why file for EAD if you'll get a green card anyway?

[no name 1]

Believe me there are plenty of employers that dont even read the cards, they write down the number and make a copy for their files and that is it. I know several LPR's that have their own business and can't even read spanish or english. They have successful businesses and employees, to be honest most illegal aliens work for people that don't take out taxes. They are working for people that pay cash and leave it up to the employee to deal with taxes. Alot of the illegals have their own subcontracting businesses.

good for them! that still does not matter when someone asks "why need an EAD"? Like Kitkat stated, we are not discussing false documents, etc etc. it is pretty clear what the requirments are, and if its not clear to a noob, this is not the thread to try to understand it from!

Why isn't this split yet?

[LaL 418]

i dont know - but it surely isn;t a discussion about greencards - so I am moving it to the EAD forum.

[Dr_LHA 3]

Its gone so far off-topic, surely off-topic would be better? Or maybe locked?

[kitkat1 5]

Its gone so far off-topic, surely off-topic would be better? Or maybe locked?

Shouldn't that be a rule i.e. closed for being filled with incorrect/irrelevant information?

[LaL 418]

Its gone so far off-topic, surely off-topic would be better? Or maybe locked?

Shouldn't that be a rule i.e. closed for being filled with incorrect/irrelevant information?

Mods do not do quality control of postings. I think the knowledgeable pointed out several times the incorrect information posted as it should have been done.

[Caladan 19]

Its gone so far off-topic, surely off-topic would be better? Or maybe locked?

Shouldn't that be a rule i.e. closed for being filled with incorrect/irrelevant information?

Nah, you need to allow people a chance to correct incorrect information. Plus, it's not like the mods are gods of all that is correct immigration info. Then there'd be a prejudice that any open thread was accurate.

[kitkat1 5]

Its gone so far off-topic, surely off-topic would be better? Or maybe locked?

Shouldn't that be a rule i.e. closed for being filled with incorrect/irrelevant information?

Mods do not do quality control of postings. I think the knowledgeable pointed out several times the incorrect information posted as it should have been done.

I know I know - just desperately searching in vain for a way to get the quality of information here back to where it used to be. . .

[no name 1]

I know I know - just desperately searching in vain for a way to get the quality of information here back to where it used to be. . .

Amen sister.

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

Sorry everyone. Bottom line is you cannot be an employee if you don't have the documents needed that are listed on the I-9.

I just did not like that others were criminalizing employers. Sure there are alot of employers breaking the laws. The laws are were make to control illegal immigration not mistakes by employees or employers.

I searched everywhere and could not find anything in the INA that said you could not be self employed, at least on a small scale. I guess if you need money you can mow yards, clean houses, etc. I know I would do anything I had to to support my family. As long as you pay your taxes I don't see the problem. IN MY OPINION.

I would like to ask specifically what information was wrong by me?

Edited August 9, 2007 by Gaby&Talbert

[rebeccajo 14]

Then why NOT apply for the EAD? It's free. (included)

okay, night.....just not making any sense to me anymore.

Right now, you might as well, since the fee is inclusive of EAD and AP. At the time I filed in April, I had a choice on what to file. I did not file for EAD or AP figuring that I might get my GC before getting my EAD. My interview is this month. So...approximately 4 months since I applied. I'm fortunate in that I don't have to work, so it wasn't a necessity to apply for my EAD. Before, it was a ####### shoot on whether you'd get your GC before your EAD. I don't know which is better...guess we'll have to wait and see how this pans out with the "inclusiveness" of the fee structure now in place and how soon applications are processed.

Carla

You realize that just because your interview is scheduled, your greencard will not necessarily be forthcoming shortly after that?

[rebeccajo 14]

Sorry everyone. Bottom line is you cannot be an employee if you don't have the documents needed that are listed on the I-9.

I just did not like that others were criminalizing employers. Sure there are alot of employers breaking the laws. The laws are were make to control illegal immigration not mistakes by employees or employers.

I searched everywhere and could not find anything in the INA that said you could not be self employed, at least on a small scale. I guess if you need money you can mow yards, clean houses, etc. I know I would do anything I had to to support my family. As long as you pay your taxes I don't see the problem. IN MY OPINION.

