December 4, 2020 10:08AM

By David J. Bier

点评参议院通过的“高技术移民法案”

2020年12月4日 点评人：David J. Bier

The Senate passed an amended version of the Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act (S. 386/H.R. 1044). The bill has already passed the House of Representatives on a massive 365-65 vote. Since then, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) repeatedly attempted to pass the bill on “unanimous consent” under which any member can object—which led to deals with Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Rand Paul (R-KY), David Purdue (R-GA), and Dick Durbin (D-IL) that amended the House bill. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) who was the latest member to object lifted his hold last night, allowing final passage.

参议院日前通过了修订版的高技术移民法案(S.386/H.R.1044)。 该法案之前在众议院以365赞成比65反对大比重投票通过。此后，在与Chuck Grassley（爱荷华州共和党）、Rand Paul（肯塔基州共和党）、David Purdue（佐治亚州共和党）和Dick Durbin（伊利诺伊州民主党）等参与其修订的参议员协议之后， Mike Lee （犹他州共和党) 参议员屡次试图以“一致同意”（只要有一人反对，决议即告失败）通过了此法案。而最后一个反对此法案的Rick Scott（佛罗里达州共和党）参议员，也在昨晚表示同意通过。

The Senate version is now substantially different from the House version with deleterious provisions to which the House Judiciary Committee has already voiced opposition, but it has also committed to finding common ground to resolve. 

至此，该法案的参议院版与众议院版在影响深远的若干规定上有本质不同：众议院司法委员会已经表示反对，但表示仍有“求同存异”的探讨空间。

What’s in the Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act, December 2020 version?

2020年12月通过的 高技术移民法案 有哪些主要内容？

Green card reforms:

绿卡改革

• Phases out employment-based per country limits on green cards: The main purpose of the legislation is to treat all employment-based immigrant visa applicants on a first-come, first-served basis without regard to birthplace. Under current law, immigrants from no single birthplace can receive more than 7% of the total number of immigrant visas or green cards issued in a year unless they would otherwise go unused. The effect of this provision is that while Indians are half the skilled employer-sponsored applicants, they receive just 10 percent of those green cards and—as a result—are nearly 90 percent of the backlogged applicants.

逐步淘汰对每个申请人出生地国家职业绿卡的限制：该立法的主要目的是按照先到先得的原则对待所有职业技术移民签证申请人，而不考虑其出生地。根据现行法律，单一出生地的移民一年内所获得的移民签证或绿卡的总数不得超过总数的7％，即便其他区域的额度并未用尽。这项规定导致，尽管印度人占据雇主资助的职业技术申请人数量的一半，但他们只获得发放绿卡的10％，结果他们占积压申请人中的将近90％。

• Comments: The House bill is the same. Basically, this provision is the only reason the bill has made it as far as it has. The discrimination against Indian skilled immigrants mean, as I’ve estimated before, that new Indian green card applicants will almost certainly never receive green cards in their lifetime. More than 200,000 of the 700,000 Indians in line will likely die before they receive their green cards. The fact that other immigrants almost immediately receive their green cards makes the system massively unfair and is already causing skilled workers to leave the country. Indians and Chinese—the only two significantly backlogged applicants—also receive wage offers significantly higher than those for the average applicant from other countries.- *评论：*众议院版法案基本相同。基本上，这项新规定是该法案制定且能通过的唯一原因。正如我之前估计的那样，对印度职业技术移民的歧视意味着，新的印度绿卡申请人几乎肯定无法在活着的时候收到绿卡。在排队的700,000印度人中，有超过200,000可能会在收到绿卡之前便已离世。而其他出生地移民几乎立即获得绿卡的事实致使该系统的严重不公平，并已导致职业技术雇员离开美国。并且，印度人和中国人（仅有的两个严重积压的申请人出生地）的工资要比其他国家的平均申请者要高出很多。

• Provides for an 11-year phase out period: The bill’s green card changes will only take effect on October 1, 2022. For the EB-2 and EB-3 categories for non-executive level employees of U.S. businesses, the bill guarantees immigrants which are not from the top two origin countries (India and China) a certain percentage of the green cards for 9 years: year 1 (30%), year 2 (25%), year 3 (20%), year 4 (15%), years 5 and 6 (10%), and years 7 through 9 (5%). No more than 25 percent of these “reserved” green cards can go to immigrants from any single country. No more than 85 percent of the other “unreserved” green cards can go to a single country (India). In addition, a minimum of 5.75% of all EB-2 or EB-3 green cards will go to immigrants from these non-top 2 countries for 9 years prioritizing spouses and minor children of immigrants already in the United States and immigrants awaiting visas abroad. It’s unclear if the 5.75% counts toward the prior reservation or must be in addition to it. This ambiguity means it is not possible to say with certainty how long it will take for the current backlog to be processed under the bill.

提供11年的过渡期：法案的绿卡改革将于2022年10月1日生效。对于美国企业非高管员工的EB-2和EB-3类别，该法案保证除来自前两个出生地（即印度和中国）的移民，获得绿卡连续9年占一定比例：第一年（30％），第二年（25％），第三年（20％），第四年（ 15％），第5和6年（10％）以及第7至9年（5％）。这些“保留的”绿卡中，最多只能有25％归属任何同一个国家的移民。其他“未保留的”绿卡中，最多只能有85％归属一个国家（即印度）。此外，至少5.75％的EB-2或EB-3绿卡将分发给非印度及中国的移民，为期9年，且优先考虑人已在美国的移民和等待海外签证的移民配偶及其未成年子女。目前尚不清楚5.75％是计入预先保留，或是额外的保留。规定此模棱两可意味着，尚无法明确规划在该法案下处理当前积压需要多长时间。

• Comments: The House bill would have taken effect immediately and only contained a 3-year phaseout with set asides for non-Indian or Chinese applicants of 15% in the first year and 10% in the next two years. Eleven years is an incredibly long time to continue a system based on birthplace discrimination. It will probably take about 13 years to process all existing Indian applicants under this system, while new applicants continue to take priority. If only applicants who are not currently in the United States received priority, that would be a rational basis for discrimination since those already in the United States are already benefiting more from the U.S. immigration system than those abroad. But these provisions continue the discrimination that the bill is designed to eliminate for a decade (albeit to a lesser degree).- *评论：*众议院版法案则是立即生效，且仅包含3年的过渡期，对非印度或中国的申请人占用名额在第一年为15％，在之后两年则为10％。十一年对于持续基于出生地歧视的体系来说是一个非常长的时间。在这个体系下，所有现存的印度申请人大概需要约13年的时间来处理，而新申请人仍将继续处于优先地位。如果只有目前不在美国的申请人获得优先权，这将是歧视的理性基础，因为人已在美国的申请人比在国外的已经从美国移民制度中受益更多。但是该法案的相关规定导致其本旨在消除的这类歧视又将延续十年（尽管程度较小）。

• Guarantee for nurses and physical therapists: The bill carves out 4,400 EB-3 green cards (11% of the category) for nurses and physical therapists—defined as “shortage occupations”—for 7 years. The spouses and minor children would not count against this limit but would still receive green cards at the same time.

