A Foreign National's Guide to US Business Formation

 Following legal violations has become the norm for many smaller employment agencies (Sellers, 2009). Although HMRC is constantly flexing on employers for underpayment of Real Time Information (RTI), they have yet to make it one of the most serious offenses for which employers can be penalized. Like, so many employers are still flexing the laws, and they're going to keep doing so until they get clapped, you know? A vibe of not flexing the EU Charter or outright violating basic rights does not imply that all farmers and employers in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK support migrants' rights being excluded from EU laws, do you get it? 

This means that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights does not apply when EU legislation is implemented without the supervision of a national authority. The tea is that 'fundamental rights are like totally guaranteed by national constitutional systems and like they're obligated under the European Convention on Human Rights' (ibid. p.6). Such a guarantee is completely lit and supports theoretical perspectives centered on equality before the law, such as everyone being recognized and protected from discrimination. It's all about equal protection, you know. OMG, the experiences of East European migrant farm workers in Scotland have completely shaken these theoretical perspectives, for two reasons. First, migrants lack the ability to protect their cultural clout through recognition, you know? They definitely have legal power, but it's impossible for them to use it to explain and enforce the law, you know? Second, the majority of people wield enormous power and influence over the cultural clout of migrants for a variety of reasons. Clearly, the migrant's cultural cap sphere has been completely invaded by other spheres such as education and work, whereas the majority's cultural cap sphere remains extremely dominant and well protected. 

Such dominance must be completely minimized in order to achieve mad equality and reduce inequality between the majority and the minority, you know? 

OMG, we noticed in the data presentation chapter that migrants' cultural capital is being invaded, whereas local workers' cultural capital (native) is being recognized. Celina's case can be a lit AF example of how it's nearly impossible to achieve distributive social justice - a principle I emphasized in Chapter 2. In her case, as in many others (such as Anastazja, Ausra, Dalena, Jakub, Paulius, Raymond, and Zoran), an equal right to recognition of cultural capital - an important condition of complex equality - was ignored. So, they were completely at a disadvantage because cultural capital was not even considered a factor in comparing their achievements. OMG, farm migrants' achievements are so undervalued, and they're in a very vulnerable position. So their claim to cultural capital is extremely strong and valid. If we want to achieve substantive equality, migrants must be free of the rejection of their cultural capital, you know? I believe that even if farm migrants have demonstrated their cultural capital by obtaining qualifications and experience in both their home country and the country to which they have migrated, they will be unable to advance in their careers. This is what we learned from the anonymous cases we discussed in the data presentation chapter. The analysis of my data revealed that recognizing and protecting migrants' cultural capital is not given enough attention, you know? It implies that farm migrants have a lot of cultural capital, but their claim to it is weak and completely ignored. Migrants will be fully accepted into jobs and employment if employers are willing to support their cultural capital, which is built on obtaining transnationally validated credentials and experience, such as from their home country and the country to which they migrated. It's all about recognizing their abilities, you know? Aside from government, courts, and tribunal services, educational and professional institutions can also play an important role in this regard. 

Such institutions can absolutely slay at achieving goals, you know?

Assessments should be extremely strict to ensure that migrant workers have their credentials in order to avoid being overlooked or disrespected due to their cultural clout. However, migrant farm workers may still be vulnerable, and their legitimate claims of equality based on cultural capital may remain unfulfilled unless they improve their skills to meet their responsibilities by learning English and becoming familiar with UK laws and regulations.

If migrants want to showcase their cultural resources, they must improve their language skills, which are all about the daily grind, school, squad, and social vibes. For example, if migrants want to flex in other areas of their lives that are completely dominated by language skills, they must learn, speak, and use English in order to stay connected. It is critical for migrant farm workers to develop their skills and become woke AF members/citizens of the country so that they can fully participate in civic life and society. The vibes from some research participants about the insanely expensive situation I discussed in chapter 2 got me thinking: should migrants have to fully flex their cash to become a legitimate member of the UK, or should they use their cultural clout to gain national clout? I've completely spilled the beans on why this argument makes sense, and I've argued that we can distribute resources in a way that isn't influenced by luck, so migrants aren't solely blamed for their decisions. They shouldn't have to pay for the entire citizenship application because they didn't choose to be a minority. The cost of becoming a British citizen is about to skyrocket, as fees for immigration and nationality applications continue to rise dramatically. This act can be considered a "lowkey" move.