Majority of Americans want illegals deported

[julessomme]

Hmmm. Target rich environment. An easy one first:

Lol.

The EEOC says otherwise

The EEOC is referring to pre-employment inquiries & actions in relation to employment eligibility verification, which is indeed required under the INA. The reason verification occurs after the job offer is to prevent discrimination against applicants during the hiring & selection process. This does not in any way prevent or inhibit employment eligibility checks.

E-Verify (or a manual I-9) is already mandatory under the law (see 8 USC 1324a) despite your claims to the contrary. If verification fails, a Temporary Nonconfirmation notice (TNC, referred to in the same page you linked) is issued. If, after the appeals process, a Final Nonconfirmation notice is issued, the employer can terminate the employee or inform DHS of their intent/desire to retain the employee.

Simply put, your hypothetical has no basis in fact.

 

[RoryN]

Not gonna acknowledge that the posts I provided qualify for banning?

So now you want people to be banned?

 

[HisArpy]

Hmmm. Target rich environment. An easy one first:

The EEOC is referring to pre-employment inquiries & actions in relation to employment eligibility verification, which is indeed required under the INA. The reason verification occurs after the job offer is to prevent discrimination against applicants during the hiring & selection process. This does not in any way prevent or inhibit employment eligibility checks.

So, by the plain language of the law, and your own admission, an employer cannot verify the status of an applicant BEFORE they're hired.

Which translates in the real world into; you hire the guy THEN you find out his docs are fake. At which point you're screwed because you've employed an illegal alien in violation of the law. Oops.

E-Verify (or a manual I-9) is already mandatory under the law (see 8 USC 1324a) despite your claims to the contrary. If verification fails, a Temporary Nonconfirmation notice (TNC, referred to in the same page you linked) is issued. If, after the appeals process, a Final Nonconfirmation notice is issued, the employer can terminate the employee or inform DHS of their intent/desire to retain the employee.

E- verify isn't mandatory, it's voluntary.

While federal law does not mandate use of E-Verify for non-federal employees, some states have mandated use of E-Verify or similar programs, while others have discouraged the program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Verify

A simple goober search would have turned this up in milliseconds.

Simply put, your hypothetical has no basis in fact.

You wish.

 

[julessomme]

So, by the plain language of the law, and your own admission, an employer cannot verify the status of an applicant BEFORE they're hired.

Which translates in the real world into; you hire the guy THEN you find out his docs are fake. At which point you're screwed because you've employed an illegal alien in violation of the law. Oops.

Verification comes after selection, yes, but is still required by law as explained in the very same link you posted.

EEOC is only concerned with discrimination. The guiding principle is that employers cannot legally, before conducting their hiring process, screen applicants on the basis of their perceived status as foreigners or their national origin. This is because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on that basis (among others).

However...

EEOC is not the arbiter of immigration or compliance with the INA, and employers are required by law to verify employment eligibility and take action if/when verification fails. An employer's hands are not tied. They are not required to retain employees who fail eligibility checks. That's absurd and not supported by the EEOC page you link to or any other government source.

E- verify isn't mandatory, it's voluntary

Please read for comprehension. E-Verify (the website) or an I-9 form - as EEOC noted at the link you provided and that I wrote of - is, in fact, required by law. Wikipedia is not your friend here.

Reference:
1. 8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens (Cornell Law).
2. 8 USC 1324a: Unlawful employment of aliens (actual text).
3. Criminal Resource Manual, 1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses (DoJ)

 

[HisArpy]

Verification comes after selection, yes, but is still required by law as explained in the very same link you posted.

EEOC is only concerned with discrimination. The guiding principle is that employers cannot legally, before conducting their hiring process, screen applicants on the basis of their perceived status as foreigners or their national origin. This is because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on that basis (among others).

However...

EEOC is not the arbiter of immigration or compliance with the INA, and employers are required by law to verify employment eligibility and take action if/when verification fails. An employer's hands are not tied. They are not required to retain employees who fail eligibility checks. That's absurd and not supported by the EEOC page you link to or any other government source.


