Valid for work only with INS authorisation
Jul 23rd 2003, 3:45 am
#16
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 267
Originally posted by Gasherjohn
A good example of the inequities of life eiloo, are your circumstances for the issue of the SS card the same as mine (see details below)?
As far as I understand it the employer is the one responsible if you start to work and get caught by the BCIS. I would hope that the employee wouldn't get deported for trying to support his family!
A good example of the inequities of life eiloo, are your circumstances for the issue of the SS card the same as mine (see details below)?
As far as I understand it the employer is the one responsible if you start to work and get caught by the BCIS. I would hope that the employee wouldn't get deported for trying to support his family!
Further to what Rete was saying... show SSN, driver's licence... but even then... you don't have to show your SS card... just provide the number so no one would know they need to look for EAD except for you...
Jul 23rd 2003, 3:50 am
#17
Wales is next to England
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: New Jersey (but part of Wales came with me)
Posts: 425
Good point eiloo. A UK politician once accused someone of being "economical with the truth"... that may be the best policy!
Jul 23rd 2003, 4:17 am
#18
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Originally posted by Gasherjohn
However, the SSA website clearly states "authorized to work in the U.S. without specific authorization from INS" and the card says "Valid for work only with INS authorization" which is surely contradictory!
However, the SSA website clearly states "authorized to work in the U.S. without specific authorization from INS" and the card says "Valid for work only with INS authorization" which is surely contradictory!
We'll just have to disagree on this one. I don't find two consistent statements to be contradictory.
Jul 23rd 2003, 4:31 am
#19
Wales is next to England
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: New Jersey (but part of Wales came with me)
Posts: 425
In my experience of lawyers, Folinskyinla, and I have worked with the legal profession for many years, they often use language which could be interpreted in many different ways, so it comes as no surprise to me that the SSA does the same 
Jul 23rd 2003, 5:01 am
#20
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Originally posted by Gasherjohn
In my experience of lawyers, Folinskyinla, and I have worked with the legal profession for many years, they often use language which could be interpreted in many different ways, so it comes as no surprise to me that the SSA does the same
In my experience of lawyers, Folinskyinla, and I have worked with the legal profession for many years, they often use language which could be interpreted in many different ways, so it comes as no surprise to me that the SSA does the same
The SSA language is quite clear and happens to be correct.
The employer sanctions provisions are divided into two parts: the substantive law on who can and cannot work. An "unauthorized" alien can be removed for violation of status and the employer can be fined for employing an "unauthorized alien."
Seperate and apart from the substantive law, there are the paperwork requirements. There is no penalty imposed on the worker for failure to comply with the paperwork requirements, however there is a penalty that can be imposed on the employer for violation.
Lets put it this -- a US citizen is about to start a new job and has her purse snatched on the way to the first day -- all her documentation is taken -- the employer would not in violation of the subtantive law for letting her work, but they would be in violation of the paperwork provisions.
A K-1 is an "authorized alien" by definition, but they need certain paperwork. The SSA website is totally consistent with this and the notiation on the SSN card.
This has been the law since 1987 and is not rocket science.
Jul 23rd 2003, 5:37 am
#21
Wales is next to England
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: New Jersey (but part of Wales came with me)
Posts: 425
OK Folinskyinla, in strictly grammatical terms it seemed contradictory to me but I am quite willing to accept your explanation that it isn't in legal terms.
However, what you are saying about the paperwork seems to differ from the earlier post by Rete in that I am legally entitled to work for 90 days with just the K-1 and I-94 without an EAD.
I am truly worried, that if I manage to persuade an employer to take me on, then I may be putting them at risk but, even worse, that I could be deported.
John
However, what you are saying about the paperwork seems to differ from the earlier post by Rete in that I am legally entitled to work for 90 days with just the K-1 and I-94 without an EAD.
I am truly worried, that if I manage to persuade an employer to take me on, then I may be putting them at risk but, even worse, that I could be deported.
John
Jul 23rd 2003, 6:01 am
#22
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Originally posted by Gasherjohn
OK Folinskyinla, in strictly grammatical terms it seemed contradictory to me but I am quite willing to accept your explanation that it isn't in legal terms.
However, what you are saying about the paperwork seems to differ from the earlier post by Rete in that I am legally entitled to work for 90 days with just the K-1 and I-94 without an EAD.
I am truly worried, that if I manage to persuade an employer to take me on, then I may be putting them at risk but, even worse, that I could be deported.
John
OK Folinskyinla, in strictly grammatical terms it seemed contradictory to me but I am quite willing to accept your explanation that it isn't in legal terms.
However, what you are saying about the paperwork seems to differ from the earlier post by Rete in that I am legally entitled to work for 90 days with just the K-1 and I-94 without an EAD.
I am truly worried, that if I manage to persuade an employer to take me on, then I may be putting them at risk but, even worse, that I could be deported.
John
You are entitled to work.
The employer will not be penalized for employing you.
However, the employer will be unable to complete the proper paperwork and will be liable for that violation.
"The answer is easy if you take it logically." Paul Simon
Jul 23rd 2003, 6:07 am
#23
Wales is next to England
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: New Jersey (but part of Wales came with me)
Posts: 425
Gotcha, thanks.
"I can see clearly now the rain has gone" Johnny Nash
"I can see clearly now the rain has gone" Johnny Nash
Jul 23rd 2003, 8:04 am
#24
Howling at the Moon
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 3,742
Re: Valid for work only with INS authorisation
Originally posted by Gasherjohn
I am fortunate to have been issued my SS Card without any problems since I know that I will need it to get my driving licence etc but I want to work so why is it that the SSA's own website states that I am "authorized to work in the U.S. without specific authorization from INS. The alien’s I-94 will not have the INS employment authorization stamp and the alien will not have an EAD" and yet the card says "Valid for work only with INS authorisation"?
Also, why is it that the process to get a fiance or wife into the UK is apparently so much simpler than the other way around? Politicians please answer.... without starting off with "I'm glad you asked me that...."
I am fortunate to have been issued my SS Card without any problems since I know that I will need it to get my driving licence etc but I want to work so why is it that the SSA's own website states that I am "authorized to work in the U.S. without specific authorization from INS. The alien’s I-94 will not have the INS employment authorization stamp and the alien will not have an EAD" and yet the card says "Valid for work only with INS authorisation"?
Also, why is it that the process to get a fiance or wife into the UK is apparently so much simpler than the other way around? Politicians please answer.... without starting off with "I'm glad you asked me that...."
I do see the word SPECIFIC.
I presume that this refers to the fact that a K-1 visa holder is authorised to work incident to status and so therefore does not require any additional work authorisation in order to work (such as an I-668B).
However as I read it, it does not mean that they are not authorised to work without BCIS work authorisation (i.e. that provided as a provision of the K-1).
