Federal Prosecutors Actually Prosecute H1-B Fraud (ap.org) 111
Slashdot reader McGruber reports that federal prosecutors "have filed conspiracy charges against a part-owner of two information technology firms and an employee for fraudulently using the H-1B program". Both were reportedly recruiting foreign IT workers, according to the AP:
Prosecutors said the conspirators falsely represented that the foreign workers had full-time positions and were paid an annual salary [when] the workers were only paid when placed at a third-party client, and the defendants sometimes generated false payroll records... The defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit visa fraud and obstruct justice and conspiracy to harbor aliens.
They're now facing up to 15 years in prison for an "alien-harboring conspiracy" charge -- with a maximum penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine -- and a separate visa fraud and obstruction of justice charge with a maximum 5-year penalty and a $250,000 fine.
They're now facing up to 15 years in prison for an "alien-harboring conspiracy" charge -- with a maximum penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine -- and a separate visa fraud and obstruction of justice charge with a maximum 5-year penalty and a $250,000 fine.
So they only prosecute a safe, "no-harm" target. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not news to hear them take down trivial targets, let's hear it when they actually take down bigger fish - the kind that result in citizens (especially long-term unemployed) being hired in their place.
Re:So they only prosecute a safe, "no-harm" target (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a chance, big fish have too many campaign contributions.
Re: (Score:3)
So the hatred for citizens continues.
Re:So they only prosecute a safe, "no-harm" target (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is exactly why Trump proposes a useless wall that anyone with a ladder can get climb over.
If the real goal was to stem illegal immigration simply having and enforcing high penalties on employers of illegal workers would take care of the problem.
The whole idea of the wall is to convince simpletons and the uneducated that you will do something, when you really don't intend to.
Same with the H1B visa program. On paper it is actually a very good thing: it allows you to bring workers from abroad in cases of local shortages. However, in practice it is being used to bring Indian IT workers which are trained by the US IT workers they are replacing. We do not need to change the H1B program, we need to make sure it is used the way the law says it should. Why it doesn't? just like the parent post side, employers make the proper campaign contributions to make sure it doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
The H1B program does not encourage you to hire outside. On paper you are supposed to pay more than the going rate, the job needs to be advertised first, and any qualified national has priority over foreigners.
Re:So they only prosecute a safe, "no-harm" target (Score:5, Informative)
Which brings us to this famous bit of evidence...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The people in the HR "profession" actually have seminars in how to avoid hiring American workers.
You might be right about the program design itself, but the program is gamed in a HUGE way and the US Government knows it and turns a blind eye. If they would simply do some audits and enforce the law this could be partially curbed, but they don't. Corporatist administrations do not care.
Re:So they only prosecute a safe, "no-harm" target (Score:4, Insightful)
Which brings us to this famous bit of evidence...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The people in the HR "profession" actually have seminars in how to avoid hiring American workers.
You might be right about the program design itself, but the program is gamed in a HUGE way and the US Government knows it and turns a blind eye. If they would simply do some audits and enforce the law this could be partially curbed, but they don't. Corporatist administrations do not care.
I don't see anything wrong with it. You're making a huge mountain out of one quote that makes perfect sense in the larger context of the legal framework.
It's not the HR department/ immigration lawyer's job to fill the position. As far as they are concerned that position is filled. The law requires them to advertise the position and they do advertise the position. It is the responsibility of the local worker seeking job opportunity to find the advertisement and apply for it.
He is talking about something called the PERM process. It is excruciatingly stacked up against the foreign worker. You're asking the foreign worker to put up their job on the line to apply for the green card where she is not allowed to use any experience she has on the job to qualify for her job, and anyone with the bare minimum qualifications can take it away.
There is absolutely no mention of how to avoid American workers. They put the job on the newspaper, job/school job website and their own website. What else are they supposed to do?
Also, the US government puts these application under the microscope. They take 4-6 months to analyze the application and if anything feels out of place (like a strange requirement in the job duties) they will reject the application. Each and every approved application is published on the DOL website for everyone to see.
Re:So they only prosecute a safe, "no-harm" target (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see anything wrong with it. You're making a huge mountain out of one quote that makes perfect sense in the larger context of the legal framework.
They're literally having whole seminars on how to craft job requirements such that you cannot fill them, specifically so that you can hire a H1B and treat them like a slave. That's not one quote. That's systemic abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see anything wrong with it. You're making a huge mountain out of one quote that makes perfect sense in the larger context of the legal framework.
