alt Hacker NewsThat is your contention though. The government needs to prove that in a court of law that they are violating the statute or the regulations.
Replies
shimman • today at 1:55 AM
Oh come on, are we seriously acting like jobs building out react components or java endpoints are remotely complicated and not a skill that could be trained within 3 months?
It's a fairly well-founded contention eg [1][2][3].
Here's a problem I often see when technical people, particular engineers, try to analyze legal issues: they tend to look for technical compliance (or noncompliance) or use standards like absolute proof but the law simply doesn't work that way.
Legal decisions tend to come down to things like witness credibility, a holistic view of the facts and whatever evidence standard is being used (eg preponderence of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence).
An example I like to use is back when prosecutions for downloading something illegal were more in the news. A technical person might argue "an IP address doens't mean anything. It could've been anybody". But the law will look at the totality of the evidence (eg browser history, time when it happened, were you home at the time, whether such media was found on your PC, etc. And the way the Rules of Evidence work, you might not even be able to suggest certain alternative theories (eg "my Wifi was hacked") without evidence.
Another good example is sponsoring someone for a marriage-based green card. You need to be in a bona fide marriage and you'll get people who will look for technical compliance. Is having a joint bank account enough? Photos? A joint lease? Filing a joint tax return? Those are some of the factors USCIS uses but no single factor is sufficient. USCIS will look at the totality of the evidence in determining if a marriage is bona fide.
so back to PERM abuse, arguments like "we made an error with the email address" or "we accidentally lost some US citizen applications" or even "we complied with the technical requirements for advertising a position" may not carry the day because the totality of the evidence may still amount to immigration fraud.
Lastly, it should be noted that a lack of a prosecution (yet?) is not proof of legality or compliance either.
[1]: https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/28/cloudera_doj_employme...
[2]: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-labor-depart...
[3]: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/employee-rights-labour-r...