HIM A NOTICE HE WAS. “INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED”!
They skipped the Law suit.
The illegal still worked there but couldn't go back to work because he was, “INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED”!
2006-11-24 07:31:48 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
report them to ice.
2006-11-24 08:12:55 · answer #1 · answered by loretta 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it is wrong. Illegals shouldn't be working here in the United States to begin with. I don't have anything against immigrants, I am one, but I do have a pet peeve about people immigrating here illegally. You try to go to Mexico illegally and you'll find yourself in jail and the key nowhere to be found. Since the federal government isn't doing squat to control it, I support all the cities which are taking a stand against illegal immigration and doing things such as fining landlords who rent to illegals and not giving city contracts to companies who hired them.
Another pet peeve of mine is that illegals apply for housing, food stamps, WIC, public schooling, and do get many of those benefits easier than than the effort it takes for them to cross the river. And who pays for all that? We the taxpayers. In the city where I live, public schools reserve a certain amount of desks for children from Mexico.
Also, in my city, they have installed red-light-cameras to catch people who run red lights. But guess what? If the license plates are from this state, the city will issue a $75.00 dollar ticket, but if the license plates are from Mexico, they will not. It's outrageous the way the government bends over backwards to cater to these people.
2006-11-24 16:34:11 · answer #2 · answered by Sunbelter 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
what difference does it make if he was fired or indefinitely suspended? the fact is he was not suppose to be hired in the first place. they should have to obey laws just like i do. and no i don't think it was wrong because that gives him the opportunity to come back to work once he gets his paperwork in order. i think that was a nice thing to do for him.
2006-11-24 17:06:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's such a crock that your company had to do that to avoid a law suit and fines from the government. He was damned if he did and didn't in this case. The owner probably had a sit down with his attorney and this was the best solution they could come up with. Good for your company though getting rid of the illegal.
2006-11-24 15:39:17 · answer #4 · answered by FaerieWhings 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The companies lawyer probably came up with that one. Having this guy work for you is a crime so you can't have that. Firing someone because of their national origin (even though the person has no papers) could get you sued.
2006-11-24 15:36:44 · answer #5 · answered by cashcobra_99 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There's probably a technicality here. If they had fired him, they might have to give him unemployment and/or the state would find out that they were negligent in not being thorough enough in their background check and screening process. This may result in a hefty fine from the state and could certainly pave the way for an audit.
2006-11-24 15:46:56 · answer #6 · answered by soulguy85 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Called "C.Y.A.". Right? Well, they got out of being sued. Ethical? I don't think hiring an illegal in the first place was ethical.
2006-11-24 15:39:31 · answer #7 · answered by Rich B 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
good approach, a loophole how many of us are gonna get screwed in a similar fashion to avoid severance packages and unemployment
2006-11-24 15:39:34 · answer #8 · answered by glenn 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They put themselves in this conundrum....either way they are in trouble!
Let them sweat it out!
AND let it be a lesson to the idiots who hire illegals...no good will come from this...
2006-11-24 15:42:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes it is wrong. And the ACLU sucks, the NAMBLA defending bunch of hypocritical jerks.
2006-11-24 15:38:27 · answer #10 · answered by jerofjungle 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