对护士和理疗师职业移民的保障：该法案为护士和理疗师（定义为“短缺职业”）职业单独划分了4,400张 EB-3类绿卡（占类别的11％），为期7年。且配偶和未成年子女将不计入这一限额，仍将同时获得绿卡。

• Comments: The House bill has no similar provision. This essentially creates a temporary new category for legal immigrants who DOL deems to be in short supply. I have no problem with this. It is as arbitrary as the rest of the employment-based categorization scheme and does not involve birthplace discrimination.- 评论：众议院版法案没有类似规定。这实际上为劳工部DOL定义的短缺职业合法移民开创了一个临时的新类别。笔者对此没有意见。它与其他基于职业的分类方案一样主观，不涉及出生地歧视。

• Caps H-1B visa holders and H-4 visa holders (or those who held H-4 status in the last 2 years) to no more than 70% of all employment-based green cards during the first 9 years after implementation and 50% for all subsequent years.

在实施后的第一个9年内，对H-1B和H-4签证持有人（或最近2年内持有H-4身份的人）的上限不超过所有职业绿卡的70％，此后年份的50％。

• Comments: This is a way of continuing discrimination against Indians indirectly because Indians are 70 percent of H-1B visa holders. Moreover, nearly all of the backlogged immigrants in the green card queue from India are working on the H-1B visa. This provision undermines the purpose of the bill and makes little sense as an anti-H-1B measure because it forces H-1B holders to remain on the temporary status longer than they would otherwise. We don’t know the exact breakdown of the status of those in the green card backlog from India, but it’s likely at least 90 percent H-1B visa holders, so this will delay the receipt of green cards to backlogged Indians. If not for the backlog, the effect would not be very great. About 70 percent of EB-2 and EB-3 green card applicants in 2019 were on the H-1B visa based on Department of Labor’s labor certification data. It is likely less than this in the EB-1 category (multinational executives, those with extraordinary ability, etc.) who have other temporary visa options available or come from abroad, and there probably are very few in the EB-4 special immigrant and EB-5 investor categories, so assuming only 50 percent of EB-1 is on H-1B visas, the number of new H-1B green card applicants is probably only slightly higher than 50 percent. That said, it would hamstring any increase in that program.- 评论：这仍是一种持续地间接歧视印度人的方式，因为H-1B签证持有者中印度人占70％。甚至，印度绿卡排队中几乎所有积压的移民都在持H-1B签证工作。该条款规定破坏了法案的目的，并且作为反H-1B措施没有任何意义，因为它迫使H-1B持有人在临时身份上的停留时间比原本更长。印度籍绿卡积压者的确切身份分类不得而知，但H-1B签证持有者可能至少占90％，因此这将继续延迟积压的印度人收到绿卡。如果不是为了解决积压，该法案的效果将大打折扣。根据美国劳工部的劳工证书数据，2019年约70％的EB-2和EB-3绿卡申请人持有H-1B签证。而在具有其他临时签证选择或来自国外的EB-1类别（跨国企业高管，z杰出技术人才等）中，这一比例可能要低于此水平；且在EB-4特殊移民和EB-5投资移民类别中H-1B就更少了。因此，假设EB-1签证中只有50％是H-1B签证，那么新的H-1B绿卡申请人数可能仅略高于50％。也就是说，这将阻碍该程序的任何进程。

• Raises the family-sponsored per country limit on green cards to 15 percent: Family-sponsored preference categories also currently have a 7% limit on green cards for immigrants from individual birthplaces. The bill more than doubles that limit to 15% increasing in absolute terms from about 15,820 to 33,900. This will primarily benefit long-backlogged immigrants from Mexico and the Philippines, but also India and China.

把按国别的家庭移民绿卡限制提高到15*％***：目前家庭移民类别绿卡按申请人出生地的限制为7％。法案增加了两倍多，从绝对值15,820增至33,900，限制为15％。这将主要使墨西哥和菲律宾以及印度和中国的长期积压移民受益。

• Comments: The House bill is the same. This provision does not go as far as the employment-based provision in ending discrimination based on birthplace in the family-sponsored system, but it is a significant benefit to long-backlogged, family-sponsored immigrants who are mostly waiting for immigrant visas abroad.- 评论：众议院版法案相同。这项规定与职业移民的规定相比，在消除基于出生地的歧视方面并没有更大变化，但对于长期积压的家庭移民（主要是在国外等待移民签证的移民）而言，则是一个重大利好。

• Bars adjustment of status to all Chinese “affiliated” with the Chinese Communist Party: The new language (presumably proposed by Sen. Scott) requires DHS to “not adjust status of any alien affiliated with the military forces of the People’s Republic of China or the Chinese Communist Party” (CCP). This is similar to the existing ground of inadmissibility in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(D) for members or those “affiliated with” any communist party anywhere. However, the existing ground of inadmissibility has exceptions for involuntary membership, past membership, or close family members. However, the current ground applies to both adjustment of status in the United States as well as consular processing abroad. Effectively, this provision requires all Chinese immigrants to apply for immigrant visas at consulates abroad.

禁止调整与中国共产党有“联系”的所有中国人的身份：新的措辞（可能由Scott参议员提出）要求国土安全部“不得调整与中国军队或中国共产党（CCP）有联系的任何外国人的身份。这与8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(D) 中现有的不可接纳理由条款相似：适用于共产党员或与任何地方的共产党“有联系”的人员。但是，现有的不可接纳理由条款设置了例外情况：非自愿入党人员，过往成员或成员亲属。但是，当前的理由既适用于美国的身份调整，也适用于国外的领事处理。实际上，该规定要求所有中国移民在国外领事馆申请移民签证。

• Comments: This is just more de facto national origin discrimination. Most Chinese have no ideological connection to the CCP even if they join it. The main reason to have joined the party is that it facilitates promotions, especially within government or state-owned enterprises but overall. Lotus Yuen of The Atlantic has called membership the “ultimate resumé booster” in China. It can also allow Chinese to avoid direct state persecution. While the government obviously has an interest in stopping actual espionage, this ban is overbroad. The United States should want communists to experience the superiority of the U.S. system and encourage defectors from communist China. The United States has benefited greatly from Chinese immigrant innovators in science, technology, and medicine, and this ban would push inventors back toward the communist regime. That said, because it only applies to adjustment in the United States, the practical effect amounts to an expensive inconvenience rather than an outright ban.- 评论：这实际上只是国籍歧视。即使加入中国共产党，大多数中国人与中共也没有思想联系。加入该党的主要原因是，其他领域也罢，但特别是在政府或国有企业内部，它提供了晋升通道。Lotus Yuen曾在大西洋月刊发表：将党员资格称为中国的“简历终极助推器”。它还可以使中国人避免直接受到官方起诉。尽管美国政府显然有兴趣制止实际的间谍活动，但这项禁令过于宽泛。美国应该希望共产党人体验美国制度的优越性，从而鼓励脱离共产主义中国。美国从科学，技术和医学等领域中国籍移民创新者那里获取巨大利益，而这项禁令将使这些创新者重返共产主义政权。即便如此，因为它仅适用于美国国内的身份调整，实际的效果不是彻底的禁止，而是更加耗费的不便。

Adjustment of status from temporary visa to green card

从临时签证到绿卡的身份调整

• **“Early filing” (H-1B lite status): Allows backlogged temporary workers to receive a separate, limited, 3-year, renewable employment authorization (apart from their underlying status) 2 years after their employer petition was approved by filing an adjustment of status to legal permanent residence application (i.e. green card application) prior to a green card number being available under the caps. You can credit Sen. Durbin with this provision. **Currently, anyone whose adjustment of status application is pending for at least 180 days can receive an employment authorization document (EAD). This EAD allows them to work for any employer that they want while remaining in line based on the original employers’ petition. The original employer’s petition remains valid so long as they work in “the same or a similar occupational classification.” However, you currently cannot apply for legal permanent residence prior to a green card or immigrant visa number being available. The bill states that these new “early filers” could also receive this same authorization. However, the bill adds new requirements for this authorization. The job would have to have wages “commensurate with” those for the employer’s similarly situated U.S. workers in the area.