They're literally having whole seminars on how to craft job requirements such that you cannot fill them, specifically so that you can hire a H1B and treat them like a slave. That's not one quote. That's systemic abuse.
That is not what the seminar is remotely about. It i about PERM and not even H1B.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not what the seminar is remotely about. It i about PERM and not even H1B.
Whatever seminar you're thinking of may not serve the purpose I fulfilled, but such seminars definitely exist, and you can find video from them on Youtube to prove it. People are going to training to find out how to write a job description that cannot be filled without hiring a liar. Then they DQ all the non-H1B applicants who lie about their qualifications, and knowingly hire a liar who is cheaper — who they can later fire for lying on their job application. Neat and sweet... for the so-called "Job C
Re:So they only prosecute a safe, "no-harm" target (Score:5, Insightful)
What the H1B program does is emphatically penalise the competitiveness of companies that train their own. How can US companies that do that right thing and spend millions on training against companies that spend on lobbyists and cheat bringing cheap foreign employees. So every company went from paying for training to demanding trained people for free and unwilling to pay anything for it, not reasonable wages, not taxes to pay for that training and let alone the crazy idea of paying for the training themselves. Yet another part of the collapse in US society.
"necessity" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Not a problem. The border is thousands of miles long, so crossing it without being noticed is a piece of cake.
For example, Israel has two big walls, one relatively small and heavily guarded with the West Bank, another with the Gaza strip and not heavily guarded. This last one is riddled with tunnels and serves no good effect.
Once you heavily guard the border the wall itself is actually not necessary. So as I said, the whole wall proposal is meant to capture simpletons who cannot think this through. A much c
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, there are literally thousands of pictures of people crossing the current wall in every way you can imagine.
Ladders, Cool ropes that unwind you to the bottom, Tunnels that you can literally ride a full size truck thru, gaping holes that appear over night in solid steel sections of the fence, bridges that unfold over the wall, and of course people simply boosting others up who then pull them up. It takes them under 60 seconds to cross the wall.
Any wall will not work unless you have officers every 300 f
Re: (Score:2)
I'd personally prefer a village. A 2000 mile long, three city block wide, village.
That way, you could have newcomers to the country welcomed with a place to stay within three blocks of the border. Include a 2000 mile long sewer and water system, and have the back yards of the interior row of houses be farms to feed everybody.
Problem solved for the rest of the nation, and such a village/city could probably absorb all of the immigration possible from all of Latin America.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Illegal immigrants do not qualify for welfare. Their children do, in relatively small amounts. The average illegal immigrant comes to America looking for a job and crime rates of illegal immigrants are the lowest among all racial groups, including whites.
Re:So they only prosecute a safe, "no-harm" target (Score:4, Insightful)
Been eating those old paint chips again, haven't you? For starters, the crime rate of illegal immigrants is 100%, because illegal immigration is a crime. Beyond that, hit-and-run collisions and drunk driving are disproportionately high in the illegal immigrant community. If they're working, that's another crime. (They're either not paying Social Security and other income-related taxes, or if they are they're doing it on false SS numbers.) They're the main consumers of forged and stolen IDs, which is how they get around welfare requirements.
Oh - and illegal immigrants aren't a "racial group".
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Duh, of course the crime rate has to exclude the crime of being here illegally and any others related to that. This is so obvious that goes without saying, captain obvious.
Outside of those their crime rate is the lower among all groups, contrary to what Trump says. This makes senses as the penalty for even a minor violation is deportation, so they try really hard to avoid any such infraction, which is exactly why their hit-and-run numbers are higher.
So when Trump says that illegal Mexicans are rapists he's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you've excluded "crimes of being here illegally and any others related to that". You've apparently excluded hit-and-run crimes as well. Anything else you're excluding to make the statistics fit your narrative?
Yes statistics indicate that first generation immigrants have lower crime rates than second generation and natives - that is however all immigrants not just illegal immigrants and since part of the legal immigration process is to select those more likely to follow the law that shouldn't be a surpris
Re:So they only prosecute a safe, "no-harm" target (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be curious to see where you get your data. For some reason it's very difficult to find hard data on crime by illegal immigrants. Texas is one of the few states that keeps track of it and there illegals for the period of 2011 to 2015 committed about 7.5 percent of the murders in that state. Given that illegals are estimated to be about 6 percent of the population of the state that's probably slightly higher than average but not seriously higher and probably within a margin of error. I really don't have a problem with people from Mexico coming to the US but I think it's only reasonable to expect them to register and apply for a green card. I don't really get why people think it's okay for 11 million people to just come here and set up shop without documentation. Sure, the wall is a stupid idea and I'm sure it's just Trump being his blowhard self. I figure even he knows it's not going to happen. I really think though that these people should be required to comply with the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm not defending illegal immigration. A country definitely has a right to take measures against illegal immigration. My claim is that a wall with Mexico is a red-herring that serves no actual purpose, since it would be ineffective. It's pure demagoguery.
