EAD

[John & Annie 0]

I was under the impression that it is the impetus of the employer to confirm you have proper authorization to work. If they want to keep you employed, then you are doing nothing wrong. You can work, but they can't hire you... something like that. It's very confusing, and doesn't make a lot of sense to me (the process, I mean).

Don't mind people jumping on you - most people here are really helpful. No big whoop.

Regardless, a crime is a crime. It does not matter.

Just because someone allowed it to happen, does not negate your involvement and the possibility of facing the consequences.

My wife was telling me about a LPR who fired a handgun to scare off a robber, years later when he applied for Citizenship, he was denied for the discharge of the firearm. He was eventually allowed to proceed with citizenship. This was a case that was understandable.

You all are talking about conspiracy to commit work fraud. What will be the excuse then, "but they let me work". I do not think if will fly.

IMHO

John

Following is a post from KitKat1 on another EAD thread in this forum. It is NOT a crime on the part of the immigrant. I understand your righteousness, however it seems to be misplaced in this matter.

I think it was made clear earlier in the thread but the concept is a strange and confusing one.

Think of it this way

A person on a K1 has the right to work unlike a person on a tourist visa, for example. People on a tourist visa do not have the right to work.

But in order for an employer to hire a person who came on a K1, they need to show a separate work authorization document. Their visa, or their I-94 alone are not enough. Some people get temporary work authorization docs from the point of entry - usually JFK.

Those who don't have to wait until they apply and receive their work authorization card. So even though they have the right to work, an employer cannot legally hire then without seeing this document. Since some employers don't seem to care, some people do end up being able to work.

You misunderstand me.

I am merely pointing out that there may be consequences to these actions later.

I work for a company that is facing a fine from a State Agency. The reason we are facing the fine is because the City we are in told us to do the very thing we are getting the fine for. The City has gone to the State and told them that they are the ones who directed us to do it. The State is saying that is not good enough.

While I understand the where the responsibility lies within employment law (as an employer). I am pointing out the fact that our Government may have a shift and use these kinds of things against LPR's when they try and become citizens.

If you do it right the first time, you will be beyond reproach.

[geo1234 0]

Following is a post from KitKat1 on another EAD thread in this forum. It is NOT a crime on the part of the immigrant. I understand your righteousness, however it seems to be misplaced in this matter.

I think it was made clear earlier in the thread but the concept is a strange and confusing one.

The way I understand it, when it comes to K1 holders, being legally authorized to work and being able to legally prove this authorization are two different things. I don't think there is any doubt that K1 holders are allowed to work for 90 days after their entry into the country. If the employer does not care about K1 holder's employment document, then there is no possible way for the K1 holder to get in trouble for working during the initial 90 day period, either at AOS or at the Citizenship stage.

[bostonparis 0]

Following is a post from KitKat1 on another EAD thread in this forum. It is NOT a crime on the part of the immigrant. I understand your righteousness, however it seems to be misplaced in this matter.

I think it was made clear earlier in the thread but the concept is a strange and confusing one.

The way I understand it, when it comes to K1 holders, being legally authorized to work and being able to legally prove this authorization are two different things. I don't think there is any doubt that K1 holders are allowed to work for 90 days after their entry into the country. If the employer does not care about K1 holder's employment document, then there is no possible way for the K1 holder to get in trouble for working during the initial 90 day period, either at AOS or at the Citizenship stage.

Right. Which is the frustrating part, because you CAN work, but they can't HIRE you. Odd.

[John & Annie 0]

Following is a post from KitKat1 on another EAD thread in this forum. It is NOT a crime on the part of the immigrant. I understand your righteousness, however it seems to be misplaced in this matter.

I think it was made clear earlier in the thread but the concept is a strange and confusing one.

The way I understand it, when it comes to K1 holders, being legally authorized to work and being able to legally prove this authorization are two different things. I don't think there is any doubt that K1 holders are allowed to work for 90 days after their entry into the country. If the employer does not care about K1 holder's employment document, then there is no possible way for the K1 holder to get in trouble for working during the initial 90 day period, either at AOS or at the Citizenship stage.

Granted, the I-9 is very clear as to the fact that this is the employers responsibility.

We are talking beyond the 90 days. Technically the employer should ask for a new document.

The question here is, who will be held responsible after the 90 days.

I would not trust our Government to fully leave this on the employer.

[geo1234 0]

Granted, the I-9 is very clear as to the fact that this is the employers responsibility.

We are talking beyond the 90 days. Technically the employer should ask for a new document.

The question here is, who will be held responsible after the 90 days.

I would not trust our Government to fully leave this on the employer.

Your reasoning certainly makes sense but it's all a question of risk tolerance. If you are concerned (and quite reasonably, in my humble opinion) that the immigration laws will change in the future to provide that illegal employment, which is presently forgiven if you marry a USC and apply for AOS, will be a problem at the citizenship stage, are you also concerned that any violation of law might cause such a problem? The reason that I am asking this is because in many states minor traffic violations, such as speeding, running a stop sign and running a red light are misdemeanors. The maximum punishment for misdemeanors in those states is typically up to $1,000 fine and up to 1 year in jail.

It's obvious that traffic courts do not impose jail sentences for those minor offenses, but if you are concerned about immigration laws punishing all violations, speeding tickets could potentially present a much bigger problem than unauthorized employment.

[rebeccajo 14]

Everything else is paranoia and ignorance.

Regarding I-765 is waste of money

It just warms the cockles of my heart to see such informative and well thought out advice dispensed in such a warm and congenial manner.

