USA Immigration crackdown
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nippi
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no information on US based guys joining training during the ban.
As far as engaging in CC, It’s against the law. That being said, I don’t know of anyone working G days etc.also as a percentage of the pilot group. They probably have the highest number of resignations. 2018/19 will be a banner year for hiring. I would bet everyone who wants to depart will have a few chances to do just that.
As far as engaging in CC, It’s against the law. That being said, I don’t know of anyone working G days etc.also as a percentage of the pilot group. They probably have the highest number of resignations. 2018/19 will be a banner year for hiring. I would bet everyone who wants to depart will have a few chances to do just that.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlunderBus
Ya...I might be careful with that. Developing a 'scheme' of bouncing someone on and off visas often violates OTHER laws that maybe you didn't know about when you came up with your scheme. A prudent employer doesn't ask legal counsel 'how can I get away with this' but asks 'what's the right thing to do and what are the pitfalls in what I'm considering.'
Just like when one fills out his or her taxes. You can claim a lot of stuff, but when you get audited you better have been genuine otherwise you can face significant penalty.
For a hypothetical example,
The L1A visa was designed such it would apply to department heads and relatively high up executives who operate with a great deal of autonomy. Someone coming into the US to open a factory which employs several hundred (or thousand) workers and was necessary to do so. Potentially applicable to THE department head(s) who would set up Cathay's entire operation for the US. It was NOT designed to accommodate middle managers, staff, or minions. And how it would apply to an airline pilot (or captain) who ultimately does have some decision making authority but for the most part operates bridled by regulation, SOP, and company policy during normal operations completely escapes me. Hypothetically, one could probably write the job to sound better than it actually is on the application, but to me that would be dishonest and I would hope my legal advice would tell me that it was so and potentially subject to later scrutiny.
Perhaps things are really on the up and up and I guess in the long run we will see.
Ya...I might be careful with that. Developing a 'scheme' of bouncing someone on and off visas often violates OTHER laws that maybe you didn't know about when you came up with your scheme. A prudent employer doesn't ask legal counsel 'how can I get away with this' but asks 'what's the right thing to do and what are the pitfalls in what I'm considering.'
Just like when one fills out his or her taxes. You can claim a lot of stuff, but when you get audited you better have been genuine otherwise you can face significant penalty.
For a hypothetical example,
The L1A visa was designed such it would apply to department heads and relatively high up executives who operate with a great deal of autonomy. Someone coming into the US to open a factory which employs several hundred (or thousand) workers and was necessary to do so. Potentially applicable to THE department head(s) who would set up Cathay's entire operation for the US. It was NOT designed to accommodate middle managers, staff, or minions. And how it would apply to an airline pilot (or captain) who ultimately does have some decision making authority but for the most part operates bridled by regulation, SOP, and company policy during normal operations completely escapes me. Hypothetically, one could probably write the job to sound better than it actually is on the application, but to me that would be dishonest and I would hope my legal advice would tell me that it was so and potentially subject to later scrutiny.
Perhaps things are really on the up and up and I guess in the long run we will see.
No scheme at all... it’s what every foreign crew member use to enter the USA. They can waffle on about ‘basings’ But the underlying legal fact remains everyone is employed by the parent company in hk... no other entity exists. The labor infraction(s) lawsuits aren’t brought against a non existant ‘branch’ office but the employing parent company. Just to be clear .. nobody is fudging taxes.. the law as it stands is respected.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be interesting to see what information contained in the petitions that led CIS to come to the (apparently erroneous) conclusion that they did. Hopefully everything is on the up-and-up. Guess we'll see.
Not sure that I agree at all with YOUR interpretation of how CIS issues L-1s.
Not sure that I agree at all with YOUR interpretation of how CIS issues L-1s.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Kitty Hawk NC. First in Flight.
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This could amount to little or nothing, or it could become a RICO (extended criminal penalties) case and anything in between.
For RICO, govco must prove a defendant engaged in two or more instances of racketeering activity. Section (A) covers murder, kidnapping and all that nice stuff.
Section (B) includes any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18,....
And racketeering activity provisions as defined under Section 1546 of Section (B) is one (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents).
Additionally, there is section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), then there is section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States).
Seems like there is plenty for the Feds to work with in those alone. There are other provisions/sections they could draw upon as well if they see fit to push this as a RICO issue provided CX is seen as the correct type of enterprise for that pursuit.
So, who rolled this dice....?
For RICO, govco must prove a defendant engaged in two or more instances of racketeering activity. Section (A) covers murder, kidnapping and all that nice stuff.
Section (B) includes any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18,....
And racketeering activity provisions as defined under Section 1546 of Section (B) is one (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents).
Additionally, there is section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), then there is section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States).
Seems like there is plenty for the Feds to work with in those alone. There are other provisions/sections they could draw upon as well if they see fit to push this as a RICO issue provided CX is seen as the correct type of enterprise for that pursuit.
So, who rolled this dice....?
Last edited by Vtwin; 14th Feb 2018 at 04:43.
The company just cancelled social security and Medicare for ‘us based’ cabin crew (us citizens) on the declaration that WE (the airline) are a fully foreign registered business entity flying foreign registered aircraft. Thereby screwing the girls out of their decade of 10% contributions of which only the last 3 are recoverable. How then can they now say they are an “onshore” employer? Utter bull****. They were and remain a hk corporation and have royally cocked up ‘base’ employment in every single jurisdiction. I contest that all base crew in NAM remain employees of a hk Corp offshore.
They can’t have it both ways.
