how would this work in legality? MLS gets every Canadian player or player with Canadian residency a green card. Legal fiction being, they are employs MLS, which is headquartered in US, but they just happen to work in Canada. Plus these guys spending like half a season in US anyways...
If the U.S. would accept that many green card applicants from Canada, no problem. I doubt U.S. Immigration is going to buy that reasoning though. (And actually, there's a residency requirement for a green card, you can't leave the country for a set period of time while its in progress. I know its tripped up an MLS player or two that had to not travel to a game in Canada while they were in progress.)
There's usually a several year residency period to get a US green card. There was a freeze after 9/11 and Duncan Oughton ended up waiting something like 8 years for his green card which had been near approval that year. The present administration seems to process things faster and Tony Tchani is now a US citizen. I imagine most Canadian players in the US either came out of a US college where they resided for a few years, or were established pros who entered on a P-1 visa. Getting players into the country has usually not been a problem for MLS, compared to getting transfer paperwork from another country.
Actually, it did create an exception to previously established labor law: http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-workers/tn-nafta-professionals But unfortunately I don't think it applies to us, because only specific, listed careers are eligible. That's different than non-discrimination. I am aware of MLS being pressured not to discriminate. In 1996, when MLS first took the field, green card holders did not count as Americans. In '97 or '98, the then-INS told them to cut that out, as it was discriminatory. To be clear, you're arguing that Rossi's case is FIFA policy allowing the US to discriminate against him based on national origin. Funny thing here, but his national origin is the United States.
Discrimination against someone based on their American national origin is illegal. But that wouldn't be the basis of discriminating against Rossi in this hypothetical situation. There's no law preventing discrimination based on what national team someone previously played for.
Err, no I'm saying that the USSF could keep Rossi off the team by citing the relevant FIFA rules. Or put another way the FIFA requirements that the USMNT has to comply with outside the US amount to bona fide occupational requirements in my view. It doesn't depend on whether Rossi has dual citizenship or was born inside or outside the US. Another poster was making the argument that FIFA rules only have effect to the extent they don't conflict with US labor laws. I haven't checked but would bet that the USSF has typical equal opportunity boilerplate on their website. Rossi was previously invited to play for the US. So if he showed up, wanting to switch, what would keep him out if not FIFA rules? He's a US citizen of good ability wanting to play for the US team and holding an (old) invitation. I think this is an easy case due to the FIFA rules but if you take the view that FIFA has no say in employment of soccer players within the US, then contortions are needed to arrive at the correct result (no Rossi for USMNT). You'd also have to question things like delays in receiving international transfer certificates keeping a player off the field, etc.
We don't need his help any more. There are now better players at his position. We're insulted by his ignoring of his invite until now. Coaching change means there's less interest in him. His attitude no longer works in thew new locker room. etc. There could be many, many legitimate reasons to keep Rossi off the team without even getting into the fact that he played for Italy.
Needless to say I anticipated you'd respond this way, but the trouble with that is it makes Rossi irrelevant. If it's not discrimination based on national origin, it has no place in an argument about discrimination based upon national origin, being that's the thing it is alleged is illegal. That's pretty straightforward, actually, and I wonder why you're trying to complicate the issue, which need I remind you is discrimination based upon national origin, with something you'd later admit is not discrimination based upon national origin.
rossi is an italian national. that's why he plays for italy. that's why he would run into the obstacles of fifa rules if he were to attempt to play for the usnt. the 'discrimination' argument would be built on the fact of his italian passport. it would be discrimination against holders of dual citizenship, as compared to single citizenship. if a dual citizen is denied the employment opportunity of a u.s.-only citizen, is that de facto discrimination upon country of origin, even if he was born in nj? is the fact of his holding an italian as well as a u.s. passport, an illegal ground for refusing him a place on the usnt (assuming national law had to trump fifa rules)? a gray area and, perhaps, a novel and interesting case.
