Directory of this site
For the best viewing result
TRIM your browser
From: Doron Tal <email@example.com>
> The participants of this list are kindly invited to give their
> comments on the following four (4) issues, and elaborate on the proposed
> case, predicated on discrimination of an ALIEN BECAUSE OF HIS ALIENAGE.
> ISSUE 1: MAY THE GOVERNMENT (e.g. INS = Immigration Naturalization
> Service) DO NOTHING TO INSURE THAT A LAW (e.g. INA =
> Immigration Nationality Act) BE ENFORCED ?
> ISSUE 2: If the U.S. Department of Justice handles a case (e.g. under
> 8 U.S.C. § 1324b), but in a similar situation it fails to act
> (excused by lack of resources), then why would it not be
> deemed as a discrimination of the injured party, who
> apparently adversely affected by the inaction of the
> ISSUE 3: Why would the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
> and in particular the Criminal Section not have ultimate
> responsibility to enforce the law in cases of apparent
> deprivation of legal and constitutional rights of a person
> or legal entity.
> ISSUE 4: If a statute (e.g. 8 U.S.C. § 1324b) gives a right to an individual
> to make a complaint - solely based on violation of federal law -
> but the appropriate authorities (e.g. INS and OSC) fail to
> act, then why such an injured individual would not proceed on his
> own and prosecute a violator of IRCA? Why would a victim of
> violations of IRCA may not show violations of other laws - i.e.
> 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1324a, 1324c, 1182, 1184, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 246, etc.?
The above is directly focusing on civil rights issues as prescribed under the provisions of the written laws of the United States, and in particular, IRCA 1986. None of the participants of this list responded by writing to this list. (At least I did not receive any posting.)
Yet, few participants of CIVILRTS and other lists (some of them are just lurking) asked me directly to review my specific case, serving as an example. Although it may look quite complicated, it worth reading for the purpose of understanding the declared government policy versus the actual policy.
IMHO The statement concerning - "America's declining wages" - is false.
The immigrants (or other working ALIENs) are obviously not to be blamed, but the Americans who wilfully abuse them. Ladies and gentlemen, your recession is caused (among other things) because the rights of ALIENs are ultimately deprived. Now, because you people don't care, then your government, and in particular, U.S. Dept. of Justice would observe crimes and simply stay away.
Despite my fundamental disagreements with USDOJ positions, I believe more in community rights to vote rather than the unilateral position of the Government, although it is still a worthwhile organization doing good sometimes. Conclusively, the review of law that I would raise here (focusing on my case) should breed intensive on-list discussion, which would be something of great value for you people.
Yet, before elaborating on the issues of IRCA 1986 let's see what is the current public opinions as reflected during last week, due to my provoking posting on another list.
On Wed, 13 Sep 1995 16:52:19 -1800, Chris McKee from UT Houston Health Science Ctr. <cmckee%mhsocb@OCB4.HSC.UTH.TMC.EDU> wrote to Multiple recipients of list PUBPOL-D <PUBPOL-D@VM1.SPCS.UMN.EDU>:
> The solution to the slavery of the twentieth century is a time
> American tradition: "Take this job and ----- it".
> I wonder how easy it is for an American to get a job anywhere else
> in the world. My experience is in Mexico, and unless you are working
> for a transnational, your ability to get a is nil.
On Wed, 13 Sep 1995 06:56:16 -1000, Jay Hanson <jhanson@ILHAWAII.NET>
wrote to Multiple recipients of list PUBPOL-D <PUBPOL-D@VM1.SPCS.UMN.EDU>:
> In my opinion, here in the U.S. (and presumably many other places), publically
> stated reasons are seldom the "motivating reasons for legislation". Instead,
> profit motivates legislation.
> In other words, first someone has a private plan for profit, then concocts
> plausible public reasons for legislation. It is just the nature of a system
> such as ours which assumes that Smith's "invisible hand" is the best provider
> of most of its public goods.
> Not only is it nearly impossible to uncover the "motivating reasons for
> legislation", the political process itself adds inherent contradictions
> (amendments to protect other special interest groups) to the legislation.
