Unauthorized Dichotomy Analysis

Cundal and Seaman discuss the many ways in which the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) is abused and the effects of this misuse on the workers. Temporary Foreign Workers (TFW) are working jobs that should be classified as long term positions, not short term. This incorrect classification affects a worker’s salary, healthcare plan, pension, vacation pay, and sick days. Cundal and Seaman also address the ways in which TFW are more susceptible to employer abuse than other workers. Temporary Foreign Workers must apply for a Labour Market Opinion (LMO) before switching employers, which can take up to five months; most workers cannot afford to live without a source of income for this length of time. This usually compels workers to keep serious issues private. Many workers are also uninformed about their basic rights, which often leaves them exposed to mistreatment or abuse by employers. Cundal, an immigration lawyer in Calgary and Seaman, a human rights and civil liberties researcher wrote an unbiased and fact based article using a wide variety of sources including articles, reports, and newsletters. Cundal and Seaman provided an extensive reference list in addition to footnotes to support their writing. The authors not only address the human rights issues faced by TFW’s, they also identify ways in which these issues can be resolved. Cundal and Seaman however, fail to provide information on how many TFW are affected by employer abuse and exploitation. This information is

“Undocumented workers are among the most vulnerable and exploited workers in our country, as frequent victims of unpaid wages, dangerous conditions and uncompensated workplace injuries, discrimination, and other labor law violations” (Workplace Fairness). Many southern red states, have extremely harsh, unjust immigration policies that aim to deport undocumented immigrants. Latinos in the south must watch their backs everywhere they go, making them the most vulnerable minority group in the US. While, certain policies and laws exist that protect undocumented workers, the majority of immigrants remain uninformed about the existence of these policies. “There is a tremendous need to inform workers and employers of their rights and responsibilities under our employment laws, to provide greater resources for enforcement of such laws, to increase access for workers to the legal system and community organizing, and to adopt immigration policy reforms that will remove the vulnerability of undocumented workers” (Workplace Fairness). For example, a law called the Fair Labor Standards Act "contains no exception to or exclusion for persons who are not U.S. citizens or who are in this country illegally,” (New Jersey Law Journal), meaning that undocumented immigrants have a right to receive pay for the work they

In the case of Patel v. Quality Inn South, it was first proclaimed by a district court that undocumented aliens were not protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (“PATEL v. QUALITY, ” n.d.). The Eleventh Circuit Court contacted the U.S. Department of Labor in order to determine whether or not undocumented aliens could protest and file for violations under the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The U.S. Department of Labor responded and took “the position that undocumented aliens were covered by the provisions of the FLSA and thus were entitled to its protections” (“PATEL v. QUALITY,” n.d.). The Circuit Court then reversed the decision of the district court and held that

In her article, Lisa Fickenscher describes how B&H Photo and Electronics, was sued by the Department of Labor for discriminating against its minority workers. The article explains how B&H, prefer to higher Hispanic workers because of their willingness to work in labor jobs. They then exploit their minority workers by having them work under

According to an article, it states “Employers argued that the IRCA and the Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman makes it illegal for an undocumented alien to obtain employment benefits in the United States. (31) However, people who qualify as employees based on the statutory definition drafted by the respective state legislature are eligible for workers' compensation benefits, and illegal immigrants can be designated as employees and thus be eligible for benefits” (Fisenberg and Presmanes.) If you are working in the U.S. undocumented or not you deserve the rights to receive benefits from your job because they are responsible not you. “In July 2003, a court granted $948,405 from the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund to the widow of an illegal worker who was killed while demolishing a wall at a Shekkipmei construction site in April 2002” (Jim. T Query, Ph.D.) Many people think that the solution to the problem of giving undocumented workers benefits, is to just not hire them that way they aren’t responsible and won’t have to pay for their injuries, but in reality that is never going to happen. As much as people want to get rid of illegal immigrants and think that not giving them employment will solve everything they are sadly mistaken because as each day comes and goes more and more undocumented workers are coming to the U.S. Mexican workers are always at high risk for injuries and death and in order to solve this problem is rather simple, they

Grow, as well as his co-writers Adrienne Carter, Roger Crockett, and Geri Smith, make a compelling, fact-supported argument for the importance of illegal immigrants on certain sectors of the workforce. They state that “a wholesale expulsion [of illegal immigrants] would be crippling” (51). As proof, they

In the article "Can't Ask, Can't Tell: How institutional Review Boards Keep Sex in the Closet" by Janice M Irvine, the social scientists are frustrated with the Institutional Review Boards for stymied research about sexuality. The IRBs believe that the topic of sexuality is too sensitive for studies, and it is has been considered to be one of the special cases that do not want to present to the public. For decades, the IRBs' works are heavily influenced by the Belmont's three principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. However, sexuality has become one of the topics that the IRBs would automatically decline because they believe that it is not qualified any of the Belmont's three principles. In 2011, Irvine conducted a survey

