Indian diplomat arrested, handcuffed in US for visa fraud

[happy]

You read DK affair into everything now, which borders on obsession..

Ya..absolutely. After seeing your inane rants here, I have become obsessed with everything against America.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Ya..absolutely. After seeing your inane rants here, I have become obsessed with everything against America.

Quite irrational, and doesn't reflect well on DFI. Try developing some self-control.

"It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways." ~Buddha

 

[sam80]

You read DK affair into everything now, which borders on obsession..

Obama-Kerry and Democrats Administration is a**shole , After DKgate India realized that there is hidden hostility in American Administration for India .

American Policies are very Anti-India , Actually America Support Islamist Ideology , they are trying to push Islamist in Bangladesh for Pleasing their "Saudi Friends" . Today America is Anti-Pakistan just because Pakistani are Responsible for American Soldiers death in Afghanistan otherwise both been "Natural Allies" for six decades , Once America out of AF both America and Pakistan might be "Natural allies" again .

No one Trust Obama , He is fake Person . India will give second chance to this relationship if Republicans wins the elections .



Just Read Comments of bellow Article And see Distrust About America In their "Friends" .

Report: John Kerry is Working to Scuttle Israel-India Arms Deal | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Obama-Kerry and Democrats Administration is a**shole , After DKgate India realized that there is hidden hostility in American Administration for India .

American Policies are very Anti-India , Actually America Support Islamist Ideology , they are trying to push Islamist in Bangladesh for Pleasing their "Saudi Friends" . Today America is Anti-Pakistan just because Pakistani are Responsible for American Soldiers death in Afghanistan otherwise both been "Natural Allies" for six decades , Once America out of AF both America and Pakistan might be "Natural allies" again .

No one Trust Obama , He is fake Person . India will give second chance to this relationship if Republicans wins the elections .



Just Read Comments of bellow Article And see Distrust About America In their "Friends" .

Report: John Kerry is Working to Scuttle Israel-India Arms Deal | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com

Now you're talking.

Which Republican candidate would you like to see elected in 2016? Cruz, Ryan, Paul...?

 

[aerokan]

Now you're talking.

Which Republican candidate would you like to see elected in 2016? Cruz, Ryan, Paul...?

Rand Paul would be good for US-Israel and US-India ties. Infact he will have a better foreign policy and actually help US to regain some lost goodwill around the world.

Sent from my C6506 using Tapatalk

 

[ladder]

X posting from Indian Army thread.

Indo-US Army drill postponed

Indo-US Army drill postponed | The Asian Age

=========================

Before anyone accuses of seeing everything with DK glasses on

Excerpts:

But the fact remains that ties between the two countries have nose-dived since the Winter of 2013 following the earlier arrest of Indian lady-diplomat Devyani Khobragade in the United States.

So, direct your fire at the reporter too.

 

[happy]

Quite irrational, and doesn't reflect well on DFI. Try developing some self-control.

"It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways." ~Buddha

Someone's irrationality is another's patriotism. Considering the way america and some americans are behaving, a little bit of irrationality will not harm me or my country.

When you learn to treat others with respect, then and only then, will you earn respect.

We still have self control ..... don't mistake our self control for subservience or impotence.

 

[happy]

X posting from Indian Army thread.



Indo-US Army drill postponed | The Asian Age

=========================

Before anyone accuses of seeing everything with DK glasses on

Excerpts:



So, direct your fire at the reporter too.

I would add the entire middle para, which I quote here:

But the fact remains that ties between the two countries have nose-dived since the Winter of 2013 following the earlier arrest of Indian lady-diplomat Devyani Khobragade in the United States. Significantly, the exercises will now be held at a time when the next government will be in place in India at the Centre. The US has already begun the exercise of reaching out to major Indian Opposition leaders whom it perceives could be important figures in the formation of the next government in May this year. It is unclear whether the current frost in ties between the two countries had any role to play in the postponement of the joint exercise.

 

[happy]

Indian officials decline to meet US federal agency - Hindustan Times

Toughening its stand against the US, Indian government has decided not to meet the officials of the USITC, a federal American agency which has initiated a probe against domestic trade and investment policies.

"The country's IPR laws are fully compliant with international laws including WTO. If they have any issues with our laws, they can raise that in the WTO and at that forum we can have consultations with them," the official said.

The official also said that it appears from the communication of the USITC that their discussions may go beyond Special 301 matter and could cover a range of Indian legislation and policy.

