FIGHTING IMMIGRATION-RELATED JOB DISCRIMINATION: What Workers and Employers Need to Know A

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

FIGHTING IMMIGRATION-RELATED JOB DISCRIMINATION: What Workers and Employers Need to Know AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 132 West 43rd Street 122 Maryland Avenue, NE New York, NY 10036 Washington, DC 20002 (212) 944-9800 (202) 544-1681 Nadine Strossen President Ira Glasser Executive Director Kenneth B. Clark Chair, National Advisory Council Immigrants' Rights Project Lucas Guttentag Director The American Civil Liberties Union is a nationwide, nonpartisan organization of 275,000 members dedicated to preserving and defending the principles set forth in the Bill of Rights. Copies of this guide are available for $2.50 each. Send check/money order to: ACLU Dept. L P.O. Box 794 Medford, NY 1176 Copyright 1993 by the American Civil Liberties Union All Rights Reserved. ISBN 0-914031-20-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Employer Sanctions Protection from Discrimination Document Fraud Penalties Appendix: Sample Employment Eligibility Verification Form (I-9) Index Endnotes This pamphlet is published by the Immigrants' Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. It was originally published in 1987, immediately after the Immigration Reform and Control Act became law. The pamphlet has been completely revised, updated and expanded through the unstinting efforts of Gary Chodorow of Boalt Hall School of Law, who gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the National Immigration Law Center. All regulations and statutory changes in effect as of January 1, 1993 are incorporated. The Immigrants' Rights Project is a part of the ACLU National Office in New York City. It is dedicated to enforcing the constitutional and civil rights of immigrants through advocacy and education. ______________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) on November 6, 1986.1 The law attempts to reduce the number of undocumented immigrants coming to the United States by (1) making it illegal for employers to hire them and (2) requiring every employer to check each new employee's work authorization documents and fill out a special government I-9 form. These requirements are known as the "employer sanctions" provision of IRCA.2 Unfortunately, almost one out of five employers began discriminating as a result of employer sanctions.3 Many employers try to "play it safe" by refusing to hire anyone who looks or sounds "foreign." To protect workers, Congress included in IRCA an "anti-discrimination" provision, which penalizes employers who discriminate and provides remedies for workers who have been mistreated.4 This pamphlet describes employer sanctions and explains how to recognize immigration-related discrimination. More importantly, the pamphlet specifies fair policies that employers should adopt and provides details on how advocates can protect workers against employers that act unfairly. The pamphlet also includes an explanation of the 1990 "document fraud" law, which imposes heavy penalties on workers who use false documents to verify their authorization to work.5 Advocates should carefully explain to workers the risks of false documents. The pamphlet is designed for all who seek to avoid unlawful employment practices and particularly for those who advocate for workers' rights -- workers themselves, union representatives, social workers, immigrants' rights advocates, and others. The pamphlet gives brief answers, with charts and examples, that serve as a guide to this complicated area of the law. It also provides numerous citations to statutes, regulations and court decisions for lawyers and advocates seeking to develop greater expertise. ______________________________________________________________________ EMPLOYER SANCTIONS What are employer sanctions? Employer sanctions prohibits all employers from knowingly hiring or knowingly continuing to employ anyone not authorized to work in the United States.6 The law also requires employers to review every employee's work eligibility and identity documents and to complete and keep on file a special government form (Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9).7 The law does not apply to workers hired before November 7, 1986.8 Who is authorized to work? A citizen, a national, or any other person whose immigration status entitles him or her to work, or who has been granted an employment authorization document (EAD) by the INS. "Aliens" (i.e., non-citizens) authorized to work include legal permanent residents, temporary residents under the IRCA "amnesty" program, temporary agricultural workers, students with part-time or full-time work permission, applicants for legalization or political asylum with work authorization, and many others.9 An immigrant does not have to have a "green card" in order to be authorized to work. Who may not be employed? The law prohibits an employer from: * Hiring, recruiting, or referring for a fee a person the employer knows is not authorized to work in the United States.10 * Obtaining the labor of a contractor whom the employer knows to be an unauthorized worker.11 * Continuing to employ a person whom an employer knows is (or has become) unauthorized to work.12 For which employees must I-9 forms be completed? In general, an employer must fill out an I-9 form for all new employees -- U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike. Recruiters and referrers for a fee of agricultural employees must also complete I-9 forms when a person they recruit or refer is hired.13 However, an employer need not fill out an I-9 form for: * Grandfathered employees, meaning employees hired by an employer before November 7, 1986.14 * Independent contractors, meaning persons who carry on independent business, contract to do a piece of work, and are subject to control only as to the results of the work.15 * Casual hires, meaning individuals who provide "sporadic, irregular or intermittent" domestic service in a private home.16 * Continuing employees, meaning workers who have previously filled out I-9 forms for the employer. Workers qualify as "continuing employees" even if they have been promoted, demoted or transferred; have returned to work after a temporary strike or layoff or approved leave; have continued to work for an employer that has acquired a business from a previous employer; have been reinstated following wrongful termination; or are engaged in seasonal employment.17 Also, a self-employed person need not complete an I-9 form on himself or herself. Do employer sanctions apply to workers who were hired before November 7, 1986? No. IRCA includes a "grandfather clause" that exempts from the sanctions requirements workers that an employer hired before November 7, 1986.18 An employer cannot be penalized for employing these workers or for not filling out I-9 forms, regardless of the workers' immigration status. Example: An employer cannot be sanctioned for continuing to employ an undocumented immigrant hired before November 7, 1986. An employee qualifies as a "grandfathered" worker as long as he or she is a "continuing employee." A "grandfathered" worker loses that status by: quitting, being fired, being subject to seasonal employment, being deported, or leaving the country under an order of voluntary departure.19 What is considered valid proof of work authorization? Employees may document their work authorization by producing either a single document or a combination of documents.20 Example: A United States passport or "green card" by itself is enough. Alternatively, a combination of a driver's license and social security card meets the requirement. An employee can choose which document or combination of documents to show, and the employer must accept them if they are valid. List A: Document showing both identity and work authorization Any one of the following documents is equally valid and by itself satisfies the requirement: * U.S. passport (unexpired or expired). * Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (Form N-560 or N-561). * Certificate of Naturalization (Form N-550 or N-570). * Unexpired foreign passport with I-551 stamp or with Form I-94 with words "Employment Authorized." * Alien Registration Receipt Card or Resident Alien Card with photograph (Form I-151 or I-551). * Unexpired Temporary Resident Card (Form I-688). * Unexpired INS Employment Authorization Document (EAD) (Form I-688A or I-688B). * Unexpired Re-entry permit (Form I-327). * Unexpired Refugee Travel Document (Form I-571). Alternatively, the requirement can be satisfied by a combination of two documentsÄone from each of the following lists: List B: Identity document Any of these documents is valid, even if expired: * Driver's license or state ID with photo or description. * Federal, state, or local government ID with photo or description. * School ID with a photograph. * Voter registration card. * U.S. military ID or draft card. * U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Card. * Native American tribal ID. * Canadian driver's license. Also acceptable for persons under 18 and the handicapped: * School record or report card. * Medical records. * Day-care or nursery school record. * Parent, legal guardian, or rehabilitation agency staff certification of identity. List C: Work authorization document * Social security card (unless stamped "not valid for employment"). * U.S. birth certificate (including Puerto Rico, Guam, and U.S. territories). * Certificate of Birth Abroad of U.S. Citizen (Form FS-545 or DS-1350). * Native American tribal ID. * U.S. Citizen ID (Form I-197). * Resident Citizen Card (Form I-179). * Unexpired INS document with words "Employment Authorized" (e.g., Form I-94). How and when should an employer inquire about an employee's work authorization? By law, information contained on an I-9 form cannot be used for any other purposes.21 Most importantly, an employer cannot consider improper factors, such as national origin or citizenship status, in making employment decisions. To do so is illegal discrimination.22 To insure that employer sanctions information is not being used for improper purposes, advocates should encourage employers to adopt the following policies: * During a job interview, applicants will not be asked if they are citizens, about their immigration status, or what work papers they have. * Job applicants will not be requested to produce documentation until after a conditional job offer has been accepted. * I-9 forms will be stored apart from personnel records so that information contained in I-9 forms cannot influence subsequent employment decisions such as transfers and promotions. How sure must an employer be that an employee's documents are valid? The law does not require an employer to be a documents expert. The law does require that the employer make a good faith decision that a document reasonably appears on its face to be genuine and that it relates to the person presenting it.23 Only when an employer knows or has "constructive knowledge" (i.e., is aware of information that should lead him or her to know 24) that an employee is not authorized to work, should further investigation be done.25 Excessive or inappropriate investigation constitutes illegal discrimination. * Rumors or hearsay, such as anonymous tips, do not constitute constructive knowledge and should not trigger an investigation.26 * The INS Handbook for Employers contains sample photographs of several work authorization documents. However, an employer is not required to refer to the Handbook.27 Many valid forms of documents are not pictured in the Handbook. An employer should not fire or refuse to hire a worker simply because his or her documents do not match the photographs. * Investigation based solely on the national origin, citizenship status, or type of work authorization documents submitted by a worker is illegal discrimination.28 For instance, an employer may not request extra documents or contact the INS simply because a worker is an immigrant. * Employers are permitted to make copies of the employee's documents, but that is not required or necessary.29 However, if an employer decides to make copies, the employer must do so for all employees to avoid unlawful discrimination. Advocates should serve as watchdogs to ensure that employers carry out the law in a fair manner. How should Section 1 of the I-9 form (Employee Information and Verification) be completed? Section 1 must be completed by a new employee at the time of hire.30 Name, address, date of birth, and social security number must be provided. If applicable, work authorization expiration date and/or "A number" must be recorded. In addition, the employee must attest, under penalty of perjury, that he or she is authorized to work. If the employee is unable to complete the form or needs it translated, the employer should provide assistance. In that case, the preparer or translator must provide his or her signature and address.31 How should Section 2 (Employer Review and Verification) be completed? The employer must review a new worker's documents and complete Section 2 of the I-9 form within three days of the hire.32 If the worker's documents have been lost or stolen, the worker should request replacements immediately and get receipts proving he or she has asked for replacements. The receipts may be presented in lieu of the missing documents as long as the actual documents are presented within 90 days of hire.33 If the employee is hired for a period of employment of less than three days, Section 2 must be completed at the time of hire and the employee is not allowed to present receipts instead of documents.34 (A worker who has only receipts should seek work of at least three days). How should Section 3 (Updating and Reverification) be completed? Section 3 should be completed in either of two situations. * When an employer rehires a former employee within three years of the date the initial I-9 form was completed,35 or * When an employee's previous work authorization has expired and must be reverified.36 In the latter case, the employer must complete Section 3 and review the employee's current work authorization document not later than the expiration of the previous work authorization.37 Although work authorization often expires on the date indicated on the work authorization document, exceptions apply: * Permanent residents. The new version of the Resident Alien Card (I-551) held by legal permanent residents expires ten years from the date of issuance, yet work authorization for a permanent resident never expires.38 * Asylum applicants. For an asylum applicant whose application is denied by an Asylum Officer, employment authorization terminates at the expiration of the employment authorization document or 60 days after the denial of asylum, whichever is later. * Nonimmigrants. A nonimmigrant within any of the following classes is authorized to work for 240 days pending INS processing of an application for renewal of work authorization: A-3, E-1, E-2, G-5, H-1, H-2A, H-2B, H-3, I, J-1, L-1, or pursuant to 214(e) of the INA.40 Since INS processing of applications for work authorization renewal is often slow, immigrants must normally file applications at least 90 days before the current document expires.41 Even applications filed timely often are not processed within the the 90 days, through no fault of the immigrants. Employers should be encouraged to set up a calendar system to assure that all immigrant employees' work authorization is timely renewed. It is in the employers' interest to give employees time off work to go to the INS to process renewals, if