Foreign Convictions and Job Applications

[jk]

I would take a slightly different view. Since each country has it's own laws, including it's own definition of what constitutes a conviction and what criteria (proof, for example) are required to convict, for employment purposes, I would not consider a foreign conviction to be reportable. For example, I am aware of cases in which US citizens were arrested and convicted in foreign courts for activities that were sanctioned by the US Government. Potential future employers have no right or need to know any of that information.

For a US DoD security clearance, the questions related to arrests and convictions specifically state "Federal, State, or other law enforcement or juvenile authorities". They are concerned and ask questions about activities in foreign countries but seem more concerned with activities that may be perfectly legal in the foreign country but may be indicative of lack of loyalty to the US.

Since this decision was a Supreme Court decision why would it not be case law for the other circuits?

The Small case said what it said. So much so that Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in the Senate last year to close this "loophole."

http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/i...a&IsPrint=true



Status: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1526

this is not a legal question folks. If the employer is legally allowed to ask the question and the applicant lies, even if it is only in the eyes of the employer, the employer can fire the person.

so, it doesn't matter if the Small case was SCOTUS case or only a 3rd district case because if has no bearing on this situation.

Neither does working for the DoD, or any other entity where you risk perjury by lying on an application.

this is the store down the street asking if the guy has ever been convicted of a crime. If I were the owner of the store down the street, I wouldn't care where in the world you were convicted. I asked a simple question and the answer is either yes or no. I wouldn't care if you were a woman and you were convicted for failing to have a male escort with you when you walked on a public street (which obviously is not a crime in the US). I would expect the question to be answered based on the truth, not some attempt to discern if it is applicable to the US, or you did it on the 3rd Sunday in May or some other reason you do not think it might or might not be applicable to some situation. You know if you were convicted of something or not so the answer becomes either yes or no based on your knowledge of your life.

[Scott67]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I see no reason to complicate life by reporting a foreign conviction on a form in the US. Once that is on a form anyplace in the US, it can get passed on and into many different databases and come back to haunt you in ways that can't even be foreseen. You may consider it lying, but I do not. I consider the term "conviction" used in the US in a US context to mean conviction as defined by US laws, both in terms of the law violated and the process to obtain a conviction. Most other countries actually don't even use the English word "conviction". Many have different flavors of translatable terms that may or may not directly translate to that term.

[jk]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I see no reason to complicate life by reporting a foreign conviction on a form in the US. Once that is on a form anyplace in the US, it can get passed on and into many different databases and come back to haunt you in ways that can't even be foreseen. You may consider it lying, but I do not. I consider the term "conviction" used in the US in a US context to mean conviction as defined by US laws, both in terms of the law violated and the process to obtain a conviction. Most other countries actually don't even use the English word "conviction". Many have different flavors of translatable terms that may or may not directly translate to that term.

Oh, so if the guy was a mass murderer in Botswana and just moved here, everything is just fine with you? You believe he can say he has never killed anybody and since it was not in the US he is being honest?

Obviously I am stressing the seriousness of the crime to make a point but a conviction is a conviction. I do understand your reasoning but regardless, it is still lying.

[KeyWestDan]

As a practical matter, foreign convictions are meaningless. No employer has the resources to check foreign convictions even if there was a method to do so, and there is not.

Other than a handful of countries, English is not the national language. One would need to know the language first, and second the conviction would have to be available online, and the employer would need to know where to look. Nobody is going to take the time or put in the effort it would take to research something like that.

The only chance of it happening is if the person was the subject of some national interest and the picture was published on the front page of a daily newspaper. Even then it would probably take much digging on foreign search engines to find it.

Finally, the foreign conviction might not be such under US law. The elements of the crime might well be different and it is not equal to a US conviction.

There are all sorts of reasons it is irrelevant and shouldn't be listed.

The only time I'd worry about it is for a US government job and where the application info has to be provided under penalty of perjery.

[Papi Yanqui]

I understand the difference between an employment application and a federal firearms violation. I just don't understand why the one poster would think that such a Supreme Court decision as in the Small case would only be binding on the Third Circuit.

[jk]

I couldn't tell you on that one.

[cbg]

Since this decision was a Supreme Court decision why would it not be case law for the other circuits?

The Small case said what it said. So much so that Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in the Senate last year to close this "loophole."

http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/i...a&IsPrint=true



Status: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1526

Sorry, I misread the link. I saw it as having been a 3rd District decision, not a SCOTUS decision.