There's obviously no discrimination based on dual-passports going on--probably two thirds of the team have dual passports. Even leaving aside the guys that weren't born in the US, Tim Howard holds a Hungarian passport. Oguchi Onyewu got a Belgian passport half way through his NT career with no adverse consequences. If there were, there might be a really tough, speculative case to argue, but that's obviously a big difference from the black-letter law that covers national origin.
i don't know the legal definition of 'country of origin.' i don't know whether there is a specific definition. but 'country of origin' is not the same expression as 'place of birth.' and i don't know whether 'country of origin' may be relative to a specific context. i don't know whether a person who in any sense may be said to have the u.s. as 'country of origin,' therefore must be said to have the u.s. as 'country of origin' in each and every sense. in rossi's case, 'country of origin' may need to be determined in the context of playing on a national team. if one assumes his country of origin is the u.s., one might be begging the question. it may be that in terms of playing for a nt, his country of origin is to be considered italy.
I don't understand...is the argument that Rossi could, in theory, successfully sue the USSF to be allowed onto the USNT if he were denied due to FIFA rules? Well if he did do this, FIFA, in theory, would threaten him with a lifetime ban if he didn't drop it. Case closed. No judge to rule on it.
Those are pretty close to what Chivas is accused of saying to Anglo youth at open tryouts. If Rossi were in good form and wanted to show up at last January's camp, it would be hard to say they weren't pretexts.
To clarify, my view is that it's not discrimination based upon national origin for MLS to favor Canadians over Costa Ricans because MLS is the D-1 league of Canada (as well as the US). Some others have been arguing that Canadians can't be distinguished from Costa Ricans or Swedes due to US labor laws. I think the fact that USL Pro treats Canadians the same as Americans on teams in the US lends support to my view. Presumably their lawyers checked to see whether or not their policy runs afoul of US law. If so, that would mean that MLS either got different legal advice or that their policy of treating Canadians as generic foreigners is a matter of preference not legal necessity. If FIFA or CONCACAF directed MLS to treat Canadians on US teams as domestic players, I think MLS would be in a safe harbor in complying. Or to put it another way if FIFA rules don't have any force when they conflict with US law, why did MLS pay 9 million for Dempsey? He's free to work in the US and Seattle is in the 9th circuit where the Spencer Haywood case remains good law.
There's the first problem. Secondly it wasn't Jurgen who invited him to join the Nats, so Jurgen has no responsibility to accept him into camp. Thirdly, who would he play ahead of right now? You're really spinning to try to make this an issue when it clearly isn't. If Conor Casey showed up at January camp and was rejected would he have grounds to file a claim? Both he and Rossi are Americans who had been invited to camp (and in Casey's case accepted). Hell wasn't it Chandler who kept passing on invited time and time again for various "reasons" while most people believed he was trying to hold off committing to a National team as to not lock himself in? He was welcomed back when he did finally decide.
If he were simply not good enough, no controversy in rejecting him. But if he is good enough but is rejected for other reasons an examination is in order. My view is that the FIFA rules are sufficient but if they have no legal force in the US then the question would be whether USSF was trying to avoid a fight with FIFA via pretexts.
Its not a pretext for a coach to say "Yeah, I don't want that guy, I never wanted that guy, the last coach wanted that guy". If EJ isn't invited to the next camp due to his attitude, are you going to consider that a pretext?
I have no idea (don't follow Italian soccer). I assumed by POdinCowtown's phrasing he wasn't in good form. My bad.
Being in "good form" may be the understatement of the year. He could be the best player in all of Serie A right now. Safe to say if he was available for the US he would be a lock starter now that he is healthy.
No, but FIFA doesn't care if EJ plays for the US or not. I also don't follow Series A and didn't know Rossi was in good form, I used him as an example of a US citizen who FIFA considers ineligible for the USMNT. For those arguing that FIFA couldn't make Canadians domestic players in MLS, suppose Tim Howard had a falling out with Everton. Could he decamp and come back to the US and play in MLS without Everton's permission? US law after all doesn't care about transfer certificates or windows and prefers liquidated damages to specific performance. Would it be any different from Justin Timberlake canceling a concert at Wembley?
Probably not, since Howard has a contract. Same way contract law prevents Contractor A from bailing on his contract with Software House Z to go work for competing Software House Y. You're trying to draw parallels where they don't exist.
Uh, the definition of a contract is a legally enforceable agreement. Neither US courts nor administrative agencies would enforce Howard's contract with Everton (assuming it was signed in the UK and governed by UK law). Everton could certainly win an injunction in Liverpool against Howard playing elsewhere but it wouldn't be enforceable in the US. What would keep Howard from playing in MLS is the labyrinth of international soccer regulations enforced by FIFA.