accept.

So an employer following your advice would be violating Federal Law.....It is all very clear in the I-9 instructions which I linked for you.

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

one simple form for housekeeper to sign - A consent to background check
 
TXgolfer said:
You are wrong! As I pointed out the I-9 form states that an employer can not determine which forms of proof they will accept and which they will not.

The DL and SS card come from lists B and C. That an employee can provide ONE doc from list A or a combination of any 2 from lists B and C......But again the employer can not stipulate which docs they will accept.

So an employer following your advice would be violating Federal Law.....It is all very clear in the I-9 instructions which I linked for you.

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

Nope. Nothing I have stated is in violation of Federal Law.
 
Jiro said:
one simple form for housekeeper to sign - A consent to background check
Click to expand...

And why anyone would hire someone that has access to their home and family without a background check is beyond me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top