Please read for comprehension. E-Verify (the website) or an I-9 form - as EEOC noted at the link you provided and that I wrote of - is, in fact, required by law. Wikipedia is not your friend here.

Reference:
1. 8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens (Cornell Law).
2. 8 USC 1324a: Unlawful employment of aliens (actual text).
3. Criminal Resource Manual, 1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses (DoJ)

You're trying to put together an argument based on crumbs that don't stick together.

E-verify isn't mandatory except for Fed jobs. Most States require it, but, and here's the kicker, not every State does.

Which means that in those States, it's not mandatory. And, if it's not mandatory in those States, then it's not mandatory at all. Because it if was actually mandatory for everyone, then those States would also require it.

Logic, it's not your forte.

 

[nowisthetime]

Thanks for another addition to the evidence:

I've noticed it too, they come slithering out their little dusty holes.

They want so badly to think their warped cave man views represent the majority of the American population. I get it, no one wants to feel like they are an outcast.

The OP forgot most Americans see immigration as a good thing.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...igration-have-changed-since-trump-took-office


"About 8 in 10 Americans, 79%, say immigration is "a good thing" for the country today, an increase from 64% a year ago and a high point in the nearly 25-year trend. Only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults say immigration is a bad thing right now, down from 32% last year."


"Almost 9 in 10 U.S. adults, 85%, favor a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, and nearly as many say they favor a path to citizenship for all immigrants in the country illegally as long as they meet certain requirements."

I guarantee you a good number of these magat knuckle draggers bang or marry immigrant women.

 

[RoryN]

Not gonna acknowledge that the posts I provided qualify for banning?

So now you want people to be banned?

(Day 2)

 

[julessomme]

You're trying to put together an argument based on crumbs that don't stick together.

E-verify isn't mandatory except for Fed jobs. Most States require it, but, and here's the kicker, not every State does.

Which means that in those States, it's not mandatory. And, if it's not mandatory in those States, then it's not mandatory at all. Because it if was actually mandatory for everyone, then those States would also require it.

Logic, it's not your forte.

Well, well. I’m out here reading the actual law and applying it at work like a chump, but you’re out there living your truth. I guess I lose. You get on with your bad self, m'kay?

 

[TastySuckToy]

The OP forgot most Americans see immigration as a good thing.

People can be very pro immigration and very anti illegal immigration. They are not mutually exclusive ways of thinking.

Are you deliberately pretending to not understand that, or is your lack of comprehension genuine?

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
your country is well within its rights to forbid refugees from applying for asylum. It is well within its rights to forbid anyone but its citizens to work in its fields, factories and construction sites.

Agreed.

How are these restrictions working out for you? Increasing peace and prosperity?

 

[Wilson23]

People can be very pro immigration and very anti illegal immigration.

That is logically possible, but rarely found in the wild.

 

[HisArpy]

Well, well. I’m out here reading the actual law and applying it at work like a chump, but you’re out there living your truth. I guess I lose. You get on with your bad self, m'kay?

Lol, if you're applying the law at work, the way you say you're doing it, you and the bossman need to lawyer up.

Don't call me, I'm not interested in helping you out of the hole you're digging for yourself.

 

[RoryN]

you and the bossman need to lawyer up.

Don't call me

After all these years, Arpy finally gives out sound legal advice.

 

[HisArpy]

You are ignoring content by this member. Show ignored content

 

[Hel_Books]

TastySuckToy said:
People can be very pro immigration and very anti illegal immigration.

That is logically possible, but rarely found in the wild.

People in the USA usually say that, because almost all of them are the descendants of immigrants and nobody wants to say they're in favour of breaking the law.

In fact, their real views are either like your Orange Julius Caesar (keep out everyone with dark skins or accents, except Afrikaners) or are people who favour fixing the system so refugees can be cared for humanely and immigrants can come in to work and find a path to citizenship without paying off human smugglers.

 

[YDB95]

People can be very pro immigration and very anti illegal immigration. They are not mutually exclusive ways of thinking.

