Advertise on ILW
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
Chinese Immig. Daily
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law, PLLC
Two former IT employees, Leo Perrero and Dena Moore, at Walt Disney World in Florida are suing Disney and two outsourcing/consulting companies, HCL Inc. and Cognizant, who allegedly colluded to break the law and replace workers with less costly H-1B visa holders.
The lawsuits allege that Disney, HCL, and Cognizant were not truthful when they filled out documents for H-1B visas, thus violating a section of the RICO law that bars "fraud and misuse of visas, passports, and other documents."The outsourcing/consulting firms stated under oath that working conditions of "similarly situated employees would not be adversely affected," according to the lawsuits.
The suit explained when 200 to 300 Disney workers were given notices of their layoff, they were forced to train their foreign replacements in order to receive severance and their bonuses. Few workers were rehired and the suit alleges that some were blackballed from being rehired at Disney for at least a year. The suit seeks monetary damages although the end goal is to force Disney, the consulting firms and similar organization to change their business models.
According to the lawsuits, ďHCLís contract with Disney was ultimately intended to adversely affect the working conditions of the similarly situated workers at Disney by terminating American workers and forcing them to train the H1B workers their jobs before the termination.
Disney said in a statement that the lawsuits are based on an unsustainable legal theory and are a misrepresentation of the facts. The company says it hired more than 100 people back into other roles and offered Moore another position at comparable pay. Cognizant said in a statement that it complies with all U.S. regulations regarding the visas.
REMINDER: LAST CHANCE TO REGISTER IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO ALREADY
MU VISA ADVISOR:H-1B TELECONFERENCE FEB 4, 2016
In anticipation of the H-1B cap filing date of April 1, 2016, MU Law will be holding a free teleconference for our clients and friends on February 4, 2016 at 2PM / 11AM PT. Interested clients and friends should email MUís Annalisa Smith, who will register you for the teleconference.
Last year the H-1B cap was reached in the first week. We expect that the demand will be even greater this year. It is imperative that all H-1B cap-subject petitions are filled on April 1, 2016.
H-1B Teleconference Agenda
H-1B Cap Basics and ProjectionsH-1B DependencyH-1B issues for Staffing Companies and Third Party Placements: What is Third- Party Placement v. In-House work?Hot issues:
CPT / OPT maintenanceNIV maintenanceCap-gap for F-1sH4 EAD ruleSTEM OPT LawsuitIncreased filing fees for 50/50 employersTop 10 things H-1B employers can do to stay compliantLegislative Update
DACA/DAPA to the Supreme CourtI-140 EADPresidential Election: What we can expect from President TrumpQ&A
Please contact your MU immigration attorney if you have any questions about this MU Visa Advisor or any other immigration issue.
Please email your letters to email@example.com or post them directly as a comment below.
The final four paragraphs of this post have been revised and expanded early in the morning of February 5.
Update: February 2, 6:43 am:
Slate wrote the following right after the Iowa caucus results were announced:
"Donald Trump, the man who built a front-runner status in the Republican primary on the basis of his nativist campaign and Islamophobic rhetoric, is now also a loser in the Iowa caucus. Sad!
(Bold in the original.)
It would also appear that Trump's "birther" attack against Cruz as allegedly failing to be a "natural born" US citizen because of his birth in Canada to an American mother, and his even more scurrilous, racially tinged, claim that Cruz was a Canadian "anchor baby", failed to have any major effect on the Republican voters of Iowa.
But there are still many primaries left to come. It is too early to tell whether America has dodged Trump's anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, anti-Muslim and "birther" bullets of racial division and authoritarian rule.
My original post appears below.
The following post has been revised as of February 1 at 8:20 am.
Well before Donald Trump became a presidential candidate, he became notorious for his "birther" attack on President Obama's US citizenship by claiming that Obama was really born in Kenya, in the face of irrefutable evidence that Obama was actually born in Hawaii.
Does Trump's claim that his chief Republican presidential opponent, Senator Ted Cruz (Texas), is also falsely claiming to be a US citizen by birth because Cruz was born in Canada have any more merit than Trump's mendacious "birther" attack against President Obama?
Not if one actually pays any attention to and cares about what the law of the country that Trump wants to lead actually says.
Congress has clearly defined who is a US citizen by birth in 8 USC Section 1401. Paragraph (g) of that section provides that a citizen by birth includes anyone born outside the US who, at the time of birth, had at least one US citizen parent who had lived in the US for at least five years since reaching the age of 14.
No one, not even Trump, has challenged the fact that Cruz' mother met that definition at the time Cruz was born. If someone believes that the laws of the United States mean what they say, that should be the beginning and the end of the discussion - as indeed two former US Solicitor Generals, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement have shown in a March 11, 2015 Harvard Law Review Forum article mentioned in one of my recent posts (On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen", 128 Harv. L. Rev. F. 161)
In their article, Katyal and Clement show that at the time the US Constitution was written, the commonly understood meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" in the US was based on English Common Law (which has traditionally been understood to include both English court decisions and English statutory law), and that under the Common Law, people born outside England to one or more English parents (at that time, the father specifically had to be an English subject, but this has obviously since been changed), were English citizens from birth.
Katyal and Clement also show that under the Constitution, Congress has always had the power to change the requirements for US citizenship by birth outside the United States. This power has never been challenged by the courts.
Therefore there is no serious argument that can be made to the effect that Congress somehow lacked the power to enact Section 1401(g). The fact that Trump has even raised this issue, let alone his promoting the false and irresponsible claim that Cruz's birth in Canada by itself, even with American parentage, disqualifies him for US citizenship by birth, raises legitimate questions about Trump's own fitness for the highest office in this land.
While there may admittedly be at least a scintilla of legitimacy to Trump's doubts about Cruz' US citizenship, based on an unrealistically narrow and strained "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution as Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Tribe has suggested, Trump's related claim that Cruz was an "anchor baby" in Canada is nothing more than derogatory and inflammatory name-calling with obvious negative racial connotations, and without a shred of truth.
There is no evidence whatsoever that either of Cruz' parents gained any immigration status in Canada, or avoided any negative immigration action, as a result of Cruz' birth in that country, which is the common meaning of this vicious and highly offensive term.
This "anchor baby" insult shows that Trump is not really interested in discussing the law surrounding his "birther" attack on Cruz, any more than he was interested in a serious discussion of his "birthrighter" claim that the 14th Amendment doesn't guarantee automatic US citizenship to all American-born children.
The latter claim was rejected by the US Supreme Court 118 years ago, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, a decision which is still the law of the land. But what is a little detail like the law of the land to Donald Trump, compared to an opportunity to vilify and humiliate a political opponent, especially one who has now actually dared to beat America's allegedly "invincible" strongman in the Iowa caucus.
Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, Roger has been helping mainly professional and skilled workers from many different parts of the world and ethnic/religious backgrounds obtain work visas, green cards, and US citizenship.
Roger's email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
Updated 02-05-2016 at 11:38 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services has just slammed the door on Obama's deportation baby jail, euphemistically known as Berks County Family Residential Center, located in Leesport, Pennsylvania.
Click here to read the letter revoking the baby jail's certificate of compliance that would have expired on February 21, 2017.
Score one for the good guys.
Updated 01-29-2016 at 11:41 AM by MKolken