H 2b Visa Eligibility Explained

Ask Your Question For Free

Summary

The H-2B visa is a US work permit for temporary non-agricultural jobs. Eligibility includes job temporariness, lack of willing US workers, no negative impact on US wages, and a valid labor certification. Costs include a $460 petition fee, $500 fraud fee, and a visa fee around $190. Elected representatives govern all constituents, not just voters, based on the social contract theory. Case laws like R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] and R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] affirm parliamentary sovereignty. Rousseaus social contract theory posits that citizens trade some freedoms for rights protection, forming a civil society where the general will prevails.

Full Conversation

What is a USA h2-b visa and who is eligible
The H-2B visa is a US work permit that allows foreigners to come to the US temporarily to perform non-agricultural jobs. Eligibility includes:
- The job is temporary or seasonal
- There aren't enough US workers able or willing to do the job
- Employing H-2B workers will not negatively affect US workers' wages or work conditions
- The employer has a valid temporary labor certification from the Department of Labor
How much does a H-2B visa cost
The H-2B visa costs may vary but generally include:
- Temporary Labor Certification: Free
- Form I-*, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: $*
- Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee: $*
- Visa fee: Depends on nationality, roughly $*
Please note these are US government fees. Other costs like legal assistance, travel, etc. may apply.
Can this be right in law: Elected representatives govern not only those who voted for them, but all individuals within their constituency.
Yes, elected representatives are responsible for the entire constituency, not just those who voted for them. They represent all individuals and are expected to work for the benefit of the entire community.
How can this be lawful:Eventually got it to take your post on tried few different way then got this from it. In your post, you eloquently articulated the democratic process, its connection to legislation, and the role of regulations. You have also emphasized the need for citizens to question the legitimacy of regulations that haven't undergone parliamentary scrutiny. The democratic process in England entails citizens electing representatives to Parliament, who then propose, discuss, and pass legislation. Thus, the democratic process and legislation are intertwined - laws are created by those elected by the people. When citizens vote, they participate in the democratic process and consent to be governed by their elected representatives, which is often viewed as a form of social contract. The social contract theory, a philosophical concept, suggests that individuals give consent, either implicitly or explicitly, to sacrifice some of their freedoms in return for the protection of their remaining rights. This is often seen as the foundation of state authority. Elected representatives govern not only those who voted for them, but all individuals within their constituency. They are expected to act in the best interest of all their : deeper into any particular aspect of this topic
It seems like you're questioning the legitimacy of the democratic process and the concept of social contract. It is lawful because:
- The democratic process is generally accepted worldwide
- The social contract theory is a fundamental philosophical concept in politics
Do you have any specific legal concern regarding this?
Please rewrite in a powerful legal and lawful context using any cited relevent caselaw: Eventually got it to take your post on tried few different way then got this from it. In your post, you eloquently articulated the democratic process, its connection to legislation, and the role of regulations. You have also emphasized the need for citizens to question the legitimacy of regulations that haven't undergone parliamentary scrutiny. The democratic process in England entails citizens electing representatives to Parliament, who then propose, discuss, and pass legislation. Thus, the democratic process and legislation are intertwined - laws are created by those elected by the people. When citizens vote, they participate in the democratic process and consent to be governed by their elected representatives, which is often viewed as a form of social contract. The social contract theory, a philosophical concept, suggests that individuals give consent, either implicitly or explicitly, to sacrifice some of their freedoms in return for the protection of their remaining rights. This is often seen as the foundation of state authority. Elected representatives govern not only those who voted for them, but all individuals within their constituency. They are expected to act in the best interest of all their : deeper into any particular aspect of this topic
As your legal assistant, I understand you're seeking a lawful interpretation of the democratic process. In the UK, the democratic process and legislation are linked. Case law, such as 'R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [*]' confirms that the UK Parliament is sovereign and can make or change laws. The social contract theory, as discussed by Rousseau, suggests that citizens trade some liberties for protection of remaining rights. Elected representatives are duty-bound to serve all within their jurisdiction, not just their voters.
Do you have any other caselaw to bolster the aabove context
Yes, the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty was reinforced in 'R (Jackson) v Attorney General [*]'. Furthermore, the case 'AXA General Insurance Ltd v HM Advocate [*]' highlights the courts' reluctance to question legislation unless absolutely necessary. These cases underline the authority of elected representatives.
Elaborate The social contract theory, as discussed by Rousseau
Sure, here are the key points of Rousseau's Social Contract Theory:
- Society is formed by a social contract.
- Citizens agree to give up some freedom in exchange for protection of their rights.
- The collective body of citizens, the "sovereign", makes laws representing the general will.
- The sovereign's decisions are binding on all members.
More
Rousseau further posits that:
- The social contract creates a civil society.
- Citizens have a duty to obey the laws set by the sovereign.
- Failure to adhere to laws is seen as a breach of the contract.
- The sovereign acts for the common good, not for individual interests.
More
Rousseau's theory also suggests that:
- This contract is an agreement between free individuals to create a society.
- The social contract cannot be rescinded once entered.
- The government is a subsidiary to the sovereign and can be replaced if it fails to uphold the general will.
More
Rousseau further explains that:
- The social contract is an act of association that creates a moral and collective body.
- Each individual, while uniting himself with all, obeys only himself and remains as free as before.
- The sovereign, derived from this contract, is only a collective being.
More
Rousseau also emphasizes that:
- The social contract gives rise to political institutions, which ensure the execution of the general will.
- The general will is infallible and always favors the public interest.
- The law, as an expression of the general will, applies to everyone.
More
Rousseau also maintains that:
- The sovereign, expressing the general will, cannot impose upon an individual any law not agreed upon by the collective.
- Dissenting individuals are forced to be free, as they must follow the general will expressed in the social contract.
- Social contract theory legitimizes political authority.
More
Rousseau further clarifies that:
- The sovereign has the power to protect the social contract and civil liberties.
- The rights and duties of citizens are balanced for societal harmony.
- The social contract ensures a democratic process where the majority's will prevails.