necessary. If an employee is eligible for renewal but the INS fails to act, the employee should find an advocate to compel the INS to act. If Section 3 has previously been filled in, the employer should complete Section 3 on a new I-9 form with the employee's name written on top.42 May an employer require that a worker post a bond to cover the employer's potential liability under IRCA? No. IRCA specifically prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to pay a bond or security against any potential liability under IRCA.43 What penalties may an employer face for violating the employer sanctions provision? An employer who fails to comply with the employer sanctions provision may be penalized in various ways: Civil penalties: * An employer who violates the paperwork verification requirement -- i.e. does not review the appropriate documents, complete the I-9 forms, keep them on file,and/or make them available for inspection -- is subject to a civil fine of $100 to $1,000 per violation.44 * An employer found to have knowingly hired, referred or recruited for a fee, or continued to employ an unauthorized immigrant (unless hired before November 7, 1986), is subject to a civil penalty of $250 to $2,000 per unauthorized immigrant for the first offense; and up to $10,000 for subsequent offenses.45 * Any employer found to have required an employee to post a bond against potential liability under IRCA is subject to a civil penalty of $1000 and must return the bond to the employee or, if the employee cannot be located, to the government.46 Criminal penalties: * An employer found to have engaged in a "pattern or practice" of knowingly employing unauthorized workers is subject to criminal penalties of up to $3,000 per unauthorized immigrant and/or up to six months in jail.47 * False attestation on an I-9 form is a separate criminal offense punishable by fine, imprisonment for up to five years, or both.48 ______________________________________________________________________ PROTECTION FROM DISCRIMINATION What kind of discrimination is prohibited? In order to foster equal opportunity in employment, IRCA prohibits various kinds of discrimination. An agency called the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices within the U.S. Department of Justice enforces the law. IRCA prohibits: * Document discrimination;49 * Citizenship status discrimination;50 * Retaliation against a person involved in an IRCA anti-discrimination case;51 and * National origin discrimination.52 Specifically, the law prohibits these kinds of discrimination whenever an employer is * Hiring; * Referring or recruiting for a fee; or * Firing.53 Discrimination in other aspects of work such as promotion, salary increases, and vacations is not covered by IRCA but may be covered by other laws.54 Nevertheless, if an employer discriminates by making other aspects of work so bad that a worker has no choice but to quit, then the worker is protected by IRCA.55 This is called "constructive discharge." Example: Linda was constantly subjected to harassment by co-workers because she is not a U.S. citizen. After her supervisor ignored her repeated requests for help, she quit. Under the law, she was constructively discharged. What size and type of employers are covered by the IRCA Anti-Discrimination law? IRCA's anti-discrimination provision covers any employer with more than three employees on the date of discrimination.56 Part-time and full-time employees are both counted.57 Employers covered by IRCA include public and private employers, employment agencies, unions, contractors, even persons who employ domestic help, if they have more than three employees. What is document discrimination? Document discrimination occurs if, in fulfilling the I-9 requirement, an employer requests from a worker more or different documents than are required by IRCA or refuses to honor documents that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine.58 Document discrimination is the most common type of immigration-related employment discrimination. Example: In order to prove identity and work authorization, a new employee who is authorized to work shows her employer a driver's license with a photo and a Social Security card. The employer, who misunderstands the law, requests a "green card" instead. This is illegal discrimination because the employer may not request different documents as long as the employee has presented documents that are sufficient under the law.59 Example: An employee just renewed his expired work authorization. To reverify his eligibility to work, he presents a social security card to his employer. Nevertheless, the employer asks to see an INS-issued work authorization document. This is illegal document discrimination. Document discrimination is prohibited both when an employer initially checks a new employee's documents and later, if reverification is necessary.60 Is it illegal to discriminate because a worker's employment authorization may expire in the future? Yes. A future work authorization expiration date should not be considered by an employer in determining whether an immigrant is qualified for a particular position.61 The Office of Special Counsel considers this document discrimination. Any immigrant worker may be able to get renewed work authorization from the INS, avoiding a gap in eligibility to work. Example: To fulfill the I-9 requirement, a worker presents a work authorization document with an expiration date. The employer refuses to hire the worker because the job requires training and the employer is afraid to invest in a worker who may in the future lose eligibility for employment. This is illegal discrimination.62 What is citizenship status discrimination? Citizenship status discrimination is any different or less favorable treatment based on a person's citizenship or immigration status.63 Example: Sara, a refugee, applies for a job but the employer refuses to hire her because of company policy to only hire U.S. citizens. This is citizenship status discrimination because an employer may not adopt a policy of preferring or hiring only citizens, permanent residents, etc.64 Example: When fulfilling I-9 requirements, an employer is not allowed to photocopy documents of only persons of certain citizenship statuses (e.g., non-citizens only). Although an employer may (but is not required to) photocopy documents, treating different citizenship statuses differently is discrimination.65 Are there any exceptions to IRCA's prohibition against citizenship status discrimination? There are two limited exceptions to IRCA's requirement that citizens and immigrants be treated equally: * Where existing federal, state or local laws, regulations or contracts with governmental entities require employers to hire only U.S. citizens.66 For instance, a state law requiring police officers to be citizens would not violate IRCA. * Where an employer selects an equally-qualified U.S. citizen instead of a non-citizen.67 This exception is narrow. The employer must decide on a case-by-case basis at the time of hire, recruitment, or referral that the two applicants are equally qualified based on the actual requirements of the job.68 Discrimination in a discharge situation is not permitted under this exception.69 Although IRCA does not prohibit these two types of citizenship discrimination, such actions may violate other civil rights laws: Example: The City of Middletown has a law that all city employees must be U.S. citizens. This is not citizenship status discrimination under IRCA because it is required by local law. Nevertheless, this across-the-board citizenship requirement clearly violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.70 What is national origin discrimination? National origin discrimination includes any different or less favorable treatment of an individual because