As I mentioned in the applicable post elsewhere here on Susan's, I'm dealing with some federal government agencies who are not being straightforward on exactly who/what to contact. I sent an e-mail to one address (which I thought would be the right place), and then said for that issue I need to contact another agency but wouldn't give anything more specific than the agency's general phone number and website. They say that for some reason they can't tell me who to contact, which doesn't make sense - this isn't like giving out legal advice, it's who or what exactly do I need to contact to resolve the issue. As a result I'm having to guess exactly what contact route to take, and hopefully next week someone will finally give me the right track.

Has anyone found themselves before in such a predicament?

what office? Maybe someone here has the information and could help. I found most any office has not a clue and most you need to help them with information if you have.

Izzy

Quote from: mind is quiet now on November 23, 2013, 07:12:57 PM
what office? Maybe someone here has the information and could help. I found most any office has not a clue and most you need to help them with information if you have.

Izzy

This thread describes what I'm trying to accomplish (read the first post to see what I'm trying to get across, the next-to-latest post to read the reasoning I got as to why the forms were changed from a source I read, and the latest post to see what the contact issues I'm experiencing are). I first posted that thread a few months ago, but recently I decided to start tackling the issue myself. I've attempted a contact through their (ICE's, the agency I was referred to) "Privacy Office" to see how that goes. Since it's the weekend I don't expect any more progress until at least next Monday. Once I get a reply, or after a couple of days if I don't get one, I'll post another update to the thread on the issue. If anyone knows any better ways to contact, or wants to tackle this issue along with me, you're welcome to help me out; at this point please post or PM me about your plans (and wait for a "green light" reply from me) before proceeding to avoid them getting multiple hits when something may be in the works (I'll most likely reply within 24 hours, likely less if it isn't overnight in the U.S.).

Basically I'm doing this as activism for the trans* community, even though I'm not one myself (along with other groups who may be affected, which I mentioned in my e-mail so they wouldn't see this as an exclusively trans-related issue). If you PM me asking for it I can give you the text from my initial e-mail to you (I don't want to post that publicly at this point).

ETA: It looks like the quoted poster lives outside the U.S. (based on her profile when I checked), so her standing to challenge this issue is probably weak unless she is a U.S. citizen or plans on working in the U.S. in the near future (since all employees in the U.S. must fill out this form within three days of commencing a job, and the form must be maintained by the employer for the duration of employment plus a certain amount of time afterwards, anyone who works there could legitimately make comments).

Unfortunately, employment is not the only time an I9 is used.

Quote from: LordKAT on November 23, 2013, 09:32:56 PM
Unfortunately, employment is not the only time an I9 is used.

Remember there is a difference between a TS being forced to out themselves to just a government agency where the information would not be shared for any other purpose (I assume that's what you're referring to for the other reasons an I-9 might be used), and being forced to out themselves to an employer or someone else who is likely to discriminate against them (and as anyone who has tried to initiate a discrimination lawsuit knows it's difficult to prove, hence the principle that an employee or prospective employee should not be forced to give out extraneous information that may be used to discriminate against them).

Remember it appears that their decision for revising the forms was well-meant, since it's not uncommon when getting married for people to change some but not all of their documents (though they really need to do all or nothing), or even have used an assumed name or nickname on some applicable documents (which under the principle of "common law" name usage is not illegal when not done for a fraudulent purpose) especially from back when such a name change was easier. Having them list any other names that their documentation would be under was designed to reduce mismatches when checking documents and/or performing an E-Verify in those cases. The problem is if they make it an absolute requirement it forces some people, such as the transgendered, those who have undergone a "closed" adoption, or even changing their names to reduce discrimination, to mention their former name even when there is no practical need to (as I mentioned in my e-mail most people who have changed their name for those kinds of reasons have diligently made sure all their documentation matches in their new name). My goal is to simply get an official word that would exempt people with those kinds of name changes from having to list a former name that may induce unnecessary discrimination and/or breech on their privacy (or mention that mentioning former/other names is not necessary if all documents match, with a warning that if anything doesn't match it may cause delays). (Note that any U.S. citizen who has a U.S. passport in their new name, or anyone who has a driver's license or other state ID plus either a Social Security card or U.S. birth/naturalization certificate in their new name, has sufficient documentation to prove their work status without outing themselves, and anyone whose SS record has been updated can pass an E-verify without outing themselves. Likewise any alien who has a "Green Card" or other work authorization papers plus a DL or other state ID in their new name has sufficient proof.)

Quote from: tgchar21 on November 23, 2013, 08:31:50 PM

ETA: It looks like the quoted poster lives outside the U.S. (based on her profile when I checked), so her standing to challenge this issue is probably weak unless she is a U.S. citizen or plans on working in the U.S. in the near future (since all employees in the U.S. must fill out this form within three days of commencing a job, and the form must be maintained by the employer for the duration of employment plus a certain amount of time afterwards, anyone who works there could legitimately make comments).

I am a US citizen and none of this would apply to me being i am post and have all my US official paperwork finished. As for the names used in the past i would not have to use being i have had a legal name change along with my birth certificate has been changed and not amended.
I have had to deal with both US and Canada goverments and i have had to deal with them all in there own way. It is not easy, being the one hand does not know what the other needs. Takes lots of time but it all can be done in time and now most US goverments do have real rules to now deal with TG people. Not everyone is there yet.

Izzy

Quote from: mind is quiet now on November 24, 2013, 09:17:39 AM
I am a US citizen and none of this would apply to me being i am post and have all my US official paperwork finished. As for the names used in the past i would not have to use being i have had a legal name change along with my birth certificate has been changed and not amended.
I have had to deal with both US and Canada goverments and i have had to deal with them all in there own way. It is not easy, being the one hand does not know what the other needs. Takes lots of time but it all can be done in time and now most US goverments do have real rules to now deal with TG people. Not everyone is there yet.

Izzy

I didn't know you were a "dual citizen"! This is OT, but despite all the hassles that creates with changing your documents it's nice to be able to live and work in multiple countries without needing to get a visa.

What I'm trying to activate is it appears that DHS wants you to mention any names you've used, even if ALL the documents to be presented have been changed over and as I mentioned in PPs no practical need to mention the former name exists. A good analogy is the "gender no-match" letters that the SSA gave out a few years ago to people whose gender did not match the records - just like the new I-9s it seems innocent to most people, but poses big problems for the trans* community. This is why I'm trying to contact The Powers That Be about it - I think when we bring up the issues with trans* people (which probably weren't brought up when the new form was being drafted) they'll make an exception for them and other "sensitive" cases (which I mentioned in my e-mails just in case they think this is exclusively a trans* issue). The issue I'm venting is they're not being straightforward on telling me who/what to contact, and only giving me general information about the agency they say would make the decisions. (In other words like you'll said I think we'll more likely than not be victorious in the end, but trying to get the process done is the challenge.)

I have found in all my working with getting my own things in order is we are few and far between. Not to many in each office has to deal with this issue. Yes it has been a pain but if you do things in order you can get past all the I have not a clue and need to ask.

Lots of luck but as anything in life we still have rights to privacy and some information if not used to defraud can be on a need to know basis.

Izzy

The I( was used in a packet to get aid for housing, before I could get the aid. That very definitely makes it possible to deny based on perceived trans status. I didn't even fill it out, the background check did it and they called and asked me on it.

I've got a response on the issue - not a clear response on exempting TGs from mentioning their former name as I had sought, but it appears that the question is more for convenience as opposed to an absolute requirement.