On Wed, 13 Sep 1995 08:00:56 EDT, Mike Dante <wdante@ANGRC.ANG.AF.MIL>
wrote to Multiple recipients of list PUBPOL-D <PUBPOL-D@VM1.SPCS.UMN.EDU> :
> Definition of Consensus
> " 1. An opinion held by all or most.
> 2. general agreement, esp. in opinion"
> (Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, Prentice Hall 1986)
I claim that the LAW MUST BE REGARDED as the CONSENSUS OF A NATION.
Employment of NON-immigrant ALIENs in the United States is essential to the economy of this country. Therefore, the Congress has legislated laws governing admission and employment of non-intending citizens, because such ALIENs may not enjoy all rights like other employees. For an example, these ALIENs are unable to change employer, and therefore the employer may not abuse them. Is it reasonable?
THE PURPOSE OF IRCA - 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
In an effort to restrict the flow of illegal ALIENs and unauthorized workers to the United States, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). This Act has made it illegal to refer to a fee for employment, recruit or hire an ALIEN, who is not a permanent resident, or who is an UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN, or NOT certified for work, i.e. UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN. Additionally, this Act has made it illegal to fire an UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN.
IRCA must be applicable in cases in which an employer abused a protected person by violating any portion of IRCA. It would be shown that cases which are predicated upon the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration Reform Control Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b are "complement to the sanctions provision - 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324a and 1324c - and must be considered in this context." See: H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1000, 99th Cong. 2nd Sess., at 87, reprinted in 1986 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5840. If the sanctions are repealed, then the anti-discrimination provision, namely 8 U.S.C. § 1324b will expire.
Under the provisions of the INA, as it was passed in 1952 and existed through 1986, it was a felony to willfully import, transport, or harbor an undocumented ALIEN, but not to employ undocumented ALIENs. Although employers encountered no sanctions by hiring undocumented ALIENs they were effectively estopped under NLRA from firing these same workers when ALIEN workers took advantage of the rights enjoyed by citizens and legal resident workers. With the passage of IRCA (1986), the employment of undocumented ALIENs is unlawful. This prohibition was manifested by:
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Pasadena Independent School Dist. S.D. Tex.,
662 F. Supp. 443 (1987), Id. at 444, para. 1:
"A policy of terminating undocumented ALIENs for no other reason than that they were given employers a false social security number constitutes an unfair immigration related employment practice under the [provisions of the] Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Immigration and Nationality Act, 274B(a) as amended, 8 U.S.C.A § 1324b(a)."
[IMHO] there are additional sanctions which must be applied by the U.S. Department of Justice, in case of ANY violation. See the INA (Immigration nationality Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2):
"(2) Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of
the fact that an ALIEN has not received prior official authorization to
come to, enter, or RESIDE in the United States, brings to OR ATTEMPTS TO
BRING to the United States IN ANY MANNER whatsoever, such ALIEN, regardless
of any official action which may LATER be taken with respect to such ALIEN
shall, for EACH TRANSACTION constituting a violation of this paragraph,
REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER of ALIENs involved -
* (A) be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned
not more than one year, or both; or
* (B) in the case of -
# (i) a second or SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE,
# (ii) an offense done for the PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL
ADVANTAGE OR PRIVATE FINANCIAL GAIN, or ..."
... .. .. .., be fined in accordance with title 18
or imprisoned not more than FIVE years, or both.
----- partially cited and emphasized, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) -----
Review of subsection (ii) above reveals that no private entity may bring an ALIEN for its private financial gain, i.e., when the appropriate authorities certify an ALIEN for employment it should be done under the restriction of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14) [old numbering, actionable before IMMACT 1990].
The current wording of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182 (1993) - Selected citation:
"Any ALIEN who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose
of performing SKILLED or UNSKILLED LABOR is excludable, unless the SECRETARY
OF LABOR has DETERMINED and CERTIFIED to the Secretary of State and the
Attorney General that - @ (I) there are not sufficient workers who are
able, willing, qualified (or equally qualified in the case of an ALIEN
described in clause (ii)) and available at the time of application for
a visa and admission to the United States and at the place where the ALIEN
is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and @ (II) the employment
of such ALIEN will NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT the wages and working conditions
of workers in the United States similarly employed."