I would like to ask specifically what information was wrong by me?

Is that not the same thing as you cannot be an employer of people who don't have documents that are listed on the I9?

I'm not sure if your INFORMATION was wrong or your opinion.

Edited August 9, 2007 by rebeccajo

[Yodrak 7]

Miranda&James,

I think it's easier to understand if one goes a step beyond the usual 'can she work' question and ask 'can she be hired', because a person who is EA can (is allowed to) work but an employer cannot (is not allowed to) hire a person who does not have an EAD.

The problem for K1s is that while all of them are EA (for the 90 days that they are in K1 status) few of them have an EAD. Nobody else has that odd situation (for more than a few days).

Yodrak

Does she need the EAD stamp in the passport to be able to work those 90 days or is it the K1 itself that allows 90 days of working?

The K-1 is work authorized for 90 days, but the EAD stamp is needed to meet the requirements of the I-9. So essentially, even though one is work authorized for the first 90 days, without the EA stamp you can't work.

[Yodrak 7]

Gaby&Talbert,

An interesting situation, when the SS card does not have the notation but the alien is not an LPR and needs to have EA to work.

I'd like to agree with meow mix because the notation is a reminder to employers, not a restriction, but the law says that an employer cannot tell the employee what documents to submit for I-9 - it's the employee's choice of what they wish to submit from the list of acceptable documentation. If an employee has a card without the notation and chooses to submit documents consistent with that, the employees hands are tied - they must accept the documents that the employee submits. And in that case perhaps the employer is also protected from any penalties should it turn out that the employee does not have EA.

If there is not a definitive answer to this that is taught in law school, this might make an interesting law student exam question.

Yodrak

There is something confusing in List C for the employer and that is:

U.S. social security card issued bythe Social Security Administration(other than a card stating it is notvalid for employment)

The employer could interpret this as it is authorized unless it specifically states "not valid of employment"

Not an excuse. It's the employer's responsibility to know the law, not to say, "Well, we thought..."

[Yodrak 7]

I think that this has been an interesting thread, and has delved into relevant side issues that are not off topic. The question that started this thead was a very general one.

I also think that Gaby&Talbert have made some valid points, not so much misinformation as he has been accused of. The mention of illegal immigration and falsified documents into his posts was a tactical mistake on their part, as it seems to have overshadowed the valid and relevant points they wanted to make, in particular with regard to aliens who do not have the reminder notation about USCIS employment authorization on their SS cards yet do require USCIS EA in order to work - this does put employers into a bind.

The law has made employers the defacto enforcers of certain facets of immigration law, yet it also strongly protects employees from arbitrary, discriminatory hiring practices by employers. It's an interesting tightrope that they must walk.

Yodrak

Its gone so far off-topic, surely off-topic would be better? Or maybe locked?

Shouldn't that be a rule i.e. closed for being filled with incorrect/irrelevant information?

Mods do not do quality control of postings. I think the knowledgeable pointed out several times the incorrect information posted as it should have been done.

I know I know - just desperately searching in vain for a way to get the quality of information here back to where it used to be. . .

[cshell 0]

The K-1 is work authorized for 90 days, but the EAD stamp is needed to meet the requirements of the I-9. So essentially, even though one is work authorized for the first 90 days, without the EA stamp you can't work.

Miranda&James,

I think it's easier to understand if one goes a step beyond the usual 'can she work' question and ask 'can she be hired', because a person who is EA can (is allowed to) work but an employer cannot (is not allowed to) hire a person who does not have an EAD.

The problem for K1s is that while all of them are EA (for the 90 days that they are in K1 status) few of them have an EAD. Nobody else has that odd situation (for more than a few days).

Yodrak

I just wanted to say that at first I was confused in reading this thread and the comments from the various posters. I initially thought that EA or EAD only referred to the EAD card that one receives after filing the I-765. But after rereading this thread I've come to realize that EA (employment authorized) or EAD (employment authorized document) can be the I-94 stamped with work autho that is valid for 90 days (for a K-1 person) or the EAD card that a person receives after the I-765 is approved. I think that for some people on the site is would be clearer to say "EA on the I-94" or "EAD stamp on the I-94"

Thanks

cshell