University of California Sued for Following Federal Law Prohibiting the Hiring of Illegal Aliens
“The effects of the Regents’ misguided policy have been devastating.”
This case should be thrown out immediately. The school did the right thing.
Campus Reform reports:
UC faces lawsuit for following federal law, stopping illegal aliens from being employed on campus
The University of California is being sued for a policy that, in compliance with federal law, does not allow illegal alien students to work at the campus.
UC President Michael Drake announced the decision to not hire illegal alien students in January, according to EdSource. He spoke about the potential legal consequences for the UC system, saying the school could be “subject to civil fines, criminal penalties, or debarment from federal contracting” as well as prosecution for university employees. “[W]e have a fiduciary responsibility to consider all possible ramifications of our actions,” he added.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 makes it illegal for U.S. employers to knowingly hire illegal aliens.
UC leaders were also warned that the school could potentially be sued by the Biden administration if it gave campus jobs to illegal aliens.Now, UC is still facing a lawsuit, although from plaintiffs attacking the university over its compliance with federal law, according to the Daily Caller.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of plaintiffs Jeffry Umaña Muñoz and Iliana Perez, alleges that “The effects of the Regents’ misguided policy have been devastating.”
“The policy is stunting the potential of students with great academic promise, who could pursue advanced degrees at the UC but for their inability to complete the necessary teaching or other employment requirements (such as medical residency). It is discouraging many undocumented students of limited means—who must work to afford college—from applying to the UC altogether,” the lawsuit claims.
Muñoz, who is himself an illegal alien student who came to the U.S. illegally and is currently studying at UC, complained about UC’s policy and said he was “deeply disappointed.”
“I’m deeply disappointed that the UC Regents and President Drake shirked their duties to the students they are supposed to protect and support. We as UC students deserve so much more from our university leadership,” he said in January.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Judge T. G. Grizzly would entertain a summary judgment* request* by the university and dismiss the case with prejudice.
* Did I use that term correctly? And then again, I have a black robe and a little toy hammer to bang on the desk. That means I can do anything I want. NYAH NYAH, na-NYAAAHHH NYAH.
Summary dismissal would not be appropriate here. The plaintiffs make a plausible case, that deserves to be heard by a court before being dismissed.
Thank you. I am not a lawyer; I don’t even play one on TV.
Every single job that I have had since 1986 has required me to complete an I-9 form. You know, the Federal Employment Eligibility Verification form. I’ve had to produce identification and proof of eligibility to work in this country. Pesky thing, that. Actually have to produce identification and proof that I can work. Kind of like what we don’t do for voting, even though most every voter should also be someone who has proven that they are eligible for work here over the past 38 years. Same basic paperwork. And my understanding is that employers who don’t do the I-9 process properly can be subject to all sorts of fines and investigations, although it seems like prosecutions for problems with I-9s have been very few and very selective.
“The University of California is being sued for a policy that, in compliance with federal law, does not allow illegal alien students to work at the campus.”
So I take it there’s no similar federal law about allowing illegal aliens to serve as police officers?
Nothing in the linked article says anything about illegal aliens.
I was misled. She is apparently a legal alien, still, a non-citizen. The point stands.
No, it doesn’t. It’s perfectly legal to hire legal aliens. Always has been. Police departments, like all employers, routinely do hire aliens.
The news story you linked was about a department hiring an alien as an officer, which is unusual because most places have a local police regulation that requires citizenship for such a position. Nothing has ever prevented a locality from changing that regulation, and now this place has.
Whereas the story we’re discussing here is about the federal law against anyone hiring illegal aliens, and a contention that state agencies are exempt from this law, and therefore demanding that UC stop hiding behind the law as an excuse not to hire the plaintiffs.
p1cunnin, every single job you have had since 1986 has probably not been for a state. If you glance at the index page of the plaintiffs’ case, linked from the Campus Reform article, you’ll immediately see that their argument is that the IRCA doesn’t apply to the states.
I haven’t read the case itself, just the index page, but based on that it seems to me that the arguments they make are serious enough to warrant serious consideration by the court, and not summary dismissal. Based purely on that one-page scan it seems to me that if the university were to hire the plaintiffs, and were prosecuted for it, it would have a good chance of acquittal; but that it can’t be legally required to take such a risk. Even if it were 100% confident of acquittal, indeed even if the Biden administration were to assure it that it would not bring charges, I think it could still not be required to act in a way that would still be arguably against the law.
The I9 has nothing to do with immigration status. It just another bit of bureaucratic nonsense designed to entrap and cause problems for those not filling them out properly.
This is getting more than annoying. This shouldn’t even see a trial. Sheesh.
But it’s similar to what they do with the fed bureaucracy. Sue them to force them to make a regulatory change they wanted to do anyway but didn’t have a reason (or legal authority) to do so. This would mean throwing the federal law into limbo, and VOILA! employers everywhere can employ illegal aliens (and those “refugees”) for lower wages!
1. Their case is not frivolous, and it should see a trial.
2. Even if it is successful, that would not enable “employers everywhere” to do anything, since the entire case is based on UC being a state agency.
And you KNOW they would state it as such in the media and would act as if it were so, Milhouse. That’s my point. If you get a favorable judgment, everybody (who wants to have illegal aliens and such “mainstreamed” as if they were citizens) would jump on it. Because legal processes take forever, and they could get away with it until they couldn’t. Take a look at what legislatures have done after Bruen. Because the people who are trying to force them to do this are the sort of people who practice lawfare because they believe wholeheartedly in BAMN.
I thought my pressing of the point – that they (the leftist activists) would take advantage of it – was pretty obvious, and I wasn’t saying they would do this legally.