E-Verify has been a thorn in my side since it's inception during the Obama administration. That was early in my business career and I knew that when I hired an employee that I would have to set aside two hours to do the E-Verify process. These days I am fortunate to have more qualified folks around me to tend to these digital requirements, nonetheless it still robs me of productive time. Most recently my inbox has been ablaze with new E-Verify emails telling me that we now have to attend "tutorials" and ultimately take an E-Verify "knowledge" test. No sweat off their backs. They get paid to encumber me with requirements. I only get paid when my office is productive so it burns my backside..... And I want to know that why, in this day and age where we have a million migrants freely entering our country annually, does the Fed think that E-Verify is even a remotely useful tool?... And I think I know the answer. If I am caught with an unverified employee, I will receive the fine. The unverified employee will receive a meal ticket and a flight to his next destination..... November cannot come soon enough.
While I agree the bureaucracy of it is out of control, I think it shouldn't be controversial that employers hiring undocumented immigrants should be the ones to get in trouble. And that flight to the next destination should be on the dime of the employer that hired them.
Well, Gene.... You make my point. I spend twenty-five years of my life creating good, well paying jobs for people. I carried the burden all those years and I have everything to lose if the business fails.... Now, I am a law abiding fellow and you won't catch me hiring low wage undocumented folks to sweep my warehouse. However, I am the good guy here. They broke the law... Not me. So why does this burden now fall in my lap?
Because it's illegal to hire them. I know this doesn't apply to you or your business personally, but in this hypothetical, you did break the law. And this hypothetical employer is not the "good guy" when they are trying to maximize profits by exploiting people who don't have protections. The employers need to be held to an even higher standard than the undocumented people because they're supposed to be the law abiding citizens.
It is also illegal for them to be here. Do you give protections to an intruder that has broken into your home? Would you expect to be penalized for that intrusion because you didn't go to the expense of having a security camera or bars on your windows? How is an employer any different? We carry this burden simply because we are the law abiding citizens.
I am going to surmise you know what you are talking about, but possibly not well versed in the subject. The employee...an illegal person.....has false documents. The employer in good faith hires the person. The employer is still subject to a FINE AND IMPRISONMENT AND CONFISCATION OF THE BUSINESS ENTITY, whether or not E-Verify was utilized. A side note: E-Verify is really nothing new. In the late 80s on, it was an I-9 and NOTHING has changed about the original Laws or penalties, save that the BS language has changed when describing the illegal person. The funny thing is, there is another MINOR change in the E-Verify language that is cute.... IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THE ILLEGAL PERSON TO BE EMPLOYED OR SEEK EMPLOYMENT AND THERE ARE NO FINES OR PENALTIES FOR DOING SO. YW.
Employers should be reimbursed for the time taken to eVerify those who turn out to be undocumented. And those flights to the next destination (the nations from whence they came) should be paid for by the same party responsible for flooding the nation with those who did not enter legally . . . The Democrat Party
I'm not opposed to that. Maybe even some kind of tax credit for time spent in eVerify generally, regardless of outcome. Hmm, it's tough to say but I think there needs to be evidence of if it was done in good faith or not. For instance calling them "low wage" here seems to imply that the employer knows they can get away with paying less. Which happens quite frequently: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/wage-theft-hits-immigrants-hard All too often these cases turn into a small fine for the business owner who turn around and do it again. Perhaps I jumped the gun getting fired up about this clear exploitation. What I would say, is that if the employer is acting in good faith (following all labor laws, used eVerify correctly and evaluated the documents according to their protocols), then there should be no extra burden for the employers.
That is the catch-22 that chafes my backside. I am a for profit business. I exist to produce and pay a good wage for honest work.….. Tying my limited staff to a computer screen to take tutorials and knowledge evaluations is an economic dead loss for me. And for what? I am not a federal entity with vast human and economic resources. Why should I stand by and have my hands and resources tied up so that the Fed can monitor me? I didn’t break the law and enter this country illegally. Yet I am the person paying the price.
I agree with you here that it should turn into tax credits or some way of making it at least not be an outright loss. I'm unfamiliar with the process. What kind of commitment is this tutorial system and processing eVerify paperwork? Like, does it eat up a whole day for each employee with annual refreshers or something?
I suspect the real focus should be on those hiring housekeepers, temporary agricultural help, service contracting "companies", construction and landscaping grunts, nannies, drug mules, etc. Not sure how one gets at those "employers", as they generally do not keep books at all, but pay and get paid in cash for a reason. Not only do the bad-apple-targeted requirements of government place an unacceptable burden on good-apple employers which toe the line, but on consumers of their product to whom those costs get passed along in one form or another. Another example of big government creating newer problems to deal with older problems it created. Don't create more problems . . . get at the original problem . . . illegal immigrants.
Charley, there are immigrants and emigrants. Those who leave their nation, intending never to return are emigrants. Those who come here from outside our borders, intending to stay, and not doing so via our legal immigration system are indeed illegal immigrants, no matter how progressives try to sanitize the terminology.
No. I refer you to "U.S. Citizenship And Immigration Services". Note that Part I, "Alien", which has been the definition and term for an illegal entrant, until 11 May 21, when it was updated to wit: "Any Alien" is changed to "Non-Citizen". In no U.S. Law is the phrase "illegal immigrant " utilized. It is a Construct, by Social political Progressives, to imply some level of legitimacy to illegal aliens (illegal non-citizens), and the latest progressive policies being drafted use the Term "migrant newcomer" in place of "non-citizen entering the U.S. illegally and without proper required documentation". No standing immigration Law states an illegal entrant is an illegal immigrant. There is a distinction of the partial individual that you identify as "....intending to stay...." the distinction being a higher level of Penalty. No, there is indeed NOT any Law recognizing "Illegal immigrant" as a Class under U.S. Citizenship And Immigration Services. The term "illegal immigrant is EXACTLY sanitizing the terminology. So, are you also a Progressive? Or, just one of the many unwashed that have succumbed to the brain-washing of the masses, that have been inundated with alternative language for so long...years and years and years....that begin believing it has legitimacy and then add to the progressive agenda by thinking and uttering same as a legitimate doctrine. Pause for a moment and consider the word(s). I know you are not suggesting there is legitimacy to an illegal entrant/alien/non-citizen entering the U.S. illegally is an immigrant. Then why use the word immigrant? Because, and simply because the opposite is an emigrant? Of course not...or maybe your position would be the opposite of an illegal immigrant is an illegal emigrant, which is 2 levels higher of ludicrous and you have never crossed my thoughts as a ludicrous person.
The intent of my reference was purely in proper use of the English language, @charley, although I do recognize the accuracy of your claim regarding such terminology within federal law. Immigrants are, by common definition, those who enter a nation intent on staying for good, and the Code treats them as such. I’ll concede that, while I did not search long and hard, I did not find “illegal immigrant” in the Code, so I accept illegal alien as the intent, and that non-citizen and migrant newcomer are progressive perversions of same. No matter, really, as my opinion will not change. Cutting the line didn’t build America, and America won't survive that way either. Send them to the back of the line . . . Standing in Mexico. And if Mexico won't let them stay without completing their immigration requirements, then Mexico should send them to the back of the line in Guatemala . . . and so on. Teaching these folks escapism, rather than to stand up against injustice where they live is the wrong approach . . . It teaches them to run from one situation to the next, and never make the best of where they are, and that solves nothing. If the progressives want to really help, they should mobilize to the home nations of those needing help, and teach them how to make better lives for themselves in their home countries, rather than playing armchair hero from their living rooms . . . Their faux benevolent savior attitude sickens me.