**“提早申请”（简易H-1B身份）：允许积压的临时雇员在雇主申请被批准后2年获得单独的，有限的，为期3年的可再续签的就业许可（在他们的基础身份之外）。在限额之内提供绿卡编号之前，先将身份调整为合法的永久居留申请（即绿卡申请）。**此条款可归功于Durbin参议员。当前，身份调整申请待决时长超过180天的任何人都可以收到就业许可证（EAD）。EAD允许他们为想要的任何雇主工作，同时仍与原始雇主的申请书保持一致。原始雇主的申请书只要在“相同或相似的职业分类”中工作，便保持有效。但是，申请人目前无法在获得绿卡或移民签证号码之前申请合法永久居留权。该法案指出，这些新的“早期申报者”也可以获得同样的授权。但是，该法案为此授权增添了新的要求。该工作的工资必须与该地区雇主给类似的美国员工工资“相匹配”。

If the employer had fewer than 2 such employees, it would have to attest that they were similar to the wages for similar U.S. workers in the area. The worker would have to file a Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability with a request for employment authorization. The employment authorization would last for three year increments with renewals, which is better than the adjustment of status EAD available now (which is only a 1 or 2 years). The worker would also have to provide a signed letter from their employer with the required attestations. A Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability would need to be filed (again if necessary) within 12 months of the green card application being adjudicated. If the Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability was deemed not to meet the requirements, the green card application would be denied. The minor children and certain spouses of temporary workers would also not benefit from this provision. The cost would be $2,000 for each Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability, in addition to the cost of the adjustment of status green card application. Half the fees would go to immigration adjudications and half into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury.

如果雇主的此类雇员少于2名，则必须证明他们与该地区类似美国员工的工资相符。员工必须提交一份“实际工作机会确认或合适的雇佣许可申请”。雇佣许可的续签期限为三年，这比现行的EAD（仅1年或2年）身份调整要好。员工还必须提供其雇主的签名信，并附有必要的证明。在裁定绿卡申请后的12个月内（必要时再次）需要提交一份实际工作机会确认或合适的雇佣许可申请。如果认为“实际工作机会确认或合适的雇佣许可申请”不符合要求，绿卡申请将被拒绝。未成年子女和某些临时雇员的配偶也不会从这项规定中受益。除了调整身份绿卡申请的费用外，每次实际工作机会确认或合适的雇佣许可申请的费用为2,000美元。一半的费用将用于移民裁决，另一半将收归美国财政部的普通基金。

• Comments: The senators have made this provision about as watered down as they can get it, but it is still the most important unequivocally positive change from the language that the senators have added. It would make it easier for H-1B workers to change jobs. Currently, H-1Bs stuck in the backlog have to renew every single year, which is costly and problematic if the government decides to readjudicate the underlying H-1B petition. It would also allow other temporary workers, such as those on Optional Practical Training, to extend their status when they otherwise would not be able to, potentially enabling them to avoid having to obtain an H-1B at all.- 评论：参议员们已尽其所能地将这项规定“打折扣”，但与参议员所添加的语言相比，这毫无疑问仍然是最重要的积极变化。 这将使得H-1B员工更容易更换工作。目前，积压在案的H-1B必须每年更新一次，如果政府决定重新审理正在进行的H-1B申请，这些都是成本昂贵且会造成潜问题。新规还将允许其他临时员工（例如OPT员工）在原本无法获得的条件下延长其身份，从而有可能完全避免启动H-1B流程。

• **Prevents “aging out” of children of temporary workers in the backlog who have filed an adjustment of status application under the early filing provision. **Currently, a dependent child of an H-1B worker loses their status on their 21st birthday. They also lose their eligibility for a green card at the same time. The bill would provide them both a status past their 21st birthday.

防止根据提早备案规定提出身份调整申请的积压临时员工的子女由于“超龄”而失去资格。目前，一名H-1B员工的受抚养子女在21岁生日时便失去了身份。他们也同时失去了获得绿卡的资格。而该法案将为在他们超过21岁仍然提供身份。

• Comments: This is an unambiguously positive provision.- 评论：毋庸置疑这是条积极的规定。

H-1B high skilled temporary worker reforms (none in House bill)

H-1B 高技术临时员工改革（众议院版法案没有体现）

• ***Requires the posting of H-1B jobs for new H-1Bs on government website for 30 days. ***If the Department of Labor (DOL) cannot get the website up and running within 180 days, the bill allows just a 30-day extension. If the website still cannot work, the H-1B program could not permit additional H-1B applications.

要求将新H-1B申请的H-1B职位在政府网站上发布30天。如果劳工部无法在180天内启动此网站，则该法案只允许30天的延长期。如果该网站届时仍然无法正常运行，则H-1B程序将不允许接收新的H-1B申请。

• Comments: This seems like it is risking a lot for DOL to create a working website in less than a year. Forcing employers to advertise positions that may or may not actually be available makes little sense.- 评论：对于DOL而言，在不到一年的时间内创建可正常运行的网站似乎将具很大风险。强迫雇主宣传可能对实际提供的职位并没什么意义。

• Bans advertising only to H-1Bs.**

禁止仅仅只向H-1B身份员工投放广告。**

• Comments: This provision is not unreasonable.- 评论：这条款并非无凭无据。

• Bans recruiting primarily H-1Bs.

禁止主要雇佣H-1B*。***

• Comments: Unlike the prior ban on advertising, this provision undermines a major purpose of the H-1B visa, which is to allow employers to hire workers for specialty positions. This tells businesses that they cannot simply recruit and hire a specific foreign worker or workers who they believe will fill whatever niche they need. Moreover, the “primarily” implies that companies would have to spend at least 50 percent of their time recruiting U.S. workers, even if they had already decided that a specific noncitizen was the person that they wanted. It treats the H-1B program like the lesser-skilled H-2 programs where the main purpose of the hire is labor, not skills. Moreover, it would greatly harm businesses that already employ the worker under a different visa category (L-1, F-1, J-1, etc.).- 评论：与先前的广告禁令不同，该条款破坏了H-1B签证的主要目的之一，原目的是允许雇主雇用员工担任特殊职位。这告诉企业，他们不能简单地招聘和雇用特定的一个或多个外国员工，以填补他们认为的任何特定需求职位。而且，“主要”意味着即使公司已经确定特定的非公民是他们想要的人选，公司也将不得不花费至少50％的时间来招聘美国公民。它像低技能的H-2计划一样对待H-1B计划，在该计划中，雇用的主要目的是获得劳动力，而不是特殊技能。此外，这将极大损害已经雇用不同签证类别（如L-1，F-1，J-1等）员工的企业。

Employers could probably evade this requirement by making the job descriptions so demanding that only an existing employee could fill the position, as they commonly do under the permanent labor certification process. But why do the authors think it helps U.S. workers to create a bunch of sham job advertisements? The Justice Department’s recent Facebook lawsuit highlights the perils of handing such vague language to any administration. This concern is compounded because the bill also allows DOL to troll through companies’ files whenever it wants without any underlying complaint from an employee or U.S. worker. 

