Thread: The Civil Rights Commission Is Coming To Manassas

The Civil Rights Commission Is Coming To Town
By Greg L | 9 November 2007 | PWC Politics | 77 Comments

I got a tip tonight that the U.S. Commission On Civil Rights is planning on holding hearings on Prince William County’s crack down on illegal aliens sometime in mid-December, and that former Secretary of Labor nominee Linda Chavez is going to be the one leading the hearings. Yes, this is the same Linda Chavez whose nomination by President Bush was derailed once it was learned that she had failed to withhold Social Security from the compensation provided to her housekeeper, who may have been an illegal alien.

This ought to be quite a circus.
http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/11/0 ... g-to-town/

whodathunkit... the are confusing human rights with civil right.

Boot her out of the city or lock her up for inciting a mob

Illegal immigration has nothing to do with "Civil Rights".

Civil rights do apply to illegal immigrants, although I agree they should not. This is from 1999 and explains the EEOC starting to apply quotas based on illegal immigration, as well as how it basically forces employers to hire illegal immigrants or not meet the quotas. Thats just one case, there are many more.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... i_n8861146

FindArticles > Human Events > Nov 26, 1999 > Article > Print friendly

EEOC will start protecting illegal immigrants
D'Agostino, Joseph A

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has decided that it will apply the same system of de facto quotas to illegal immigrants as it does to legal American workers. The new EEOC guidelines, which are already being enforced, put employers who discover they have hired an illegal alien in an impossible situation.

"This guidance makes clear that the anti-discrimination laws under the commission's jurisdiction protect all employees across the country, regardless of their work status," said EEOC Chairwoman Ida Castro in announcing the new guidelines October 26. "Unauthorized workers are especially vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. It is imperative for employers to fully understand that discrimination against this class of employees will not be tolerated."

The new guidelines apply Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (AREA), and the Equal Pay Act (EPA) to undocumented aliens who are illegally residing, and illegally working, in the United States.

Disingenuous Interpretation

The official guidelines, which must be obeyed by all U.S. businesses with 15 or more employees and, in some cases, by even smaller businesses, state: "The federal discrimination laws protect all employees in the United States, regardless of their citizenship or work eligibility. Employers may no more discriminate against unauthorized workers than they may discriminate against any other employees. EEOC will therefore assure that in its enforcement of the laws, unauthorized workers are protected to the same degree as all other workers."

Neither the EEOC nor the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) by reporting the presence of illegal workers. "Like the board," say the guidelines, "the EEOC is not charged with the enforcement of IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act] and should not participate in `the process of determining an employee's immigration status:

Therefore, EEOC will neither collect nor evaluate evidence regarding a workers status In other words, an agency of the U.S. government whose members are appointed by the President, the nation's chief law enforcement officer, is not interested in whether the country's laws are enforced.

Not only that, but illegal aliens who sue employers for the violation of their civil rights will be entitled to the same damages as an American citizen. `"There are no limitations on damages for unauthorized workers, beyond those which would apply in any other case," the EEOC says, referring to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Sure-Tan v. NLRB (1984). "However, there is a narrow limitation on the availability of back pay. To fulfill the requirements of the immigration laws, the Sure-Tan court ruled that `in computing back pay, the employees must be deemed unavailable for work (and the accrual of back pay therefore tolled) during any period when they were not lawfully entitled to be present and employed in the United States.' The commission construes this language to limit back pay relief only where, as in SureTan, the worker is unavailable for work by virtue of being out of the country."

Asked to explain this clearly disingenuous interpretation of the Sure-Tan passage, an EEOC spokesman said, "The NLRB and others have a long history of disregarding a worker's legal status when considering awards of back pay. Sure-Tan did not overrule those precedents."

"What's going on is that elements within the Clinton Administration want to cancel the government's laws against illegal immigration" said K. C. McAlpin, deputy director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). 'They are trying to compel employers to hire illegal aliens, to fear not hiring or firing them." He pointed to another recent development, a decision by Fannie Mae to help fund loans in Massachusetts for immigrants, regardless of whether they have green cards. "Here we have governmentsubsidized loans to criminals,"he said.

The new rules extend the doctrine of "disparate impact" to illegal aliens. Many discrimination cases are now brought in the complete absence of any evidence that an employer intend to discriminate against somebody because of his race. Instead the cases are based on statistical analysis. If 15% of the local workforce belongs to a certain ethnic group, and a employer's payroll includes only 13% of that ethnic group, the employer can be sued and the statistical disparity alone will be proof of discrimination. The Supreme Court has said that in such "disparate impact" cases, the burden of proof is with the employer to demonstrate that he did not discriminate, rather than with the plaintiff to prove that he did.

With the new guidelines, if the local population has 15% of a certain ethnic group, and an employer has a payroll that includes 13% of that ethnic group, and he fails to hire, or he fires, an illegal alien who happens to belong to that ethnic group, he can be sued for discrimination just as if the illegal alien (who was taking an American's job) had been an American.

In a case where an employer declines to hire an illegal alien, he can vindicate himself under the new guidelines if he can prove that he did not hire the illegal alien precisely because he knew he was an illegal alien. In a case where an employer fires an illegal, however, he will still be liable to punitive damages, even if he proves that he fired the illegal alien because he discovered he had been breaking the law by employing that illegal alien. In other words, under these civil rights rules an American employer can be assessed punitive damages in a U.S. court for obeying U.S. immigration laws.

The new policy provides an incentive for employers who have the habit of hiring illegal aliens to keep doing so. Under the guidelines, an employer who habitually hires illegal aliens and then fires one of them, or all of them, or refuses to hire more of them, would have a more difficult time proving his actions were based on a desire to comply with U.S. immigration laws rather than a desire to violate the civil rights regulations. An employer who has never hired illegal aliens, on other hand, would have a good case that he did not hire an illegal because he, as opposed to the illegal, was punctilious about the law.

Copyright Human Events Publishing, Inc. Nov 26, 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved

Great find, wmb1957. Thanks for digging up this truly disturbing information on the EEOC.