Is this article true?

I have no idea, but Odyssey is a glorified blog. They are not reporters, they are not writers. They are college students.

I think the article is misguided at best, particularly since it's denigrating AEA on a case it lost 36 years ago. AEA is a union, which is obligated to fight for employment for its members. It makes sense to require the producers to demonstrate that the are no unemployed Americans capable of performing the role, considering roughly 86% of the union's members are unemployed at any given time.

So I think it makes sense to require producers to demonstrate that they were unable to find American actors suitable for a particular role. I don't think it is unreasonable at all. Phantom wouldn't have closed if an American actress opened the show on Broadway instead of Sarah Brightman. Miss Saigon would have had exactly the same run it had without Lea Salonga having opened the show. Take a look at other threads around here. Talent is subjective.

With so many out-of-work, starving actors who have had training, is it hard to conceive that not one of them would be as good as their foreign counterparts or other actors in the running who happened to be a non-resident alien?

That said, I do think you do bring up some good points about how undefined some of the terms are. Your friend who is considered a non-resident alien by Equity...does Equity only go by her legal status? In other words, is it the same as being a non-resident alien by the U.S. government aka someone with a visa but not permanent residency status? I also wonder if some of the current rules, outside the star ones or the ones in place to protect American Equity members, are procedures put in place that other businesses have to follow, such as getting government-approved work authorization papers if you're on a specific visa (like a student visa or a tourist visa) rather than a work visa.

Also, Equity's defense in the 1981 case of NRLB v. Actor's Equity, was pure lawyer speak, and actually was a pretty good argument to make, if previous case law didn't establish whether the NLRA applied only to American citizens. In the end, it did lead to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to state unequivocally that:

"Nothing in the terms or construction of the NLRA limits the meaning of the word "employees" to American citizens or permanent residents. The provisions in question here do not specify "American-citizen" employees as opposed to non-resident aliens. They merely proscribe discriminatory treatment of individuals or groups of employees who belong to unions, without regard to the employees' nationality or residence. For instance, Equity does not deny that Canadian citizens and resident aliens have rights as union members under the NLRA. It would be unthinkable to allow Equity to demand union membership and payment of dues by alien members performing in the United States while denying them rights associated with union membership."

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19811583644F2d939_11427/N.L.R.B.%20v.%20ACTORS'%20EQUITY%20ASS'N

Updated On: 5/17/17 at 06:01 PM

I personally know at least a dozen equity actors working today who were not born in this country, were not citizens of this country at birth, and some of whom still aren't even full citizens, but are working on the boards under equity using other routes. You'll see a couple of them on Broadway right now in chorus roles, no less.

I have complete empathy for anyone trying to work in this country as an immigrant. Our gov doesn't make it easy, but it is possible. Broadway thrives on immigrant labor. Costume shops, set shops...you name it - they also legally employ immigrants.

Your roommate should start a blog - or even a thread on this board - to communicate with other immigrants working in the theater so they can share their stories and help her get opportunities to work.

The essay doesn't even attempt to discern why Equity may have these policies in place. I assure you, it's not to disempower immigrants.

HogansHero said: "There is a great deal in this thread that misapprehends the issues. The case in question relates to the labor laws, not to the immigration laws (then or now). The article is naive in its mis-understanding of the interconnection. Nowhere in the western world can one show up and expect automatically to be on equal footing with residents.



"

I don't believe any of the discussion was about immigration law, but rather labor laws and practices and how they apply to employees and prospective employees of different legal statuses (citizens, permanent residents, non-resident aliens, etc.). That was one of the major legal issues of the NRLB v. Actor's Equity case and the main point of the article.

Updated On: 5/31/17 at 10:16 PM