"The US has no right to launch an investigations on Indian policies. India is a sovereign nation and it can enact and implement polices based on its national interest," the official added.

 

[happy]

Devyani Khobragade had full diplomatic immunity through the UN, dismiss indictment: Daniel Arshack - The American Bazaar

Letter from UN vindicates India's position.

By Deepak Chitnis

WASHINGTON, DC: More than two months after her arrest in New York for allegations of visa fraud and making false statements to the US government, Indian Deputy Consul General Devyani Khobragade has apparently been vindicated by the United Nations, which announced that she did enjoy diplomatic immunity at the time of her arrest as India's "Special Advisor" to the UN.

The declaration came in the form of a letter from UN Assistant Secretary General for Legal Affairs Stephen Mathias, and contradicts the long-held US stand that its Department of State, along with New York City Attorney Preet Bharara, were well within their rights to arrest Khobragade. The arrest, along with subsequent strip-search and indictment, raised intense ire in India.

The letter was presented in court by Khobragade's lawyer Devyani Khobragade, Daniel Arshack, as part of his motion to dismiss the indictments and bring the case to an end. Arshack explained that Khobragade was listed as a special advisor back in August, in anticipation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Washington, DC and New York, and therefore the 39 year-old diplomat was safe from arrest for any perceived crimes.

Specifically, the letter said that the UN rules state that any representatives of members to the principal and subsidiary organs of the United Nations and to conferences convened by the United Nations shall, while exercising their functions and during their journey to and from the place of meeting, enjoy [diplomatic] privileges and immunities" and "shall be deemed to include all delegates, deputy delegates, advisers, technical experts and secretaries of delegations."

However, enforcement of this rule would "depend on the facts and circumstances of the specific situation." That last bit will likely be used by the US to allow them to forge ahead with their prosecution. The US government has been very reticent to let Khobragade simply go. The immunity in question was only valid from August 26-December 31 of last year.

What does the bold part mean ??
@ladder @JMM99 @Adux @pmaitra

Does that mean despite diplomatic immunity, a person can be prosecuted ?? Isn't this hilarious ?? It is defeating the very purpose of immunity ??!!!

 

[JMM99]

@happy, et al.

Official acts immunity of a diplomat grants immunity from the criminal charge itself. Example: I'm a diplomat officially authorized to make trade contracts for my government. In the course of negotiating those contracts, I commit fraud on the other government. I cannot ever be charged with that fraud, even if I cease being a diplomat.

As to all non-official acts, a diplomat can be charged (an indictment could be filed under seal, for example); but the diplomat cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court (i.e., arrest, bail arraignment, and so on), so long as the diplomat remains a diplomat. A diplomat named persona non grata is granted a reasonable time to leave the country. If the then non-diplomat doesn't leave the country by that time, the former diplomat can be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court. Of course, if the diplomat goes home, becoming a non-diplomat, the court in the other country would not have jurisdiction over that person absent an extradition treaty, hearing, etc., in the home country.

Here's a fine point for you. DK was a diplomat at the UN from August 26-December 31, 2013 and the court had no jurisdiction over her. After 31 Dec, her diplomatic immunity for non-official acts terminated ! However, it was revived on January 8, 2014 when the USG acceded to her appointment as a permanent diplomat at the UN. So, she could have been indicted and then summoned or arrested in the interval of 1 Jan through 7 Jan. But, she wasn't and by that time the Indian government had been moving forward with the paperwork for her permanent diplomatic status. Even if she had been indicted by 8 Jan, her diplomatic immunity granted on that day would have quashed the court's jurisdiction under that indictment.

To sum it up, diplomatic immunity for official acts goes on forever whether you remain a diplomat or not; diplomatic immunity for non-official acts turns on and off with your diplomatic status.

Regards

Mike

PS: If anyone is interested, I've put together a package on Article 47, VCCR.

 

[happy]

@happy, et al.

Official acts immunity of a diplomat grants immunity from the criminal charge itself. Example: I'm a diplomat officially authorized to make trade contracts for my government. In the course of negotiating those contracts, I commit fraud on the other government. I cannot ever be charged with that fraud, even if I cease being a diplomat.

As to all non-official acts, a diplomat can be charged (an indictment could be filed under seal, for example); but the diplomat cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court (i.e., arrest, bail arraignment, and so on), so long as the diplomat remains a diplomat. A diplomat named persona non grata is granted a reasonable time to leave the country. If the then non-diplomat doesn't leave the country by that time, the former diplomat can be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court. Of course, if the diplomat goes home, becoming a non-diplomat, the court in the other country would not have jurisdiction over that person absent an extradition treaty, hearing, etc., in the home country.

