Assembly Corporation operates a plant near the border between the United States and Mexico. Due to the location, it would be easier for the company to employ noncitizens. In this circumstance, it is legal for a U. S. employer to a. refer for a fee persons not authorized to work in the United States. b. hire persons not authorized to work in the United States. c. none of the choices. d. recruit persons not authorized to work in the United States.

c. none of the choices

Explanation:

Assembly Corporation operates a plant near the border between the United States and Mexico. Due to the location, it would be easier for the company to employ non citizens. In this circumstance, it is legal for a U.S. employer to do none of the choices in the options.

C. None of the choices

Explanation:

The case under consideration puts a poser of a firm near the border between United States and Mexico. Given the circumstance, we were told it'll be easier to employ a non citizen. In this instance, a US employer has come up with varying options to address this.

From the foregoing, it would appear that the underlying tie breaker for the recruitment exercise is that the would be employee should be a non citizen.

However, a careful introspection of the question would see that there's no a specific declaration on where the company is located. The phrase ''near the border'' is not enough to pin the location to United State or Mexico. Thus, we have a problem at hand - the identification of who is a citizen and who is not.

Option A refers to a united state employer refer for a fee persons not authorized to work in the US. This basically vitiates the above yardstick as we cannot categorically state where the company is located between the state. This particular option has concluded on US. I would say the information from the question is not sufficient to give a pass. Also, the person/would be employees is not authorized to work. That's a double issue there.

Option B tows the same thought process with option A, but with a subtle play at linguistic. The word here say 'hire'. Hire in this context would be an eventual absorption of an employee. However, this individual is not authorized to work in the US. And we cannot categorically say if the company in question is in US or not.

Option C which is the right answer assumes that all the other options fail the litmus test, as they do not properly view the question under the given criteria. Rather they went on to give a definitive answer.

Option D tows the same thought process with option A and option B, but with a subtle play at linguistic. The word here say 'recruit'. Recruit in this context would be the selection and eventual engagement of an employee. However, this individual is not authorized to work in the US. And we cannot categorically say if the company in question is in US or not. The option is thus wrong.

"harry t. moore (1905-1951) – civil rights activist, leader, and the first martyr of the civil rights movement. fannie lou hamer (1917–1977) – leader in the american civil rights movement; co-founder of the national women's political caucus and freedom democratic party. james farmer (1920–1999) – congress of racial equality."

answer; they both highlight the power of the situation in determining behavior;