Author

HANK BERRIEN

Browsing

Investigating if company “engages in any pattern or practice of discrimination” against non-citizens

The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Elon Musk’s SpaceX for allegedly preferring to hire American citizens over non-citizens.

According to the DOJ, in March 2020, a non-U.S. citizen inquiring about the position of technology strategy associate at SpaceX was asked about his citizenship status. DOJ attorney Lisa Sandoval stated that SpaceX “ultimately failed to hire him for the position because he is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.”

Last Thursday, the DOJ filed a request with a judge “to order SpaceX to comply with an administrative subpoena for documents related to how the company hires,” CNBC reported. The DOJ wants SpaceX to comply with its subpoena within two weeks.

The disgruntled applicant initially filed a complaint of employee discrimination with the DOJ’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) on May 29, 2020. The IER enforces the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which has an anti-discrimination provision prohibiting citizenship status and national origin discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee.

IER emailed SpaceX on June 8 that an investigation was underway and asked SpaceX to hand over information and documents related to its hiring and employment eligibility verification processes. The letter stated, “IER’s investigation is not … limited only to the specific allegations and/or claims that [the Charging Party] made in the charge summarized above. Our investigation therefore may also explore whether [SpaceX] engages in any pattern or practice of discrimination that 8 U.S.C. § 1324b prohibits.”

According to the document filed on Thursday, SpaceX responded on August 28, sending the DOJ a Form I-9 spreadsheet, but “SpaceX refused to produce any Form I-9 supporting documentation, such as copies of employees’ passports, driver’s licenses, or Social Security cards, as requested.”

On October 7, 2020, IER obtained the subpoena from an OCAHO administrative law judge; SpaceX received the subpoena on October 12. On October 20, representatives from the DOJ met with SpaceX’s counsel; on October 26, SpaceX filed to either revoke or modify the subpoena, arguing that the subpoena exceeded IER’s authority. On November 1, IER filed its opposition to SpaceX’s action.

On December 1, 2020, OCAHO denied SpaceX’s petition to modify or revoke and ordered SpaceX to comply with the subpoena. On December 11, 2020, SpaceX said it had received OCAHO’s order but notified IER that it did “not intend to produce any additional information in response to the administrative subpoena.”

The DOJ asserted, “This Court should order SpaceX to comply with the Subpoena because, as OCAHO ruled: (1) IER has authority to investigate SpaceX, (2) IER followed proper procedural requirements, (3) the evidence sought by the Subpoena is directly relevant to IER’s investigation, and (4) the investigation is not unduly burdensome.”

“Petitioner’s failure to establish overbreadth or undue burden also means that this Court should not modify the Subpoena, such as by requiring IER to accept a sampling of the Form I-9 supporting documentation or anything less than what is sought,” the DOJ concluded.

Author: Hank Berrien

Source: Daily Wire: DOJ Targets Elon Musk’s SpaceX For Allegedly Preferring To Hire U.S. Citizens

On Sunday, President Biden sent a letter to congressional leaders announcing that he would reverse former President Trump’s freezing of $27.4 billion in government programs.

On January 14, Trump had used a process called rescission to make the budget cuts.

The House Committee on the Budget explains of rescission:

Put simply, if the President wants to spend less money than Congress provided for a particular purpose, he or she must first secure a law providing Congressional approval to rescind the funding in question. The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed rescission; the reasons for it; and the budgetary, economic, and programmatic effects of the rescission.

Upon transmission of such special message, the President may withhold certain funding in the affected accounts for up to 45 legislative session days. If a law approving the rescission is not enacted within the 45 days, any withheld funds must be made available for obligation.

The House Committee on the Budget continues, “A 2018 Government Accountability Office legal opinion holds that if the President proposes a rescission, he or she must make the affected funds available to be prudently obligated before the funds expire, even if the 45-day clock is still running. This means, for example, that the President cannot strategically time a rescission request for late in the fiscal year and withhold the funding until it expires, thus achieving a rescission without Congressional approval.”

Trump had asked for 73 cutbacks to the 2021 federal budget totaling $27.4 billion. But on Sunday, Biden wrote, “I am withdrawing 73 proposed rescissions previously transmitted to the Congress.”

The Hill reported of Trump’s attempt to freeze funding: “The letter asked leaders in the House and Senate to impound funds from almost every Cabinet-level agency including the Environmental Protection Agency. The request also included cuts from the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, the Peace Corps and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars among a slew of others.”

