Lawyers discussing how employers can side-step immigration laws.

I’m stunned by the following video. The folks over at NetworkWorld.com have a video clip in which lawyers explain how to go through the motions of advertising a job so as to be in compliance with immigration laws requiring that an American get first crack at it when you have absolutely no intention of hiring an American:

The objective, says Lawrence Lebowitz, vice president of marketing at Cohen & Grigsby, couldn’t be more straightforward.

“Our goal is clearly not to find a qualified U.S. worker … our objective is to get this person a green card,” Lebowitz tells his audience.

And how does an employer go about doing that in light of the legal obligation to first search for a qualified American? It’s all about where you search, he says.

“Clearly we are not going to find a place where the applicants are most numerous, we’re going to find a place where – again we’re complying with the law – and hoping and likely not to find qualified worker applicants,” Lebowitz says.

And if despite looking in all the wrong places a gem of an American candidate pops up anyway?

“If someone looks like they are very qualified, if necessary schedule an interview; go through the whole process to find a legal basis to disqualify them,” he says.

What the fuck? I couldn’t believe it, but here’s the video clip of the event in question:

I’m left to wonder if they knew they were being video taped. Surely they’re not so stupid as to think this wouldn’t raise the ire of a shit load of people, right? I mean they’re lawyers for chrissakes! That implies they have at least half a brain.

As the article points out, we should keep this in mind the next time we hear Bill Gates or some other tech big-wig saying how he needs more H-1B visas because he can’t find qualified Americans to hire. Now I’m curious to know which companies attended this event and if it’s a common practice.

11 thoughts on “Lawyers discussing how employers can side-step immigration laws.

  1. Wow Les, not much shocks me these days but that sure does. I mean, you know this stuff goes on but you would think in a pretty low-key way, not some kind of seminar. And who is taking the video? Is it for further training purposes or just somebody not wanting to miss any details.

  2. thinking from an employer’s perspective (which i’m not), who cares where they come from so long as it doesn’t affect anything. If they are cheaper workers, even though they’d be exploiting they’d still be providing work, which they need if they’re willing to work at or below minimum wage.

    so as to be in compliance with immigration laws requiring that an American get first crack at it when you have absolutely no intention of hiring an American

    is discrimination on both sides – law favours americans to satisfy right wingers whilst companies discriminate in favour of forein to either exploit wages or satisfy blind demands that they need a statistical representation of all groups. I doubt either side really takes to heart any care of nationality or holds much prejudice (at least in large organisations), they are just trying to satisfy demands on themselves

  3. So, you have lawyers giving speech on what a loope-hole is availible. A speech given to some unknown company. Lawyers are evil pricks, that’s why I’m going for a law degree. I love semantics, Hell if you give me 100mil I’ll release a statement on how god is the greatest ever (I don’t have to believe it just make it sound good). If you think two out of three of those bastards thought that way try again, they just love to find loop holes.

  4. Pretty fucking shitty.  My uncle that’s a republican came up with the best idea to the illegal immigration problem.  And you don’t even need to create any new laws and waste people’s time.  All you have to do is ENFORCE THE FUCKING LAWS that are already in place!!!!

  5. I had a philosophy professor that taught business ethics.  When the Business department sent him to a conference on Business Ethics he decided to quit teaching business ethics because of strong disagreements with what they were teaching was “ethical.”

  6. I’m for open borders, because economics is self-adjusting and will automaticly solve problems like unemployment with creation of new business, or if that’s not possible at least the problems will be balanced and shared against those of the former country. Closed borders is greedy.

    Theocrat – I think ‘buisiness ethics’ is just a media image they try to portray to get customers or discourage legal action. Big businesses need a selfish, profit-driven (or depending on who floated to the top, legacy-driven) motive because of the pressures they’re under, namely from shareholders who don’t consider bare survival in as giving way as possible a good investment. Business charity donation, for example, aims to save the company more through tax breaks and attracted custom than it costs.

    Shareholder pressure and difficulty competing occur when a business tries to act genuinely unselfishly – it’s not easily maintained

  7. Freind of mine is a barrister. I asked him how criminal lawyers could be considered ‘professional’ when by definition in an adverserial context they (as a group) will be wrong half the time.  What other job could you be wrong half the time, and not only still have a job, but still demand to get paid?

    Surely the loosing lawyer is guilty of trying to pervert the course of justice? Why are they not jailed. This of course has the added advantage of after every round of trials the number of lawyers halves.

  8. It’s Shit like this, is why I tend to favor Benevolent Dictatorships.

    They could order those types of people to be picked up and beaten with a sack full of hammers.

    I am yet to meet an Attorney that I respect!!!

  9. What other job could you be wrong half the time, and not only still have a job, but still demand to get paid?

    So now the list of scammers include Priests AND Lawyers.
    Surely there can’t be too many more although Advertising Companies could fit in there somewhere.

  10. This practice is not as bizarre as you might think.  I live and work near the National Institutes of Health (NIH) the federal biomedical research and funding agency.  I know many people (myself included) who have tried to get a job there.  In spite of being hightly qualified, I could never break down that wall, and I must have put in a couple hundred applications.  My friends on the inside all say that you have to know someone high up to get an interview.  Often positions are open for only a few days, or are posted internally (you NEVER see them in the newspaper).

    I don’t know what the magic formula is, but there must be one.

    SG

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.