of his or her ancestry or country of birth. It is also national origin discrimination to treat a person differently because he or she has the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a particular national origin group.71 Example: Moonbeam Bakery refuses to hire any employee who was born in India or whose ancestors were from India. This is national origin discrimination.72 Example: New Age Computers does not hire receptionists who are "foreign looking," "foreign sounding,"73 or have a foreign name.74 This is national origin discrimination. Example: Accountants Inc. stops recruiting entry-level employees from the local high school because a large percentage of the students are Asian. Accountants Inc. also adopts a new policy requiring all entry-level employees to speak English fluently, although many of the company's present employees perform their jobs well without being fluent. Both of these practices constitute national origin discrimination.75 Example: Dawn, an undocumented immigrant, began working at Elegant Antiques last year . She invented a false social security number to give her boss. Last month Dawn became a legal permanent resident, so she asked her boss to record her real social security number. Dawn was fired because she had used a false number. The firing is illegal discrimination since Elegant Antiques had never fired other employees for changing their records.76 Finally, it is national origin discrimination to treat a person differently because he or she is associated by marriage or in other ways with a particular national origin group.77 Example: Al's Russian Deli fires Joe because he has been socializing with Lithuanians. This is national origin discrimination. When is national origin discrimination prohibited by IRCA? Since before IRCA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has prohibited national origin discrimination by large companies. IRCA added to Title VII by covering small employers. Specifically, Title VII applies to employers who have 15 or more workers for 20 or more weeks during the calendar year in which the discrimination occurred or in the previous calendar year.78 IRCA's national origin discrimination provision applies to companies that have more than three employees but are not big enough to be covered by Title VII.79 Example: Fancy Fabrics employed 12 people in 1992 when it discriminatorily fired Karen. However, the company employed 30 people for all of 1991. The company is covered by Title VII because it hired more than 15 workers in the calendar year before the discriminatory act. Example: Agribusiness, Inc. is a farm that employs 50 workers during the harvest season, which lasts for only 5 weeks. During the off-season, when it employed eight workers, Agribusiness fired Tomas. Agribusiness is not covered by Title VII because it does not employ 15 workers for 20 weeks. Yet Agribusiness is covered by IRCA because it employed more than three employees on the date it fired Tomas. IRCA charges are filed with the Office of Special Counsel, but Title VII charges are filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, an IRCA charge filed in a timely fashion that should be a Title VII charge, or vice-versa, will be sent to and processed by the correct government office.80 ______________________________________________________________________ National Origin Discrimination: Title VII vs. IRCA. Title VII: Enforcement Agency: EEOC. Size of business: At least 15 workers for 20 or more weeks in the current or previous year Employer Actions Covered: Hiring, firing, recruitment or referral for a fee, compensation, fringe benefits, promotion, training, work assignments, and other terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.108 Protected Employees: All persons, including undocumented immigrants.109 Disparate Impact Discrimination: Covered.110 IRCA: Enforcement agency: Office of Special Counsel Size of Business: More than 3 workers but not covered by Title VII. Employer Actions Covered: Hiring, firing, recruitment or referral for a fee. Protected Employees: Only "authorized" workers. Disparate Impact Discrimination: Not covered. ______________________________________________________________________ What is retaliation? Intimidation, threats, coercion, or retaliation against any person who intends to or has filed an IRCA charge or a complaint, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in any anti-discrimination investigation, procedure, or hearing is illegal.81 More often than not, an employer that wants to retaliate against a worker who has filed a discrimination charge will cite substandard on-the-job performance. The worker will need to show that his of her performance was at least satisfactory -- and that the real reason for the adverse treatment is retaliation. Which employees are protected by IRCA? Any person may bring an IRCA document discrimination or national origin discrimination charge, unless the individual is not authorized to work in the U.S.82 To file a citizenship status discrimination charge under IRCA, a person must be a "protected individual."83 A protected individual is a U.S. citizen or national, or any immigrant who is a: * Lawful temporary resident under the general amnesty or farm worker (SAW) legalization program;84 * Political asylee; * Refugee; or * Permanent resident.85 For a permanent resident to qualify as a protected individual, he or she must also * Apply for naturalization within six months of becoming eligible; and * Become naturalized within two years of applying (or show that naturalization is being pursued actively).86 Most permanent residents are eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship five years after they receive permanent resident status.87 A person who has gained permanent residence by marrying a U.S. citizen is eligible for naturalization after being a permanent resident for three years.88 The date a person became a permanent resident is indicated on his or her "green card." Arguably, any person can file an IRCA retaliation charge, whether or not the person is authorized to work.89 Must the employer be biased to be guilty of discrimination? No. Regulations provide that IRCA only covers "intentional discrimination" not "disparate impact discrimination."90 "Intentional discrimination" means that the employer intended the results (such as the firing or not hiring) of his or her action. But discrimination can be intentional whether or not the employer is prejudiced or has a bad motive. Example: Yvonne, the owner of Executive Laundry, wants to obey the employer sanctions provision. She mistakenly believes that workers must be citizens or permanent residents to be authorized to work. She asks all job applicants to show U.S. birth certificates or green cards. When some workers fail to produce those documents, she feels sorry but refuses to hire them. This is intentional discrimination, even though Yvonne is not biased. "Disparate impact" discrimination, on the other hand, occurs when a neutral practice or policy of an employer has the effect of discriminating. Disparate impact discrimination is not covered by IRCA but may be covered by other laws. Example: Kentucky Canning Factory policy only hires applicants with high school diplomas. Yet diplomas are unnecessary to perform the work since any worker with 6 months prior canning experience is qualified. The Factory is in a community of Indian immigrants, but none have been hired because they do not have U.S. high school diplomas. If the factory's hiring policy has the purpose of discriminating against immigrants from India, it is intentional discrimination. On the other hand, if it only has the effect of discriminating against Indians, it is disparate impact discrimination. What remedies are available to a discrimination victim under IRCA? Upon finding that an