Most countries in the world keep illegal immigration at very low levels by simply having high administrative penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants.
The reason we don't have those is because they were tried in the 80s and turns out capitali
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm not defending Trump. He's a blowhard and mostly full of shit. It's simply that I actually fear a Clinton presidency. She's backed by some of the worst people, corporations and banks in the world. Worse, she's very smart and has the political know how and allies to accomplish most if not all of her agenda. The idea of her actually appointing Supreme Court justices gives me hives. The best hope I have is Trump being elected. As president he will most likely accomplish very little. Without alli
Re: (Score:2)
As president he will most likely accomplish very little.
Maybe, but you do know that's what people thought when Hitler was first elected in Germany with a minority government, right?
They thought he was a harmless idiot. Instead he took full control, imprisoned his enemies and never called for an election again. Will Trump do that? I don't know, but the mere possibility that he could scares the bejeezus out of me.
As for Clinton, his platform and policies would be considered right wing in every single developed country in the world except the USA. I don't know wh
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
She's going to get to appoint 3 justices to the Supreme Court. That's way too many for someone like her to get to appoint. She'll have the political backing thanks to her corporate and banking sponsors who own a lot of the senators on the other side of the aisle to get her nominees pushed through despite contentious and drawn out hearings. It'll slant the Supreme Court which has been mostly center-right since Reagan far to the left. Gun control and things like TPP will finally be able to be legislated b
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think Clinton would be so radically different?
24 years of GOP hatred and bile is poisoning his opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's exactly why many Germans voted for the upstart National Socialist party. They were outsiders and the system wasn't working very well under the old parties. Quote on the 1933 election:
Three factors at least have to be taken into account in explaining how, nevertheless, the Fuhrer cult could, within a strikingly short time, extend its hold to wide sections of the population, and eventually to the overwhelming majority of Germans. Of crucial significance was the widespread feeling that the Weimar political system and leadership was utterly bankrupt. In such conditions, the image of a dynamic, energetic, 'youthful' leader offering a decisive change of direction and backed by an army of fanatical followers was not altogether unattractive. Many with grave doubts were prepared to give Hitler a chance. And compared with the pathetic helplessness of his predecessors as Chancellor, the apparent drive and tempo of government activity in the months after he took office seemed impressive.
Secondly, the gross underestimation of Hitler again paved the way for at first reluctant or condescending, and then wholehearted, enthusiasm for the way he apparently mastered within such a short time the internal political situation which had seemed beyond the capabilities of an upstart rabble-rouser. Thirdly, and most importantly, Hitler embodied an already well-established, extensive ideological consensus which also embraced most of those, except the Left, who had still not given him their vote in March 1933. Its chief elements were virulent anti-Marxism and the perceived need for a powerful counter to the forces of the Left; deep hostility towards the failed democratic system and a belief that strong, authoritarian leadership was necessary for any recovery; and a widespread feeling, even extending to parts of the Left, that Germany had been badly wronged at Versailles, and was threatened by enemies on all sides. This pre-existing wide consensus offered the potential for strong support for a national leader who could appear to offer absolute commitment, personal sacrifice, and selfless striving in the cause of inner unity and. outward strength.
http://www.historytoday.com/ia... [historytoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler owned the Nazi party by the time he became Chancellor. Trump has no control over the Republican party, he simply hijacked their electorate. They were going to try to cram !Jeb or some other establishment drone down the electorates throat just like they did with Romney in spite of how that worked for them. He has no backing to speak of within the halls of Congress and less that that from the military. He wouldn't make a pimple on Hitler's ass.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you are right. He didn't own the Republican party, but he has the voters and lately also the politicians. Heck even Ted Cruz has now said to vote for him, and he hasn't won the election yet. If he wins likely the entire party apparatus will grease up and surrender to him.