----- partially cited and emphasized 8 U.S.C. § 1182 -----
RECENTLY PROMULGATED LAW
Due to IMMACT and MTINA, it would be harder for an American employer to abuse H-1B ALIENs. However, before IMMACT entered into effect there was quite a gap. Nonimmigrant ALIENs, like H-1 (not H-1B) ALIENs "could" be ultimately abused. Indeed it was quite rare, because educated people would [perhaps] have higher moral values, and obviously the total numbers of H-1 ALIEN is quite low compared to other ALIEN classes.
SO WHAT's THE BIG DEAL?
From my experience, abused H-1 ALIENs elected to go away. Yet, there is a unique case (this one) which is an exception, in particular because there was an involvement of the U.S. Government in some prior investigation in summer 1991, which apparently caused the dismissal of an "undocumented ALIEN" (that's me).
[In my case] there is a reason to believe an IMPROPER INTERVENTION of the legislative branch had interrupted the operation of the executive branch, and consequently ALIEN employees were injured by an employer who had abused them ultimately.
CAUSE OF ACTION
In December 1991, just after my dismissal from employemnt (likely I was an H-1 alien) an INS Investigator in Jersey City, NJ, advised me to file charge with the OSC (Office of Special Counsel), because as an "AUTHORIZED ALIEN" I may have standing under IRCA, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b:
1324b. "Unfair immigration-related employment
* (a) Prohibition of discrimination based on national origin or citizenship status
+ (1) General rule
It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized ALIEN, as defined in section
1324a(h)(3) of this title) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment -
o (A) because of such individual's NATIONAL ORIGIN, or
o (B) in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual's citizenship status."
WHAT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED?
In the first instance a pro se litigant - nonimmigrant AUTHORIZED ALIEN - may sue under the provisions of above cited law, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. So I did. However, it was insufficient. During an evidentiary hearing held by the Executive Office for Immigration Review the ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) permitted me to extend my allegations. Therefore, I further claimed that I am a victim of CRIMES (violations of immigration-related U.S. laws), actionable before IMMACT 1990 [i.e. entered into effect], but I was unable to prove it as a private litigant, who may not have standing like the U.S. Department of Justice in case of CRIMINAL violations.
WHAT ACTIONS DID I TAKE?
Timely, I have informed the INS, OSC, DOL, etc., and also privately sued the small business firm, the one which had abused me ULTIMATELY. Please remember that an INS Investigator (Jersey City, NJ) advised me in December 1991 to do so. The litigation proceedings recently (1995) reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the NJ Supreme Court. However, at each step the courts denied my "civil" case, either using "funny" excuses, or without providing any explanation. By doing so, the lower courts simply pushed me up to higher jurisdictional levels.
At this time [it was then 1995] I am petitioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for REHEARING EN BANC under docket C.A. 94-3690, because on August 8, 1995, this court has denied (without an explanation) my Petition for Review from (the October 31, 1994) Decision and Order of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, under OCAHO Case No. 92B00143. I would say that the panel's decision is contrary to IRCA, 8 U.S.C.A § 1324b, based on precedence 662 F. Supp. 443, and the direct evidence, which conforms with Supreme Court's requirements as outlined in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 S.Ct 2742 (1993). Anyone, a person or an entity may request to intervene in such a proceeding.
Hopefully, I illustrated a clearer picture of what is all about. Now, you may understand what's the difference between the declared policy of the government (manifested by laws) versus real life, concerning the abuse of (elite) class of ALIENs, whose work is essential to the economy of the United States, but the personal benefit of any employer is strictly prohibited.
Folks, I had worked hard "for your econmy" but THE PEOPLE OF the U.S. have thrown me away without paying me and that is because your government had deliberately failed to act properly under the provisions of the written laws of the United States.
SHAME ON THE U.S. GOVERNMENT !!!
Doron A. Tal
a "white-collar alien-slave"
RETURN ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBERS
Doron A. Tal Veteran Physicist
69a Ramim St.
+972 4 998-0274, +972 4 988-7522
Private replies by e-mail: Doron Tal
Published in: CIVILRTS@chicagokent.Kentlaw.EDU 
Stop Abuse Revised July 21, 1999 This Page had been Hosted By GeoCities
Copyleft1997-9 Doron A. Tal - anyhow my rights were lost... ... ãåøåï à. èì - æëåéåúé îîéìà àáåãåú