Here's a fine point for you. DK was a diplomat at the UN from August 26-December 31, 2013 and the court had no jurisdiction over her. After 31 Dec, her diplomatic immunity for non-official acts terminated ! However, it was revived on January 8, 2014 when the USG acceded to her appointment as a permanent diplomat at the UN. So, she could have been indicted and then summoned or arrested in the interval of 1 Jan through 7 Jan. But, she wasn't and by that time the Indian government had been moving forward with the paperwork for her permanent diplomatic status. Even if she had been indicted by 8 Jan, her diplomatic immunity granted on that day would have quashed the court's jurisdiction under that indictment.

To sum it up, diplomatic immunity for official acts goes on forever whether you remain a diplomat or not; diplomatic immunity for non-official acts turns on and off with your diplomatic status.

Regards

Mike

PS: If anyone is interested, I've put together a package on Article 47, VCCR.

Hi Mike,

Thanks. But I am aware of all this. I was actually wondering if there was any other hidden agenda behind the bold part news article which I again quote:

However, enforcement of this rule would "depend on the facts and circumstances of the specific situation." That last bit will likely be used by the US to allow them to forge ahead with their prosecution.

You see there are two sentences here, one explaining the UN stand and the other showing a possible choke point. Now what I dont understand is 'How will the US be able to "forge ahead with the prosecution" when DK is already in India?'

I am getting the feeling that these 2 sentences might be a media blunder.

BTW, would love to see your package on Article 47.

Regards,

 

[JMM99]

@happy,

Barring a wacky decision by the judge (i.e., holding that there is no immunity, and that the present case can proceed), the prosecution would be left with getting a new indictment, which would then sit on the shelf as a practical matter unless DK would come within US jurisdiction.

Even if the judge decided to allow the present case to continue, she would then have to deal with the problem of conducting a trial in absentia - not a sure bet by any means, Starkey, James G. (1979) "Trial in Absentia" (pdf); Crosby v. United States, 506 U.S. 255 (1993) (pdf):

Held: Rule 43 prohibits the trial in absentia of a defendant who is not present at the beginning of trial. The Rule's express use of the limiting phrase "except as otherwise provided" clearly indicates that the list of situations in which the trial may proceed without the defendant is exclusive. Moreover, the Rule is a restatement of the law that existed at the time it was adopted in 1944. Its distinction between flight before and during trial also is rational, as it marks a point at which the costs of delaying a trial are likely to increase; helps to assure that any waiver is knowing and voluntary; and deprives the defendant of the option of terminating the trial if it seems that the verdict will go against him. Because Rule 43 is dispositive, Crosby's claim that the Constitution also prohibited his trial in absentia is not reached.

So, I'd go along with something of a media blunder (hyperbole).

Regards

Mike

 

[asianobserve]

I think criminal prosecutions are the same, there can be no trial in absentia unless the accused has been arraigned. In this case I understand that DK has not yet been arraigned.

 

[ladder]

@happy, et al.

Official acts immunity of a diplomat grants immunity from the criminal charge itself. Example: I'm a diplomat officially authorized to make trade contracts for my government. In the course of negotiating those contracts, I commit fraud on the other government. I cannot ever be charged with that fraud, even if I cease being a diplomat.

As to all non-official acts, a diplomat can be charged (an indictment could be filed under seal, for example); but the diplomat cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court (i.e., arrest, bail arraignment, and so on), so long as the diplomat remains a diplomat. A diplomat named persona non grata is granted a reasonable time to leave the country. If the then non-diplomat doesn't leave the country by that time, the former diplomat can be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court. Of course, if the diplomat goes home, becoming a non-diplomat, the court in the other country would not have jurisdiction over that person absent an extradition treaty, hearing, etc., in the home country.

Here's a fine point for you. DK was a diplomat at the UN from August 26-December 31, 2013 and the court had no jurisdiction over her. After 31 Dec, her diplomatic immunity for non-official acts terminated ! However, it was revived on January 8, 2014 when the USG acceded to her appointment as a permanent diplomat at the UN. So, she could have been indicted and then summoned or arrested in the interval of 1 Jan through 7 Jan. But, she wasn't and by that time the Indian government had been moving forward with the paperwork for her permanent diplomatic status. Even if she had been indicted by 8 Jan, her diplomatic immunity granted on that day would have quashed the court's jurisdiction under that indictment.