True, but people who are either one are almost always the other as well. Besides, the issue at hand in places like Minneapolis isn't opposition to deporting illegals, it's opposition to the brutal methodology being used, and the fact that it has repeatedly resulted in legal immigrants and even natural-born Americans being deported. But you knew that.

 

[HisArpy]

True, but people who are either one are almost always the other as well. Besides, the issue at hand in places like Minneapolis isn't opposition to deporting illegals, it's opposition to the brutal methodology being used, and the fact that it has repeatedly resulted in legal immigrants and even natural-born Americans being deported. But you knew that.

Well, there are 2 possible solutions to the problem;

1. Stop impeding ICE so they don't have to use force against citizens, and;
2. Start cooperating with ICE by honoring their detainers and turning over illegal immigrants before they get out of jail/prison.

YOUR possible solution, having ICE leave, isn't workable. But you already know that and are going to go with it anyway.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Lefties cannot deal with the actual logic of the argument against illegal immigration.

That's why they desperately try to make it about race, always 'conveniently' forget the illegal part, and pretend they get to decide what others 'really think'.

 

[Wilson23]

That's why they desperately try to make it about race

You know very well it is.
https://forum.literotica.com/thread...f-the-would-be-immigrants-were-white.1649074/

 

[YDB95]

Lefties cannot deal with the actual logic of the argument against illegal immigration.

You're the one pretending it's all about their status, not us.

That's why they desperately try to make it about race, always 'conveniently' forget the illegal part, and pretend they get to decide what others 'really think'.

I don't know or care what you really think. (My best guess is you just like Trump because he cuts taxes on the rich, and the rest is gravy. But that is just an educated guess.) What I do know is, the issue at hand in Minneapolis is not that we don't want illegal immigrants deported, it's the Gestapo tactics being used and the fact that they often result in legal immigrants and citizens also being swept up.

Undocumented immigrants are still human beings with rights, including a right to due process. That is being violated in every way imaginable and a few ways we couldn't have imagined, and that is what we're protesting against.

 

[TastySuckToy]

The other funny fact is that the 'problem' with deporting illegal immigrants seems to be heavily localized around Minneapolis and Minnesota.

Despite the deportation efforts being on a national scale in all states and cities.

Clearly the issue is with the local population there, not the actual deportation forces and tactics.

 

[YDB95]

Clearly the issue is with the local population there, not the actual deportation forces and tactics.

You're partially right, for once. The issue is with the local population, namely that a substantial portion of that population is of Somali descent. Most are either citizens or documented immigrants, but haters gonna hate. Especially when Trump singles them out for hate, as he has done repeatedly with Somali-Americans. So it's partly the fact that the local population is being singled out by racist thugs, but it is also the actual deportation forces and tactics, which have now resulted in two Americans being murdered. How many more?

 

[Wilson23]

The other funny fact is that the 'problem' with deporting illegal immigrants seems to be heavily localized around Minneapolis and Minnesota.

Despite the deportation efforts being on a national scale in all states and cities.

Clearly the issue is with the local population there, not the actual deportation forces and tactics.

Trump sent 3,000 ICE troops into a blue state -- in preference to states with MUCH larger immigrant populations, like Texas. The issue is with HIM.

 

[YDB95]

Trump sent 3,000 ICE troops into a blue state -- in preference to states with MUCH larger immigrant populations, like Texas. The issue is with HIM.

That reminds me: it's not just the Somali-heavy population (although that absolutely is part of it), it's also that Trump has a chip on his shoulder over Gov. Walz.

 

[nowisthetime]

The other funny fact is that the 'problem' with deporting illegal immigrants seems to be heavily localized around Minneapolis and Minnesota.

Despite the deportation efforts being on a national scale in all states and cities.

Clearly the issue is with the local population there, not the actual deportation forces and tactics.

You are so ignorant.

Please crawl ...I mean slither back to the fetish and sexuality forum with that stupid screen name. Nothing tasty about you.

https://imgur.com/a/r4EtJu6

This is blatantly political and you know it.