雇主有很大可能通过做出职务说明来规避这一要求，就像通常在永久劳工证明程序下所做的那样，要求仅现有雇员才能担任该职位。但是为什么立法者认为制造大量假工作广告有利于美国员工呢？司法部最近在Facebook提起的诉讼中强调了这种含糊的语言给行政部门工作带来的危害。这种担忧使情况更加复杂，因为该法案还允许DOL在没有任何雇员或美国员工的实质投诉前提下，仅在其认为需要时随意查阅公司文件。

• Requires providing every W-2 for every H-1B worker employed by the company over whatever period DOL wants.

要求在DOL认为需要时，公司向其提交任何时段的每个H-1B雇员的每个W-2工资证明。

• Comments: This provision would impose a significant administrative burden for no upside. The H-1B process is already too time-consuming and expensive.- 评论：此规定将带来巨大的行政负担而没有任何好处。 H-1B流程已经非常耗时耗力。

• Bans hiring new H-1Bs if an employer has more than 50% of its workforce on H-1Bs or L-1s (for skilled intracompany transfers from abroad).

禁止已有持H-1B或L-1签证（同公司跨境技术员工）雇员超过50%的雇主雇佣新的H-1B员工。

• Comments:As far as I can tell, only two large companies come close to fitting this profile: Cognizant (49.999%) and Tech Mahindra (50.3%), though a few others may be close if H-1B visas were more readily available. The provision sets a dangerous precedent that H-1B-heavy companies should be legally discouraged. But it’s unclear what the purpose of this restriction is, except to target certain companies that specialize in certain tech services to the benefit of others who are more widely diversified. Even if the requirement was only 25 percent, it would only force Cognizant and other specialized companies to sell or merge with a larger company with more employees, not change any business practices or cease hiring H-1B workers.- 评论：据我所知，只有两家大公司目前接近此条款限额：Cognizant（49.999％）和Tech Mahindra（50.3％），但如果更容易获得H-1B签证，还有其他几家公司可能也接近。该规定开创了危险的先例，即在法律上不鼓励公司雇佣H-1B员工。但是，目前尚不清楚此限制的目的是什么，除了针对某些专门从事特定科技服务的公司，而使其他多元化程度更高的公司受益。即使该要求限额降至25％，也只会迫使Cognizant和其他专业公司自行出售或与拥有更多员工的大公司合并，而不会改变任何商业惯例或停止雇用H-1B员工。

• Requires DOL to charge a fee for H-1B labor condition applications (LCAs) to cover the cost of processing.

要求DOL开始对H-1B雇工征收LCA申请费以承担处理成本。

• Comments: The bill also says that the fee could be used for “administration, oversight, investigation, and enforcement.” If the purpose of the fee is to cover the cost of the application, that’s reasonable. If the purpose is to force compliant employers to cover the costs of DOL actions against noncompliant employers, that’s unfair. This authority should be at least clarified.- 评论：该法案还指出，该费用可用于“行政，监督，调查和执行等”。如果收费的目的是支付申请费用，那是合理的。如果目的是强迫合规雇主承担针对不合规雇主的DOL诉讼费用，那是不公平的。此授权至少应该对此做出澄清。

• Bans B-1 temporary business visas for anyone who would “normally” be classifiable as an H-1B:

禁止批准任何“通常”会被归类为H-1B签证的B-1临时商务签证申请：

• Comments: This provision is unambiguously negative. Foreigners visiting the United States “temporarily for business” can receive a B-1 visa if they .The State Department has stated since the 1960s that in cases where a person who could qualify as an H-1B is only coming for a short period, they are “more appropriately” classified as a B-1 so long as they are paid from sources abroad. In a proposed rule, the comment period of which ends in December 21, the State Department is proposing its own reversal of this policy. Presumably this legislative provision is also intended to stop this practice, though the word “normally” adds some ambiguity. The “B-1 in lieu of H-1B” option is important because there is no other option specifically for skilled professionals on short-term assignments, especially those that come up suddenly and need to be completed quickly. - 评论：这项规定无疑是负面的。如果外国人赴美“暂时处理商务”，他们将获得B-1签证。国务院表示，自1960年代以来，有资格作为H-1B资格的人仅短期逗留，只要他们从国外获得薪酬，就被“更恰当地”归类为B-1签证。在一项拟议的法规中，其意见征询期将于12月21日结束，国务院正在提议自己撤销这一政策。尽管“通常”一词增加了一些灰色地带，但该立法条文大概也旨在阻止这种做法。 “用B-1代替H-1B”这一选项很重要，因为没有其他选项专门适用于短期任务的专业人员，尤其对于那些突然发生且需要快速完成的任务。

U.S. businesses contracting with foreign companies, foreign multinationals investing in the United States, or foreign companies without a physical presence in the United States use this option, but it’s unclear how widespread it is because the State Department doesn’t separately record B-1s-in-lieu-of-H-1Bs from the total 38,000 B-1s. In 2010, however, the State Department stated that the consulates in India (the largest source of H-1Bs) made “fewer than 1,000” such grants against nearly 60 times as many H-1Bs. Nonetheless, this rule directly restricts legal trade, travel, and employment to no benefit to the United States.

与外国公司签约的美国企业，在美国投资的外籍跨国公司或在美国没有实体的外国公司都适用此选项，但目前尚不清楚它的广泛性，因为国务院没有单独记录总共38,000 B-1签证中的“B-1替代H-1B“。然而，早在2010年，国务院曾表示，印度领事馆（H-1B的最大来源）提供了“不到1000个”此类批准，而H-1B签证的数量则是其近60倍。但是，该规则直接限制了合法贸易，旅行和就业，对美国没有任何好处。

• Requires employers that retaliate against people who “reasonably believe” are disclosing evidence of an H-1B violation to pay backpay.

要求雇主禁止对“有理由相信”的人进行报复，如有人提供披露违反H-1B规定的证据，其欠薪必须得到支付。

• Comments: This is an extension of current law prohibiting employers from retaliation by explicitly requiring them to pay backpay.- 评论：这是对现行法规的扩展，它通过明确要求雇主支付欠薪以禁止其进行打击报复。

• Requires DOL to review H-1B LCAs for “fraud or misrepresentation” rather than only for “completeness and obvious inaccuracies”.

要求DOL审查H-1B LCA的“欺诈或失实陈述”，而不仅仅是“完整性和明显的不准确性”。

• Comments: This undermines the type of expedited review that LCAs receive. As soon as adjudicators must undertake a more substantive review than completeness and obvious inaccuracies (such as, an internal inconsistency), the review will add significantly more time and expense to an already expensive and time-consuming process.- 评论：这破坏了接收LCA后快速审查的类型。一旦审查者必须进行比“完整性和明显不准确性”（例如内部意见不一致）更为实质性的审查，那么该审查就会在时间和费用上本来就很昂贵且耗时的流程基础上，再大大增加成本。

• Requires employers pay at least the actual wages paid to similar U.S. workers in the local area. .

