It states there that the Attorney General can cite an employer on either evidence or information. meaning that he can issue the citation on the basis of pure hearsay. without any provision whatever in that section for a hearing. This is important because this pertains to another section determining whether or not he is later going to go to jail for a misdemeanor. In the second section. subsection (3) it states that if an employer continues to hire or does subsequently hire an employee. not. necessarily the same alien that was cited for by hearsay. then the Attorney Generalacting as judge and prosecutor. can assess a $500 penalty. and it says that the Attorney General will provide a hearing by an immigration officer who may or may not be a lawyer. So again we have the same problem of the prosecutor and judge being the same fellow. He then assesses a penalty. and then could take the lawsuit into a district court to collect on the basis of that penalty. but this is something very new in judicial proceedings. in that by this bill in a district court. which is a trial court. all that can be presented is the record by the immigration officer who is the trial judge and prosecutor and there cannot be any independent new evidence. There is no provision for a full trial. The record before the hearing officer is conclusive and no other evidence can be presented on which a man can have a lawsuit and a judgment assessed against him. On one more alleged violation an employer can go to jail on the basis of a misdemeanor against him or have a fine assessed on. first. hearsay. and second. a hearing before a hearing officer who is not a judge and who may not be a lawyer himself. with a decision on the basis of this hearing before the immigration officer. cut off from presenting new evidence before the district court. Is this the American system? Is this the system we should have on which the decision can be based on pure hearsay and not new evidence?
Keywords matched
immigration