To sum it up, diplomatic immunity for official acts goes on forever whether you remain a diplomat or not; diplomatic immunity for non-official acts turns on and off with your diplomatic status.

Regards

Mike

PS: If anyone is interested, I've put together a package on Article 47, VCCR.

Would love to read your take on article 47 of VCCR.

 

[JMM99]

@asianobserve, et al.

I think criminal prosecutions are the same, there can be no trial in absentia unless the accused has been arraigned. In this case I understand that DK has not yet been arraigned.

Correct as to the fact that DK was not arraigned on the 9 Jan indictment, but a bit off on the law. Here is the critical timeline from Dan Arshack's reply brief:

On January 8, 2014, after significant delay, the U.S. State Department recognized and fully credentialed Dr. Khobragade as a foreign diplomat notifying her that she was entitled to the privileges and immunities corresponding to her position. January 9, 2014 Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Dismiss at pg. 3 and Exhibit 2, attached thereto.

As a result of the State Department's recognition and accreditation of Dr. Khobragade's diplomatic status, on the morning of January 9, 2014 Defense Counsel prepared a letter motion, consistent with 22 U.S.C. §254(d), addressed to Magistrate Netburn who was then handling this action, seeking dismissal of the proceeding pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 254(d) due to her diplomatic status and corresponding immunity. See, Exhibit 2, attached hereto.

Upon arriving at Magistrate Netburn's courtroom, in the early afternoon of January 9, 2014, the prosecution informed the undersigned that in the morning of January 9, 2014, after Dr. Khobragade's diplomatic status had been recognized by the State Department, the prosecution sought and obtained the instant indictment from the Grand Jury. Consequently, Magistrate Netburn was divested of jurisdiction over the matter and this case was assigned to this Court.

The prosecution and Defense Counsel appeared before Your Honor on the afternoon of January 9, 2014 with regard to the indictment returned just hours before. The undersigned hand served this Court and the prosecution with the letter Motion Seeking Dismissal, attached hereto as Exhibit 2, which was originally addressed to Magistrate Netburn, but not delivered to her because we learned that the Magistrate had been divested of jurisdiction upon the return and filing of the indictment just hours before. Because of her diplomatic status and the official request of the United States to leave the country, Dr. Khobragade was not present and was not arraigned on the indictment. Id. at 4.

Since this is a Federal District Court case (SDNY), Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 applies; and that rule, as held by SCOTUS in Crosby, requires that the defendant must appear at the trial - neither the bail arraignment nor the indictment arraignment count under Rule 43. If the defendant appears at trial and then skips (and remember that DK did not skip, but was ordered out of the US as a persona non grata diplomat), Rule 43 allows a trial in absentia (if its other conditions are met). Here's the rule:

Rule 43. Defendant's Presence

(a) When Required. Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at:

(1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;

(2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and

(3) sentencing.
...
(c) Waiving Continued Presence.

(1) In General. A defendant who was initially present at trial, or who had pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, waives the right to be present under the following circumstances:

(A) when the defendant is voluntarily absent after the trial has begun, regardless of whether the court informed the defendant of an obligation to remain during trial;

(B) in a noncapital case, when the defendant is voluntarily absent during sentencing; or

(C) when the court warns the defendant that it will remove the defendant from the courtroom for disruptive behavior, but the defendant persists in conduct that justifies removal from the courtroom.

(2) Waiver's Effect. If the defendant waives the right to be present, the trial may proceed to completion, including the verdict's return and sentencing, during the defendant's absence.

The rule in the New York State courts a few street numbers away from the Federal courts (all on Foley Square) is different. This snip is from the Report of Subcommittee on Trying Fugitive Defendants in Absentia:

New York state offers an interesting model. In New York, for felonies or misdemeanors, the court may not find a valid waiver of the defendant's right to be present without there having been given what is known as "Parker warnings." Named after the defendant whose case led to the creation of the rule, a Parker warning is merely an on-the-record warning to the defendant that the trial will proceed in his absence if he does not appear. The Parker warning does not authorize trial in absentia by itself, but rather, serves as a minimum basis on which a court may find a voluntary waiver of the right to be present. What makes the Parker warnings critical is that they serve as a uniform prerequisite to finding a waiver o f the right to be present at trial - something that is lacking in Philadelphia. New York's appellate courts have upheld trials in absentia where the Parker warnings have been given, but not where they have not been given. Interestingly, New York City's fugitive rate is one o f the lowest of any major urban areas in the country, at 16% or about one half o f that of Philadelphia's. There are obviously multiple factors that contribute to the fugitive rate in a given city, and the subcommittee believes that the Parker warnings are a significant factor contributing to New York City's low fugitive rate.