要求雇主至少支付类似当地美国员工的实际工资。

• Comments: This provision extends a current provision of the law to state the “actual wages” must be based only on wages of workers in the area of intended employment. There is also a slight tightening in how it defines similar U.S. workers from “similar experience and qualifications” to “substantially the same duties and responsibilities.” In some cases, using only U.S. workers in one area might raise the wage in some cases, while it might lower the wage in other cases. Again, narrowing the workers to those with “substantially similar duties and responsibilities” would have the same ambiguous effect.- 评论：此条款扩展了的现行法规，即规定“实际工资”必须仅基于预期就业地区员工的工资。从“相似的经验和资历”到“基本相同的职责和责任”，它对相似的美国员工的定义也略有收紧。某些情况下，在一个地区仅使用美国员工可能会提高工资，而在其他情况下则可能会降低工资。同样，将员工范围缩小到“职责和责任基本相似”的员工，将导致相同的模棱两可效果。

• Vastly expands DOL audit and investigation authority:

• Allows DOL to conduct compliance surveys or annual audits of any H-1B employer.

• Requires audits of anyone with 100 H-1B workers if more than 15% of their employees.

• Allows investigations based on anonymous sources not in the form of a complaint from workers or other harmed parties.

• Allows DOL to audit or investigate based on information in an LCA.

• Eliminates the requirement that the DOL secretary personally certify that reasonable cause exists for an H-1B investigation.

• Removes the 60-day time limit on investigations.

大大扩展DOL的审核和调查权限：

• 允许DOL对任何H-1B雇主进行合规性调查或年度审核。

• 要求对所有雇佣超过100名H-1B员工（如果占其雇员超过15％）的雇主进行审核。

• 允许基于匿名来源进行调查，而不因员工或其他受害方的投诉。

• 允许DOL根据LCA中的信息进行审核或调查。

• 消除了劳工部部长亲自证明对H-1B调查存在合理原因的要求。

• **取消了调查的60天期限要求。**Comments: Currently, H-1B audits are based only on complaints or other verified, non anonymous sources that come to the DOL from people DOL knows would have knowledge of an H-1B violation. According to DOL, this latter authority had never been used as of this year, so H-1B audits have exclusively been based on complaints. Congress imposed these restrictions because it wanted to limit the authority of DOL to conduct meritless investigations. These provisions would allow DOL to target employers for audits without any reason to believe a violation has occurred. This is yet another burden in an already burdensome and expensive process.- 评论：目前，DOL 启动H-1B审核仅基于：1.违反H-1B流程的知情人员投诉；或2.其他经过验证的非匿名信息来源。根据DOL官方规定，后一项到今年为止从未被使用过，至此H-1B审核完全基于投诉。国会之所以增加这些约束，是因为它希望限制DOL自行开展无缘故调查的权限。这些规定将使DOL可以将雇主定位为审核对象，而无需任何相信发生了违规情况理由。这是本来已经很麻烦且昂贵的行政过程中的又一个负担。

• Eliminates the protection from penalties for employers that made a good faith effort to follow the rules or that underpaid employees based on use of a prevailing wage methodology based on industry standards.

取消对雇主真诚遵守规则或基于基于行业标准的基本工资方法使用薪水不足的雇主免于罚款的保护。

• Comments: These harmful provisions are replaced with a benignly labeled “information sharing” provision on page 19.- 评论：这些恶法条款已被第19页上贴上良性标签的“信息共享”条款所代替。

• Triples the fines for H-1B LCA violations. Fines increase from $1,000 to $3,000 for non-willful violations, from $5,000 to $15,000 for willful violations, from $35,000 to $100,000 for displacement of U.S. workers.

**对H-1B LCA违规处以三倍罚款。**非故意违反的罚款从1,000美元提高到3,000美元，故意违反的罚款从5,000美元提高到15,000美元，导致美国员工失业的罚款从35,000美元提高到100,000美元。

• Comments: Adjustments for inflation since 1998 would not quite double the fine amounts, so these increases are clearly intended as more than an update to outdated statutory figures.- 评论：自1998年以来的通货膨胀调整不至于导致罚款数额增加一倍，因此，这些加倍显然不仅是对过时法定数字的更新。

The Federal Election Commission (hereafter FEC) often receives questions about the rules governing foreign nationals’ participation in U.S. elections. While this article responds to some of the most common questions, it does not cover all aspects of foreign national activity. Readers should consult the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations, advisory opinions, and relevant case law for additional information. For questions involving proposed activity for which there may not be clear guidance, you may consider requesting your own advisory opinion (AO) from the Commission. Please note, however, that the Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to provisions of the Act and does not include other laws that may also apply to foreign national activity.

联邦选举委员会（以下简称"FEC"或本委员会）经常收到询问有关外国人参与美国选举的规则问题。尽管本文回答了一些最常见的问题，但并未涵盖涉及外国人活动的所有方面。读者应查阅《联邦选举法案》（法案）和本委员会制定的相关法规，咨询意见以及相关的判例法以获取更多信息。对于涉及拟议活动可能没有明确指导意见的问题，您可以考虑向本委员会提交个人的咨询意见（AO）。但是请注意，本委员会的管辖范围仅限于法案的规定内容，并不包括可能同样适用地其他的外国人活动法律。

The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

法案和本委员会法规包括广泛禁止外国人活动参与到美国选举当中。主要由 《美国法典》§30121条，《美国联邦法规》第11 章第110.20条规定。通常，禁止外国人从事以下活动：

• Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;- 向任何联邦，州或地方各层级选举提供的任何金钱或其他有价值物的捐款或捐赠，或任何支出，独立支出或变相支付；- Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);- 向任何联邦，州，地区或地方政党的任何委员会或组织提供任何捐款或捐赠（包括对党派非联邦账户或办公大楼账户的捐赠）；- Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;- 向某个竞选传播通讯支付；- Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.- 向某总统就职委员会捐款。

Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.

故意和主动从事上述这些活动的人可能会受到FEC强制措施，刑事起诉或两者兼而有之。

Definition

定义

The following groups and individuals are considered “foreign nationals” and are subject to the prohibition:

以下群体和个人被视为"外国人"，并受到禁止：

• Foreign citizens (not including dual citizens of the United States);
• 外国国籍公民（不包括具有双重国籍的美国公民）；
• Immigrants who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
• 不具备永久居留权的非合法移民；
• Foreign governments;
• 外国政府；
• Foreign political parties;
• 外国政党；
• Foreign corporations;
• 外国公司；
• Foreign associations;
• 外国协会组织；
• Foreign partnerships; and
• 外国合伙机构；以及
• Any other foreign principal, as defined at 22 U.S.C. § 611(b), which includes a foreign organization or “other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.”
• 根据《美国法典》第22卷§611（b）条，所定义的任何其他外国组织，其中包括外国组织或"其他根据外国法律设立或主要营业地点位于国外的人员组合"。

Individuals: The “green card” exception

个人：“绿卡"例外

The Act does not prohibit individuals with permanent resident status (commonly referred to as “green card holders”) from making contributions or donations in connection with federal, state or local elections, as they are not considered foreign nationals.