I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for him, I'm saying: "you are playing with fire. Best case scenario, he might turn out to be an incompetent idiot a la Bush Jr. or worst case scenario he turns out to be a Hitler Jr.". Or you can v
Re: (Score:2)
She will appoint three. It would have been two if republicans had accepted the moderate judge put forth by Obama. Of those likely two, one of them is already a liberal, so it doesn't make much difference. I fail to see why it would make such a radical change in the SC composition. I think you are making a tempest in a teapot. Additionally, she would have to have it confirmed by a Republican Senate.
So as I said, I fail to see why you think it would make such a radical difference. You might have been watchin
Re: (Score:2)
Other than Obamacare, which in reality was more like Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi care, Obama didn't really do much. And really, how much do they need to do? "That government is best which governs least." I find that to be true in practice. I thought it was pretty stupid of the Republicans to refuse to approve the justice Obama proposed. It was very short sighted of them. I'll take a moderate any day as they mostly just follow the constitution. The fact is that Republicans are no longer a conservative
Re: (Score:2)
Good options? I don't think you have listened to them talk yet.
Where is Aleppo anyways? And who are these world leaders? Snowden should be pardoned (for treason...during wartime...a hanging offence according to the law).
Re: (Score:2)
A few facts that are worth highlighting:
1) Obama has increases border security tremendously.
2) His administration deported more illegal immigrants in his first three years in office than GWBush did in his entire eight years in office.
3) The number of illegal immigrants in the USA is at a 10 year low and this decline is the only reduction in the last five decades.
Re: (Score:2)
The claimed number of illegal immigrants in the US varies somewhat depending upon whom you cite. The latest numbers I can find (2014) indicate that the number has stabilized over the last decade, ending a long period of escalation. The 2014 number is neither the lowest nor the highest of the last ten years.
The Bushes, Clinton, and especially Obama have damaged economic growth in the US. The bad economy discourages new immigrants. This is reflected in the portion of illegals that have been in the US over 10
Re: (Score:3)
Deploying the National Guard to the southern border of the United States of America would be less expensive than building, maintaining, and patrolling a wall.
We already tried that back in the 1990s. On one of the first patrols, a Marine shot and killed an American citizen [wikipedia.org]. The military is not trained nor equipped to act as law enforcement.
Net immigration from Mexico is near zero. The main reason for the decline is economic growth and opportunities in Mexico. It is mostly a non-problem, and it is silly that it is the biggest issue in the election.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
At the rate we're going, all we need to do to stop illegal immigration is wait.
Re: (Score:2)
So just to make sure I understand this. You are advocate that the US should use deploy military forces domestically in a state of non-emergency with rules of engagement such that they hopefully shoot enough people to qualify at shooting practice?
Re:So they only prosecute a safe, "no-harm" target (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not news to hear them take down trivial targets, let's hear it when they actually take down bigger fish
Taking down easy targets is what the beginning of taking down hard targets looks like. Enforcing H1-B laws at all is rare enough that even the small fry are newsworthy. Lets hope there's some actual follow-through.
The H1-B laws as written are pretty good: you have to pay at least average, and you must have at least tried to hire a US citizen. We all know companies that cheat on this, but I've worked for plenty that don't cheat. It's easy to know the cheaters, because all, or nearly all, low-level employees are H1-Bs.
Companies just trying to fill reqs with qualified people will have a real mix of citizens, green cards, and various visas. That's what it looks like when you're desperate to hire, and you'll find a way to hire anyone who gets through your interviews: a diverse mess of immigration statuses. And, importantly, they're all employees, not any outsourcing going on.
OTOH, if you're a body-shop outsourcing company that just competes on price, it's almost all H1-Bs (except some management), no one on green card track, everyone underpaid, so damn easy to see what's happening there. If only the federal government gave a fuck.
Re: (Score:1)
If only the federal government gave a fuck.
It's amazing what a few hand-written letters to your congressman from a constituent in their district, especially one who works in the technology business, can do. You should try it sometime. All the lobbying money in the world cannot match the authenticity of a genuine hand written letter from a constituent and doubly so if there is a story about a layoff or other hardships to go with it.
Re: (Score:1)
All the lobbying money in the world cannot match the authenticity of a genuine hand written letter from a constituent and doubly so if there is a story about a layoff or other hardships to go with it.
Triply so when you enclose photographs of the congressman cruising for gay sex in the men's room at the Indian restaurant.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they have checks to the sum of four or five figures attached to the letter.
Re: (Score:2)
When they were written 15 years ago. not today. the salary hasn't been adjusted for inflation.
Adjusted for inflation, it would be over $100,000. It is still about $60,000.
