Trump 2016 Or Hillary?
- Thread starter WhiteGuyintoThis
- Start date
tunnels dummy! tunnels!
Most are ******* tunnels funded and dug by the cartels so its not like a lot of regular immigrants even know where they are.
you really can't be that stupid.... they use those tunnels for whatever pays!
ever hear of this law?.... ever see it enforced?... of course not we can't hurt the biz community!
Penalty for hiring undocumented workers
$1,600
You may be subject to civil and criminal penalties for hiring undocumented immigrant workers. Civil penalties range from a minimum of $375 per unauthorized worker for a first offense up to a maximum of $1,600 per worker for a third or subsequent offense.
Before 1986, employers didn’t risk much in hiring undocumented immigrants. The worst that could happen was simply losing a worker through deportation. Beginning in 1986, though, the worksite has become an enforcement site for immigration law, with employers required to check the work authorization of every worker they hire on pain of penalties and even criminal prosecution for hiring workers who do not present appropriate documents. (See “Hiring Foreign Workers for Your Business: First Things to Know” for a general discussion of the employer’s responsibility for verifying work authorization.)
ICE Policy: What Does ICE Say, and Does ICE Mean What It Says?
The federal agency responsible for immigration worksite enforcement is Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE). As of 2012, the agency has developed what it characterizes as a “comprehensive worksite enforcement strategy.” (See http://www.ice.gov/worksite/.) ICE claims to focus its enforcement efforts on two areas:
•worksites that represent “critical infrastructure,” such as airports, seaports, nuclear plants, chemical plants, and defense facilities, and
•employers who abuse and exploit undocumented workers.
The ICE press releases collected at the worksite enforcement webpage don’t bear this out, however. While a couple of the reported enforcement actions do involve workers at airports and a couple reflect egregious exploitation of workers, the main pattern that emerges from this long string of ICE press releases is of actions against ordinary businesses (restaurants, landscapers, construction companies, food processing plants, small manufacturers, and so forth) for “harboring” illegal aliens -- that is, for knowingly preventing their detection. (See ICE's “Recent News.”)
As an employer, you should conclude that you are in legal peril if you knowingly employ undocumented immigrant workers, even if your business is not part of the “critical infrastructure” but just a small business trying to get by, and even if you treat your workers fairly.
What If You Didn’t Know Your Employee’s Papers Were No Good?
Employers are required to confirm the work authorization of every new hire at the time of hire, using Form I-9 for the purpose. You are not, however, expected to be an expert on the documents that establish work authorization.
In fact, an employer can be penalized for discrimination for checking documents too zealously or insisting on a particular document, such as a green card. The way the rules put it, you should accept documents from the I-9 lists that “reasonably appear on their face to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting them.”
If that standard doesn’t strike you as crystal clear, you are not alone. Still, if you are acting in good faith and following the I-9 procedures, you should be safe from liability if ICE discovers that one of your workers has presented bad documents. A formal I-9 compliance policy might be a good way to demonstrate your good faith. You might also want to check out ICE’s IMAGE program, through which ICE becomes “your workforce compliance partner” -- though surely this partnership will not suit every employer.
If any information comes your way, subsequent to hire, that suggests a worker may not be authorized to work in the U.S., you should look into it. The reason for this is that employers can be held liable not only for actual knowledge of a worker’s undocumented status, but also for “constructive knowledge” – that is, basically, for having reason to know.
Having reason to know might be, for instance, receiving notice from the Social Security Administration (SSA) that someone on your payroll is using a Social Security number (SSN) that doesn’t match the name for that number in the SSA database. Again, though, you have to be careful how you proceed with such information, always avoiding the leap to a conclusion. SSA database discrepancies don’t always mean unauthorized workers, as the SSA “no-match” letters themselves explicitly state, and hasty action on partial information could lead to a discrimination claim.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/penalties-for-employers-hiring-illegal-immigrants.html
Penalty for hiring undocumented workers
$1,600
You may be subject to civil and criminal penalties for hiring undocumented immigrant workers. Civil penalties range from a minimum of $375 per unauthorized worker for a first offense up to a maximum of $1,600 per worker for a third or subsequent offense.
Before 1986, employers didn’t risk much in hiring undocumented immigrants. The worst that could happen was simply losing a worker through deportation. Beginning in 1986, though, the worksite has become an enforcement site for immigration law, with employers required to check the work authorization of every worker they hire on pain of penalties and even criminal prosecution for hiring workers who do not present appropriate documents. (See “Hiring Foreign Workers for Your Business: First Things to Know” for a general discussion of the employer’s responsibility for verifying work authorization.)
ICE Policy: What Does ICE Say, and Does ICE Mean What It Says?
The federal agency responsible for immigration worksite enforcement is Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE). As of 2012, the agency has developed what it characterizes as a “comprehensive worksite enforcement strategy.” (See http://www.ice.gov/worksite/.) ICE claims to focus its enforcement efforts on two areas:
•worksites that represent “critical infrastructure,” such as airports, seaports, nuclear plants, chemical plants, and defense facilities, and
•employers who abuse and exploit undocumented workers.
The ICE press releases collected at the worksite enforcement webpage don’t bear this out, however. While a couple of the reported enforcement actions do involve workers at airports and a couple reflect egregious exploitation of workers, the main pattern that emerges from this long string of ICE press releases is of actions against ordinary businesses (restaurants, landscapers, construction companies, food processing plants, small manufacturers, and so forth) for “harboring” illegal aliens -- that is, for knowingly preventing their detection. (See ICE's “Recent News.”)