They can’t have it both ways.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amongst many outrages (where does one start..?), that was particularly immoral. To have staff working for a decade with the expectations that they were accruing their rightful government benefits, then basically use an accounting trick to strip those benefits away a decade later is truly plumbing the depths of corporate malfeasance. Disgusting in every way. Most of those crew have now resigned in disgust. Says EVERYTHING about this company and it's management. How can ANYONE trust the years of their career to people such as that? 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Per usual a bunch of wrong, misleading and speculating information posted on PPRUNE. But then again it is a rumor network. Truth is, as per the SFO ground staff office. An ex CX ground staff who now works for SA is being investigated. The individual in question worked for CX in 2008 and never had the legal right to work in the USA and has since been illegally working for SA. Nothing to do the Canadians commuting to/from work. Which is yes. Legal.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next time you enter the USA for work, make sure to tell the immigration officer that you are going to the USA for work. See what he says after a time or two of doing that, and then tell me it's legal (if you don't have an L1A, green card, etc...).
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m not implying that any CX pilot is working in the US illegally (because I don’t think they are), but I’m pretty sure a pilot commuting to a US base from outside the country will not be in possession of or clearing customs on a GenDec. Correct? That argument, if it is the one being made, is moot.
It’s one thing to be part of a crew on a foreign registered aircraft entering the US. It’s something entirely different to be based in the US and assuming federal and state’s rights without citizenship or some form of work visa. See the difference?
I don’t think anyone would argue that a YVR or YYZ based crewmember positioning into the US to operate a CX flight is doing so illegally. That is completely different than commuting, and where the confusion exists imo. A YVR based Captain is well within the law when positioning to LAX to operate. Nobody would dispute that. However, a US based, Canadian Captain living in YVR is different. I’m not sure US Customs is aware of the difference. Both appear the same to him at the kiosk.
Furthering the discussion, nobody would argue that the YVR based captain obtains US federal and state’s workers’ rights upon arrival to LAX. However, US based pilots (citizen, visa, and otherwise) are assumed to have those rights.
So, I think we have to account for the differences which are profound. I believe the law does not address them because this situation was never envisioned. However, the law does address members of foreign registered vessels. Google search the INA, but I don’t think it will result in any firm conclusions. It would take litigation and “intent of the law” to get any firm footing, which is why CX has, wisely imo, decided to freeze the US base to non-citizen/visa holders.
Notwithstanding California’s undocumented immigrant and worker policies, this is clearly an issue which falls under federal authority as per the Immigration and Nationality Act. Those challenging federal authority on these issues from the state and city government levels are going to be smacked down handily by the US Supreme Court once the cases filter their way through all the lower federal courts and their activist judges legislating from the bench.
It’s one thing to be part of a crew on a foreign registered aircraft entering the US. It’s something entirely different to be based in the US and assuming federal and state’s rights without citizenship or some form of work visa. See the difference?
I don’t think anyone would argue that a YVR or YYZ based crewmember positioning into the US to operate a CX flight is doing so illegally. That is completely different than commuting, and where the confusion exists imo. A YVR based Captain is well within the law when positioning to LAX to operate. Nobody would dispute that. However, a US based, Canadian Captain living in YVR is different. I’m not sure US Customs is aware of the difference. Both appear the same to him at the kiosk.
Furthering the discussion, nobody would argue that the YVR based captain obtains US federal and state’s workers’ rights upon arrival to LAX. However, US based pilots (citizen, visa, and otherwise) are assumed to have those rights.
So, I think we have to account for the differences which are profound. I believe the law does not address them because this situation was never envisioned. However, the law does address members of foreign registered vessels. Google search the INA, but I don’t think it will result in any firm conclusions. It would take litigation and “intent of the law” to get any firm footing, which is why CX has, wisely imo, decided to freeze the US base to non-citizen/visa holders.
Notwithstanding California’s undocumented immigrant and worker policies, this is clearly an issue which falls under federal authority as per the Immigration and Nationality Act. Those challenging federal authority on these issues from the state and city government levels are going to be smacked down handily by the US Supreme Court once the cases filter their way through all the lower federal courts and their activist judges legislating from the bench.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mate of mine, UK ATPL, 3000hrs, B757 current. Told by Delta that they would take him provided, of course, he got his FAA ATP and had the right to live & work in the USA. He told Delta that it would smooth things with the Immigration bods in the UK if he could have a formal letter offering employment. Delta told him, no, first, you need your green Card. US immigration in the UK said they would give him a green card if Delta gave him a formal job offer. My mate asked if Delta and US immigration people would talk to eachother. They never did and stopped talking to my mate as well. That was in 1985.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If he subsequently didn't meet those requirements what would you expect Delta to do? Did he have his Flight Engineer Turbojet written exam completed? That was probably a requirement at Delta in 1985 as well.
Like CX, Delta always has plenty of qualified applicants.
I've sure seen that shell game with expat contract mechanics floating around Asia and going out of the country every three months to get a new visa stamp.
Like CX, Delta always has plenty of qualified applicants.
I've sure seen that shell game with expat contract mechanics floating around Asia and going out of the country every three months to get a new visa stamp.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Has there ever been a case of a major U.S. airline sponsoring a foreign national on an employment visa? I've never heard of it.
I realize some Ozmate visas have been recently issued for regional jet carriers since the Big Three are hiring so many RJ pilots.
I realize some Ozmate visas have been recently issued for regional jet carriers since the Big Three are hiring so many RJ pilots.
This:
Some U.S. regional airlines are now sponsoring Canadians for the H1B Vis - AVCANADA
It doesn't appear to be widespread but Republic is doing at least some of it.
I guess we need to send a bigger boat to Australia !
You want to fly a regional jet for the rest of your career ? I'll guess not.
Then neither do most other people hence movement from regional to legacy or LCC.
The days of US regionals paying $20K/year are long over.
The real answer is to bring ALL regional flying under the mainline umbrella and mainline pilots doing that flying as one of their MANY options at the legacy level.
That won't happen...