employer has violated IRCA's anti-discrimination provision, a judge must order that the discrimination stop. In addition, the judge may order:91 Assistance for the victim: * Hire or rehire of the employee. * Backpay and/or front pay for any loss of earnings resulting from the discrimination. * Removal of false performance reviews or warnings from an employee's personnel file. * Removal of any restrictions on an employee's assignments, work shifts, or movements. Civil penalties payable to the U.S. government: * For the first offense, up to $2000 per individual discriminated against; for subsequent offenses, up to $10,000 per individual. * $100 to $1000 per individual victim of document discrimination. Measures to avoid future discrimination: * Maintenance of a record of all job applicants for a period of up to three years. * Posting of workplace notices concerning employee rights and employer obligations. * Education for all hiring personnel concerning compliance with IRCA. Finally, the judge may order that the attorneys' fees of the winning party be paid by the losing party if the losing party's arguments were unreasonable.92 What should an individual do if he or she has been discriminated against? Both formal and informal means of resolving the problem may exist. In either case, a discrimination victim should do the following: * Sometimes it is unclear whether the employer has discriminated. (For instance, an employer who discriminates against job applicants who look foreign or sound foreign may simply tell certain applicants that the job is filled.) In this case, it may be possible to do a test to get evidence that an employer is discriminating. Example: Rodrigo went to apply for a job, but the employer said that the job was filled. Rodrigo suspects that he was turned down because he is Latino and has a Spanish accent. Rodrigo asks his friend Jimmy to call about the job. Jimmy is Anglo and does not have an accent. The employer offers Jimmy the job. This is indirect evidence that the employer is discriminating against Rodrigo based on his national origin. * Organize evidence of illegal discrimination. Keep a log of the time, date, location, people involved and nature of actions that demonstrate any pattern of illegal discrimination. Keep a file of any relevant documents from the employer. * Make a list of potential witnesses, including anyone else who was present when the worker was discriminated against. * Keep a job search log. The person discriminated against will need to look for another job and should keep a list of all the places where he or she looks. The log should list the name of the company and the person contacted there, the location of the company, the date of application, and a description of the job applied for. If discrimination is later proven, this log will help the victim qualify for back pay. What informal ways exist to resolve the problem? It may not be necessary to hire a lawyer or to file a formal charge in order to resolve the problem. For instance, if an employer refuses to accept proper documents from a job applicant, it may be enough for the applicant (or an advocate on his or her behalf) to provide a list of acceptable documents to the employer. A significant cause of discrimination is employers' lack of education about the law. Filing formal charges with the appropriate agency should be pursued if informal means fail. How can formal IRCA charges be filed? A discrimination victim does not need an attorney to file an IRCA charge, but consulting an attorney or a non-profit agency may be helpful. Charges should be filed with the Office of Special Counsel. Use of the government's charge form (OSC-1), in Spanish or English, is preferable but not required. For free information and assistance, write: Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices P.O. Box 27728 Washington, DC 20038-7728 or call: 1-800-255-7688 (toll free). (202) 616-5594 (Fax) (202) 616-5509 The TDD number for the hearing impaired is (202)296-0168. May charges be filed by persons other than the actual victim? Under IRCA, the injured party or another party authorized by him or her can file charges. That includes friends, relatives, union representatives, church workers, attorneys -- anyone. The INS can also file charges.93 In addition, the Office of Special Counsel may choose to open an independent investigation and file charges on its own initiative.94 This is important because if a victim of discrimination cannot meet the technical requirements (e.g., the person does not qualify as a "protected individual"), the Special Counsel may still choose to investigate an employer. In such a case, the Special Counsel may reach a settlement agreement in which the person receives relief. Are there time limits for filing charges? A discrimination victim must file an IRCA charge within 180 days of the date on which the discrimination occurred. If the charge is mailed to the Office of Special Counsel, it must be postmarked within 180 days of the discriminatory act.95 Failure to comply with the filing deadline will result in a charge being rejected.96 However, in some cases late charges may be accepted for good reason -- if, for instance, the employer keeps alive the worker's hopes that the discriminatory decision is not final.97 If the deadline has passed, a discrimination victim should not give up on filing a claim. The Special Counsel should be called and informed. Even if late filing is not accepted, the Special Counsel may pursue an independent investigation and the victim could be included in a settlement. What is the procedure for deciding a case? Upon receiving a charge of discrimination, the Office of Special Counsel has 120 days to decide whether there is "reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true." The Special Counsel will conduct an investigation that could include interviews with the charging party, the employer and other witnesses, as well as a review of I-9 forms and other relevant documents.98 If the Special Counsel believes discrimination has occurred, it will send a "demand letter" to the employer requesting that the victim receive the proper remedies. If the employer refuses, the employer will probably request settlement talks to try to solve the problem without going before a judge. If settlement cannot be reached, the Special Counsel may decide to bring a complaint before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). If the Special Counsel does not bring a complaint before the ALJ within the 120-day period, the Special Counsel will notify the charging party of the right to file a complaint on its own directly before the ALJ.99 If the charging party wishes to pursue its claim, it must file within 90 days after receiving notice that the Special Counsel will not file.100 However, the Special Counsel retains the right to investigate the charges or bring a complaint before the ALJ during this 90-day period.101 Whether the complaint is brought by the Special Counsel or by the charging party, a hearing will be held before an ALJ who will determine whether discrimination occurred and the type of penalty that should be imposed. There is no rule that the charging party must be represented by an attorney at the hearing, but the hearing is very much like a trial, so an attorney's trial expertise is helpful. After the ALJ's ruling in the case, either party may appeal to the federal court of appeals by filing a notice of appeal within 60 days.102 ______________________________________________________________________ Time Line for IRCA Anti-Discrimination Case: Day 1: Discriminatory act occurs. 