In December, Trump stated, “I will sign the Omnibus and Covid package with a strong message that makes clear to Congress that wasteful items need to be removed. I will send back to Congress a redlined version, item by item, accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill.”

In his letter, Biden laid out the laundry list of recipients of the funding:

The withdrawals are for the Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, and the Treasury, as well as the African Development Foundation, the Commission of Fine Arts, the Corporation for National and Community Service, the District of Columbia, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Inter-American Foundation, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, the National Gallery of Art, the Peace Corps, the Presidio Trust, the United States Agency for International Development, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and the Legislative Branch.

Author: Hank Berrien

Source: Daily Wire: Biden Kills Trump Budget Cuts Totaling $27.4 Billion

On Monday, president-elect Joe Biden announced his choice for Deputy Secretary of Education: San Diego Unified School District Superintendent Cindy Marten, whom it was reported had praised a speaker promulgating the idea that schools “spirit murder” black children and that white teachers should undergo “antiracist therapy.”

Investigative reporter Christopher Rufo wrote, “According to whistleblower documents, Martens personally introduced the speaker, Bettina Love, and praised her presentation about ‘spirit murder,’ ‘antiracist therapy,’ and ‘abolitionist teaching’” when Love was a featured speaker at a training program last August.

Earlier this month, Rufo wrote:

The school district hired Bettina Love, a critical race theorist who believes that children learn better from teachers of the same race, for the keynote address at the August Principal Institute and for an additional district-wide training on how to “challenge the oppressive practices that live within the systems and structures of school organizations.”

Rufo noted that a whistleblower “took detailed notes of the speech and captured screenshots of the presentation” despite the district’s ban on attendees from recording the session. He continued, “According to these notes, Love began her presentation by claiming that ‘racism runs deep’ in the United States and that blacks alone ‘know who America really is.’ She argued that public schools in particular ‘don’t see [blacks] as human,’ are guilty of systemic ‘anti-Blackness,’ and ‘spirit murder babies’ in the education system.”

“At the end of her presentation, Love told the teachers that whites are directly responsible for the plight of ‘dark children,’” Rufo reported, adding that a slide labeled “Teacher Education Gap” stated, “Whiteness reproduces poverty, failing schools, high unemployment, school closings, and trauma for people of color.”

Love reportedly asserted that “white educators” derived privileges from “white supremacy culture.”

Biden’s prospective Department of Education looks as though it may be highly sympathetic to “critical race theory.” As The Daily Wire reported in December:

Joe Biden’s choice for Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, the current Connecticut commissioner of education, helped oversee curricula for high school students to be implemented in fall 2022 that is influenced by “critical race theory.”

As The Washington Free Beacon noted, Connecticut requires a course in African-American, Puerto Rican and Latino studies. The Connecticut Mirrorreported on December 2:

Connecticut high schools will now be required to offer a course in African American, Black, Latino and Puerto Rican studies after the state Board of Education unanimously approved its implementation on Wednesday. The new curriculum will be offered as a full-year elective for students, but the board is hoping that with enough momentum, it could expand and be required for all students.

Under “Learning Objectives,” the curricula states, “Analyze how race, power, and privilege influence group access to citizenship, civil rights, and economic power.”

Cardona stated: “Let’s not forget the connection between kids wanting to be in school and kids attending school. And when we see that our attendance rate with Black and Latino students is worse, when we see that our achievement outcomes or academic outcomes are disparate in Connecticut, we have to take real action. I think there’s equal benefit to students who are not Black and Latino to take this course. We hear about windows and doors, that curriculum serves as a window into other cultures. This is a window into another culture for many students.”

Author: Hank Berrien

Source: Daily Wire: Biden Picks A Second Sympathizer Of Critical Race Theory For Ed Dept

On January 4, Democrat members of the House of Representatives, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), adopted new rules that include a requirement for gender-neutral language in the House Rules, including the elimination of gendered pronouns and references to “father,” “son,” “mother” or “daughter.” The vote was strictly along party lines, 217-206.

The new “non-gendered language” rules were highlighted by critics online Wednesday when Pelosi used gendered language as she spoke about the prospective second impeachment of President Trump: “I stand before you as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter. A daughter whose father proudly served in this Congress.”

