CalgaryAMC

Contrary to popular belief, I don't think K3s are "protected individuals," and they can be subject to citizenship status discrimination. In other words, they can be denied employment - even with an EAD - because they are on a K3 visa. They are protected against national origin discrimination and document abuse though.

I have pieced together these conclusions based on looking at the appropriate parts of the INA and the IRCA, and fragments of analysis I have found on the web, but can't find anything that specifically says anything about K3s. Does anyone know anything about this?

jeffreyhy

Calgary,

Whose belief is it that K3s are a 'protected' group?

Regards, JEff

CalgaryAMC

Avoiding hearsay, I can only say myself with certainty.

Do you know anything about the subject?

elga

A K3 is a Non-Immigrant Visa, granted for 2 years, it doesn't guarantee you a status of a permanent resident allthough it usually leads towards becoming one.
However, anyone doing business with you may consider you 'a temporary stay' until you can present proof of permanent residence. Hence I would imagine that employers may reject an application even though they may not admit the very reason. I wouldn't worry too much about the issue though, there are many K3'ers successfully working their preferred jobs.

neerluck

Can a person with a K3 visa get a drivers license ?

Noorah101

Each state has different requirements in order to obtain a drivers license. With the proper documents required by your dept. of motor vehicle office, a K-3 visa holder can get a drivers license.

Rene

Rete

Not sure what you mean by protected individuals. A K-3 visaholder who has an EAD has the same rights in employment, other than working for a government agency in a high security position that requires US citizenship, as any other individual. In fact even illegal aliens without EADs have the protection of employment rights, i.e. abuse, proper wages and working conditions, the right to sue, etc.

Perhaps you meant "residency status" and not citizenship status.

You would be hard pressed to find any information in the INA and IRCA on K-3 benefits since it is a relatively new category of migration and any regulations regarding this status would have been issued within the last two years since the K-3 visa only became an option with the Life Act.

Rete

jeffreyhy

Rete,

My sense is that Calgary is using the term 'protected individuals' in the legal sense that certain groups have been defined by law as protected from discrimination in employment.

As it was explained to me once by one of my company's attorneys, in a 'right to work' state one can be fired for any reason as long as it is not an illegal reason; for example, one can be fired for having black hair but one cannot be fired for having black skin. The law protects people with black skin, but it does not protect people with black hair.

Regards, JEff

CalgaryAMC

To ensure we are all singing from the same songsheet, I am talking about the antidiscrimination provisions of the IRCA, found in 8 USC s. 1324b. To my knowledge, these are the only regulations that protect against discrimination of non-US citizens in hiring practices. These provisions can be found online here: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/ref/8usc1324b.htm

Those provisions protect against the following:

(1) discrimination based on citizenship status
(2) discrimination based on national origin
(3) document abuse
(4) intimidation

I am satisfied that K3s are covered by the latter three because the statute is entirely inclusive on those forms of discrimination.

I am not satisfied that the first provision, however, applies to people on K3 status, because the statute explicitly extends this protection only to "protected individuals" (8 USC s. 1324b(a)(1)(B)). K3s are most certainly not members of the class of "protected individuals" as they are defined in that section.

Therefore, I don't think it would be illegal at all for an employer to refuse to hire K3s at all, or to immediately fire all the K3s currently in their employ, for no reason other than their visa status.

This seems to contradict the common wisdom (that you have expressed) and which I have always thought to be true, which is that visa status discrimination is not legal, period. But I cannot for the life of me find anything that says that.

I'm wondering what - if anything - does protect someone on K3 status, or K1 status for that matter.

J Moreno

In article <[email protected]> , CalgaryAMC
<member18489@british_expats.com> wrote:

    > To ensure we are all singing from the same songsheet, I am talking about
    > the antidiscrimination provisions of the IRCA, found in 8 USC s. 1324b.
    > To my knowledge, these are the only regulations that protect against
    > discrimination of non-US citizens in hiring practices. These provisions
    > can be found online here: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/ref/8usc1324b.htm
    >
    > Those provisions protect against the following:
    >
    > (1) discrimination based on citizenship status
    > (2) discrimination based on national origin
    > (3) document abuse
    > (4) intimidation
    >
    > I am satisfied that K3s are covered by the latter three because the
    > statute is entirely inclusive on those forms of discrimination.
    >
    > I am not satisfied that the first provision, however, applies to people
    > on K3 status, because the statute explicitly extends this protection
    > only to "protected individuals" (8 USC s. 1324b(a)(1)(B)). K3s are most
    > certainly not members of the class of "protected individuals" as they
    > are defined in that section.

I would think they are covered under....

* As used in paragraph (1), the term ``protected individual''
*** means an individual who--
*********** (A) is a citizen or national of the United States, or
*********** (B) is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent
******* residence, is granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted
******* for temporary residence under section 1160(a) or 1255a(a)(1)

I didn't look at the sections referenced, but I'd think it most likely
covers K3.

    > Therefore, I don't think it would be illegal at all for an employer to
    > refuse to hire K3s at all, or to immediately fire all the K3s currently
    > in their employ, for no reason other than their visa status.
    >
    > This seems to contradict the common wisdom (that you have expressed) and
    > which I have always thought to be true, which is that visa status
    > discrimination is not legal, period. But I cannot for the life of me
    > find anything that says that.
    >
    > I'm wondering what - if anything - does protect someone on K3 status, or
    > K1 status for that matter.

Well for starters, the risk of a huge lawsuit protects everyone -- even
innocence is no defense against that.

Do you have evidence that they are in need of something more specific
than that?

--
J. Moreno

CalgaryAMC

Allow me:

1160(a) refers to IRCA's Special Agricultural Worker (RAW) program.
1255a(a)(1) refers to IRCA's amnesty program.

No dice on K3s (or K1s); but it wreaks of the Mexican lobby.