_We will end this week's discussion on immigrant workers and citizenship by bringing a few issues forward from yesterday's posts.
First, we want to recognize Congress passes laws creating loopholes that corporations use as excuses in their involvement with foreign labor brokers. Global Wall Street pols WANT CORPORATIONS to be free from responsibility so they place the legal obligations of operating under US Rule of Law on a foreign broker. Raise your hand if you understand Congress cannot pass laws that release ANYONE from responsibility of legal oversight. This is why our US employment system is now controlled by groups called non-profits but are largely tied to the global human capital distribution structure.
THE PROBLEM WITH THESE IMMIGRANT ENSLAVEMENT, WAGE THEFT, HIRING OF UNDOCUMENTED AND UNTRAINED WORKERS IS ----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA POLS AND PLAYERS.
If US citizens are angry because they are unemployed because of these global systems, or because they are victim of these 'BODY SHOPS' ---hold that 5% to the 1% global Wall Street pol and player accountable. It really is not a good situation for OPEN BORDERS to allow immigrant workers to fall into this fraudulent and abusive structure and IT IS DELIBERATE.
'Job brokers steal wages and entrap Indian tech workers in US Investigation'
Much of these loopholes are found in the JOBS ACT-----but previous bills always use the words JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
- Title III of The JOBS Act Passes: A Major Win for Minority ...www.blackenterprise.com/small-business/jobs-act-win-for... Oct 27, 2013 · The Securities Exchange Commission finally voted to release the proposed rules for Title III of President Obama’s JOBS Act.
The East Indian woman owning that foreign job broker corporation feeding the pipeline of foreign workers slated to be exploited and victimized by fraud would be that MINORITY CONTRACTOR no doubt tied to a US city development contract awarded to a global corporation which then subcontracts and calls these foreign job brokers MINORITY CONTRACTING----AND IN THIS CASE IT IS A WOMEN MINORITY CONTRACTOR.
So, media and all the national GLOBAL WALL STREET 'LABOR AND JUSTICE' ORGANIZATIONS called THE JOBS ACT a win for minorities----AS THEY ALWAYS DO. If one reads the JOBS ACT---one sees it is filled with these same loopholes freeing global corporations from any responsibility outsourced hiring might bring. Do our 5% to the 1% global Wall Street players profit from this? Yes, they aid the BODY SHOP immigrant distribution system with housing, transportation, et al and get a cut of this global BODY SHOP trade. What WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% need to consider in all this---these same JOB BROKER and BODY SHOP citizens inside US are ready to send US citizens overseas into this same employment nightmare.
CEO of @CrowdFunder, Founding Partner @ VC Index Fund, Guitar Lover, Systems Thinker, Wave Slider
May 25, 2016
Why Title III Of The JOBS Act Will Disappoint EntrepreneursThe long awaited Title III of the JOBS Act went into effect Monday, May 16th.
With Title III comes the latest in equity crowdfunding laws that permit non-accredited individuals to invest in private startups and small businesses. Investing was previously restricted to wealthier accredited investors and institutions only.
Title III was originally viewed as a potential game changer for fundraising and access to capital, opening up a new and promising avenue for young startups seeking capital.
As CEO of Crowdfunder, my early work with a small leadership group in Washington D.C. on the JOBS Act legislation had me hopeful that new regulations could greatly increase the opportunity for early-stage business owners to raise capital efficiently online, while also democratizing the access to investing for everyday citizens.
Unfortunately, the final rules under Title III are somewhat limiting and inefficient, given their intent. I believe that Title III will be a disappointment to entrepreneurs in their cost and requirements. Additionally, I believe we will see some adverse selection around Title III offerings, given that early indications in the market are showing that the majority of high quality startups that receive investment from experienced Angels and Venture Capital firms are holding off and may avoid utilizing this new equity crowdfunding alternative.
Before I delve into why, let me provide some background on the JOBS Act and Title III.
JOBS Act Background
The Jumpstart our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) was signed into law by President Obama on April 5, 2012, and represents an easing of security regulations intended to increase the funding that flows to small businesses in the United States, while opening up participation to everyday citizens. Title III sets up new regulations for equity crowdfunding, opening up the investment platform to non-accredited investors or “the crowd”.
Prior to Title III, this type of investment was open only to accredited investors — individuals who earn more than $200,000 per year or have a net worth of over $1 Million.
Alternatively, Title II of the JOBS Act created a relatively efficient method for startups to fundraise and access capital with accredited investors and institutions. Over two years after Title II has gone live, we’re seeing the funding volume roughly double year over year.
The difference in Title II was the relatively light weight regulatory requirements as compared with traditional offline methods of private capital fundraising under Regulation D 506(b) exemptions.
Currently, platforms like Crowdfunder, CircleUp, and AngelList provide Title II fundraising routes for startups which, in private offerings, require virtually little or no additional compliance requirements beyond their existing Reg D 506(b) offering.
Title III Highlights For Entrepreneurs
- Startups can raise up to $1 Million in a 12 month period
- Offerings must be made via Broker-Dealer or Portal Intermediary
- Businesses must provide detailed disclosures of corporate and financial information
- Less than $100K — sign off from company officer
- $100K — $500K — reviewed by public accountants
- $500K+ — first time fundraisers must be reviewed by public accountant, others must submit a full audit
Title III Highlights for Investors
- Investors making <$100,000 per year can invest $2,000 or 5% of annual income, whichever is greater
- Investors making >$100,000 per year can invest up to 10% of their annual income (SEC Guidelines)
Given that background, I see two barriers to the wide adoption of Title III by entrepreneurs: 1) the limit on fundraising amount and 2) the costs associated with fundraising. I believe that these hurdles will disqualify equity crowdfunding as a fundraising option for viable startups. Because of this, the overall quality of deal flow offered to non-accredited investors will be low.
Barrier: Limit on Fundraising Amount
As noted above, under Title III, startups can raise up to $1 Million in a 12 month period. This fails to account for the dramatic evolution of the seed round since the creation of the JOBS Act in 2012. The venture landscape is always evolving and has changed substantially in the past four years. Many current startups seek pre-seed rounds of <$1 Million followed by a seed round which is similar to the Series A of prior years. Companies are seeking seed rounds after they’ve already built a prototype and assembled a team, and seek to establish revenue and models for their market.
Due to these changes, the requirements on a company seeking Series A funding have grown. Startups are tasked with building strong product traction prior to a Series A round which requires more runway in terms of seed investment. The hiring bubble has yet to burst, and the cost of technical talent continues to grow, adding to the cost to compete for early-stage companies. To provide some perspective, the median seed round in 2015 was $2 Million compared to $750K in 2012. This number will continue to rise, with 2016 seed projections averaging at $2.5 Million.
In this changing venture landscape, the $1 Million cap of Title III fails to account for current startup funding needs. Several interested parties requested the SEC adjust the regulation to a $5 Million cap. Unfortunately, this suggestion was not entertained and the final rules maintain the $1 Million cap. Companies have the option of running a Regulation D raise in parallel, working with accredited investors. This adds complications to an already arduous process for bootstrapped early-stage startups. In addition, it is unlikely that the majority of accredited investors would choose to participate in a simultaneous Reg D and equity crowdfunding campaign. The liability implications of investing alongside non-accredited investors is not yet known and therefore a deterrent to accredited investors interested in participating in a fundraising round. Given the fundraising limits, I feel Title III is a non-starter for early-stage companies.
Barrier: Upfront Cost for Crowdfunding
Funds are limited for all startups, especially those in the early stages of development. Unfortunately, the costs associated with fundraising via Title III are astronomical compared to traditional methods. On average, a Title III fundraising campaign could cost as much as $50-$100K. The new SEC regulations require businesses seeking to conduct an equity crowdfunding campaign to comply with a lengthy set of regulations far beyond Regulation D offerings that angels invest in regularly.
The SEC estimates this compliance process will require, on average, 100 work hours from various in-house and outsourced professionals including accountants and lawyers. This is likely an underestimation given the heavy regulations laid out in Title III.
In addition to compliance costs, startups also need to account for the fees associated with crowdfunding portals and broker-dealers. For a successful campaign, businesses pay a success fee of approximately 7–10% of the raised amount. On top of compliance costs and fundraising fees, entrepreneurs are responsible for the cost of a CPA review or full audit, which ranges from as low as $20,000 and to as high as $70,000 depending on the amount raised.
As noted above, under Title III, startups that raise between $100-$500K are required to be reviewed by public accountants and those that raise over $500K must undergo a full audit. Fortunately, the SEC did choose to adjust the full audit requirement for first time fundraisers, allowing them to be reviewed by outside accountants only. Although an improvement, this is still a big cost for early-stage startups.
There is a huge disparity between the upfront costs of a Title III versus Regulation D raise. For a startup seeking $1 Million in investment, the estimated cost for a Reg D raise is $15K versus $100K for a Title III raise. The $100K includes an average 7% Broker-Dealer or Portal Success Fee ($70K) in addition to $30K for compliance costs in the form of SEC Filings, Legal Disclosures and Audited Financials. It should be noted, for a Title III raise the $30K in compliance costs is an upfront expense that is not refunded if the crowdfunding campaign is unsuccessful. Provided the heavy regulation and high upfront costs of crowdfunding vs. traditional fundraising, it is steep barrier to entry for entrepreneurs.
The ultimate goal of the JOBS Act was to infuse capital into the small businesses that account for 65% of job growth in the United States. Ultimately, the equity crowdfunding portion of the bill fell short, creating too many regulatory hurdles to appeal to high-growth startups. Given the barriers to entry, I don’t foresee top-tier startups adopting equity crowdfunding as a fundraising outlet. The SEC estimates 1,900 businesses will seek funding through equity crowdfunding, accounting for less than 2% of the total annual funded deals. This substantially limits the deal flow available to non-accredited investors.
Bottom line, the crowd won’t be investing in the next Facebook or Uber with Title III, and the majority of entrepreneurs will continue to target fundraising campaigns led by VCs and accredited investors because it is faster and more efficient.
Below we see to where the OBAMA JOBS ACT is taking immigration law and employment. Remember, those UNITED NATIONS protests for women and Muslims are tied to these global job brokerage and foreign corporations coming to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES-----this abuse is widespread---from Latino to African ----from Middle-East to Asian workers caught in this criminal global human capital distribution system built by Clinton Initiative.
'The dark side of immigration reform: A new "guest worker program" that's as close as we may get to modern slavery'
MOVING FORWARD continues the complete deregulation of Federal, state, and local laws leaving global corporations supposedly not responsible for any outsourced tie to foreign corporations and their employees. Of course many of these foreign job broker corporations are fly-by-night geared to go out of business before any worker or justice department can get financial/legal restitution. This has been the law of the land in Foreign Economic Zones overseas filled with these fraudulent and abusive labor structures. MOVING FORWARD brings all that to US---it has been here these few decades but laws are now being passed to make it all APPEAR LEGAL---WHICH IT IS NOT UNDER US CONSTITUTION AND FEDERAL LABOR LAWS.
WHO LEADS IN THESE POLICIES GLOBALLY? CLINTON GLOBAL WALL STREET NEO-LIBERALS----WHO SUPPORTS CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS THESE FEW DECADES----OUR GLOBAL WALL STREET 'LABOR AND JUSTICE' ORGANIZATIONS.
'Federal law and U.S. Department of Labor regulations provide some basic protections to H-2 guestworkers — but they exist mainly on paper. Government enforcement of their rights is almost non-existent. Private attorneys typically won’t take up their cause'.
Tuesday, Jan 29, 2013 11:00 PM EDT
Immigration, yes. Indentured serfdom, no
The dark side of immigration reform: A new "guest worker program" that's as close as we may get to modern slavery
A young boy watches his migrant worker motherwhile she picks grape tomatoes in Rocky Point, N.C. (Credit: AP/Jeffrey A. Camarati)
The outlines of a bipartisan plan for immigration reform have been announced by a group of senators. While most of its provisions are reasonable — a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants, increased skilled immigration and increased law enforcement — one provision stinks to high heaven and should be rejected by Americans of left, right and center. That provision is a massive, special-interest-driven expansion of indentured servitude in the United States, in the form of a new “guest-worker program.” (President Obama, while hailing the plan in general on Tuesday, has not weighed in on the specifics of the guest-worker program.)
Indentured servitude or contract labor, like slavery, is a form of unfree labor. Unfortunately, the U.S., having abolished slavery, still has pockets of indentured servant labor. Whether relatively well-paid, like many highly educated H-1B workers, or poorly paid, like many H-2A agricultural workers, indentured servants are, in effect, indentured serfs. Because their presence in the U.S. is dependent on their employment by a particular employer, they cannot quit and are motivated to appease their employer, no matter how brutally they are exploited. If they protest maltreatment, they can be fired and forced to return to their home countries.
Many indentured servants also are compelled to pay exorbitant amounts of their salaries to contractors who act as intermediaries between them and their sponsor employers, like the notorious “body shops” that exploit many H-1b workers. Having fleeced and otherwise cheated the guest workers, these body shops often threaten to sue their victims when they become eligible for green cards and quit, on the basis of fine print in documents that the guest workers were earlier forced to sign.
Most Americans, not knowing the technicalities of immigration law, can be bamboozled by corporate lobbyists and propagandists who seek to blur the distinction between guest workers and legal permanent residents with “green cards.” But green card holders — some of them former indentured servants who have earned green cards, after years of exploitation — have economic rights that guest workers do not, the rights that make up the core of the notion of “free labor” in the U.S. and other societies. While legal permanent residents do not have the right to vote, they have the right to quit their jobs without being deported. The psychological difference is profound — a foreign national working in the U.S. with a green card does not have to cringe and grovel before an employer, as an indentured guest worker is compelled to do, out of fear.
The draft bipartisan proposal reads: “Our proposal will provide businesses with the ability to hire lower-skilled workers in a timely manner when Americans are unavailable or unwilling to fill those jobs.” In theory, employers of guest workers are already supposed to prove that no American citizens or legal permanent immigrants are available to perform a job. In practice, this is a joke. Employers in industries that use guest workers routinely turn to body shops for foreign indentured servants, with only token gestures of advertising the jobs.
These Democratic and Republican senators, echoing the well-paid lobbyists for indentured serfdom, few if any of whom are in danger of being deported if they displease their bosses, promise that abuses can be prevented, by including stronger standards in new indentured serf programs. But if the federal government, corrupted by pressure from powerful business lobbies, does not enforce today’s laws, why should we expect pro-guest-worker laws to be enforced in the future — particularly if an increase is guest workers is successfully extorted from the federal government by lobbyists and donors representing agribusiness and Silicon Valley?
In a 2007 report titled “Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United States,” the Southern Poverty Law Center described the existing H-2 guest worker program, which would presumably be a model for any expanded agricultural guest worker program included in a bipartisan immigration bill:
Federal law and U.S. Department of Labor regulations provide some basic protections to H-2 guestworkers — but they exist mainly on paper. Government enforcement of their rights is almost non-existent. Private attorneys typically won’t take up their cause.
Bound to a single employer and without access to legal resources, guestworkers are:
• routinely cheated out of wages;
• forced to mortgage their futures to obtain low-wage, temporary jobs;
• held virtually captive by employers or labor brokers who seize their documents;
• forced to live in squalid conditions; and,
• denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel recently put it this way: “This guestworker program’s the closest thing I’ve ever seen to slavery.”
In 2010, Mother Jones published an exposé of the corrupt H-2A agricultural guest worker program, entled “Bound for America”:
Several recent court cases document how easily guest-worker status devolves into forced labor. In one 2009 case, US v. Sou, three Hawaii growers were indicted for bringing in 44 Thai workers, pocketing a portion of their recruitment fees, then “maintaining their labor at the farm through threats of serious economic harm,” according to the Justice Department. In another case, Asanok v. Million Express Manpower, Thai and Indonesian workers alleged that they had been promised well-paying, steady farmwork in North Carolina, only to find themselves housed in a Katrina-damaged New Orleans hotel, demolishing the building by day and sleeping in what remained at night, going so hungry they sometimes trapped pigeons for dinner. The list could go on, with several cases filed each year for as long as the US has deployed guest-worker schemes.
Instead of expanding indentured servitude in America, we should be putting it on the path to permanent extinction, like slavery, segregated labor and child labor. There are two compelling arguments for abolishing indentured serfdom in the U.S.: one economic, one political.
The economic argument is that indentured serfdom, by allowing agribusiness to pay poverty wages to workers, has bad macroeconomic effects and bad microeconomic effects. With respect to macroeconomics, guest-worker serfdom is the opposite of a “Fordist” economy in which workers are paid well enough to purchase the products they made — as Henry Ford’s auto workers could afford Ford automobiles. The low-wage foreign national picking lettuce destined for affluent hipster stores like Fresh Fields and Whole Foods won’t be able to afford it, at a subsistence wage.
This macroeconomic argument might be dismissed, because of the slight contribution to aggregate demand by the minority of all farm workers, including guest workers. The microeconomic argument against low-wage labor of any kind is more persuasive: It reduces the incentive for American agribusiness to increase its productivity, by investing in labor-saving technology.
Guest-worker programs are in-kind government subsidies to agribusiness. By lowering the cost of a particular input to the production process — in this case, low-wage, non-union foreign labor — the government is subsidizing a particular industry.
A low-wage guest-worker program is not only an example of an industrial policy that “picks winners,” but the stupidest and most destructive kind of industrial policy imaginable: one that favors backward, primitive, labor-intensive productive techniques, over advanced, capital-intensive mechanization and automation. Other countries manage to grow affordable lettuce, tomatoes and other produce without importing serfs to do so. The U.S. can do so as well.
The idea that we Americans will starve, unless our government provides agribusiness with an imported foreign underclass to harvest our food, is pure special interest propaganda, echoed by the uncritical stenographers of the mass media who pass as “reporters” nowadays. The Washington Post story on the proposed reform deserves a Pulitzer for gullibility: “The framework identifies two groups as deserving of special consideration for a separate and potentially speedier pathway to full citizenship: young people who were brought to the country illegally as minors and agricultural workers whose labor, often at subsistence wages, has long been critical to the nation’s food supply. [emphasis added].”
By providing in-kind labor subsidies to particular favored economic sectors, U.S. guest-worker programs intervene in the market on behalf of employers and at the expense of workers. Adam Smith would have agreed with this objection. In “The Wealth of Nations,” he argued that slavery retarded economic growth by reducing the incentives for innovation. And he wrote: “The pride of man makes him love to domineer, and nothing mortifies him so much as to be obliged to condescend to persuade his inferiors. Wherever the law allows it, and the nature of the work can afford it, therefore, he will generally prefer the service of slaves to that of freemen.” Smith would not be surprised that so many American employers pretend they cannot find American citizens or free legal permanent residents to do jobs and demand the right to import unfree contract labor from other countries.
The political argument ought to be decisive. In a democratic republic, free citizen-workers should not be compelled to compete against unfree workers with limited rights — slaves, segregated workers, illegal aliens or contract laborers/guest workers. To put this another way, employers should not be able to engage in a divide-and-rule strategy of pitting different classes of workers, with different levels of rights, against one another in a single U.S. labor market.
Most of the jobs being created in the U.S. today are low-wage jobs with minimal educational requirements in healthcare, recreation and retail. If employer lobbyists succeed in creating a permanent caste of indentured serfs in agribusiness, the lobbies for the healthcare, fast food and hotel lobbies are sure to follow, whining that they cannot find American citizens, or legal permanent resident aliens, to do the work. Free workers in America will be forced to compete with unfree foreign contract laborers, in industry after industry, for the worst jobs in the country.
We can debate what the total amount of legal immigration should be, as well as how it is allotted among categories, including family unification and skills and national quotas. And we can also debate whether, and how, to provide a path to citizenship for many of the millions of illegal immigrants who reside in the U.S. But all Americans who do not profit from exploited labor should agree on one principle, regardless of other partisan differences: All legal immigrants, and all amnestied illegal immigrants, should have exactly the same workplace rights as American citizen-workers — including the right to quit and take another job in the U.S. A one-tier labor market is in the interest of citizen-workers themselves. There should be no place in the American labor market for a primitive, labor-intensive sub-economy — a modern plantation zone — with a caste of unfree workers.
One of the proudest achievements of the Civil Rights Revolution was the success of civil rights activists and unions in pressuring Congress to abolish the Bracero Program. This exploitative guest-worker program was shut down in 1964, after years of criticism by Latino civil rights groups in the U.S. as well as by the Mexican government. For progressives to cave in to extortion by the sleazy agribusiness lobby on the question of guest-workers, in order to obtain a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, would be an appalling surrender — like agreeing to let businesses revive child labor, as the price of passing reforms to promote childcare and child nutrition.
Employers and investors who insist that they cannot operate in the U.S. if they are forced to employ free citizen-workers or free legal permanent resident immigrants with the right to quit and unionize are the 21st-century equivalent of the unpatriotic and illiberal Southern planter class that preferred slavery and later segregation to free labor. Nineteenth-century abolitionists called the selfish planters the Slave Power. Twenty-first century Americans should call the selfish industries that demand indentured servants instead of free workers what they are: the Serf Power.
Immigration reform should provide a path to citizenship, not a road to serfdom. If Martin Luther King Jr. and Cesar Chavez were alive, they would be protesting against guest-worker programs, even if they favored other elements of immigration reform. It would be a tragedy as well as an irony if the first African-American president, in the name of immigration reform, presided over the greatest expansion of unfree labor in the U.S. since the abolition of the Bracero program during the civil rights era.
Baltimore City Council passed laws allowing for expanded tenet presence in apartment buildings calling it DEREGULATION NEEDED FOR BETTER HOUSING POLICY. We wrote more than once how we are now seeing what are flop houses----or what articles are calling BODY SHOPS. Baltimore has a long, long history of slum landlord frauds and abuses---exploitations from white, black, and brown citizens targeting Baltimore's low-income/working class. Now, these same real estate players are ready to join the enslavement of these foreign job brokers and their need for housing while waiting for job openings.We know we are seeing in Baltimore as many as 10 immigrant citizens inside ordinary apartments just as was seen in SILICON VALLEY. No doubt global Wall Street pols call this AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
'Confined to a Guesthouse
A guesthouse is a small apartment or home where as many as eight to ten workers stay at once. A dozen different interviews confirmed that the guesthouses are commonly used by body shops'.
Here is that right wing article---our right wing always pretends it hates undocumented workers and yet-----those Republicans are largely the business owners employing and exploiting our immigrants. Again, the problem is not having immigrants here in US---the problem is the enslavement and exploitation bad for immigrants--bad for US citizens wanting work.
We has shouted the movement calling for SANCTUARY CITIES is the United Nations groups tied to installing OPEN BORDERS and ONE WORLD US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE policies and yes, without coincidence these are the cities filled with these enslaving structures---FROM BODY SHOPS to FLEECED WAGES---to forced labor ----excelling due to JOBS ACT.
Who is supposed to protect immigrants while inside our borders? US Justice Department----States Attorneys----City Attorneys----who does NOTHING to protect our immigrants from these abuses ----all of the above BUT they all support SANCTUARY CITIES ----for global Wall Street not the immigrant workers.
Who should be fighting all these guest worker abuses----fighting Congressional laws now breaking US Constitution, Federal law, and Bill of Rights? OUR US LABOR SECRETARY PEREZ----Body Shop, foreign job broker fraud, and wage theft soared under PEREZ. PEREZ was Maryland's Department of Labor and Licensing and Maryland HAS NO DLLR ENFORCEMENT.
AS FAR-RIGHT GLOBAL WALL STREET BUSH NEO-CONS PRETEND TO HATE THOSE IMMIGRANTS THEIR CORPORATIONS EMPLOY----OUR FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL WALL STREET CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS PRETEND TO PROTECT AND SUPPORT THEM.
Left social progressive shout to our 99% of immigrants---this is NOT the time to be wanting to come to America for work---global Wall Street pols and 5% players are building an entire network having only the goal of enslavement and exploitation---we saw a sign in a window saying IMMIGRANTS--GET RID OF YOUR BOSSES----indeed, US white, black, and brown citizens need to shed their GREEKS AND FREEMASON bosses.
These 2,000 U.S. companies prefer foreign workers over Americans
Obama coddles 'willful' abusers of visa program who 'actively and publicly prefer' aliensPublished: 11/02/2016 at 11:25 AM
Leo Hohmann is a news editor for WND. He has been a reporter and editor at several suburban newspapers in the Atlanta and Charlotte, North Carolina, areas and also served as managing editor of Triangle Business Journal in Raleigh, North Carolina. His latest book is "Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration And Resettlement Jihad."
Disney, which replaced more than 200 of its IT workers with foreigners last year and made their axed American workers train their own replacements, was not listed by the government as a ‘violator’ of the H1-B visa program.
President Obama’s Department of Labor has identified dozens of U.S. employers who are violating the rules of the nation’s foreign guest-worker program, yet are still being allowed to continue replacing American workers with cheaper foreign labor.
The Center for Immigration Studies has published two maps identifying chronic users and abusers of the so-called H1-B visa program.
The first map contains the names of 2,000 employers across the U.S. that are “dependent” on foreign guest workers coming in to fill jobs that would ordinarily be taken by Americans if not for the program, passed by Congress, that allows them to hire foreigners at lower wages. These firms actually prefer foreign workers over Americans.
The second map includes “willful” violators, which are companies that have skirted the rules and abused the program, yet, in most cases have not been barred by Obama’s DOL from continuing to use the program.
This map includes a bevy of technology companies across the country as well as a dairy farm in rural Michigan, a small-town country store in Georgia operated by an Indian owner, and a large public-school district in Maryland. Only about a dozen of these ‘willful’ violators, pinpointed in red on the map, have been barred from continued use of the visa program. Click here to see the names of the companies.
The Center for Immigration Studies, which produced the maps using publicly available data, is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank specializing in immigration issues.
View the interactive maps and see the names of employers addicted to cheap foreign labor.
The H-1B visa allows employers to hire temporary foreign workers for skilled positions at wages well under the prevailing rates paid to American workers. The foreign workers can stay in the U.S. and work for a single employer for up to six years.
The maps are noteworthy not only for who they name, but for who they don’t name.
Walt Disney Co. was not included on either of the two maps, not the one showing addicted employers or the one showing abusers of the program. This supports what Sen. Jeff Sessions has said in arguing against the expansion of the H1-B program, that Disney’s actions, seen as egregious by most Americans, were entirely within the rules set out by Congress when it passed the guest-worker laws.
During the GOP primary debates Sen. Marco Rubio, a backer of the H1-B visa program who has lobbied for more than tripling the number of such visas allowed on an annual basis, claimed that companies that replace Americans like Disney were “abusing” the program and should be barred from it.
But the CIS study proves that very few of the “willful violators” are actually barred from the program and others such as Disney are not even seen as abusers.
One employer who was on the list was the Prince Georges County public schools in Upper Marlboro, Maryland.
According to a DOL press release, the school system “illegally reduced the wages of 1,044 foreign teachers hired under the H1-B program” by requiring the foreign teachers to pay $4.2 million in fees. The H1-B program requires employers to pay certain fees for each foreign guest worker but the school district was making the foreign teachers pay the fees instead. It was let off the hook with a $1.7 million fine.
“All employers, including school systems, are required to follow the law. That includes the legal duty to pay every teacher hired the full wages he or she is owed,” said Nancy J. Leppink, acting administrator of the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division.
But, with nothing more than a toothless warning and a fine that was less than half of what the school system was required to pay in the first place, the Maryland school district was allowed to continue hiring foreign teachers at wages undercutting the prevailing U.S. wage for teachers.
Even the term “temporary” is a misnomer in the corrupt H1-B program, according to the CIS analysis.
That’s because the three-year visas can be renewed for another three years, and the visas can be kept alive, “virtually forever, if the employer has applied for a permanent immigrant visa for the worker in question.”
The guest workers are also allowed to bring their spouses and children (under H-4 visas) with them to the United States – and under some circumstances these aliens can work legally.
2,000 companies named
The first map identifies 2,000 employers who “actively and publicly prefer alien workers for at least some jobs” to U.S. workers.
“The formal name for this group of employers sounds like it comes from the field of abnormal psychology: they are ‘H-1B dependent,'” said Bryan Griffith and David North, authors of the CIS study.
This is the definition of the term: an employer with 25 full-time workers or fewer, with eight or more of them H-1Bs; with 26-50 workers, there are 13 or more H-1Bs; and with 51 or more there are 15 percent or more H-1Bs. Most users of the H-1B visa, in general, are not H-1B dependent.
The CIS study also notes how companies are able to discriminate in their hiring practices under the H1-B program in ways they ordinarily could not.
“Under U.S. law an employer gets into trouble, appropriately, for discriminating against African-Americans in favor of whites, or Gentiles in preference to Jews, but it is perfectly okay under the law for the same employer to hire alien workers (through the H-1B program) in preference to resident ones,” the authors write. “And if the employer decides that what he really wants, as some do, are twenty-some-odd males from one nation in Asia, that’s okay.
“Many employers are attracted to these workers because they can be paid at below-market wages, and they are docile and less likely to seek better jobs than their American peers.
“The second map shows H-1B employers who are classed as debarred or willful violators. They have, at some point in the past, violated the H-1B rules and have been denied the use of H-1B workers for a period of time. As we pointed out in a report about two years ago the department is, unfortunately, extremely reluctant to put erring employers in either category.”
We should ask this---why does Congress have to pass a law in order for US Rule of Law to be enforced? SCRUTINY is what our government agencies are tasked to do. A functioning DLLR would have long ago solved these problems for both corporations and our immigrant citizens. There is no attempt in Congress to change ---MOVING FORWARD makes these conditions SOAR. We can be sure when US workers hit these global labor pool distribution systems Foreign Economic Zones overseas will welcome US workers just as we have welcomed our global labor pool.
'Efforts by Congress to tighten scrutiny of labor brokers during the past decade have failed to gain traction'.
'Under federal regulations, employers that bring in foreign workers must sign contracts attesting that the brokers they use do not charge workers recruitment fees. Fancy Farms did not sign such a contract, according to the lawsuit'.
Global corporations have always used the excuse----WE HAVE WRITTEN GUIDELINES---and because they have those WRITTEN GUIDELINES they are calling themselves COMPLIANT WITH HUMAN RIGHTS. We see above our Federal labor agencies are doing the same---they say THE LAWS ARE ON THE BOOKS. FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES overseas has been one great big global labor pool distribution structure JUST LIKE THIS. When we allow MOVING FORWARD those same 5% to the 1% willing to participate in bringing these immigrants to exploit will be the same ones willing to send our US citizens off to Foreign Economic Zones overseas where WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% will be treated just the same.
'BROKERS KEY TO HIRING
Brokers are active across a variety of visa programs that allow American companies to hire temporary foreign workers. Since the 2007 fiscal year, for instance, Reuters found that intermediaries were involved in helping secure visas for 80 percent of the 2 million foreign workers approved for agricultural and other low-skill jobs'.
Long article---please glance through.
Wanted: foreign workers — and the labor brokers accused of illegally profiting from them
FAR AFIELD: Using a U.S. visa program, Nestor Molina, left, recruited foreign workers from Honduras to come to these fields in Florida to pick strawberries. Now, Molina faces allegations that he exploited those workers, and attorneys have been unable to locate him.
Vast numbers of foreign workers come to the United States with the help of labor brokers. These middlemen recruit them for temporary jobs. But Reuters found that brokers also can compound abuses workers face even before entering America.
NEW YORK – Nestor Molina has made a living looking for Honduran workers to pick fruit in Florida. Now, some of the workers he recruited, their lawyers, and the U.S. government are looking for him.
Molina, 53, is among the middlemen hired by companies to help bring foreign workers to the United States for temporary jobs.
The jobs span almost every industry, from agriculture to hospitality, and the numbers of foreign workers brought to the United States have swelled in the past two decades. In the fiscal year ending last August, the government issued more than 350,000 temporary work visas.
Public attention has focused largely on U.S. employers that exploit foreign workers. But Reuters identified an insidious problem that precedes and can compound the abuses workers face when they arrive in America – and one that authorities say can be even more difficult to address.
In more than 200 civil and criminal cases Reuters examined that were filed in federal court, lawyers representing the government and tens of thousands of foreign workers allege myriad misdeeds committed by middlemen such as Molina – labor brokers enlisted by U.S. companies to navigate government bureaucracy, recruit workers, help secure visas, and arrange transportation for those who are hired.
The alleged transgressions range from wage theft to human trafficking. Molina has been accused in a lawsuit by a group of Honduran migrant workers of charging them thousands of dollars apiece in illegal recruitment fees, among other abuses. U.S. authorities told Reuters they are investigating the allegations against Molina, whose whereabouts are unknown and who couldn’t be reached for comment.
One non-profit group that counsels American corporations on labor matters warns its clients that hiring intermediaries to recruit workers increases the likelihood of illicit activity within labor networks. In part, that’s because the brokers operate as independent contractors, essentially answering to no one.
“These brokers are outside anyone’s control,” said Quinn Kepes, a program director at the non-profit group Verite.
Anna Park, an attorney with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who has brought civil cases against brokers and employers on behalf of foreign workers, said the middlemen are hard to hold accountable if workers are exploited.
“These companies are fly-by-night. They are able to secure legitimate visas and operate within the system,” Park said. “When their practices are scrutinized, they often disappear and reinvent as a new company.”
The cases that Reuters examined dated from 2005 to 2015 and describe alleged abuses by labor brokers that began outside America’s borders – in Mexico, India, the Philippines and other countries where brokers recruit.
The cases illustrate how the absence of government oversight has allegedly enabled some brokers to exploit workers – and how intermediaries can insulate U.S. companies, providing them plausible deniability about the circumstances under which workers were recruited.
Fake school helped broker lure workers
By Megan Twohey
Regulators at the U.S. Department of Labor say they have few legal tools and resources to scrutinize the claims made by employers — and brokers — seeking to import foreign workers. That’s how labor broker Kizzy Kalu secured government approval to bring in Filipino nurses under a government visa program, claiming they would be paid up to $72,000 as instructors at Adam University in Colorado, according to a 2012 criminal indictment of the labor broker.
In fact, the university existed in name only. The nurses were farmed out to long-term care companies, according to court records, and Kalu pocketed almost half of their wages and charged thousands of dollars in fees.
In 2014, a Colorado judge sentenced Kalu to 130 months in prison and ordered him to pay $3.7 million in restitution for mail fraud, visa fraud, human trafficking and money laundering. Kalu had made more than $1 million off the scheme.
Efforts by Congress to tighten scrutiny of labor brokers during the past decade have failed to gain traction. In 2013, oversight measures passed the Senate as part of broader package of immigration reforms that later died in the House. The measures were opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among others. It argued that adding regulations would do little to prevent wrongdoing and would prove cumbersome and costly for U.S. companies seeking foreign help.
But Randy Johnson, a vice president at the Chamber of Commerce, told Reuters that government oversight of foreign labor brokers is “an area that could use closer examination to get the facts straight and identify the true areas of problems so appropriate solutions can be crafted.”
Federal regulators with the U.S. State Department and the Department of Labor said they have increased oversight of brokers in recent years. But they lament that they have been unable to do more.
“Until we have the authority to hold U.S. employers accountable when they rely on unscrupulous labor recruiters, our ability to deal with these practices remains limited,” a Department of Labor spokesman said in a statement to Reuters.
Indeed, Reuters found that even if allegations of misconduct come to light, brokers such as Molina have continued to operate.
Last summer, in the largest labor trafficking settlement in U.S. history, Signal International agreed to pay around $20 million to 500 Indian workers brought to Louisiana to work for the marine services company. The settlement came after a federal jury in New Orleans determined that Signal and other defendants, including labor broker Malvern Burnett, engaged in labor trafficking, fraud, and racketeering.
Burnett, who declined to comment, initially contested the ruling but then reached a settlement in the case and dropped his appeal, according to court records.
Today, he continues to operate his New Orleans law firm. Among the services he offers: assistance securing temporary work visas.
BROKERS KEY TO HIRING
Brokers are active across a variety of visa programs that allow American companies to hire temporary foreign workers. Since the 2007 fiscal year, for instance, Reuters found that intermediaries were involved in helping secure visas for 80 percent of the 2 million foreign workers approved for agricultural and other low-skill jobs.
FEELING DUPED: A Honduran worker who was recruited by Nestor Molina remains in the United States under a humanitarian visa. He and other workers say they paid Molina thousands of dollars in fees in order to get the jobs. Collecting such fees from workers violates U.S. visa regulations. REUTERS/Jonathan Bachman
“Everything was a lie. There was no job, no boss, no company. Nothing.”
Foreign worker recruited by labor broker
Some of those middlemen do little more than file government paperwork on behalf of U.S. employers. But Reuters found that many, such as Molina, play a hands-on role in recruiting the workers.
A former car salesman who has recruited workers from Central America, Molina told prospective clients in his promotional materials that he would “go the extra mile to meet your workforce needs.”
According to two lawsuits filed by Florida Legal Services Inc and Florida Rural Legal Services Inc in U.S. District Court in Florida, Molina did more than go the extra mile: The suits accuse him of illegally enriching himself at the expense of the workers he recruited.
In the civil suits, dozens of workers from Honduras say Molina charged them thousands of dollars in recruitment fees for jobs picking strawberries in Florida. Charging recruitment fees violates U.S. law, and workers involved in the lawsuits said they were instructed to say nothing of the payments during their visa interviews with U.S. consular agents.
Molina, the suits allege, promised that the workers would be paid well and that the jobs would lead to a benefit that was tantalizing but fictitious: permanent residency in the United States.
By the time workers realized the promises were hollow, they were deep in debt and scared to speak out, the suits allege. Molina and others working with him threatened to physically harm not only those who complained but also the families that the workers left behind in Honduras, according to the lawsuits.
If the allegations are true, Molina may have made more than $2 million in illegal recruitment fees. According to a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Molina is now under investigation by U.S. authorities for trafficking and forced labor. The spokeswoman declined to elaborate.
Criminal investigators, civil attorneys and Reuters have been unable to locate Molina. And despite the lawsuits and scrutiny, nothing bars Molina from continuing to work as a labor broker. Lawyers involved in the civil suit said that Molina secured visas for a group of Honduran workers as recently as November. Reuters could not corroborate the lawyers’ account.
The news agency also found that U.S. regulators do little to ensure that American employers — and the brokers that many of them use — follow through on the promises made to the workers.
In 2011, the Department of Labor began auditing companies that use foreign workers for agricultural and other low-skill jobs. The goal: to ensure that the jobs, pay and other working conditions are as claimed. Fewer than 15 percent of petitions for foreign workers were scrutinized each year, Reuters found. And even when audits were done, many were performed months after workers had already left the jobs.
Today, such audits no longer take place; Congress cut funding for them.
The cases Reuters collected and reviewed illuminate how brokers operate – and how regulators fail.
Cases that were resolved in favor of workers show that brokers have forced their foreign recruits to live in decrepit conditions, such as in a condemned hotel and trailers with no heat or running water. Middlemen charged workers illicit fees and misled them about the terms of their employment, whether salary, location or even industry. Other intermediaries operated through shell companies, apparently to help hide their schemes.
The suits that have involved Molina are unresolved.
Before 2009, when Molina first surfaced in government paperwork as a broker providing foreign workers for U.S. firms, he was mentioned in a half dozen police reports, Reuters found. The reports had nothing to do with recruiting foreign labor. But the accounts in some of the reports echo the accusations of some of the Honduran workers: that Molina has made threats of physical violence.
In one police report from May 1998, a girlfriend whom police described as having scrapes on her face and puffy eyes told authorities that Molina had beaten her. She later told police she would not testify against him because she feared he would attack her again.
In another police report, a Miami man was described by authorities as “in great fear” of Molina. On the day the 2001 police report was taken, authorities wrote that the man told them Molina had threatened him daily and told the man’s wife he was going to “beat her husband down to the ground then put his gun in the husband’s mouth and blow his head off.” Miami police could not say whether the matter was investigated further.
Molina’s associate at his labor broker company, All Nation Staffing, was a Florida man named Patrick Damian Burns, according to one of the lawsuits filed by the Honduran workers. Burns, Reuters found, is a felon who was sentenced to a year in prison in 1991 for intent to violate the RICO Act in connection with a bookmaking operation he helped run. The 49-year-old Burns was listed as a co-defendant in the lawsuit against Molina. Burns could not be located by the attorneys or by Reuters.
MOLINA PARTNER: Patrick Damian Burns was Molina’s associate at All Nation Staffing, a lawsuit alleges. Burns is a felon who was sentenced to a year in prison in 1991 for intent to violate the RICO Act in connection with a bookmaking operation he helped run.
How Molina and Burns entered the labor broker business is unclear.
All Nation Staffing provided workers for at least two companies: Fancy Farms Inc and G&D Farms Inc, strawberry growers located in Florida.
Carl Grooms, owner of Fancy Farms, said he hired All Nation Staffing in 2013, the year the federal government gave Grooms approval to bring in 175 foreign workers for seasonal jobs picking strawberries.
Grooms said only that he had “learned about (Molina) on his website,” which has since been taken down.
In his promotional material, Molina offered to recruit the workers, help them secure visas, get them to the job site and even help oversee them.
“Our staff has helped many employers bring reliable, productive, documented workers,” Molina wrote in a company brochure.
G&D Farms, which received government approval in 2013 to bring in 512 foreign workers for strawberry picking, also hired All Nation Staffing, said Amber Maloney, who does marketing for the farm.
G&D had never used foreign workers before but turned to a labor broker after it found itself understaffed the previous season, Maloney said. She declined to comment on the farm’s experience with Molina and All Nation Staffing but said the farm has not used foreign workers since.
Andrew Jackson, a North Carolina attorney who files requests with the government on behalf of employers seeking temporary workers, said he spoke with Molina several years ago, when Molina was working for another Florida farm.
Each year, Jackson said, he is approached by aspiring labor brokers looking to connect with U.S. companies.
He remembered Molina as a polite man with dark hair and a colorful business card that featured a graphic of farm workers. “He must have made a good impression on those growers,” Jackson said.
“EVERYTHING WAS A LIE”
Four of the workers Molina recruited agreed to describe their experiences to Reuters if their names were not used. The experiences they described were consistent with those contained in the lawsuits.
The workers said Molina recruited in many of the poorest, most isolated parts of Honduras, and that some of the workers couldn’t read or write.
Types of U.S. work-visa programs
H2A visas enable U.S. employers to hire foreign workers for temporary agricultural jobs for a maximum of three years, if the U.S. employer can demonstrate that American workers weren’t available. Employers often seek workers with the help of a labor broker. The visa program is overseen primarily by the U.S. Department of Labor
H2B visas enable U.S. employers to hire foreign workers for hospitality, construction and other low-skill jobs for a maximum of three years, if the U.S. employer can demonstrate American workers weren’t available. Employers often seek workers with the help of a labor broker. The visa program is overseen primarily by the U.S. Department of Labor.
H1B visas enable U.S. employers to hire foreign workers in technology and other specialty occupations on a temporary basis. The initial visa is good for up to three years, but workers can be eligible for extensions and can pursue permanent residence in the United States. Among the companies approved for large numbers of H1B workers are staffing companies that turn around and place the workers with other employers. The visa program is overseen primarily by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Certain categories of the J1 visitor exchange visa allow foreigners to work temporary positions as au pairs, camp counselors, interns, teachers, trainees, and in summer jobs, such as hotel maid. The foreign worker must use an intermediary to obtain a visa. This visa program is overseen by the U.S. Department of State.
Molina employed a network of agents who helped spread word of job opportunities in the United States. Those who were interested were called to a series of meetings, where Molina explained what they could expect and how much each worker would need to pay. The price for a farm job was $4,000 plus travel expenses, a near fortune in Honduras, where the average per-capita annual income is $2,131, according to the United Nations.
According to the workers, Molina gave different reasons for the high fees. He told some of them that the money was a deposit in case they left the American job site; he told others that the money was a loan to keep the U.S. employer afloat. Still others were told that the money would open a path to legal residency in the United States. Many of the workers received assurances that they would be paid back at the end of their service, the workers told Reuters.
“He offered a lot of things, even that we would become residents. He offered us heaven and earth,” said one of the workers, who said he took out three loans from the bank, mortgaged some land and sold his motorcycle to raise the $4,000 to pay Molina. At the time, the worker said, he was earning $6 a day in central Honduras helping his father pick coffee. “All the promises sounded good,” he explained. “It was easy to fall for it.”
SCRIPTING THE INTERVIEW
To enter the United States, workers seeking visas need to be screened by consular officials. It’s one of the few forms of government scrutiny. But because so many visas are sought and granted, consular workers might spend no more than five minutes interviewing foreign workers before signing off.
The workers said Molina took no chances. To help them get through the interview, he taught workers to recite in unison, “WE HAVE NOT PAID ANYTHING TO GO TO THE UNITED STATES.”
Molina also warned th
em that anyone who tried to leave the job site would be deported; he said he had people in the United States who would be able to find them if they ran away, recounted one worker.
After they arrived at Fancy Farms and G&D Farms in Florida, the Honduran workers said their weekly checks amounted to $200-$300 per week — much less than what Molina had promised. And they said they could not get clear answers from Molina about when and how they would be repaid the recruitment fees.
“In the end it was just robbery,” one of the workers said.
Molina’s operation drew scrutiny after a worker got sick and turned to Florida attorneys who advocate on behalf of temporary foreign workers.
In 2014, after the strawberry picking season ended, the attorneys helped five Honduran workers file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court. Molina, Burns and All Nation Staffing were listed as defendants, accused of human trafficking and forced labor.
Molina’s partner, Burns, was based on the Fancy Farms property, according to owner Grooms. Molina would periodically stop by, threatening to deport or hurt anyone who complained, the workers interviewed by Reuters claimed.
After the lawsuit was filed, Molina and Burns could not be located, and the attorneys working on behalf of the Honduran workers dropped the case. In November, they filed a second lawsuit. This time, the defendant in the case is Fancy Farms, the company that hired Molina to supply workers.
Under federal regulations, employers that bring in foreign workers must sign contracts attesting that the brokers they use do not charge workers recruitment fees. Fancy Farms did not sign such a contract, according to the lawsuit.
The employer is accused of allowing workers to be charged exorbitant fees that brought their pay below the legal wages, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Fancy Farms has not yet filed a response in court to the civil suit. An attorney representing the company told Reuters that “there is not much more Carl Grooms and Fancy Farms can say at this time.”
Filing lawsuits in U.S. court on behalf of temporary foreign workers is challenging. Workers often return to their home countries, fear getting involved with law enforcement, or are overwhelmed by language barriers, attorneys say.
Some of the 51 plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Fancy Farms have remained in the United States and are seeking special visas for victims of human trafficking. Karla Martinez, one of the attorneys in the case, said many of workers fear that Molina will harm them if they return to Honduras, which according to the United Nations has the highest murder rate in the world.
Their fears come amid evidence that Molina may still be operating out of Honduras.
In November, a group of Honduran workers arrived in the United States expecting farm work in Georgia that never materialized. The worker and his attorney said that Molina was involved in the recruitment. Reuters could not independently confirm Molina’s involvement.
A father of three, the worker told Reuters he first heard about the job possibility from a friend who had seen an advertisement that promised what he described as enticing opportunities.
The man said he was told that for a one-time fee of $4,000, he would be assured eight to 10 months of work every year for five years. The salary would be $1,600 per week, and housing would be free.
Best of all, at the end of those five years, he would be able to bring his family to America.
“They said your children will be able to study for free paid for by the American government and this was all under a legal program that had been established by Ronald Reagan,” the worked recalled.
To cover the $4,000 recruitment fee, and an additional $1,000 for travel, he took out a bank loan. With interest, he now owes about $8,000, he said.
When he arrived in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida last November, he said quickly realized he had been duped. He and other workers waited at the airport for hours for a bus to take them to their jobs, but no one came, he said.
“Everything was a lie. There was no job, no boss, no company. Nothing,” said the man. He is now working odd jobs in Florida, sometimes for no more than $100 a week, as he tries to figure out his legal options.
Molina’s one-time associate, Patrick Burns, may also have remained active as a labor broker.
On a Facebook page, someone who goes by that name is advertising a foreign labor broker business based in Tampa.
“If you have labor shortage on your farm and need quality help from Guatemala,” read the message re-posted by Patrick Burns, “please feel free to contact us…”
No one at the company, called H2A Labor Force Inc, has responded to messages left by Reuters.
This is the point with the JOBS ACT foreign worker laws------every global corporate campus will fill all jobs using global job brokers all tied to global labor pool----this is just starting---wait until MOVING FORWARD starts building more and more and more global factories along with those UnderArmour global campus resorts.
What's the difference between an UnderArmour resort and a Trump resort----not a thing.
Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort applies for 70 foreign worker visas during 'Made in America' weekThe 'Winter White House' claims it could find no Americans to fill non-agricultural seasonal jobs
Mar-a-Lago has applied for 70 seasonal, foreign worker visas during the White House's 'Made in America' week Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesDonald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida has applied for 70 visas for seasonal, foreign workers during what the White House billed as "Made in America" week.
The golf club, for which memberships cost upwards of $250,000 a year, has been referred to as the "Winter White House" by the President who was spending nearly every weekend there early on in his term.
Recently, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would expand the foreign visa worker programme to include an additional 15,000 visas on top of the quota of 66,000 for 2017.
Trump approves 15,000 extra visas for seasonal foreign workers
The visas are meant for non-agricultural jobs in construction and the catch-all term: tourism.
The company is seeking 35 waiters and waitresses at Mar-a-Lago along with 20 cooks and 15 maids. A listing is also posted for six cooks at the Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida.
The jobs pay anywhere from $10.33 to $20.01 per hour. They run from Oct. 1 to May 31.
Between 2013 and 2015, his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida employed 246 workers on the H-2B visa. Since 2000, Mr Trump received 1,024 H-2B visas for his businesses for waiters, kitchen, and housekeeping staff, according to a CNN report.
In the past, the US leader claimed he had to hire foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago because American workers were not available during busy tourist seasons in Florida.
Sean Spicer responds to questions about Trump brand products being manufactured overseasThe next step, as outlined by the Department of Labor, is for Mar-a-Lago to place advertisements on two separate days for the jobs in a an effort to "conduct certain recruitment to ensure that there are not qualified US workers available for the position".
They also have to contact former workers to re-recruit them.
As Jeffrey Brauwerman, a former US immigration judge and currently practising in Florida, told The Independent Mar-a-Lago would then need a "certification from the Labor Department" saying the property made a concerted effort to find Americans for these jobs but could not.
Mr Brauwerman said there are a lot of properties in Florida, "especially in the hospitality industry" that use these types of seasonal workers. People from "South Africa, Ireland, all over" come to work as servers and wait staff in restaurants.
After all this, the property can ask the DHS - that ultimately answers to the President who also still owns the club - to issue the visas.
Once hired, foreign workers can stay employed from four to 10 months. They are only allowed to legally stay in the US if they are employed when given this visa.
The news comes during a week created by the White House to dedicated to American manufacturers, "the builders, to the ranchers, to the crafters, and to all those who work every day to make America great."
Nearly every speech during his campaign promised to "bring back" US jobs to economically depressed areas of the country. He even cited how the Paris Agreement on climate change was "unfair" to American workers as a reason for pulling out of the massive global accord.
The Secret Service has not commented as yet what having seasonal foreign workers will mean in terms of vetting and security procedures should the President travel to Mar-a-Lago during their employment periods.