ok so if there is no legal issue then why all the ads saying no sponsorship? I'm curious about this
I didn't say there is no "legal issue" on an H1-B; there certainly is one. The employer is certifying to the federal government that they could not find a qualified citizen (at same skill level, and same pay) for the position before they can hire the H1-B. That's why employers advertise the jobs etc., so they can prove that they made a good faith effort to get the citizen first. For violations of the law, the Feds (or maybe a state, I'm not sure) can bring a suit or file criminal charges. People are now listing jobs as citizen-only or "no sponsorship" because there are qualified citizen applicants willing to take lower pay than they did before. H1-B is very expensive to the employer as well (legal fees, paperwork etc.), so there's really no incentive for them to replace the citizen with an immigrant.
What I pointed out to Tony, however, is that the immigration laws do not provide a "private right of action" i.e., the right to sue by a worker denied the position. I've seen several responses saying that there is such a right of action, and I do not believe that's true. It's possible that a civil rights discrimination case was brought by someone and that might have resulted in the $100k settlement someone spoke of, but I still do not think that you can sue under the immigration laws. I'd appreciate it if Tony would point me to one of the cases he "found on the Internet" because I can't find them and would be interested in finding out about them.
So the "scam," if it is really one, is not going to work in times of high unemployment. Um, isn't that the whole point of the H1-B program? Why's that such a bad result? When there are worker shortages, we'll have a lot of high-tech sponsored workers. In bad times, they're the first ones to feel the hit. I'm sure five years from now, we'll again be seeing a large number of H1-Bs and that'll be a good sign for the economy. |
