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

[athena_ny 1]

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..."

[Dr_LHA 3]

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 employment"

"Not valid for employment without DHS authorization" seems fairly explicit to me.

[kitkat1 5]

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"

The card DOES specifically state "not valid for employment without DHS authorization". What's the problem?

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

If it says

"Line one: Valid for work only

Line two: With DHS Authorization"

An employer can say it doesn't match what the I-9 form says so he could accept it.

Employers are not required to be immigration experts

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

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..."

Not true most employers have no idea of the law, especially small companies. The immigrant is the responsible party and will be the one more likely punished.

[no name 1]

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

U.S. social security card issued by the Social Security Administration (other than a card stating it is not valid for employment)

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

What part of that doesn't make sense when the SS card says: Valid for work only with DHS Authorization????

[Dr_LHA 3]

If it says

"Line one: Valid for work only

Line two: With DHS Authorization"

An employer can say it doesn't match what the I-9 form says so he could accept it.

Yes, but that employer would be an idiot.

[John & Annie 0]

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..."

Not true most employers have no idea of the law, especially small companies. The immigrant is the responsible party and will be the one more likely punished.

That is incorrect, the onus of verifying the documents is on the employer, even more so in the near future.

Unauthorized working is not an issue for adjudicating the immigrants application or petition when adjusting for family based reasons.

[WifeOHunkyJohn 2]

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..."

Not true most employers have no idea of the law, especially small companies. The immigrant is the responsible party and will be the one more likely punished.

That is incorrect, the onus of verifying the documents is on the employer, even more so in the near future.

Unauthorized working is not an issue for adjudicating the immigrants application or petition when adjusting for family based reasons.

Check out this article I posted a few days ago for more info on what my hubby is talking about:

Employers Bracing for Immigration Rules

Annie

[kitkat1 5]

Not true most employers have no idea of the law, especially small companies. The immigrant is the responsible party and will be the one more likely punished.

No. Employers have laws they are required to comply with hence the reason for the I9 regulations - read your own post regarding the responsibilities of each party.

If a K1 holder works illegally, it's forgiven at AOS.

If the employer hires someone illegally, there are civil and criminal penalties. Sec. 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and 8 U.S.C. 1324a, makes it unlawful for any person knowingly to hire, recruit or refer for a fee any alien not authorized to work. An employer that violates these laws can face penalties of:

· $250 to $2,000 fine for each unauthorized individual;

· $2,000 to $5,000 for each employee if the employer has previously been in violation; or

· $3,000 to $10,000 for each individual if the employer was subject to more than one cease and desist order.

The employer could also be fined $100 to $1,000 for each individual “paperwork” violation.

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

Employers are not responsible for being experts. Even local law enforcement agents don't try to enforce federal laws because they don't know enough about federal laws.

Why blame the employers? It is like saying blame the gun and bullet manufacturers for murder and not the person pulling the trigger. Everyone is entitled to thier opinion but it is not the fault of employers that we have immigration problems, it is the immigration laws and enforcement of the the laws.

[John & Annie 0]

Employers are not responsible for being experts. Even local law enforcement agents don't try to enforce federal laws because they don't know enough about federal laws.

Why blame the employers? It is like saying blame the gun and bullet manufacturers for murder and not the person pulling the trigger. Everyone is entitled to thier opinion but it is not the fault of employers that we have immigration problems, it is the immigration laws and enforcement of the the laws.

I do not know why you are arguing this. There are quite a few of us that have done a lot of research on this and many other subjects.

If you want to change the law, become a citizen and try to get this on a ballet. Otherwise, do your own research and come to the same conclusion we all have.

Its is the law, the onus is on the employer.

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

I have had employees that we have received notices that the SS# did not match the name 1 year after they were employed but it is the resonsibility of the employee the clear it up not the employer.

There are 12 million people working here in the US illegally, how are they working? Are they at fault or is it the employers fault?

If the work demand needs the workers why not offer something for them to work legally? Blame Congress and Senate.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Gaby&Talbert

[John & Annie 0]

I have had employees that we have received notices that the SS# did not match the name 1 year after they were employed but it is the resonsibility of the employee the clear it up not the employer.

There are 12 million people working here in the US illegally, how are they working? Are they at fault or is it the employers fault?

Ah, now i see. Read the article my wife posted above, you will see how the law is changing

[no name 1]

I have had employees that we have received notices that the SS# did not match the name 1 year after they were employed but it is the resonsibility of the employee the clear it up not the employer.

There are 12 million people working here in the US illegally, how are they working? Are they at fault or is it the employers fault?

What's been said over the last 3 pages & all links posted - the EMPLOYERS.