法案不禁止具有永久居民身份的个人（通常称为"绿卡持有人”）向联邦，州或地方选举提供捐款或捐赠，因为他们不被视为外国人。

Participation by foreign nationals in decisions involving election-related activities

外国人参与和选举决策相关的活动

Commission regulations prohibit foreign nationals from directing, dictating, controlling, or directly or indirectly participating in the decision-making process of any person (such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization) with regard to any election-related activities. Such activities include, the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with any federal or nonfederal elections in the United States, or decisions concerning the administration of any political committee. Foreign nationals are also prohibited from involvement in the management of a political committee, including any separate segregated fund (SSF), nonconnected committee, or the nonfederal accounts of any of these committees. See Explanation and Justification for 11 CFR 110.20 at 67 FR 69946 (November 19, 2002) [PDF].

本委员会法规禁止外国人参与任何与选举有关的活动指导，指示，控制或直接或间接参与任何人（例如公司，劳工组织，政治委员会或政治组织）的决策过程。此类活动包括与美国任何联邦或非联邦选举有关的捐款，捐赠，支出或支付，或有关任何政治委员会的行政管理的决定。还禁止外国人参与政治委员会的管理，包括任何单独的独立基金（SSF），非关联委员会或这些委员会中任何一个的非联邦帐户。请参见11 CFR 110.20条款的解释和理由，联邦电子查询编号67 FR 69946（2002年11月19日发布）。

The Commission has pursued a number of enforcement actions related to this prohibition. For example, in Matter Under Review (MUR) 3460, the Commission reached a conciliation agreement with a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation and four of its foreign national directors. The directors, along with one director who was not a foreign national, passed a resolution authorizing a “contribution committee” to make political and charitable donations from a special account, and capitalizing the committee with $50,000 in corporate funds. The one director who was not a foreign national was appointed as the sole member of the committee. The contribution committee subsequently made contributions to state and local candidates. The foreign nationals’ involvement in the decision to establish and fund the “contribution committee” meant that its subsequent contributions violated the ban on foreign nationals participating directly or indirectly in the making of contributions and donations in connection with elections. The corporation and the foreign national directors paid a civil penalty.

本委员会已采取了与该禁令有关的许多强制措施。例如，在"正在审查的问题"（MUR）3460号中，本委员会与一家外国公司在美国的子公司及其四名外国人董事达成了调解协议。上述这些董事，其中一位并非外国人，通过了一项决议，授权"捐款委员会"从特别账户中进行政治和慈善捐赠，并以5万美元的公司资金为这个委员会提供资本。这位非外国人的董事被任命为捐款委员会的唯一成员。捐款委员会随后向州和地方候选人捐款。外国人参与建立"捐款委员会"并为其提供资金的决定意味着，其随后的捐款违反了禁止外国人直接或间接参与和选举有关的捐款和捐赠的禁令。这家公司及其外国人董事受到民事罚款。

Volunteer activity

志愿者活动

Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer “exemption” as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone. The Commission has addressed applicability of this exemption to several situations involving volunteer activity by a foreign national, as explained below.

通常情况下，个人（包括外国人）可以在无任何捐款的前提下，自愿向某个联邦候选人或某联邦政治委员会提供个人服务。法案规定了对志愿者的"豁免"，只要执行服务的个人没有受到任何人的经济补偿即可。本委员会已经说明了这种豁免在某些情况下适用于涉及外国人志愿活动的情况，如下所述。

In AO 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC), the Commission concluded that a political action committee could accept assistance from a foreign national in developing intellectual property for the PAC, such as trademarks, graphics, and website design because the services accepted by the PAC would fall under the volunteer exemption. Similarly, in AO 2004-26 (Weller), the Commission held that a foreign national could attend, speak at campaign events for a federal candidate, and solicit contributions to the campaign. However, the Commission cautioned that the foreign national could not manage or participate in any of the campaign committee’s decision-making processes. See also AOs 2007-22 (Hurysz) and 1987-25 (Otaola).

在AO 2014-20（Make Your Laws PAC）中，本委员会得出结论认为，政治行动委员会可以接受外国人在为PAC开发知识产权（例如商标，图形和网站设计）方面的帮助，因为这些PAC所接受的服务属于志愿者豁免。同样，在AO 2004-26（Weller）中，本委员会认为，外国人可以在联邦候选人竞选的活动出席并发言，为竞选活动募集捐款。但是，委员会警示，外国人不能管理或参与竞选委员会的任何决策过程。另见AOs 2007-22（Hurysz）和1987-25（Otaola）。

In MUR 5987, the Commission examined a situation in which a foreign national provided an uncompensated musical concert performance as a volunteer for a federal candidate’s campaign as part of a fundraising event. The candidate’s campaign had paid all of the costs of hosting the concert, including the rental of the venue and equipment and providing security. The performer had merely provided his uncompensated volunteer services to the campaign and had not participated in any of the campaign’s decision-making. Based on these facts, the Commission found no reason to believe that the foreign national or the federal candidate’s committee had violated the Act’s foreign national prohibition.

在MUR 5987中，委员会审查了一种情况，在该情况下，作为募捐活动的一部分，外国人作为联邦候选人竞选活动的志愿者提供了无偿的音乐演奏。候选人的竞选活动已经支付了举办音乐会的所有费用，包括场地和设备的租赁以及提供安全保障等。表演者只是向竞选活动提供了他的无偿志愿服务，而没有参加竞选活动的任何决策。基于这些事实，委员会发现没有理由相信外国人或联邦候选人委员会违反了法案对外国人的禁令。

Non-election activity by foreign nationals

外国人参与非竞选活动

Despite the general prohibition on foreign national contributions and donations, foreign nationals may lawfully engage in political activity that is not connected with any election to political office at the federal, state, or local levels. The Commission has issued advisory opinions that help to define the parameters of that activity.

尽管普遍禁止外国人捐款和捐赠，但外国人可以合法地参与跟联邦，州或地方各级政治机构的选举无关的政治活动。委员会发表了此方面的咨询意见，以助于确定此类活动的界限。

In AO 1989-32 (McCarthy), the Commission concluded that a foreign national could not contribute to a ballot measure committee that had coordinated its efforts with a nonfederal candidate’s re-election campaign. Also, in AO 1984-41 (National Conservative Foundation), the Commission allowed a foreign national to underwrite the broadcast of apolitical ads that attempted to expose the alleged political bias of the media. The Commission found that these ads were permissible because they were not “election influencing” in that they did not mention candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election.

在AO 1989-32（McCarthy）中，委员会得出结论，外国人不可以向与非联邦候选人的连任竞选相关的投票提案委员会捐款。此外，在AO 1984-41（国家保守基金会）中，委员会允许外国人承销非政治性广告的播出，这些广告企图揭露所谓的媒体政治偏见。委员会发现这些广告是被允许的，因为它们没有"影响选举"-它们没有提及候选人，政治机构，政党，现任联邦公职人员或任何过去或将来的选举。

In a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process-providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.” Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 290 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d 132 S. Ct. 1087 (2012).

在联邦最高法院后来确认的一项决定中，美国哥伦比亚特区地方联邦法院裁定，外国人禁令"不限制外国人大声疾呼或花钱宣传他们对政治问题的看法。它只限制他们从事与投票程序密切相关的某种形式的表达活动，即为候选人或政党提供资金或为明示地支持或反对候选人的选举提供资金。" Bluman诉FEC，案卷：800F。 2d 281，290（D.D.C. 2011），ff d 132 S. Ct，1087（2012）。

Providing assistance with foreign national election activity

向外国人选举提供帮助

Under Commission regulations, it is unlawful to knowingly provide “substantial assistance” to foreign nationals making contributions or donations in connection with any U.S. election. Further, no person may provide substantial assistance in the making of any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement by a foreign national. “Substantial assistance” refers to active involvement in the solicitation, making, receipt or acceptance of a foreign national contribution or donation with the intent of facilitating the successful completion of the transaction. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to individuals who act as conduits or intermediaries. See Explanation and Justification for 11 CFR 110.20 at 67 FR 69945-46 (November 19, 2002).

