If you’re Unemployed, No Need to Apply; Sorry U.S. Employers Wanton Discrimination towards America's Unemployed & KUDOS to Alabama for Passing America’s Toughest Illegal Immigration Law!
By Marc Chamot
Americans fighting back!
Kudos to Alabama! Most Americans are getting FED-Up with illegal immigration's. According to recent Newsmax.com polls, out of 126,476 poll takers, 78% don’t support President Obama’s amnesties for illegal immigrants, and most want tougher legislation towards rampant illegal immigration in this country.
It's basically like this; the U.S. Supreme Court have said, if immigration laws are on Federal books, states have every right to enforce them, whether the Feds do or not.
It's basically like this; the U.S. Supreme Court have said, if immigration laws are on Federal books, states have every right to enforce them, whether the Feds do or not.
There’s no question that recent Supreme Court’s rulings, upholding Arizona’s anti-illegal immigrants hiring employers and E-Verify laws, was a big blow for Obama Feds on being able to fend off states from pursuing their own enforcements of Federal laws, that Feds aren’t in compliance on enforcing.
Numerous polls have shown that majority of American voters, support Arizona’s get tough on illegal immigrants as well as Alabama’s new stricter policies.
“The measure will require public schools to determine the citizenship status of students -- a provision not included in an Arizona law that has been at the forefront of actions by several states to curb illegal immigration.
Under the Alabama law, police must detain someone they suspect of being in the country illegally if the person cannot produce proper documentation when stopped for any reason.
It also will be a crime to knowingly transport or harbor someone who is in the country illegally. The law imposes penalties on businesses that knowingly employ someone without legal resident status. A company's business license could be suspended or revoked.
The law, which is scheduled to take effect September 1, requires businesses to use a database called E-Verify to confirm the immigration status of new employees.
"We have a real problem with illegal immigration in this country," Bentley said after signing the law. "I campaigned for the toughest immigration laws, and I'm proud of the Legislature for working tirelessly to create the strongest immigration bill in the country."
Even though liberals and pro-illegal immigrant groups are calling this law racist, I’m calling it our right to protect our sovereignty, over mass invasions of UNWANTED visitors from the South of the border, who we have to help fund their ‘FREE’ medical, education and welfare, and not counting all the JOBS they steal and lower wages!
If you’re unemployed, there's no NEED to apply. If you’ve been unemployed for a while, and if you are wondering why you’re not getting hired by now, here’s a reason. American employers are wantonly discriminating against the unemployed!
According to U.S.A Today’s Telling the jobless not to apply is plain dopey “With an extraordinary 6.2 million Americans out of work for more than six months, the last thing a person without a job should have to worry about is blatant discrimination against people without jobs. But that's just what has been happening. Businesses across the USA are warning in their want ads that the jobless need not apply.
One prominent example surfaced last year, when mobile phone maker Sony Ericsson announced that it was relocating its headquarters — with 180 new jobs — to an Atlanta suburb. A posting for a marketing/public relations job read, in part, "No unemployed candidates will be considered at all." Under fire, Sony Ericsson blamed a recruiter and quickly pulled the exclusion.
But similar ads are cropping up in job postings for everything from restaurant managers to forklift operators to medical device salespersons. An ad last month specified that a pet-sitting service in Woodbridge, Va., would only deign to consider pet-sitting assistants who were "temporarily unemployed," as if no dog could be subjected to a sitter whose skills were not utterly up to date.
Up-to-the-minute skills could be an asset. But knowledge isn't lost overnight. To exclude everyone without a job when nearly 14 million people are unemployed — and 427,000 filed new claims for jobless benefits last week — is just plain dumb.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has received so many complaints about bias against the jobless that officials consider it an "emerging issue." At a commission hearing in February, even industry representatives were hard-pressed to come up with a business necessity that would require such exclusion.
And meanwhile, two states are acting on their own to reverse the trend, a New Jersey law, which took effect June 1, make it illegal to exclude the unemployed in help-wanted ads and carries fines of up to $10,000 for repeated violations.
New Jersey Assemblyman Peter Barnes told us one reason he pushed for the measure was learning from his constituents that "to not have a job and then see an ad saying the 'unemployed need not apply,' breaks people's spirit." In New York, several lawmakers are pushing a measure that would prohibit employers from denying jobless applicants an interview or a job solely because solely they are unemployed.
Nearly everybody knows people with sterling résumés, great attitudes and top-notch skills who lost jobs through no fault of their own during the Great Recession. Hiring them is like bringing in fresh talent from the bench. To decide, without seeing a résumé or meeting them, that they're all losers does not speak well of a company's ethics or imagination.
While federal civil rights and age-discrimination laws do not specifically protect the unemployed, they do protect, among others, African Americans, Hispanics and workers 40 and older. If a policy affects any of those groups disproportionately, it might be illegal. With unemployment among some protected groups running much higher than the national rate of 9.1%, a policy that excludes jobless people might, in fact, be considered discriminatory.
Critics insist that the New Jersey law lacks teeth and that measures like New York's would only invite frivolous litigation. They miss the point. The value in such measures isn't to encourage hiring-discrimination lawsuits, which are notoriously difficult to win. The value is to give the unemployed a fair shot at earning a job rather than blithely and pointlessly writing them off.”