As an employer, you should conclude that you are in legal peril if you knowingly employ undocumented immigrant workers, even if your business is not part of the “critical infrastructure” but just a small business trying to get by, and even if you treat your workers fairly.
What If You Didn’t Know Your Employee’s Papers Were No Good?
Employers are required to confirm the work authorization of every new hire at the time of hire, using Form I-9 for the purpose. You are not, however, expected to be an expert on the documents that establish work authorization.
In fact, an employer can be penalized for discrimination for checking documents too zealously or insisting on a particular document, such as a green card. The way the rules put it, you should accept documents from the I-9 lists that “reasonably appear on their face to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting them.”
If that standard doesn’t strike you as crystal clear, you are not alone. Still, if you are acting in good faith and following the I-9 procedures, you should be safe from liability if ICE discovers that one of your workers has presented bad documents. A formal I-9 compliance policy might be a good way to demonstrate your good faith. You might also want to check out ICE’s IMAGE program, through which ICE becomes “your workforce compliance partner” -- though surely this partnership will not suit every employer.
If any information comes your way, subsequent to hire, that suggests a worker may not be authorized to work in the U.S., you should look into it. The reason for this is that employers can be held liable not only for actual knowledge of a worker’s undocumented status, but also for “constructive knowledge” – that is, basically, for having reason to know.
Having reason to know might be, for instance, receiving notice from the Social Security Administration (SSA) that someone on your payroll is using a Social Security number (SSN) that doesn’t match the name for that number in the SSA database. Again, though, you have to be careful how you proceed with such information, always avoiding the leap to a conclusion. SSA database discrepancies don’t always mean unauthorized workers, as the SSA “no-match” letters themselves explicitly state, and hasty action on partial information could lead to a discrimination claim.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/penalties-for-employers-hiring-illegal-immigrants.html
Yes...but you seem to believe that there are thousands of these tunnels....there is not as many as you think.....i just read not long ago in 10 years along the California border they only uncovered 13 tunnels, then they fill them in....usually with concrete to seal them off and if as you say they are used for whatever pays ******* smuggling pays a lot more than some poor mexicans trying to sneak across the border.
Did a little research for you.....in the last 26 years, 150 tunnels have been uncovered along the calif. , arizona, new mex. And Texas borders......nearly all funded and dug by Mexican ******* cartels for smuggling *******.....do some illegals come thru tunnels, yes but the vast majority come on foot across the border.
just goes to show ... no need for a wall!
plus a lot of them can't afford the big fee for using the tunnel so yes they just come across... instead of the silly ass wall ... increase border gaurds!
but if you enforced the law against the employers you wouldn't need any of it... they would quit coming if no jobs... but we don't want to do that and hurt our poor biz man... just trying to fuck American workers and the economy by hiring them
I dont disagree....a wall is not really feasable as we would end up funding it.
Would a wall stop a lot of them....probably but if they dont go under or over it they will go thru it. The problem of more border guards is the border is like 2,000 miles long, its hard to cover that much territory even with more border agents.
I agree with stopping them from working would go a long way towards discouraging them coming to the US in the first place but i dont see employers stopping the practice of hiring illegals if they think they can get away with it i dont know whats the best course of action....maybe a combination of both tighter security and more enforcement of immigration laws to companies.
like I just showed... we already have the laws... enforce them!... it's the only way... then we wouldn't be talking about a border problem!
it could be covered by drones!
Not really tunnel vision, just dealing with the problem at hand. What anyone else has done in the part is irrelevant. If you get a speeding ticket and try telling the judge that everyone else was going just as fast. I will guarantee the ticket won't get dismissed. Of course she could be prosecuted and really should be. Part of the problem in prosecuting her is that it could open up others for the same trip down memory lane. The main difference between the Clinton's and everyone else they have made millions of dollars selling favors and greasing the wheels for generous contributors. Not only is there a significant amount of information about her time as Secretary Of State and State Department business missing, there is also a lot of information about her financial dealings. I often hear that there has been all these investigations and nothing has be proved. It also true that after all these investigations there is still a lot of emails that haven't seen the light of day even in redacted form.
know of ANYONE else ever been under so much scrutiny.... and how much money how many people looking and for how long now... don't you suppose this all just might be all political?
not near as bad as Trumps... I also saw that even Sanders honeymooned there... makes you wonder just how deep they are into our politics
one thing about it... we know there is none with Obama... they hate each other
Not really, the only aspect that may bother me a little is the insults come from someone that is supposed to be an adult, most people outgrow that kind of behavior by the time they are 12 or so
Hard to say with the Clinton's they have made a Hell of a lot money selling favors and influence. They are also quite adept at forgetting the facts.
well I suppose that is directed at me.... and yes I do throw them... a lot... regret that sometimes... but I never throw one unless that conversation goes that direction...then I have plenty!
as for the comment above you posted I said... I don't even remember what we were talking about there!
But I can carry on a conversation without the insults... if the conversation is civil... There are some on here I can converse with... without using any profanity or anything
ok... let the record show that.... yes after Bill left office he made a ******* load of money!
but he has done a lot of good with some of it... and yet no one ever speaks of that
Similar threads