根据委员会规定，明知向美国大选提供捐款或捐赠的外国人做出"实质性协助"是非法的。此外，任何人都不得在外国人进行任何支出，独立支出或支出时提供实质性帮助。 “实质性协助"是指积极参与对外国人的捐赠或捐赠的募集，作出，接受或接收，其目的是促进交易的成功完成。该禁止包括但不限于充当渠道或中介的个人。请参阅67 FR 69945-46（2002年11月19日）的11 CFR 110.20的解释和理由。

Soliciting, accepting, or receiving contributions and donations from foreign nationals

招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收外国人捐款和捐赠

The Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, “knowingly” means that a person:

法案禁止在明知的情况下招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收外国人的捐款或捐赠。在这种情况下，“明知"是指一个人：

• Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;- 知道实际情况，招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收的资金来自外国人；

• Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national; or- 知道能让任何正常人确定，所招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收的资金可能来自外国人的事实；或- Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.- 知道会导致如何正常人质疑，所招募招揽，主动接受或被动接收资金来源是外国人的事实。

Pertinent facts that should cause the recipient of a contribution or donation to question whether it was given by a foreign national include, but are not limited to the following: a donor or contributor uses a foreign passport, provides a foreign address, makes a contribution from a foreign bank, or resides abroad. Commission regulations provide for a safe harbor: obtaining a copy of a current and valid U.S. passport would satisfy the duty to inquire whether the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national.

可能使捐款或捐赠的接受者质疑是否是外国人所为的有关事实，包括但不限于以下情况：捐赠者或捐赠者使用外国护照，提供外国地址，从外国银行捐款，或居住在国外。本委员会的法规也规定了"安全港”（译者加注，英美法法律术语，即例外情况）：只要获得有效的美国护照副本，将满足这一责任，即问询所招募，接受或接收的资金是否来自外国人。

In AO 2016-10 (Parker), the Commission determined that a U.S. citizen living abroad could solicit contributions on behalf of federal candidates and committees from other U.S. citizens residing abroad. She was required to ascertain the citizenship of the individuals whom she might solicit if she were aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire or believe that those individuals were foreign nationals. However, the Commission advised the requestor, “Limiting your solicitations to friends and family who live in the U.S. and who have not, to your knowledge, lived abroad, would not obligate you to conduct further inquiry about citizenship status due to the residence of the individuals whom you solicit.” If, however, she were to obtain a copy of a valid U.S. passport, she would be covered by the safe harbor provision noted above.

在AO 2016-10（Parker）中，委员会确定居住在国外的美国公民可以代表联邦候选人及其委员会向同样居住在国外的其他美国公民募集捐款。如果她知道有会导致正常人置疑或认为这些人是外国人的事实，那么她就被要求确认可能募集对象的公民身份。但是，委员会建议问询者：“将您的招募仅限于居住在美国的，且据您所知没有居住在国外的亲朋好友；由于招募对象的居住地，您没有义务进一步询问其公民身份。” 但是，如果她拥有有效的美国护照副本，则将受到上述安全港条款的保护。

In MUR 4834, an individual admitted knowingly and willfully soliciting a contribution from a foreign national and causing a foreign contribution to be made falsely in the name of a U.S. citizen. The individual also admitted that at the time of the solicitation, he knew that the person he was soliciting was a foreign national and that contributions from foreign nationals were prohibited. The Commission entered into a conciliation agreement with the individual, and he agreed to pay a civil penalty.

在MUR 4834中，某人故意并有意地招揽外国人，并错误地以美国公民的名义造成了外国捐款。此人还承认，在招揽时，他知道所招揽的人是外国人，且外国人捐款是被禁止的这一规定。因此委员会与此人达成了和解协议，他同意支付民事罚款。

In MUR 4638, the Commission found reason to believe that a law firm had violated the Act by knowingly solicited and provided “substantial assistance” to a foreign national making donations. Individuals at the firm participated in conversations with a known foreign national and his agents that resulted in his making donations to state and local candidates. As a result of the Commission’s finding, the firm entered into a conciliation agreement with the Commission and agreed to pay a civil penalty.

在MUR 4638中，委员会找到了理由，认为一家律师事务所故意招揽外国人并向其提供了"实质性协助”，从而违反了法案。律所的成员参与了和一位知名外国人及其代理人的沟通，从而使他向州和当地候选人捐款。根据委员会的调查结果，该律所与委员会达成了和解协议，并同意支付民事罚款。

Monitoring prohibited contributions

监管违禁捐款

When a federal political committee (a committee active in federal elections) receives a contribution it believes may be from a foreign national, it must:

当某个联邦政治委员会（即参与联邦选举的某委员会）收到其认为可能来自外国人的捐款时，必须：

• Return the contribution to the donor without depositing it; or- 不存入，将捐款交还给捐助者；或者- Deposit the contribution and take steps to determine its legality, as described below.- 存入捐款，并采取措施确定其合法性，下文将详述。

Either action must be taken within 10 days of the treasurer’s receipt.

上述任一选择必须在收到财务收据后的10天内采取行动。

If the committee decides to deposit the contribution, the treasurer must make sure that the funds are not spent because they may have to be refunded. Additionally, he or she must maintain a written record explaining why the contribution may be prohibited. The legality of the contribution must be confirmed within 30 days of the treasurer’s receipt, or the committee must issue a refund.

如果该委员会决定将捐款存入银行，则财务主管必须确保资金不被使用，因为可能必须将其退还。此外，他（她）必须保存相关书面记录，以用于解释此捐款为何被禁止。捐款的合法性必须在收到财务收据的30天内得以确认，否则该委员会必须退款。

Evidence of legality may include a written statement from the contributor explaining why the contribution is legal (e.g., donor has a green card or provides a copy of his or her valid U.S. passport), or an oral explanation that is recorded in memorandum.

合法性的证据可以包括捐赠者的书面陈述，以解释此捐款为何是合法的（例如，捐款者持有绿卡或提供其有效的美国护照副本），或记录在备忘录中的口头解释。

If the committee deposits a contribution that appears to be legal, but later discovers that the deposited contribution is from a foreign national, it must refund the contribution within 30 days of making the discovery. If a committee lacks sufficient funds to make a refund when a prohibited contribution is discovered, it must use the next funds it receives.

如果委员会存入看似合法的捐款，但后来发现存入的捐款来自外国人，则必须在发现后30天内退还这笔捐款。如果委员会在发现违禁捐款时缺乏足够的资金来退款，则必须使用收到的下一笔资金来填补。

In MUR 4530 and several related MURs (MURs 4531, 4587, 4642, 4909, and 5295), the Commission found that several foreign nationals and corporations had made prohibited contributions to a federal candidate committee and to a national party committee. Several committees were assessed civil penalties for failing to issue refunds when they became aware that the funds were illegal.