The bottom line, non-legalistic point is that DK's return to India was her best course of action - especially when it was compelled by the USG's determination that she was persona non grata !

The practical lesson learned is that you get your people who are in legal difficulties out of Dodge as quickly as possible, even though the receiving state may scream bloody murder (and perhaps, the rest of the World with it) for not submitting to the receiving state's justice system.

Regards

Mike

 

[JMM99]

All interested parties

Here is the question: What does "work permit" mean under Article 47, VCCR ?

What I've put together is not a legal argument - and it's certainly not a legal brief. It is instead a means of exploring some concepts in my own head. Those concepts might also throw some light on what the VCCR's "work permit" language was intended to cover. It comes in five parts.

1. The first line of inquiry is very "local"; that is, what do I think of when I hear the term "work permit". That term brings to my mind something akin to Michigan's Youth Employment Permit - which seems pretty innocent stuff - until one considers what issuance of a MYEP gives rise to, in terms of legal effects (both state and Federal). That little MYEP "work permit" carries along with it a massive baggage train of laws and regulations.

2. The second area of inquiry moves to the immigrant employment arena. In general, one must (to find the "meaning" of "work permit") logically look beyond the piece of paper (the "work permit") to the huge legal regime that it carries along with it. Thus, generally, the term "work permit" must include its entire legal regime, not just the piece of paper itself. But, one must then ask whether "work permit" has a more limited (specialized) meaning in the immigration area. One finds that it does not; but rather that "work permit" is something of a generic term very much bound up in the visa processes - with a huge baggage train of laws and regulations depending on the class of visa granted.

3. The third line of inquiry is into the UN's legislative history of Article 47. Unfortunately, that is not very informative as to the meaning of the term "work permit". Obviously, the possible legislative intent could have ranged between:

A. An exemption limited to a particular "something" expressly called a "work permit", without concern about the consequential legal regime imposing laws and regulations by the receiving state over conditions of employment and wages and hours of consular staff, including private staff; and

B. An exemption broadened to focus on the legal regime imposing laws and regulations by the receiving state over conditions of employment and wages and hours of consular staff, including private staff; with less concern about what the specific documents might be named.

4. The fourth line of inquiry looks to what the courts (the cases seem mostly US and EU) have done with Article 47, explicitly or implicitly. Frankly, those courts (e.g., Swarna US, Wokuri UK) have read Article 47 out of the picture; and have followed the emotional approach of UK MP Saler:

The title of this debate refers to visa rights for migrant domestic workers, but it will become apparent that what we are actually discussing is a secret slavery taking place a stone's throw away from this building. For the most abused groups of vulnerable workers, the dark ages are still happening, just around the corner from this mother of Parliaments. It is a scar on this country that such things occur within our borders; it is certainly a scar on the conscience of the diplomatic missions that use diplomatic immunity and their privileged position to treat fellow human beings in the most appalling, disgusting, dehumanising and disgraceful manner. It must stop.

quoted in Mantouvalou (link 1, link 2).

5. The fifth line of inquiry, leaving aside the wisdom of the different approaches, is whether the VCCR can be enforced as a matter of domestic law (let's take the US and India as case studies) in the absence of enabling domestic legislation, or in the presence of domestic legislation that calls for a different result than the treaty. The answer in both the US and India has been "No" (Medellin and Mirza). In short, both countries have taken more of a nationalistic approach to treaties; that is, treaties are (generally) non-self executing. A globalist, internationalist, transnationalist (three slightly different faces of three very closely related beasts) would look at treaties as being presumptively self-executing; and often would go beyond that to consider "customary international law" (CIL) as being domestically self-executing, as well.

I'll lay out the five parts over the next few days.

Regards

Mike

 

[thethinker]

Interesting foreign relations strategy to say the least from the White House considering the oh so many nations that have been angered recently by US .

Send an Indian origin US ambassador to India and a Chinese origin US diplomat to China.


U.S. State Department official to make delayed trip to India next week

"Nisha Biswal, the U.S. assistant secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs, will visit Bangalore and New Delhi from March 4-6, the State Department said. It will be her first trip to India since taking up her position last year."

