Georgetown immigration law journal最新文献

{"title":"H-1B Visas, Outsourcing and Body Shops: A Continuum of Exploitation for High Tech Workers","authors":"M. Ontiveros","doi":"10.15779/Z38H708093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38H708093","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the exploitation of immigrant workers under the H-1B visa program. It analyzes pure H-1B workers that work directly for the company that sponsor the visa; outsourced H-1B workers that work on a visa sponsored by an outsourcing vendor; and body shop workers who work on a visa sponsored by a labor contractor that operates outside the legal boundaries of the law. The article provides a comprehensive survey of lawsuits brought under the visa laws for prevailing wage violations, wage theft, benching, and liquidated damages. It also discusses lawsuits brought as independent causes of action under state tort and contract law; the TVPA; RICO; and employment discrimination statutes. The article argues that even perfect enforcement of existing law will not eliminate H-1B worker exploitation because the program includes systemic inequalities and subordinating structures that are modern manifestations of involuntary servitude, debt bondage and unfree labor. The unfree system of labor created by the guest worker program is based in the ways in which threats of deportation and liquidated damages prevent workers from complaining or quitting; the way in which the visa sponsor's control of the guest worker's labor parallels antebellum slave codes; the commodification of immigrant workers as part of the human supply chain; and the lack of citizenship rights guaranteed to these guest workers.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"122 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79106818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Rise of Consensual Containment: From ‘Contactless Control’ to ‘Contactless Responsibility’ for Forced Migration Flows","authors":"Violeta Moreno-Lax, Mariagiulia Giuffré","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3009331","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3009331","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter centres on the rise and reinforcement of the 'containment paradigm' of refugee flows in developed countries, particularly in Europe. It traces the emergence of new forms of trans-national cooperation with neighbouring States, especially Libya and Turkey, for the 'management' (if not deterrence) of unwanted fluxes of forced migrants (typically impeding access to asylum), taking the form of training, financing, and other capacity-building activities. The key argument put forward is that, despite the absence of direct contact with the persons concerned by EU Member States, the ILC Articles on State Responsibility contemplate instances of contribution to wrongful conduct that may nonetheless trigger their international responsibility. The provisions on complicity, direction and control, and independent responsibility are explored in detail, taking account of the specific role that 'knowledge' plays in that regard, following developments in the case law on the ECHR. The ultimate goal is to demonstrate the continued relevance of international protection obligations and the persistence of responsibility in relation to this new generation of 'contactless', yet effective, means of control.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74118927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Why Is Labour Protection for Temporary Migrant Workers So Fraught? A Perspective from Australia","authors":"Joo-cheong Tham, I. Campbell, M. Boese","doi":"10.5040/9781509906307.ch-008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509906307.ch-008","url":null,"abstract":"The 21st century has witnessed a growth in temporary labour migration programs. Such a development is surrounded by fierce controversy over the effects of such programs on temporary migrant workers, their countries of origin and the host countries. One point of consensus is, however, clear: temporary migrant workers should effectively enjoy whatever legal protection is provided in relation to their working conditions. Yet, what is most uncontroversial may turn out to be the most complicated - evidence internationally and in Australia suggests that non-compliance with labour protection is widespread with temporary migrant work. Why is this the case? This paper analyses this important question through a focus on 457 visa workers and international student workers in Australia. It argues that non-compliance in this context is structural - it arises from the interaction of the vulnerability of temporary migrant workers, including their precarious migrant status, and employer practices in poorly regulated industries.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91227083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Consolidating Supranational Authority: A Commentary on the Caribbean Court of Justice's Decisions in the Tomlinson Cases","authors":"Salvatore Caserta, M. Madsen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2856227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2856227","url":null,"abstract":"This article is a commentary on two of the latest decisions of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Tomlinson v. Belize, and Tomlinson v. Trinidad and Tobago. In these two cases, the CCJ was called to rule over the legality under the Treaty of Chaguaramas of the Immigration Acts of Belize and Trinidad and Tobago, both of which contain express provisions banning the entry of homosex-uals into those two countries. The CCJ rejected the two cases by claiming that the two Immigration Acts had in fact not been applied by Belize and Trinidad and Tobago. At the same time, the Court ruled that CARICOM law requires member states to admit homosexuals from other CARICOM states, and that Belize and Trinidad and Tobago may therefore not indefinitely retain legislation that appears to conflict with their obligations under Community law. In these two cases, the CCJ also touched upon important legal issues, such as freedom of movement in the CARICOM and indirect and direct effect of Community Law. We argue that these two rulings are important new step for the CCJ with regard to consolidating its position as an authoritative supranational court.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89798529","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Employment Authorization, Alienage Discrimination and Executive Authority","authors":"Leticia M. Saucedo","doi":"10.15779/Z38VH5CJ1K","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38VH5CJ1K","url":null,"abstract":"Undocumented individuals with deferred action find themselves in a kafkaesque position, and neither scholars nor courts have persuasively addressed how their liminal immigration status affects their rights in the workplace. Many begin with the intuitive assumption that immigration and employment law are in a fundamental and unresolvable tension with each other. On one hand, anti-discrimination principles protect noncitizens from alienage discrimination in the workplace. On the other hand, Congress enacted employer sanctions precisely to keep undocumented noncitizens out of the workplace. In the face of this dilemma, the default approach is to conclude without analysis that employers (and states) must be able to deny rights and benefits to undocumented noncitizens. This creates a true dilemma for the employment-authorized undocumented worker, and challenges the federal government’s acknowledged power to authorize employment for noncitizens. In this Article, I argue that employment-authorized undocumented workers are protected from workplace discrimination even though they do not have legal status in the eyes of immigration law. If a purpose of employment law is to balance the “inherent inequality of bargaining power between employer and employee,” then employment authorization should offer protections that achieve bargaining equality, including protections for undocumented immigrants against discrimination based on their foreign-born status. On the other hand, in an increasingly anxious society concerned with growing numbers of undocumented noncitizens, the urge to limit rights and benefits that come with liminal immigration status such as deferred action is heightened. Recent Supreme Court holdings, both in and outside the immigration arena, however, support an evolving theory of workplace protection for workers in liminal immigration categories. I draw from these cases to suggest the revival of a theory that fuses liberty and equality principles with federalism and structuralism to protect noncitizens as historically disadvantaged groups. Toward this end, I explore three concepts – employment authorization, executive authority and alienage nondiscrimination principles – that together provide the foundation for protecting the employment authorized undocumented worker.