And that's a root issue.(not the only one). At my last company, we paid Infosys people 2/3 of what we paid u.s. citizens onshore (and offshore it was 1/3 the rate but they needed onshore resources to function-- bad english skills).
Re: (Score:2)
$60,000 in 2001 is $80,000 in 2016 when adjusted for inflation, so where are you getting $100,000 from?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You are right... it's since 1990. So 26 years.
The H1b Minimum salary was set at $60,000 in 1990. That's $110,000 today adjusted for inflation.
And that's probably why bills submitted to congress to set a new minimum are written with $110,000.
Good point.
I think instead of being $110,000, it should be top 10% income. That would adjust automatically.
Re: (Score:2)
The law doesn't specify an amount, it specifies that you pay at least average. Infosys is one of the cheaters, perhaps the most famous. They just ignore the law, have from the start, and will keep ignoring it unless the government actually bothers with enforcement. Thus far there have been enough campaign contributions to keep that from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they were a travesty from the start - increase the size of the labor pool to benefit corporations, with the intended side effect of forcing down wages for the worker. Supply and demand for thee, not for me. The invisible pimp hand of capitalism, bitch-slapping the unskilled worker with its hand - and then the skilled worker with the backhand.
What's wrong with going after low hanging fruit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's not news to hear them take down trivial targets, let's hear it when they actually take down bigger fish - the kind that result in citizens (especially long-term unemployed) being hired in their place.
Does it make sense to practice first before suiting up for the big game? Why do patent lawyers go after the small fish first? Think about it. If you're an attorney or a prosecutor do you go after the targets with the best defenses first? What if, instead of starting with the strongest opponent, you practiced on the smaller ones first? That way you can refine your arguments, see what works and what doesn't and (hopefully) get a few wins under your belt before you challenge the heavyweight champion for the ti
that is just the opening offer (Score:1)
The defense will counter-offer with: 'plead guilty to 1 count of conspiracy, no jail-time, and $10,000.'
I'll delay opinion if/when the conviction details materialize: EditorDavid, please report back when that happens.
Re: that is just the opening offer (Score:1)
That offer has probably already been accepted. Hell my company ripped off medicaid and Medicare for tens of millions and all they got was a small fine, don't do that again, and no admission of guilt.
Good, now prosecute the loophole users (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this whole program is that they can't go after companies that violate the spirit of the law. In this case, the government was clearly responding to an actual fraud (falsification of records, etc.)
I don't really have a problem with the H-1B program, in its original form. Before all the loopholes were discovered, it provided a useful way to get very highly skilled people into the US to work on projects. The thing I don't like seeing is the whole wave of body shops that are clearly using the law to bring people in house who are clearly not highly skilled, but work cheap enough to displace a native employee. I'm a reasonably senior systems integration engineer, and it's clear that the Tatas and Infosys's of the world aren't bringing in Ph. D. geniuses to work as routine DBAs and coders. My team and I get a lot of the output of these folks and have to make it work in the real world...it isn't ground breaking innovative stuff. The other thing that I've seen the offshore firms use H-1Bs for is a rotating "train your replacement" team. When they hook another company for an IT outsourcing deal, this is the team that gets sent in to collect procedures and send the work offshore. When the press picks up on stories like this, these teams are usually the ones the workers are talking about when they say they're being shadowed and forced to document their jobs.
I really think it's going to take massive unemployment in sectors other than IT for the loopholes to be closed. When the BPO firms start coming for the professional accountants and other "expensive" talent as well as IT, people might notice and/or sympathize. I think lots of people really think that IT folks are way overpaid and don't totally understand the job, cost of living differences, etc. It also doesn't help that there are a lot of people inside and outside of IT that express the opinion that all of the displaced workers were "old fossils" who don't keep up. I'm old and spend a ton of time keeping up, so I hate getting lumped in with this crowd....but at least I'm still employed!
Re: Good, now prosecute the loophole users (Score:1)
I work a major ITO/BPO firm. Hp services sized entity. we outsource even our own jobs. It's not just IT. We shipped all of accounting to India. HR is moving too. All call centers are long gone. There are almost no US workers left in our company except upper management. I'm with the small group who still has to have boots on the ground here... But now we are doing this landed resource shit where you lay off the US workers and replace them with imported h1b visa labor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But we lose another domestic industry - now even more American Citizens lose fraud & treason jobs because of illegal aliens in our harbors !
H1B's Problem is All the Lawful Parts (Score:1)
Outright fraud is easy. But the real problem with H1B isn't what is illegal, it is all the parts that are legal.
No more using H1B to bring in people for training as the first step in off-shoring work.
