>That's just, like, your opinion, dude.

That's the official opinion of the government, the judiciary, and the defendants. A settlement is not admission of guilt - the opposite actually. What are we even debating here ?

> "good lawyers" cannot help here

A settlement for a pittance, as you said, is the mark of a good lawyer.

▲

pandaman 3 days ago | parent [-]

>That's the official opinion of the government, the judiciary, and the defendants.

If it has been an official opinion it would have been published and you had a link to it, would not you? Settlement is not an admission of guilt nor is it admission that the case can't be won on merit.

>A settlement for a pittance, as you said, is the mark of a good lawyer.

Different lawyer handle DOJ prosecution and immigration (immigration lawyers are usually not even members of BAR). The government settles this kind of cases because of politics, not merit. If there had been a modicum of will to go after lawbreakers, these cases would try themselves - tons of witnesses, tons of evidence zero traces of "good faith".

▲

bubblethink 3 days ago | parent [-]

> The government settles this kind of cases because of politics, not merit.

The government also files these cases in the first place because of politics, not merit. See my point about theater earlier.

>If there had been a modicum of will to go after lawbreakers, these cases would try themselves - tons of witnesses, tons of evidence zero traces of "good faith".

That's just like, your opinion, dude.

▲

pandaman 3 days ago | parent [-]

>The government also files these cases in the first place because of politics, not merit. See my point about theater earlier.

Yeah, a completely different case by a different organization means this case is also political... I don't really know what to say at this point. You seem to be arguing on random tangents without touching the issue of this HN item: companies obfuscating job adverts for the positions involved in PERM. For all I know you might not even know what does "good faith" mean and truly think it's a good faith behavior so you are more interested in discussing random stuff. I am sorry that I am not.

	▲	bubblethink 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> different case by a different organization means this case is also political. It's the same issue - the DOJ is going after companies and their ads. In SpaceX's case, the ads said citizen/LPR only due to export control, and DOJ got mad that it would exclude asylees and refugees for some of these positions which may not actually have export control requirements. Your complaint is also about ads and whether they are in print media or online or obfuscated etc. If you think that ads in print media violate the law, you need to prove that in a court of law. Note that the law explicitly requires ads in Sunday newspapers, whereas online ads are not mandatory. There is a check list of what is and is not required, and the lawyers are following the text (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/656.17). The government doesn't think that there is positive EV in taking it to trial, and hence settles. You, as an individual, can still pursue a civil suit if you are injured. >For all I know you might not even know what does "good faith" mean There are thousands of bogus laws in the books and the government is not your friend. Good faith in this context means doing the minimal amount of work needed to comply with the law. Innocent until proven guilty, and the government has the burden of proof. This is how I view all interactions with the state.
	▲	3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]