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"165 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76551954","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Productivity and Affinity in The Age of Dignity","authors":"Stephen Lee","doi":"10.36644/mlr.114.6.productivity","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36644/mlr.114.6.productivity","url":null,"abstract":"This Review proceeds as follows. Part I summarizes The Age of Dignity. Part II explains how this segment of immigrant workers challenges the productivity/affinity binary that dominates immigration law’s formal migration rules. Part III shows how this binary sets up dual migration streams, both of which could account for future flows of care workers. As Part III shows, the example of the eldercare industry nicely illustrates how the employment based and family-based migration systems simply represent two different ways of filling labor needs. I then conclude.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79074990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"‘Citizens’ and ‘Foreigners’ in EU Law. Migration Law and its Cosmopolitan Outlook","authors":"D. Thym","doi":"10.1111/eulj.12164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12164","url":null,"abstract":"Migration has become a controversial subject across Europe and beyond. At the same time, the EU has built up an impressive set of rules for third-country nationals over the past two decades, which—unlike the mobility of EU citizens—received comparatively little attention apart from immigration and asylum specialists. This contribution presents the constitutional framework for ‘migration law’ towards third-country nationals and shows in how far they depart from the paradigm of intra-European mobility. It will be argued that differences can be rationalised by divergent objectives and do, nonetheless, not present a move towards ‘fortress Europe’. EU migration law maintains the distinction between citizens and foreigners at the same time as it protects migrants, including refugees. By accommodating migrants' rights and self-government, EU migration law can be construed as an endeavour to replace traditional notions of alienage with constitutional rules with a cosmopolitan outlook.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"95 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76211198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Jobs Looking for People, People Looking for Their Rights: Seeking Relief for Exploited Immigrant Workers in North Dakota","authors":"Sabrina Balgamwalla","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2738006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2738006","url":null,"abstract":"The recent oil boom drew a number of workers to North Dakota, and the state has seen demographic changes as a result, including a growing foreign-born population. Immigrant workers have been a key part of the state’s economic development, but temporary or undocumented immigrants are also particularly vulnerable to exploitation by employers. This article will explore immigration remedies for workplace abuse and the barriers that workers face when seeking visa certification, as well as the legal implications of certification denial policies. Although T and U visa certifications are not yet common practice in North Dakota, this article argues that these policies are worth consideration, especially given the grounds upon which denials might be challenged. Certification practices across the country have demonstrated that these programs benefit relationships between law enforcement and immigrant communities, protect fundamental workplace rights, and ultimately support better conditions for all workers.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73101899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Secluding North America's Labor Migrants: Notes on the International Organization for Migration's Compassionate Mercenary Business","authors":"Bruno Dupeyron","doi":"10.4324/9781315650852-22","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315650852-22","url":null,"abstract":"The re(b)ordering efforts made by states over the last three decades, for instance the securitization of some border areas and harsher visa policies, may denote an evolution of the international migration regime. The increase of migrant and refugee flows in the 1970s and 1980s (Hatton 2012), coupled with demographic and security challenges in developing countries (Geddes 2005), started to significantly alter an international migration regime that was essentially based on the notion of ‘control’ (Pécoud 2010; Georgi 2010). In the 1990s, the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the wars in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia added further policy makers’ concerns about the regulation of permanent and temporary migrations and refugee flows. A new regime, based on a global policy agenda relying particularly on the concept of ‘migration management’, was originally formulated by Bimal Ghosh, in 1993. Ghosh further developed this concept of ‘migration management’ in the 1996 project known as the New International Regime for Orderly Movements of People (NIROMP), funded by the Swedish, Dutch and Swiss governments (Ghosh 2000). Ghosh proposed a comprehensive international migration regime, designed to tackle what was perceived as current and future migration policy crises, and focuses on both migrants and refugees (Geiger and Pécoud 2010). Yet, Sassen argues that these two categories, migrants and refugees, cannot be merged: “there are separate regimes for refugees in all these countries and an international regime as well, something that can hardly be said for immigration�? (1996, 64). Nonetheless, Ghosh’s ‘migration management’ approach was welcomed and later borrowed by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). This notion of ‘migration management’ became a mantra of the IOM, “committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society�? (IOM 2015e).","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79732337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"EU Citizenship and the Right to Care","authors":"Nathan Cambien","doi":"10.1017/9781139680714.021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139680714.021","url":null,"abstract":"In its seminal Ruiz Zambrano judgment, the ECJ held that Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) precludes national measures which have the effect of depriving EU citizens of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on them by virtue of their status as EU citizens.This contribution focuses on one potential ‘candidate’ right, namely the ‘right to care’ and examines whether it can and should be considered as part of the ‘substance of’ EU citizenship rights.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84922986","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}