在MUR 4530和几个相关的MUR（MUR 4531、4587、4642、4909和5295）中，本委员会发现，一些外国人和公司已经向联邦候选人委员会和全国性政党委员会违禁捐款。某些委员会因得知资金不合法而未能退款，最终受到民事处罚。

Domestic subsidiaries and foreign-owned corporations

本土分支机构和外资公司

A U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation or a U.S. corporation that is owned by foreign nationals or by a foreign parent corporation may be subject to the prohibition, as discussed further below.

外国人或外国母公司拥有的美国分支机构，或外国母公司的美国子公司可能会受到禁止，如下所述。

PAC contributions for federal activity

向PAC联邦活动捐款

Based on a series of FEC advisory opinions, domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations may establish federal political action committees (known as separate segregated funds or SSFs) for the purpose of make federal contributions and expenditures, so long as:

根据一系列FEC咨询意见，外国公司的美国国内子公司可以建立联邦政治行动委员会（称为分离的独立基金或SSF），以进行联邦捐款和支出，只要满足：

• The foreign parent corporation does not finance the SSF’s establishment, administration, or solicitation costs through the subsidiary; and- Individual foreign nationals:- Do not participate in the operation of the PAC;- Do not serve as officers of the PAC;- Do not participate in the selection of persons who operate the PAC; and- Do not make decisions regarding any PAC contributions or expenditures.

1.外国母公司不涉及资助子公司的SSF设立，管理或招标费用；和

2.外籍个人：

•不参与PAC的运营；

•不担任PAC的管理人员；

•不参与PAC的人员任用选择；和

•不对PAC的任何捐款或支出做出决定。

For example, in AO 2000-17 (Extendicare), the Commission determined that a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation could establish an SSF even though the subsidiary’s board of three directors included only one U.S. citizen because the committee established to oversee all of the SSF’s operations comprised only U.S. citizens or permanent residents. See also AOs 2009-14 (Mercedes Benz USA/Sterling), 1999-28 (Bacardi-Martini), 1995-15 (Allison Engine PAC), and 1990-08 (CIT).

例如，在AO 2000-17（Extendicare）中，本委员会确定外国公司的美国子公司可以建立SSF，即便该子公司的三名董事仅包括一名美国公民，因为此委员会成立后负责监督SSF所有工作的，满足完全由美国公民或永久居民构成。另请参见AOs 2009-14（梅赛德斯奔驰美国/斯特林），1999-28（百加得-马蒂尼），1995-15（艾里逊发动机PAC）和1990-08（CIT）。

Corporate donations and disbursements for nonfederal activity

向非联邦活动的公司捐赠和支出

A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation (or a domestic corporation owned by foreign nationals) may make donations and disbursements in connection with state or local elections (if permissible under state and local law) provided that:

外国公司的国内子公司（或外国人拥有的国内公司）可以向州或地方选举（如果州和地方的当地法律允许）进行捐赠和支出：

• These activities are not financed in any part by the foreign parent or owner; and- 这些活动的任何部分都不由外国母公司或所有者资助；- Individual foreign nationals are not involved in any way in the making of donations to nonfederal candidates and committees.- 外国个人不以任何方式参与对非联邦候选人和委员会的捐赠。

For example, in AO 2006-15 (TransCanada), the Commission concluded that two wholly-owned U.S. subsidiaries of a foreign corporation could make donations and disbursements in connection with state and local elections so long as the funds used were generated by the U.S.-based subsidiary’s operations and not from the foreign parent and that all decisions regarding political donations would be made by U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Since the domestic subsidiaries maintained bank accounts in the U.S. that were separate from the foreign parent and did not receive subsidies from the foreign parent or from any other foreign national, the Commission concluded that the proposal was permitted under the Act.

例如，在AO 2006-15（TransCanada）中，委员会得出结论，外国公司的两家全资美国子公司可以向州和地方选举进行捐赠和支出，只要所用资金是由美国本土分支机构的业务所赚取，而不是来自外国母公司的业务，且所有有关政治捐赠的决定都由美国公民或永久居民做出。由于国内子公司在美国开设的银行账户是与外国母公司的分开的，并且没有收到外国母公司或任何其他外国人的补贴，因此本委员会得出结论认为，法案允许该计划落实。

Similarly, in AO 1992-16 (Nansay Hawaii, Inc.), the Commission considered a situation in which a foreign parent corporation provided “regular subsidies [to its domestic subsidiary] in the form of loans or [donations] to capital…” The Commission determined that the domestic subsidiary could make state and local donations, provided that all decisions as to political donations were made by U.S. citizens or permanent residents and also that the subsidiary be able to demonstrate through a reasonable accounting method that it had sufficient funds in its account (other than funds given or loaned by its foreign national parent) from which the donations were made. The Commission explicitly cautioned that, “[t]he amount that the foreign parent distributes to the subsidiary cannot replenish all or any portion of the subsidiary’s political [donations] during the period since the preceding subsidy payment.”

与此相似，在AO 1992-16（Nansay Hawaii，Inc.）中，委员会审议了一种情况，一家外国母公司以"贷款或[捐赠]形式 [向其美国国内子公司]的"常规补贴"……"。本委员会确定该国内子公司可以进行州和地方捐赠，但前提是所有有关政治捐赠的决定均由美国公民或永久居民做出，并且该子公司能够通过合理的会计方法证明其捐款帐户（由其外国母公司提供或借出的资金除外）拥有足够的资金。委员会明确警示：“自上次补贴付款以来，外国母公司分配给子公司的金额不能用于补充子公司的全部或任何部分政治捐款。”

In contrast, in AO 1989-20 (Kuilima Development Company, Inc.), the Commission declined to approve a U.S. company’s plan to donate to state and local candidates using a funded primarily by donations from its foreign parent corporation. The Commission held that this arrangement was prohibited by the Act and Commission regulations. See also AOs 1989-29 (GEM of Hawaii, Inc.), 1985-03 (Diridon), and 1982-10 (Syntex).

相反，在AO 1989-20（Kuilima Development Company，Inc.）中，委员会拒绝批准一家美国公司使用主要由其外国母公司捐赠的资金向州和当地候选人捐款的计划。委员会认为法案和委员会法规禁止这种安排。请参见AO 1989-29（Hawaii，Inc。），1985-03（Diridon）和1982-10（Syntex）。

In MUR 2892, the Commission entered into conciliation agreements with a number of respondents, including foreign individuals and businesses, who agreed to pay civil penalties for violations of the Act that involved prohibited contributions made to state and local candidates through U.S. corporations owned by foreign corporations or by foreign individuals. In this particular case, the Commission found reason to believe that the donations in question violated the foreign national prohibition because they were allegedly financed directly by the foreign parent/owner or because individual foreign nationals were allegedly involved in making decisions concerning the contributions. (See also MURs 2864 and 3004.)

在MUR 2892中，委员会与包括外国个人和企业在内的许多调查对象达成了和解协议，涉及通过外国公司拥有的美国公司向州和地方候选人提供了禁止性捐款。或由外国个人提供，他们同意因违反法案而受到民事处罚。在这种特殊情况下，本委员会有理由认为，有关捐款违反了外国人禁令，因为这些所谓捐款是直接由外国父母/所有者出资的，或者是所谓的外国人参与了有关捐款的决定。 （另请参见MUR 2864和3004。）