Some comments are below the article:
The DOJ claims that Nebraska Beef Ltd., a Nebraska-based meat packing company, “required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility.”
After receiving pressure from the government, Nebraska Beef agreed to pay $200,000 in a civil penalty settlement and said they will establish an uncapped back pay fund for people who lost wages because they could not prove they are in the country legally.
The settlement also requires the business to undergo compliance monitoring for two years, train employees on the anti-discrimination provision within the Immigration and Nationality Act, and to revise policies within its office.
Judicial Watch reports:
The DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices objected to non-U.S. citizens being “targeted” because of their citizenship status. “The department’s investigation found that the company required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility,” the DOJ claims. This could constitute a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the feds assert, because its anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from making documentary demands based on citizenship or national origin when verifying an employee’s authorization to work.
With the feds breathing down its neck the business, Nebraska Beef Ltd, agreed to pay Uncle Sam a $200,000 civil penalty and establish an uncapped back pay fund to compensate individuals who lost wages because they couldn’t prove they are in the county legally. Additionally, the business will undergo “compliance monitoring,” which means big brother will be watching very closely. The head of the DOJ’s civil rights division explains that the agency is on a mission to eliminate “unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment” so workers can support their families and contribute to the U.S. economy.
The DOJ issued a statement after the settlement saying they committed to protecting individuals against unnecessary discrimination in barriers to employment.
“The department is committed to ensuring that individuals who are authorized to work in the United States can support their families and contribute to our country’s economic growth without facing unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division. “We will vigorously enforce the law to remove such barriers where we find them, and ensure that affected individuals have a means of seeking relief.”
It is a crime in this country to hire anyone here illegally - 8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens
This company, in order to comply with the above law, must seek proper documentation from prospective employees or run the risk of prosecution. So far, so good.
Apparently, what the company did was to ask for proper documentation from those they assumed may not be legally able to work here. As an assumption, I'm guessing they asked said persons who seemed to have significant trouble with the English language. But, they didn't ask EVERYONE for such documentation. Therefore, according to the DOJ, they discriminated.
It is illegal where I live to buy alcohol if you are not at least 21 years of age. I am 72 and look it. So, how often do I get "carded" at a bar or in the grocery store or at any place that sells alcohol? Would the answer NEVER suprise anyone?
Please explain the difference between my analogy and the case discussed above. There isn't any. As an example, the bartender makes an "assumption" that I am at least 21. If he/she is wrong then the bartender and the bar may be found guilty of selling alcohol to a minor. There is no law that I am aware of that requires a bartender to ask EVERY PATRON to prove their age.
Further, where is the law that requires employers to require proof of legality to work from EVERYONE? Can't find that law? I'm not surprised.
Consider: Assume you walk into a place and the first thing you are asked is to prove you are a citizen of the US and/or to prove you have a legal right to work in this Country. No, neither a drivers license nor a social security card would do it. You would need a "certified" birth certificate, not a copy, or a passport. I'm not certain about you, but I don't routinely carry those with me. And, many of us don't have passports and some of us would have to send off to the state in which we were born to get a "certified" birth certificate copy - not an immediate solution, this. It's probably harder than you would think to actually prove that you are in this Country legally.
And, does the DOJ have nothing to do but conduct "witch hunts" on small businesses? There are millions of people here in our Country illegally, there are terrorists coming across our Southern border, black-on-black crime and murder is rampant in our inner cities, and there are cities that openly operate in violation of our immigration laws as do elements of the Federal government.
Overall common sense and leadership in this Country seems to have gone the way of the Neanderthals - bred out of existence.