180 days after discriminatory act: Deadline for filing charge with Office of Special Counsel. During the 120-day period following filing of charge: Special Counsel investigates charge and may attempt settlement. End of 120-day period: Deadline for Office of Special Counsel to either file complaint with ALJ or notify charging party of right to file own complaint within 90 days. Indefinite period: ALJ considers and decides case. 60 days after ALJ decision: Deadline for appeal to federal court. End of 120-day period: Deadline for Office of Special Counsel to either file complaint with ALJ or notify charging party of right to file own complaint within 90 days. ______________________________________________________________________ Do other laws prohibit immigration-related employment discrimination? Yes. In addition to IRCA, there are various laws that outlaw employment discrimination: * Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.103 * Other federal laws. Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,104 the National Labor Relations Act,105 OSHA,106 and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 107 require employers not to discriminate on the basis of race, to comply with certain health, safety, and minimum wage requirements, and to allow employees to unionize. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits most kinds of employment discrimination on the basis of race and national origin at any level of state or local government. * State and local laws. In many areas, statutes and ordinances prohibit discrimination on the basis of national origin, alienage, or citizenship status. * Collective bargaining agreements. Agreements between a union and an employer can also protect employees against discrimination. As a rule, all available legal remedies should be pursued. A victim of discrimination should file charges under all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Example: Widget Inc. refuses to hire Ester because she is an immigrant with dark skin and a "foreign" accent. Ester may be able to file a citizenship status discrimination charge under IRCA, a national origin discrimination charge under Title VII, a racial discrimination charge under Section 1981 and a charge under state or local law. ______________________________________________________________________ DOCUMENT FRAUD PENALTIES What is the 1990 document fraud law? Since November 29, 1990, a new document fraud law has prohibited the knowing use or acceptance of documents that are fake, altered, or issued to a person other than the possessor to satisfy any requirement of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The INS investigates and prosecutes cases of document fraud. A person determined to have violated the law must pay monetary penalties. An immigrant violator may, in addition, be subject to permanent deportation or exclusion.111 Advocates should carefully explain to workers, especially immigrants, the dangers of document fraud. What is illegal under the document fraud law? Penalties may be imposed against a worker who knowingly does any of the following:112 * Makes a false document or alters a real document for the purpose of satisfying the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (which includes the employer sanctions provision). Example: It is illegal to place one's own name on someone else's social security card to get a job. * Uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or receives any false or altered document in order to satisfy any requirement of the INA. Example: It is illegal for a job applicant to try to show an employer a false driver's license to try to get a job. * Uses or attempts to use any document lawfully issued to someone else, for the purpose of satisfying a requirement of the INA. Example: It is illegal to use a "green card" issued to another person. * Accepts or receives any document lawfully issued to a person other than the possessor, for the purpose of complying with paperwork verification requirements. Example: It is illegal for an employee to accept a Social Security card that he or she knows was issued to another person. The statute is violated only if the accused worker has acted knowingly and with the purpose of falsely meeting with the INA or the I-9 requirements.113 Although this pamphlet concentrates on the relationship between document fraud and employer sanctions, the document fraud law may apply in many different circumstances. For instance, the law could be violated if an applicant fills out a visa application with false information.114 How does the INS investigate document fraud? The INS is in charge of enforcing the document fraud law. There are many ways the INS might learn about a violation. Among them, the INS could * Learn about the fraudulent documents during a verification check of an employer's I-9 forms. * Discover the existence of fraudulent documents from information in an application for an immigration benefit. * Receive a tip from another person. * Interrogate or arrest a person carrying fraudulent documents. What are the penalties for violating the document fraud law? The penalty is most harsh for an immigrant. An immigrant becomes deportable and excludable forever. No waiver is available. Any violator -- immigrant or citizen -- may be assessed a civil fine payable to the INS of $250 to $2000 for each illegal document used, accepted, or created. Penalties for subsequent offenses are $2000 to $5000 for each illegal document.115 In addition, wholly apart from penalties under the document fraud law, any violator could be subject to criminal prosecution.116 How can an immigrant fight document fraud charges? Get an attorney immediately: If the INS believes that a document fraud violation has occurred, it will issue a Notice of Intent to Fine (I-763) instructing the accused person of the charges, the penalty to be imposed, and the right to request a hearing to contest the charges.117 An immigrant accused of document fraud should see an immigration attorney immediately after receiving a Notice of Intent to Fine. The accused person has a right to be represented by an attorney. Do not waive the right to a hearing: The INS may ask the respondent to sign a document admitting to the violation or waiving the right to a hearing.118 The respondent should not sign. If he or she signs, the INS's order of document fraud becomes finalÄno appeal is possible.119 Moreover, a respondent should not admit to the INS any facts regarding the allegation of document fraud or offer any statements regarding place of birth without first speaking with an attorney. Request a hearing before the ALJ: The accused person is called the "respondent."120 The respondent has no automatic right to a hearing to defend himself or herself. Instead, the respondent must request, in writing, a hearing before an ALJ.121 The written request must be filed with the INS within 60 days after service of the Notice of Intent to Fine.122 It is very important that a timely request for a hearing be made. If a person does not request a hearing in time, the INS automatically issues a final "order" of document fraudÄno appeal is possible.123 Attend the hearing before the ALJ: If the respondent requests a hearing, an ALJ will preside. The government must prove that the respondent has violated the law. If the respondent prevails at the hearing, no penalties can be imposed. An ALJ's order may be vacated or modified by the Attorney General within 30 days after it is made.124 Appeal to a federal court of appeals is available but must be made within 45 days of the order (or from the Attorney General's decision if she acts).125 How can an immigrant who has received a final order of document fraud contest deportation and exclusion? Immigration proceedings before an immigration judge are different than and in addition to a document fraud hearing before an ALJ. To avoid deportation or exclusion, an immigrant must first contest the document fraud charge. If an immigrant loses, he or she must then attend and contest the immigration proceedings. To