Oh wow! Usually you hear of companies being sued for discriminating against foreign workers (with companies choosing local ones instead).

#Apple did the exact opposite as they felt foreign workers would be more likely to stay due to their green card status.

👉🏾 Apple discriminated against US citizens in hiring, DOJ says | Ars Technica https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/11/apple-discriminated-against-us-citizens-in-hiring-doj-says/

@darnell Nowhere is it claimed that Apple hired foreign workers to take advantage of their green card status.

@Sumocat Reading the Press Release from the Justice Department it is apparent that #Apple went out of their way to secure jobs for foreign workers & obscure jobs from US citizens: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-25-million-landmark-agreement-apple-resolve-employment

As @arstechnica referenced earlier, Reuters mentions the primary reason for companies sometimes preferring non-US citizens is they are less likely to leave the company: https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-agrees-25-million-settlement-with-us-over-hiring-immigrants-2023-11-09/

I assume the Justice Department came to the same conclusion as well.

@darnell So your assumption is that the Justice Department *in February 2019* under AG Bill Barr, enforcing Trump’s “America First” visa rules, opened this investigation to protect green card holders? I connect those dots differently, but again, nowhere is it claimed why Apple failed to comply with those well-crafted rules, so let’s agree to disagree.

@Sumocat The Justice Department under Trump was not rubber stamping his world view, so I am not sure where you are getting that from (they routinely pushed back against Trump as the latter wanted to break the law constantly).

The statement by the Justice Department seemed legit, as well as Reuters analysis (which I agree with). Reread it if you desire, but it seems very clear what Apple was doing.

@darnell Be more specific. JD under Trump was not rubber stamping his world view when Jeff Sessions was AG. That’s why he got kicked out. Trump appointed Bill Barr to be *his* AG, which is when this investigation was opened. Also, Trump’s “America First” rules are still rules. Trump’s world view shaped those rules. Barr’s JD enforced them. I have no doubt Apple failed to comply with those rules. I make no assumptions about their motives, but we know what Barr’s motives were.

@Sumocat Reread what the Justice Department posted, as well as the Reuters article. I think their statement stands for itself. This is not a political issue, but a legal one. I like Apple, but they are not blameless when it comes to favoritism & corruption (just like every other corporation).

@darnell If it’s a legal issue, why do you keep injecting motive when none is cited? If it’s not a political issue, why do they cite the Immigration and Nationality Act? That law reformed the previous policy that favored European immigrants, which is the discrimination it was intended to stop. Had nothing to do with discrimination against Americans. That came when “America first” rules were introduced. Apple failed to comply with those rules. Read the statement.

@Sumocat Reread my previous statement, as well as the Justice Department’s statements, especially involving electronic & paper application submissions. Reuters guessed correctly on this, which is obvious to anyone reading both.

@darnell You made an assumption based on a fact Reuters shared about other companies (which was not a guess about Apple’s motives). You connected those dots without considering any other facts or context. Now you’re stuck defending Trump’s “America first” rules, same as JD. What’s obvious is JD got out of their jam with a small settlement, and you don’t have that path.

@Sumocat You’re making up assumptions, not realizing I merely read the Justice Department statements, & also saw how “odd” it was regarding the electronic & paper applications.

Apple even admitted they did not follow proper guidelines (although the settlement means they never admitted guilt), which was revealing. In essence, there were two standards where one was given preference (which is a red flag in any company).

Reread what the Justice Department stated again.

@darnell I have not doubted the JD statement once. I am simply reading it in the context of what prompted the investigation; what INA is intended to protect; which rules were broken and what they are intended to protect; and what the settlement actually does.

Now, if I might paraphrase your initial statement: usually you hear about companies discriminating against foreign workers; Apple got busted for the reverse.