At the time of the rules change, which included changing the name of the “Office of the Whistleblower Ombudsman” to the “Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds,” House Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern (D-MA) stated, “We made this change for the sake of inclusion, not exclusion,” as The Hill reported.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) called the rules change “stupid,” tweeting, “This is stupid. Signed, – A father, son, and brother.”

The text of Pelosi’s speech Wednesday, in which she stated President Trump “incited this insurrection, this armed rebellion, against our common country. He must go. He is a clear and present danger to the nation,” is below:

Thank you, Madam speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership. Madam speaker, in his annual address to our predecessors in Congress in 1862, President Abraham Lincoln spoke of the duty of the patriot in an hour of decisive crisis for the American people. “Fellow citizens,” he said, “We cannot escape history. We will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor, or dishonor, to the latest generation. Even we here,” he said, “hold the power and bear the responsibility.” In the Bible, St. Paul wrote, “Think on these things.” We must think on what Lincoln told us. We, even here, even us here, hold the power and bear the responsibility. We, you and I, hold [in] trust the power that [derives] most directly from the people of the United States.

And we bear the responsibility to fill that oath that we all swear before God and before one another. The oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So help us, God. We know that we face enemies of the Constitution. We know we experienced the insurrection that violated the sanctity of the people’s Capitol, and attempted to overturn the duly recorded will of the American people. And we know that the President of the United States incited this insurrection, this armed rebellion, against our common country. He must go. He is a clear and present danger to the nation that we all love. Since the presidential election in November, an election the president lost, he has repeatedly lied about the outcome, sowed self-serving doubt about democracy, and unconstitutionally sought to influence state officials to repeal reality.

And then came that day of fire we all experienced. The president must be impeached, and I believe the president must be convicted by the Senate, a constitutional remedy that will ensure that the Republic will be safe from this man who was so resolutely determined to tear down the things that we hold dear, and that hold us together. It gives me no pleasure to say this. It breaks my heart. It should break your heart. It should break all of our hearts, for your presence in this hallowed chamber is testament to your love for our country, for America, and to your faith in the work of our founders to create a more perfect union.

Those insurrectionists were not patriots. They were not part of a political base to be catered to and managed. They were domestic terrorists, and justice must prevail. But they did not appear out of a vacuum. They were sent here by the president with words such as a cry to “fight like hell.” Words matter. Truth matters. Accountability matters. In his public exhortations to [inaudible], the president saw the insurrectionists not as the foes of freedom, as they are, but as the means to a terrible goal; the goal of his personally clinging to power; the goal of thwarting the will of the people; the goal of the ending in a fiery and bloody clash nearly two and a half centuries of our democracy. This is not theoretical. And this is not motivated by partisanship. I stand before you today as an officer of the constitution, as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

I stand before you as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter, a daughter whose father proudly served in this Congress. Thomas D’Alesandro Jr. from Maryland, one of the first Italian Americans to serve in the Congress. And I stand here before you today as a noblest of things, a citizen of the United States of America, with my voice and my vote, with a plea to all of you. Democrats and Republicans, I ask you to search your souls and answer these questions. Is the president’s war on democracy in keeping with the Constitution? Were his words and insurrectionary mob a high crime and misdemeanor? Do we not have the duty to our oath to do all we constitutionally can do to protect our nation and our democracy from the appetites and ambitions of a man who has self-evidently demonstrated that he is a vital threat to liberty, to self-government, and to the rule of law?

Our country is divided. We all know that. There are lies abroad in the land spread by a desperate president who feels his power slipping away. We know that, too. But I know this as well, that we here in this House have a sacred obligation to stand for truth, to stand up for the Constitution, to stand as guardians of the Republic. In a speech he was prepared to give in Dallas on Friday, November 22nd, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was to say, “We in this country, in this generation, are by destiny rather than choice, the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility.” That we may be worthy.

President Kennedy was assassinated before he could deliver those words to the nation, but they resonate more even now, in our time, in this place. Let us be worthy of our power and responsibility, that what Lincoln thought was the world’s last best hope, the United States of America, may long survive. My fellow members, my fellow Americans, we cannot escape history. Let us embrace our duty, fulfill our oath, and honor the trust of our nation. And we pray that God will continue to bless America.

This article has been revised for clarity.

Author: Hank Berrien

Source: Daily Wire: Pelosi, Who Pushed Through ‘Non-Gendered Language’ Rules Change, Calls Herself ‘Wife … Mother … Grandmother …Daughter’

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!