begin immigration proceedings, the INS will serve the respondent an Order to Show Cause, which is a paper notifying him or her of the charge of being deportable or excludable because of receiving a final order of document fraud. The Order to Show Cause also notifies the respondent of the right to a hearing before an immigration judge.126 Send a change of address form to the immigration judge: The respondent should check the Order to Show Cause to be sure it lists his or her correct address and telephone number. A hearing notice, stating the date, time and place of the immigration hearing will be sent to that address. If the Order to Show Cause address is incorrect, the respondent must send a change of address form to the immigration judge within 5 days after receiving the Order to Show Cause. The official change of address form (EOIR-33) must be used. Any future change of address must also be reported within five days on form EOIR-33.127 If the respondent has received an Order to Show Cause in the mail but does not notify the immigration judge of a change of address, the immigration judge cannot notify the respondent of the hearing. If the respondent does not know when the hearing is and does not go, he or she can be ordered deported or excluded without a hearing.128 Do not sign for voluntary departure before consulting an immigration attorney: The INS may also ask the respondent to sign a "voluntary departure" document that is an agreement to leave the country immediately without a hearing. Do not sign any document giving up the right to a hearing before consulting an immigration attorney. Attend and contest the immigration proceeding: If the respondent fails to attend the hearing before the immigration judge, he or she can be ordered deported or excluded automatically. The respondent will not have any chance to request permission to remain in the U.S. The consequences of being deported or excluded can be devastating. Only by attending the hearing before the immigration judge does the respondent have a chance to stay in or enter this country legally.129 At the immigration hearing, the the INS must prove that the respondent is (a) not a citizen and (b) has received a final order of document fraud. It may be possible for the respondent to challenge the validity and appropriateness of the order of document fraud. (For instance, the order may be invalid if the respondent never received the Notice of Intent to Fine from the INS or was coerced into waiving his or her right to request a hearing before an ALJ). Finally, the respondent may be able to seek relief from the immigration judge. For instance, he or she may be eligible for suspension of deportation, adjustment of status, voluntary departure, political asylum, certain waivers, etc. A full discussion of strategies for contesting the immigration proceeding is beyond the scope of this pamphlet. An immigrant who receives a Notice of Intent to Fine for document fraud should see an immigration attorney immediately. ______________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX: [print edition of this publication includes a facsimile of the I-9 Form] EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION FORM (I-9) (Front) EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION FORM (I-9) (Back) ______________________________________________________________________ ENDNOTES 1. Pub.L.No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3372 (1986). 2. See generally Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Sec. 274a (1992), 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324a (1992). 3. General Accounting Office, "Immigration Reform: Employer Sanctions and the Question of Discrimination" (GAO/GGD-90-62, March 1990). 4. See generally INA Sec. 274B, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324b (1992). See also 28 C.F.R. Secs. 44.100 et seq. 5. See generally INA Sec. 274C, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324c (1992). 6. INA Sec. 274A (a)(1992). 7. INA Sec. 274A (b)(1992). 8. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.7 (1992). 9. INA Sec. 274A(h)(3)(1992); 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.12 (1992). 10. INA Sec. 274A(a)(1)(A)(1992). 11. INA Sec. 274A(a)(4)(1992); 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.5 (1992). 12. INA Sec. 274A(a)(2)(1992). 13. INA Sec. 274A(a)(1)(B)(ii)(1992). 14. IRCA Sec. 101(a)(3); 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.7 (1992). 15. 8 C.F.R. Secs. 274a.1(f) & (j)(1992). 16. 8 C.F.R. Secs. 274a.1(f) & (h)(1992). 17. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.2(b)(1)(viii)(1992). 18. IRCA Sec. 101(a)(3); 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.7 (1992). 19. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.7(b)(1992); see Maka v. INS, 904 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1990) (employer fined for re-employing unauthorized immigrant who lost grandfathered status after quitting voluntarily). 20. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.2 (1992). 21. INA Sec. 274A(b)(5)(1992). 22. INA Sec. 274B (1992). 23. INA Sec. 274A(b)(1)(A)(1992). 24. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.1(l)(1992); see Mester Mfg. Co. v. INS, 879 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1989)(employer had constructive knowledge that immigrant employees unauthorized when, after being put on notice by INS that they were suspected of using fraudulent documents, employer failed to make sufficient further inquiry); New El Rey Sausage Co. v. INS, 925 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir 1991)(same); Collins Foods Int'l v. INS, 948 F.2d 549 (1991)(forged social security card would not have alerted reasonable person to its falsity, so although employer failed to compare card to sample in INS Handbook for Employers, employer not liable). 25. See supra n.24. 26. See 8 C.F.R. 274a.1(l)(1992). 27. Collins Foods Int'l v. INS, 948 F.2d 549 (1991). 28. INA Sec. 274B (1992). 29. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.2(b)(3). 30. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.2(b)(1)(A) (1992). 31. Id. 32. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.2(b)(1)(ii) (1992). 33. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.2(b)(1)(vi) (1992). 34. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.2(b)(1)(iii) (1992). 35. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.2(c) (1992). 36. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.2(b)(1)(vii) (1992). 37. Id. 38. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.12(a)(1) (1992) ("An expiration date on the Form 1-551 reflects only that the card must be renewed, not that the individual's work authorization has expired"). 39. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 208.7(b)(1) (1992). 40. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.12(b)(15) (1992). 41. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.13 (1992). 42. Handbook for Employers at 4. 43. INA 274A(g)(1) (1992). 44. INA Sec. 274A(e)(5) (1992). 45. INA Sec. 274A(e)(4) (1992). 46. INA Sec. 274A(g)(2) (1992). 47. INA Sec. 274A(f) (1992). 48. 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1001 & 1546(b) (1992). 49. INA Sec. 274B(a)(6) (1992) See generally 28 C.F.R. Secs. 44.200 et seq. for regulations implementing anti-discrimination protections. 50. INA Sec. 274B(a)(1)(B) (1992). 51. INA Sec. 274B(a)(5) (1992) (IRCA). 52. INA Sec. 274B(a)(1)(A) (1992) (IRCA). 53. INA Sec. 274B(a)(1). 54. See Fayyaz v. The Sheraton Corp., OCAHO Case NO. 89-200430 (Apr. 10, 1990). 55. See Banuelos v. Transportation Leasing Company, OCAHO Case No. 89-200314 (Oct. 24, 1990). 56. INA Sec. 274B(a)(2)(A) (1992). 57. Preamble to 52 Fed. Reg. 37,402 (Oct. 6, 1987). 58. INA Sec. 274B(a)(6) (1992). 