Also ,

Chinese media outlet uses racial slur at US envoy

The editorial "Farewell, Gary Locke" took direct aim at Locke's identity as a third-generation Chinese-American, calling him a "banana" — a racial term for Asians identifying with Western values despite their skin color.


Worry much after Khobragade fallout?

 

[ladder]

Stop arguing, switch to problem solving: India to US

Read more at: Stop arguing, switch to problem solving: India to US : Americas, News - India Today

Assuring the world in general and America in particular about India's constant progress and its growth story, Indian Ambassador S. Jaishankar has advised India-US interlocutors to get off public argumentation platforms and switch to a "problem-solving mode".....................................


Read more at: Stop arguing, switch to problem solving: India to US : Americas, News - India Today

 

[JMM99]

What does "work permit" mean under Article 47, VCCR ? - Part 1

------------------------------------------------

When I initially looked at Article 47 and its term "work permit", I immediately thought of our state's student work permits which go back 60 or more years; and, over which period, our schools must have issued millions. Why would anyone draft a treaty to prohibit imposition of such an "innocent" thing as a "work permit" ?

After looking into the MYEP a bit, I soon concluded that one must go beyond looking only at the simple permit itself, but must take into consideration the amount of regulation that is implicated by its issuance. So, here goes.

We see from the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) - Child Labor Law; Youth Employment in Michigan, that the Youth Employment Standards Act and its regulations come along with the permit:

Youth Employment Forms Packet
Youth Employment Standards Act
Standards for Issuance of Work Permits
Legislative link to the Youth Employment Standards Act

and that the permit requirement applies to every worker under the age of 18:

WHO NEEDS A WORK PERMIT

Minors under the age of 18 cannot be employed or permitted to work, with or without compensation, until the person, company, business, firm or corporation proposing to employ the minor obtains and keeps a valid work permit on file, at the minor's place of employment, which has been issued by an issuing officer of the school district, intermediate school district, public school academy or nonpublic school prior to starting work.

Minors under the age of 18 are required to have a work permit prior to starting work regardless if the minor does not attend school, has dropped out of school, home-school, on-line school, virtual-school, cyber-school or comes from another state (out-of-state) resident to work in Michigan.

Moreover, the permit also brings into play for these youthful workers the laws and regulations generally applicable to all workers. Those laws and regulations are administered (in part !) by the Department of Licensing and Regulation (LARA), which includes (but is not limited to), as to Employment, Security and Workplace Safety, six agencies:

Six LARA agencies are responsible for delivering unemployment insurance services to Michigan's jobless workers and employers, providing disability vocational rehabilitation, resolving labor disputes, assisting employers and workers with the compensation process when an on-the-job injury occurs, and protecting the safety, health, earned wages and fringe benefits of workers.

Of those agencies, MIOSHA is responsible for working conditions and wages and hours:

The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration strives to work collaboratively with employers and employees to better prevent workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities and to protect earned wages and fringe benefits. MIOSHA health and safety activities include: setting and enforcing occupational safety and health standards; providing extensive safety and health training and education; and working with partners to develop innovative programs to prevent workplace hazards. MIOSHA Wage & Hour activities focus on administration of three laws which protect the wages and fringe benefits of Michigan's workers. All agency activities focus on meeting the MIOSHA mission to help protect the safety, health, earned wages and fringe benefits of Michigan workers.

Thus, a big MIOSHA package comes along with the MYEP. But, we aren't finished yet because the USG enters the picture with two corresponding agencies.

On the Federal level, working conditions are generally under the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA); but wages and hours are under the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (WHD), which has a huge jurisdiction (primarily as a law enforcement agency, both civil and criminal); a small facet of which is state work permits for youth employees, Table of Employment/Age Certification Issuance Practice Under State Child Labor Laws.

While Federal laws do not require a Federal work permit for minors, Child Labor is very definitely a Federal law enforcement matter:

Overview

The federal child labor provisions, authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, also known as the child labor laws, were enacted to ensure that when young people work, the work is safe and does not jeopardize their health, well-being or educational opportunities. These provisions also provide limited exemptions.

Of course, we could also look at other state and Federal laws that are implicated by issuance of a "work permit" - tax laws and regulations immediately come to mind.

So, again, a little "work permit" brings along with it a huge package in both Federal and state laws and regulations. In effect, that combination of laws and regulations is one, gigantic "union collective bargaining agreement" - but that "contract" is imposed by governmental, rather than private, processes.

- to be cont. -