The H-2A program is an important non-immigration program. Even though some research suggests there is not a nationwide shortage of domestic farm labor, considerable evidence suggests that this research finding is distorted by the presence of illegal farm workers.3 Seasonal shortage in certain agricultural states pose a serious threat to the state’s economy and the farmers’ livelihood. According to a 2012 California Farm Bureau survey, 71 percent of tree-fruit growers and nearly 80 percent of raisin and berry growers could not find enough workers to prune trees or pick the

An updated immigration bill, will be introduced by a group of cross-party senators, that will make an immense difference to non-immigrants requesting authorization to work in the United States under H-1B visa category (Issues in Science and Technology, 2006). The H-1B debate takes on a symbolic importance because it reveals conflicts and concerns with issues within America about unemployment and extending US control and opportunity. One may ask, “Why do we have immigration when unemployment is high?” Is there justification for immigration during an economic downturn and high unemployment? What is the legal risk for discrimination for US employees losing jobs to foreign workers?

Illegal immigrants not only receive less pay for work than legal workers, but they also take the jobs that american workers refuse to do. In agriculture alone, mexicans and other illegal immigrants are a vast importance on the process and collection of the fruits, vegetables, and grains that we buy from our stores and eat. In texas, without immigrants, “texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent”(goodman 1). Since the nation’s first census in 1790, immigrants were placed somewhere in

Arizona SB 1070 also known as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, was signed into law April 2010 as an attempt to regulate immigration at the state level. This bill was passed to support the Legal Arizona Worker Act (LAWA), passed in July 2007. S.B 1070 and LAWA’s main objectives were to drive unauthorized workers from Arizona. Proponents of the bills argued this would provide an abundance of employment room for U.S born citizens. While the bills succeeded in driving out unauthorized workers, they unintentionally damaged their economy and labor market. A report by Bohn, Lafstrom and Raphael found the population of unauthorized immigrants fell by more than 90,000 due to LAWA. However, the same report found that low-skilled white workers experienced a statistically significant drop in employment and likely became unemployed or exited the labor force as a result (Bohn, Lafstrom and Raphael, 2014). There are various explanations to this counter intuition. First, E-Verify mandates by the state were inefficient and costly. Second, increased labor demands in construction and agriculture and were unanswered, leading to deadweight loss. Lastly, the bills assumption of an increase in jobs as a result of deportation was by annulled by the lump labor fallacy.

My second take-away came from the face to face discussion on whether the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) includes illegal aliens in the definition of “employee”. Dr. Weisman asked, “If an illegal worker who gets discharged and then files an unfair labor practice charge is he protected under the NLRA?” I assumed he would be covered since I thought back to our discussion on the Occupational Safety Health Act which does protect illegal residents. The fact that I now know that the National Labor Relations Act does not cover illegal aliens made it an important take-away from me.

Bean, “Mexican immigrants generally can find work more easily in the United States than can members of other immigrant groups”, but I believe that the reason Mexican immigrants typically find jobs quicker than other immigrants is because they settle for any job opportunity that comes their way (427). The jobs that they settle for are usually the one that people tend to avoid, for instance field labor, most try to avoid this because of the working conditions (weather, time, and difficulty). Another statement made by the authors that I feel does not represent the entire Mexican immigrant population is when they stated that Mexican immigrants see welfare benefits as temporary, although they’re many whom see it as a temporary fix there are other who heavily rely on the assistance given to them (Hook and Bean, 428). Many rely on government assistance to make ends meet whether it’s to put food on the table or even to pay the water bill. Even though there were some statements made that I do not agree with, there were also ones that I did support. One statement that strengthen this article was the breakdown of how they selected their sample. To make the sample a more accurate representation of the population, they eliminated individuals that did not fit the immigrant classification, such as people who lived the United States outlying areas. This article had some weak points and strong points that led to some valuable

Since workers lack this mobility both within the job market as well as physically within the country, many employers have the ability to isolate a worker from society and services and thus exploit them. Abusive employers can threaten to lay off a worker if they decide to file a complaint, which would subsequently result in the worker being repatriated. Delphine Nakache (2013) writes that this might also make TFWs ineligible for employment insurance because they are legally restricted from new employment, providing another reason for workers to not report abusive employers (p. 6). Zachary Marshall (2015), a Researcher at the Department of Sociology at the University of Western Ontario, states that this vulnerability linked to mobility issues

Employer sanctions are of relatively recent vintage in the nation’s immigration laws. In the climate of heightened concerns over the number of undocumented workers (predominantly Mexican) in the United States in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, estimates of up to nine million undocumented people residing in the country were offered to demonstrate that immigration enforcement were ineffectual. Policymakers proposed addressing the situation from a new angle-by penalizing employers who were hiring undocumented workers, through what came to be called “employer sanctions.” By 1986, employer sanctions had become part of the nation’s immigration laws (Dowling and Inda, 2013, p.