59. Id; see U.S. v. Lasa Marketing Firms, OCAHO Case No. 88-200061 (Nov. 27, 1989) amended (Mar 14, 1990) at 28 (refusal to refer temporary resident for employment without "green card"); Jones v. DeWitt Nursing Home, OCAHO Case No. 88-200202 at 14 (June 20, 1990) (termination for failure to submit a birth certificate, although employee had submitted social security card and state-issued identity card); U.S. v. Marcel Watch Corp., OCAHO Case No. 89-200085 at 15 (Mar 22, 1990) amended (May 10, 1990) (insistence on "green card" for U.S. citizen born in Puerto Rico). 60. U.S. v. Louis Padnos Iron & Metal Co., OCAHO Case No. 91-200152 (Mar. 27, 1992) 61. Handbook for Employers at 4. 62. See Jorge A. Del Risco v. Potomac Electric Power Co., OCAHO Case No. 89-200038 (complaint dismissed after settlement Aug. 8, 1989). 63. INA Sec. 274B(a)(1)(B) (1992). 64. See U.S. v. Mesa Airlines, OCAHO Case No. 88-200001 (July 24, 1989), appeal dismissed 951 F.2d 1186 (10th Cir. 1991). 65. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.2(b)(3) (1992). 66. INA Sec. 274B(a)(2)(C) (1992). See Sosa v. U.S. Postal Service, OCAHO Case No. 89-200001 (Dec. 15, 1989) (postal service regulation falls within exception); Elhajomar v. City of Honolulu, OCAHO Case No. 89-2000269 (Oct. 4, 1990) (state statute falls within exception). 67. INA Sec. 274B(a)(4) (1992). 68. 28 C.F.R. 44.200(b)(2) (1992); U.S. v. Mesa Airlines, OCAHO Case Nos. 88-200001 & 2 at 83 (July 24, 1989), appeal dismissed, 951 F.2d 1186 (10th Cir. 1991). 69. Id. 70. See Bernal v. Fainter, 104 S.Ct. 2312 (1984). 71. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1606.1 (1992). 72. See In re Charge of Luis Aguilera, U.S. v. Castle Valley Auto Sales, Inc., OCAHO Case No. 90-200143 (Mar. 5, 1992). 73. Preamble to 52 Fed. Reg. 37,402 (Oct. 6, 1987). 74. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1601.1 (1992). 75. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1606.7 (1982) (Title VII); Preamble to 52 Fed. Reg. 37, 402 (Oct. 6, 1987). 76. See League of United Latin American Citizens v. Pasadena Ind. School Dist., 662 F. Supp. 443 (S.D. Tex 1987). 77. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1606.1 (1992) (Title VII); see, e.g., In re Charge of Luis Aguilera, United States v. Castle Valley Auto Sales, Inc. OCAHO Case No. 90-200143 (Mar. 5, 1992). 78. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e(b) (1992). 79. INA Sec. 274B(a)(2)(B) (1992). 80. 54 Fed. Reg 32,499 (Aug 8, 1989). 81. INA Sec. 274B(a)(5) (1992) (IRCA); 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-3(a) (Title VII). 82. INA Secs. 274B(a)(1), 274A(h)(3) (1992); 8 C.F.R. Sec. 274a.12 (1992). It is unclear whether unauthorized workers falling within the "grandfather" clause are covered, although the Office of Special Counsel believes they are not. Preamble to 52 Fed. Reg. 37,403 (Oct. 6, 1987). 83. INA Sec. 274B(a)(1)(B) (1992). 84. There is a special rule allowing persons granted temporary residency under the legalization program to backdate their protection to the date they filed for amnesty. 28 C.F.R. Sec. 44.101(c)(2) (1992). 85. INA Sec. 274B(a)(3) (1992). 86. Id. Also, the previous requirement in the law that a person file a "Declaration of Intention to Become a Citizen" to be considered a protected individual has been eliminated. IMMACT 90 Sec. 533(a). 87. INA Sec. 316(a)(1992). 88. INA Sec. 319(a)(1992). 89. Compare INA Sec. 274B(a)(5)(1992) with Sec. 274B(a)(1)(1992). 90. 28 C.F.R. Sec. 44.200(a)(1992). The regulation may misinterpret the statute, which arguably covers both intentional and unintentional discrimination by an employer. See Gonzalez, Standards of Proof in Section 274B of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 41 Vand. L. Rev. 1323 (1988). 91. INA Sec. 274B(g)(2)(1992) 92. INA Sec. 274B(h) & (j)(4)(1992)(IRCA). 93. INA Sec. 274B(b)(1)(1992). 94. INA Sec. 274B(d)(1)(1992). 95. INA Sec. 274B(b)(3)(1992). 96. Id. 97. U.S. v. Mesa Airlines, OCAHO Case Nos. 88-200002 at 52-53 (July 24,1989), appeal dismissed, 951 F. 2d 1186 (10th Cir. 1991). 98. INA Sec. 274B(d)(1) (1992); 28 C.F.R. Sec. 44.302(a) & (b) (1992). 99. INA Sec. 274B(d)(2)(1992). 100. Id. 101. Id. 102. INA Sec. 274B(i)(1)(1992). 103. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2 (1992). 104. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 (1992). 105. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq. (1992). 106. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 651 et seq. (1992). 107. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. (1992). 108. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(a)(1992). 109. EEOC v Tortilleria "La Mejor", 758 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Cal. 1991); see EEOC v Hacienda Hotel, 881 F. 2d 1504, 1517 (9th Cir. 1989). 110. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2 (1992). 111. See generally INA Sec. 274C (1992); 8 C.F.R. Sec. 270 et seq. The exact nature of the law is still uncertain because the government has not yet begun to enforce it. 112. INA Sec. 274C(a)(1992). 113. Id. 114. 8 C.F. R. Sec. 270.1 (1992). 115. INA Sec. 274C(d)(3)(1992). 116. See 8 C.F. R. Sec. 270.3(a)(1992) (nothing in Section 274C diminishes penalties available under Title 18.). Title 18 prohibits false statements to an agency of the U.S. (Sec. 1001); fraud and misuse of documents and false attestation (Sec. 1546); aiding and abetting, and conspiracy (Secs. 2 & 371). 117. 8 C.F. R. Sec. 270.2)(e)(1992). 118. 8 C.F. R. Sec. 270.2(f)(1992). 119. INA Sec. 274C(d)(2)(B)(1992); 8 C. F. R. Sec. 270.2(f) & (g) (1992). 120. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 270.2(d)(1992). 121. INA Sec. 274C(d)(2)(A) & (B)(1992). 122. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 270.2(e)(2)(iii) & (f)(1992). 123. INA Sec. 274C (d)(2)(B) (1992); 8 C.F.R. Secs. 270.2(f) & (g)(1992). 124. INA Sec. 274C(d)(4)(1992). 125. INA Sec. 274C(d)(5)(1992). 126. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.15 (1992). 127. Id. 128. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.26 (1992). 129. Id. THE ACLU IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT The ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project engages in litigation, public education, advocacy and professional training to protect immigrants against discrimination and expolitation, and to enforce the fundamental constitutional safeguards of due process and equal protection. The Project works to: protect the rights of political refugees; combat employment discrimination against aliens and American citizens who look or sound "foreign"; enforce due process standards in deportation proceedings; challenge the power of Congress to enact laws that abridge aliens' rights; ensure the right to be represented by counsel, and implement the right to obtain employment authorization. The Project publishes studies, reports and educational materials for lawyers, advocates and immigrants. Project staff have testified before Congress and other bodies on such issues as the rights of Haitian refugees; the discriminatory effect of employer sanctions; the counterproductive and intrusive effects of proposed national employment identity cards; the hardship caused by legislative penalties against marriages between U.S. citizens and aliens; the conditions at alien detention centers, and the health-threatening impact of mandatory HIV testing of immigrants. The Project also regularly trains immigration attorneys, the private bar and members of the immigrant advocacy community on civil rights and immigration law issues. ============================================================= ACLU Free Reading Room | A publications and information resource of the gopher://aclu.org:6601 | American Civil Liberties Union National Office ftp://aclu.org | mailto:infoaclu@aclu.org | "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank