Cisco’s immigration law firm audited for improper behavior by U.S. Department of Labor | NetworkWorld.com Community — In other words if you are an Amercian, screw yourself. Allegedly.
The U.S. Department of Labor is auditing all the permanent labor certification applications filed by Cisco’s immigration law attorneys at Fragomen – Del Rey – Bernsen & Loewy LLP.
The purpose of the audit is to determine whether the nation’s largest immigration law firm improperly instructed clients to contact Fragomen before hiring apparently qualified U.S. workers.
Such activity would be considered improper attorney involvement in the consideration of U.S. worker applicants.
U.S. Department of Labor regulations specifically prohibit an employer’s immigration attorney or agent from participating in considering the qualifications of U.S. workers who apply for positions for which certification is sought, unless the attorney is normally involved in the employer’s routine hiring process.
Found by Rob Sanchez.
#67–Steve==how can owning stock be the basis of a conflict? Anything you do to drive up the short term value of the stock to the long term detriment of the company or the country is exactly what the law requires? OK==only a slight joke, and thats for real.
Seriously==describe a scenario where a conflict would arise. Then, why wouldn’t a declaration of that conflict along with the advice be completely “ethical?”
Just for my education.
#69–Pedro==yea, the irony I think completely escapes him. But we all have bad days. Still, all opinion and no facts becomes a bit tedious.
#70 – Bobbolina
Yes, I read the Wiki article. Definitions (albeit somewhat vague) of middle-middle clase, upper middle class, etc.
Nothing that addressed MY question though, which is what’s happening to the relative proportions of these groups over time.
The bone of contention here is whether or not the middle class is disappearing over time. Do you really not understand the question, or are you just trolling again.
#69 – ‘dro
Que te jodas, m’hijito. And then STFU. Your posts are remarkably content-free.
Did you learn that from Kuzco?
#71–Mustard==there is no doubt the middle class is shrinking. I disagreed with JCD that the lower class was “small.” A quibbling point given the issue being discussed and I didn’t want to do the google before posting so I let it go until the issue was touched upon again.
Is thinking the middle class is shrinking motivated by racist thinking, or by a recognition that the jobs are being taken away by outsourcing, foreign competition, USA tax incentives, and illegal immigration?
#72 – Bobbo
“Is thinking the middle class is shrinking motivated by racist thinking, or by a recognition that the jobs are being taken away by outsourcing, foreign competition, USA tax incentives, and illegal immigration?”
Thinking that the middle class is shrinking, like love, is a many-splendored thing. In and of itself, of course it’s not motivated by racist thinking.
However, thinking that illegal immigrants are somehow stealing all the great jobs natural-born Americans would be working, driving them into poverty and despair…. well. How else would YOU explain it, in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary? Hmm?
#74 – Bobster
Do you imagine that illegal aliens are taking middle class jobs away from hard hard-workin’ Murricans?
Or could any perceived increase in the size of the lower class be driven by the increase in the number of Taco Bells, increased requirements for day laborers to work on factory farms, and increased need for bicycle messengers? This would lead to a relative increase in the proportion of people in the lower class, while leaving the middle class untouched in absolute numbers.
I’ll let you run that through your Turing machine, and see what you come up with.
In the meantime, I reiterate my initial proposition: Most people whe are outraged over illegal immigration feel that way because they hate beaners.
#75–Mustard==tick, tock.
#76 – Bobbo
Heh heh. pwned!
You crapped out on that one, Bobster 😉
tick, tock.
#38 – Bobbo
Aw, give it up, will you? You have been soundly thumped.
At least have the dignity to admit it.
Has your Turing machine short-circuited? Or is it just shame?
#79–Mustard==you need to submit some facts as in some study or report that anti-illegal immigration advocates are motivated by racism as opposed to concern for a stable working/middle class in the USA among other issues.
If you don’t have any such support, then you should admit you have only your own private opinion.
As your private opinion, I think you can properly offer it as a counterpoint as opinion and not “fact.” When Pedro and I both claim we are not racially motivated, you are REQUIRED IN GOOD FAITH to take that prounouncement and find some other line of attack rather than mindless repetition. You lose credibility when you continue without respect or acknowledgement of the arguments, facts, websites, logic presented.
Otherwise, you are all sauce and no meat. You know, the more aggressive one is in posting, the more often an overstatement is made. The more aggressive a person is, the more apologies and concessions you should find that person make “if they are being honest/reflective/open at all.”
I like to think I am one of the more aggressive posters here, and I regularly apologize and admit to errors. I don’t recall a single one from you.
Take heed.
#80 – Bobster
What, you want me to go to the “Bobbo & ‘dro Evaluation Web Site” and find a link to the nature of your motivation?
Haw!
However, in the absence of any evidence (your red-herring Wikipedia postings don’t count) that Hispanics are stealing jobs from the middle class, causing them to sink into abject poverty), what’s a logical person to conclude??
Hmm?
Good ol Murricans just don’t like beaners living in their ‘hood.
Deal with it.
On the other hand, if you have any evidence to support your contention that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from hard-working Murricans, feel free to present it.
Tick, tock. The crowd waits with bated breath.
@70 Bobbo
Purely hypothetical (where I find my home). One of the stumbling blocks is the question ‘do I represent the company or the president or the vp or the shareholders?’
If I become a shareholder then there will be times where the shareholders interests are at odds with the presidents interests.
Probably the easiest scenario for conflict would be if I have stock in a company currently valued at $1M and that represents a bulk of my wealth. I hear stirrings that there may be SEC violations within the company, the ethics code requires I report crimes before they happen (if the case is pretty certain). If I have stock in the company I might not pursue that further, because doing so may tank my stock.
Also there are times where companies have to sue their shareholders (rare) in a move called ‘piercing the corporate veil.’ If a lawyer is representing the company or some individual higher up (and not the shareholders) there will be times that piercing is the appropriate option. Huge problem. If you didn’t hold stock you could just say “we can try to disregard the entity and sue the shareholders.” If you’re a shareholder…
I hope that makes sense. I just woke up, so it might not.
Mustrd,
Aahh, again we have this problem of YOU making pronouncements and then calling everyone who disagrees,a racist. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
Not everyone is a racist even when they feel strongly on an issue that might have race implications. For example, just because Mr. Catshit feels that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans might want, and even offered examples from a local perspective and two published reports, you still call him a racist. Maybe, because Mr. Catshit sympathizes with Americans, that makes him a nationalist or patriot instead of a anti-American.
I would like to see you provide something to refute other’s citations instead of merely suggesting they are unreliable or biased. Instead you continue to allow your own bias to show by trying to shout the other person down.
BTW, the only one I see using racist language here is YOU calling Mexicans “beaners”.
#84 – Mini-me
>>illegal immigrants are taking jobs that
>>Americans might want, and even offered
>>examples from a local perspective and two
>>published reports
“local perspective”?? I remember his apocryphal anecdote, but didn’t put too much stock in it. I could make up a dozen stories making any point that I wanted to.
And “published reports”? Could you refresh my memory about any “published reports” he alluded to that discussed illegal immingrants (as opposed to “hispanics” or “spanish-speaking individuals”)??
Thanks in advance, Mini.
#83–stevo==you crack me up. Isn’t the “first rule” who is your client? and not to represent clients who have or may have a conflict of interest? 99% of the time, you are the lawyer for the corporation==meaning the board often by liason with the CEO, CFO or others, but your client remains the Board as a whole. It never works nicely in the real world.
But you captured my attention with: “the ethics code requires I report crimes before they happen.” Really?—I mean REALLY? I thought the ethics of attorneys was to advise against the criminal conduct and then to keep your flap shut?====such being the “ethics” of the profession. Thats the case in California last I touched upon it. I understood at the time that other states and proposed model codes had exceptions for loss of life, but not financial shennanigans. Time marches on?
Well, I still couldn’t spot any conflict that couldn’t be resolved by you picking a side and making a declaration and ratification?
I wonder if that is because I see things you don’t, or vice versa?
I reported to Chambers at Wang…he told us all that his brilliant business strategy to save Wang from bankruptcy was to “cut expenses and increase revenue in a scissor-like fashion…”
Needless to say, we all updated our resumes after that meeting. No surprise here…guy’s STILL an idiot.