 |
| "Government Bureau" (1956) by George Tooker |
In chapters 3 and 4, Soni describes how Murugan Khandasamy and Shawkat Al Sheikh were told that they needed to tell a lie if they wanted the U.S. government to grant them a visa that would allow them to work in the United States.
Don't answer this question set before you've read chapter four and all previous chapters.
As always, it is not necessary to require to every question in the question set.
Question Set #1:
To what extent is it acceptable to tell a lie if you're doing so for a good reason, such as in order to provide your family? To what extent is it acceptable to tell a lie if no particular individual is harmed by the lie? Is it morally defensible to lie about commiting a crime if you believe that the law you have violated is unfair or nonsensical? How many of these factors apply in the case of the lies Murugan and Shawkat felt compelled to lie about? How much does it matter whether they were aware of the necessity of telling a lie before they were already $14,000 in debt?
Question Set:
Why should it be illegal for a citizen of another nation to pay a fee an American contractor, or a recruiter or lawyer who represents the contractor, if, in exchange, the American contractor submits a visa application on behalf of the potential employee? Couldn't it be argued that such a pre-employment fee payment represents a genuine commitment on behalf of the worker? Couldn't it be argued that such a payment requires the worker to put some "skin in the game," so to speak, that would reassure the contractor that the worker would in fact follow through on their work commitment rather than abandoning it after the work visa allowed them entry into the country? Couldn't it be argued that contractors should have the right to charge potential employees whatever the market allows? Shouldn't the contractors and their potential employees be free to enter into whatever contract they wish outside the purview of the U.S. government? Why should the U.S. government be allowed to reject a visa application because the applicant and the targeted contractor entered into a private contractor that did not involve the government at all?
2. Having a law that surrounds paying fees to American contractors protects the United States from people essentially buying a job and a citizenship, protects the foreigners from being exploited by the contractors, and overall creates a more fair playing field. There is logic behind putting some "skin in the game" when thousands of dollars are at stake, but that doesn't make it morally permissible. Yes, they are aware of the contract and are free to sign it, but they shouldn't have to take money out of their family's life savings to have the chance at living freely in the United States. Their citizenship should be based off of loyalty, hard work, and determination, not how rich they are prior. I also don't think of contractors making money from simply being in a better position than another person as a sign of good character.
ReplyDeleteIt should not be legal for a contractor to enter a private agreement with their potential clients from other countries. As Saket Soni mentions several times, the companies that hire contractors to procure workers from outside of the United States are already at a significant advantage: they do not have to pay their employees nearly as much as their American counterparts. Most immigrant workers perform the same amount of labor for a significantly cheaper price. This allows said companies to pay their contractors an appropriate amount of money without them having to enter private contracts with the immigrant workers. Additionally, these contracts almost exclusively serve to take advantage of the potential employees and put money in the pockets of the contractors and their business partners.
ReplyDeleteWhen you are trying to help your family, almost nothing is too much. In the case of Murugan and Shawkat, they were only doing what they thought would be the best for their families. I do not believe that they were wrong in lying to their families if they thought this would help their loving situation, but I do believe they could have been more open about the nature of the deal. In their cases they should have made their families aware of the legal ambiguity of the offer.
ReplyDeleteWhile yes, they only wanted the best for their families, they need to have told them that paying for their visas was not legal. They especially should have mentioned this when the very act of accepting the deal would have put their families in tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Even if they had not known though, they should have attempted to research these form of work offers to check the legality before taking out savings and loans.
While lying if for a worthy cause can do no harm, or even good in some ways, one should think of how it would affect the people they are lying to. Murugan and Shawkat should not lie about something so drastic, even if it does no harm. No one would enjoy being left in the dark about their finances. Overall, I believe that both Murugan and Shawkat should have been more upfront with their families, since their decisions affect their households, such as putting them in possibly unpayable debt.