No more letting them bait-and-switch labor condition applications [cringely.com] in order to circumvent the prevailing wage requirement.
No more using the 5+ year green card process to prevent H1B holders from switching to better paying jobs.
But the DoJ can't fix those problems because those are all baked into the current H1B
Re: (Score:2)
Simply dropping the per-country quotas for Green Cards would solve the latter 2 issues overnight. There's a lot of people I know who are here on those visas (with their families) who would become citizens in a heartbeat, but they have a 20 year wait. At this rate their (US born) children will be sponsoring them before the simple "I live and work here" method works its way through...
A company pays $100/hour to a contracting company (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
This happens domestically too. Someone we employed as a contractor from our "preferred vendor" at Rate X was subbing the work out to TEKSystems (land of the naive and the newbie contractors.) I accidentally saw what TEKSystems was paying him...Rate X became Rate 0.3X after both companies took their cut. When his contract was up, we weren't able to hire him, but I was sure to mention to him that he should find another contracting company...he was really good and didn't realize he was being taken advantage of
Worked with Tek, it was bad. (Score:1)
I only subcontracted via Tek. It was a short contract for what I was hoping would work into a permanent position. I told them as much, and they still tried to stick me with a "cannot take a permanent position unless authorised by Tek" (aka pay them money). I fought with them until eventually that clause was removed.
At the end of my term, I get offered the full position only to find out that they've put in a similar clause to the employer, who then had to pay Tek a fee to take me on. This was after I'd burne
Re: (Score:2)
I am struggling to see the illegality here, apart from the rate at which the worker was being paid. The fact that he was paid in Rupees? So what? As long as the relevant taxes are paid, there is no issue. In fact, it appears that the illegality was committed by the contracting agency and they have more to fear from it being r
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the relevant taxes were paid, then the employee would be able to prove that they were employed in the US.
I'm guessing the IRS didn't get a single Rupee from this employee, nor the employer's contribution in payroll taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
I would guess that someone at GGP's company knowingly set up a shady (and possibly illegal) deal to employ cheap labor. Lower down the hierarchy, they don't realize the illegality. The illegality is why they can't actually hire any of these "good" H1-B holders, but it's not because the illegality is limited to the H1-B holder or the contracting companies.
Re: (Score:3)
How is this cheaper? Can someone explain that? Are benefit payments really that large in US industry.
If benefit payments are that large, why aren't US corporations openly for single payer healthcare?
Corporate-think is destroying the US INHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Are benefit payments really that large in US industry.
H1-B workers are entitled to the same benefits as any other employee, so this is not an issue.
If benefit payments are that large, why aren't US corporations openly for single payer healthcare?
Managing corporate healthcare programs is much easier for big companies than for small companies, so big companies see it as a competitive advantage. Small companies don't come out for single-payer because they are generally not politically engaged at all.
Single-payer healthcare would likely be a big win for American businesses if it was managed well, but that is unlikely. Medicare and Medicaid are very badly man
Re: (Score:3)
Small fries... (Score:2)
They are going after small fries. Meanwhile, most H1b visas are used by companies like Infosys or Tata Consulting who bring people from India, have them work as H1b low-paid slaves to get the training required so that their jobs can be outsourced to India where they return to and continue with much lower wages...
Gotta start somewhere (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly, the big Indian consulting firms (aka body shops) mentioned need to be prosecuted as a company and then their Bangalore based managers extradited, tried, convicted, and the sent to prison.
Show the companies: SCM Data & MMC Systems (Score:2)
The Slashdot title should be more like "SCM Data and MMC Systems prosecuted for H-1B VISA Fraud".
H1B = Crappy Code = Good Exploit Market (Score:1)
One possible side benefit of all the crappy code written by H1B body shops is the rich market for bugs and exploits of all kinds. With every government in the world stockpiling cyber weapons and gearing up for cyber warfare, there should be plenty of opportunities in the future for selling of exploits to the highest bidders. Let the games begin.
Call Me When... (Score:2)
Let us know when they go after Disney. Nobody gives a shit about these small potatoes.
Who was the prosecutor? (Score:2)
Did anyone catch the name of the prosecutor who filed the charges? I'd like to nominate him or her for president if it's not too late.
Re: (Score:2)
Prove it. Note that "for a better life" is an irrelevant rhetorical trick.
In order to accomplish what? Encourage the entrance of Jihadists and drug smugglers?
Further weakening the US economy
Looters and tyrants devour the decaying corpse of freedom.