Ah, the arrogance of the truly ignorant!

It’s OK to feel angry after doing something stupid.

I am sorry for all of you who quit your job after 90 days with temp. EAD and AOS pending.

I'm not the stupid one here.

Firstly, I'm the USC.

Secondly, my immigrant husband never had a temp EAD - meaning he never had a job to quit prior to the pendancy of his AOS.

I'd hardly call if paranoid to file for the appropriate documents the government has put in place - I'd call it more like being proactive on one's own behalf.

I call it ignorance to suggest otherwise. And downright irresponsible on a public forum.

[rebeccajo 14]

Is it your intention lately to follow me around the forums and pick a fight? What the hell is your problem?

Sorry - I thought it was a discussion, not a "fight". I will refrain from replying to your posts in future.

When you come at me continuously with colorful angles about an established immigration procedure, it looks like picking an argument.

I enjoy your input in our discussions and appreciate it. I do think it's a good idea to watch how far you push the envelope.

[rebeccajo 14]

Your reasoning certainly makes sense but it's all a question of risk tolerance.

Evaluating risk involves some common sense.

You file for EAD. It costs a few bucks. You have to wait on it. But it's an immigration benefit that (compared to others) gets processed fairly quickly and is VERY RARELY denied.

Why take any risk?

[John & Annie 0]

Granted, the I-9 is very clear as to the fact that this is the employers responsibility.

We are talking beyond the 90 days. Technically the employer should ask for a new document.

The question here is, who will be held responsible after the 90 days.

I would not trust our Government to fully leave this on the employer.

Your reasoning certainly makes sense but it's all a question of risk tolerance. If you are concerned (and quite reasonably, in my humble opinion) that the immigration laws will change in the future to provide that illegal employment, which is presently forgiven if you marry a USC and apply for AOS, will be a problem at the citizenship stage, are you also concerned that any violation of law might cause such a problem? The reason that I am asking this is because in many states minor traffic violations, such as speeding, running a stop sign and running a red light are misdemeanors. The maximum punishment for misdemeanors in those states is typically up to $1,000 fine and up to 1 year in jail.

It's obvious that traffic courts do not impose jail sentences for those minor offenses, but if you are concerned about immigration laws punishing all violations, speeding tickets could potentially present a much bigger problem than unauthorized employment.

yes, precisely.

an incidental violation may be forgiven upon review and justification, but a willful violation may not.

Annie and I have discussed this at great length and we would rather live above the board to disallow anything from preventing her path to Citizenship.

Ps. there is a big distinction between a traffic violation and a misdemeanor. Driving is a privilege and if you are going through the immigration process, don't break the law. This is the same for anyone who holds a Government Clearance, if they are caught violating the law they could lose their clearance and in turn their job. Immigrants are not being singled out, there are lots of people who need to maintain the same standard.

[rebeccajo 14]

Oh we've had the discussion on here before about traffic violations and it raised some hackles!! I don't think any of us want to be alarmists.

[John & Annie 0]

Oh we've had the discussion on here before about traffic violations and it raised some hackles!! I don't think any of us want to be alarmists.

Trust me

I would love to avoid any arguments.

[Emo 0]

Everything else is paranoia and ignorance.

Regarding I-765 is waste of money

It just warms the cockles of my heart to see such informative and well thought out advice dispensed in such a warm and congenial manner.

Ah, the arrogance of the truly ignorant!

It’s OK to feel angry after doing something stupid.

I am sorry for all of you who quit your job after 90 days with temp. EAD and AOS pending.

I'm not the stupid one here.

Firstly, I'm the USC.

Secondly, my immigrant husband never had a temp EAD - meaning he never had a job to quit prior to the pendancy of his AOS.

I'd hardly call if paranoid to file for the appropriate documents the government has put in place - I'd call it more like being proactive on one's own behalf.

I call it ignorance to suggest otherwise. And downright irresponsible on a public forum.

I didn’t say you are stupid. How could I, but even smart people (regardless of their citizenship) sometimes are doing stupid things, such as assuming that K1 Fiance with I-94 is not allowed to work.

[LaL 418]

Everything else is paranoia and ignorance.

Regarding I-765 is waste of money

It just warms the cockles of my heart to see such informative and well thought out advice dispensed in such a warm and congenial manner.

Ah, the arrogance of the truly ignorant!

It's OK to feel angry after doing something stupid.

I am sorry for all of you who quit your job after 90 days with temp. EAD and AOS pending.

I'm not the stupid one here.

Firstly, I'm the USC.

Secondly, my immigrant husband never had a temp EAD - meaning he never had a job to quit prior to the pendancy of his AOS.

I'd hardly call if paranoid to file for the appropriate documents the government has put in place - I'd call it more like being proactive on one's own behalf.

I call it ignorance to suggest otherwise. And downright irresponsible on a public forum.

I didn't say you are stupid. How could I, but even smart people (regardless of their citizenship) sometimes are doing stupid things, such as assuming that K1 Fiance with I-94 is not allowed to work.

no one is suggesting a K1 does not have incidental EA while I-94 is valid. What people are stating is that there is a problem satisfying the I-9.

[John & Annie 0]

no one is suggesting a K1 does not have incidental EA while I-94 is valid. What people are stating is that there is a problem satisfying the I-9.

Well stated, i may use that later.

[LaL 418]

no one is suggesting a K1 does not have incidental EA while I-94 is valid. What people are stating is that there is a problem satisfying the I-9.

Well stated, i may use that later.

you will get alot of use out of it!