Whole Foods Discriminates Against International Students on Visas?

The Problem

I received this message from a colleague today:

"Whole Foods is discriminating against our international graduate students.  A few graduate students went to Whole Foods this weekend for a raffle for free gift cards, and my Korean graduate student said she felt terrible when she read the fine print on the raffle.  I feel like this deserves a boycott... ...in solidarity of our international students.  Thoughts?"

Here's the link to the raffle website, which has the following text:

Eligibility: Sweepstakes open to all legal US residents, age 18 and older at time of entry

The Response

I may have taken this request as an opportunity to procrastinate... 

The Research

First, I had to research this and see if the fine print holds up at all, as the language seems fishy.  Turns out, there is no legal definition for the phrase “legal US resident.”  There are documented and undocumented resident aliens, there are lawful permanent residents, and there are non-resident aliens.  “Legal US resident” sounds like anyone who currently resides legally in the US.  That would mean any lawful visa holder.  There does not appear to be any legal definition of this term.  In fact, according to tax law, the student could file their taxes either as a US resident alien or as a non-resident alien due to the exemption allowing non-resident status for student visa holders.  I somehow doubt that Whole Foods requested copies of her tax returns to find out which she was claiming to be when making the distinction.

In any case, the distinction is miserable at a fundamental level. Discrimination against persons legally in the US but not green card holders or citizens in internships or employment is an unfortunate natural consequence of government jobs that require US security clearance and access to ITAR controlled content, but even in those positions there are work-arounds (export licensing, etc..) unless the person is actually from a designated country (North Korea, Iran, etc..).  Somehow I doubt that (a) the student is from North Korea (possible, the original message didn't indicate North or South Korea), and (b) that the raffle includes ITAR-controlled content or a US security clearance, which would be the only ways that she wouldn’t be able to, for example, intern at NASA. 

The Conclusion

So…  her resident status is good enough to pay resident taxes and work with ITAR-controlled material (with the special paperwork, of course), but not good enough to enter a raffle at Whole Foods.  That indicates a distinction designed to dis-include a population from a potential reward for reasons that are not well-justified, not obvious in the language of the eligibility, and sounds like the very definition of discrimination.

Digression - yes, "discrimination" also has a definition which means telling two things apart that does not have the negative connotations.  This also meets that definition, so I think we're safe in that statement.

Digression

However, Whole Foods has a whole host of reasons to be boycotted…  My simple search terms of “Whole Foods Scandal” reveals I am a sucker for organic farm-to-table hippy click-bait (thanks Mother Earth News), so I must resort to using the relatively well-researched and referenced Wikipedia section.

Thanks for giving me a new and exciting way to procrastinate grading my stack of “regrade requests” after the last midterm.  Obviously I agree.