Application from high level person at immigration agency

[Anonymous]

Hiring for a new role and got an application from someone who is currently high level (but not a political) at an immigration agency. Person started before current administration but has stayed until now. They are not a perfect match for this position, but somewhat close and I would interview if not for this black mark. Is this an indication of poor character to stay in that job for so long? Or should i assume extenuating circumstances?

[Anonymous]

You have no idea of why a career person stayed— maybe to tell people what the law is, maybe because they are the only bread winner supporting a family, maybe some other reason. I would not consider it a black mark

[Anonymous]

I think it depends on their role. Sets or implements policies for ERO? This person has probably broken the law numerous times. High level person in procurement? Likely no issues.

[Anonymous]

Good lord. Most people aren't capable of just walking away from a job on a political whim. They have to look for a job - like this person is doing! - with the requisite salary, location, and hours that works for their family. How do you know they didn't try to leave last January and every potential employer isn't doing the same as you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good lord. Most people aren't capable of just walking away from a job on a political whim. They have to look for a job - like this person is doing! - with the requisite salary, location, and hours that works for their family. How do you know they didn't try to leave last January and every potential employer isn't doing the same as you?

That would work last June. It’s been 18 months now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good lord. Most people aren't capable of just walking away from a job on a political whim. They have to look for a job - like this person is doing! - with the requisite salary, location, and hours that works for their family. How do you know they didn't try to leave last January and every potential employer isn't doing the same as you?

That would work last June. It’s been 18 months now.

You asked whether you should assume they had a reason not to leave earlier, and people told you yes, and you don't want to hear it. Sounds like you've made up your mind.

As a fed in a much more marketable and less controversial agency, I can tell you the job market has sucked since last year and 18 months without a good offer is not unusual in my field right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on their role. Sets or implements policies for ERO? This person has probably broken the law numerous times. High level person in procurement? Likely no issues.

Kind of a mix actually. There are references to a number of controversial policies on the accomplishments section of their resume. The person would have been too low level to set those policies, but seems proud of their role in implementing them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on their role. Sets or implements policies for ERO? This person has probably broken the law numerous times. High level person in procurement? Likely no issues.

Kind of a mix actually. There are references to a number of controversial policies on the accomplishments section of their resume. The person would have been too low level to set those policies, but seems proud of their role in implementing them.

I would interview and ask them about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on their role. Sets or implements policies for ERO? This person has probably broken the law numerous times. High level person in procurement? Likely no issues.

Kind of a mix actually. There are references to a number of controversial policies on the accomplishments section of their resume. The person would have been too low level to set those policies, but seems proud of their role in implementing them.

PP here and I would probably pass then if they were implementing policies that were clearly against the law. Also, they are apparently too stupid to try to hide the fact that they implemented said illegal policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hiring for a new role and got an application from someone who is currently high level (but not a political) at an immigration agency. Person started before current administration but has stayed until now. They are not a perfect match for this position, but somewhat close and I would interview if not for this black mark. Is this an indication of poor character to stay in that job for so long? Or should i assume extenuating circumstances?

If the applicant understood your ignorance and animosity, s/he would would be grateful that the application did not move forward. How are you in a position to hire but are so dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on their role. Sets or implements policies for ERO? This person has probably broken the law numerous times. High level person in procurement? Likely no issues.

Kind of a mix actually. There are references to a number of controversial policies on the accomplishments section of their resume. The person would have been too low level to set those policies, but seems proud of their role in implementing them.

PP here and I would probably pass then if they were implementing policies that were clearly against the law. Also, they are apparently too stupid to try to hide the fact that they implemented said illegal policies.

+1

[Anonymous]

Most people have to stay to pay their bills:car payments, rent, food, gas, utilities.

[Anonymous]

Removal operations are a legitimate federal function.
When comparing annual numbers, it’s clear that the Obama administration removed significantly more people than what we’re currently seeing.
Unless this applicant was engaging in, or ratifying, violations of constitutional rights or similar misconduct, I don’t see a problem.

[Anonymous]

When the DOGE thing was gojng on a lot of people were arguing to stay to honor their oath to the constitution and to prevent them from installing lackeys. Very much a "don't cede ground". With the recent Schedule F move, that person's calculations may have changed.

[Anonymous]

People with that on their resume are going to have a tougher time finding work. Candidates get dismissed for much smaller things than that.