E-Verify

Let's Start Debunking Immigration Myths

There are common sense, fact-based ways to fix immigration in U.S.

Taxpayers are subsidizing big business and a desire for cheap labor at a massive cost to society.

HOLDEN — Our media is inundated with political narrative, misinformation and myths on immigration. A few examples:

 Reducing immigration is “anti-immigrant” and “right-wing.”

 Only Trumpites oppose sanctuary cities.

Last October, the Obama Justice Department announced that cities would receive federal law enforcement grants only if they fully complied with federal immigration reporting laws. The current administration is continuing this policy. In addition, 80 percent of Americans oppose sanctuary policies, and even in hyper-blue California, a majority felt that cities should not be allowed to refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.

 Immigrants pay taxes.

The National Academy of Sciences was clear: Immigrants are currently a huge fiscal drain. In 2013, the fiscal deficit – taxes paid minus services used – was $279 billion. But why? They work hard. Their wages are low because most are unskilled. Bottom line: Taxpayers are subsidizing cheap labor for the employers.

• If illegal immigrants left, our produce would rot in the fields.

Alabama’s agricultural output rose in the three years after passage of its “draconian” immigration law. In addition, the H2A visa program, which allows farmers to employ foreign guest workers, has no caps. There’s no excuse for any illegal workers picking our produce.

• We need immigrants to “do the jobs Americans won’t do.”

Nobel economist Paul Krugman: “The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays – and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.” When garlic famers couldn’t find enough workers, they recently increased wages by $2 an hour, and were flooded with applicants. Surprise! Americans picking produce!

• If we pay more, food prices will skyrocket.

Philip Martin, of the Commission on Agricultural Workers, reports that raising farmworkers’ wages by 40 percent would increase a family’s annual food budget by only $16. By hiring legal workers and paying a livable wage, we save taxpayers the cost of poverty programs, and government gets more taxes.

• We need high-skilled foreign science, technology, engineering and math workers.

The Wall Street Journal: “America’s dazzling tech boom has a downside: Not enough jobs.” And The New York Times: Corporations, claiming dire shortages, are displacing Americans with foreign workers. “STEM shortages”?

• We’re caught between “mass deportations” and “mass amnesty.”

We have other choices. Passing mandatory E-verify for all new hires would immediately end the jobs magnet. Over five years, we could phase in E-verify for all workers. A five-year transition period would allow employers now dependent on an illegal workforce to rethink their business plan, and it would allow illegal immigrants time to make other arrangements.

 Families could be divided!

It’s not our responsibility to provide amnesty and citizenship to people who’ve committed Social Security card fraud and identity theft and lied on federal documents in order to “make a better life.” If native-born Americans commit these crimes, they face jail time.

• What about “Dreamers,” brought here as children? They’re innocent.

Legalization without citizenship for a limited number of highly deserving Dreamers makes sense. But their plight shouldn’t become a Trojan horse for another mass amnesty.

• We need more young people!

Since immigrants sponsor their elderly parents, too, immigration has no discernible effect on generational demographics, according to the pro-restriction Center for Immigration Studies.

• President Barack Obama deported millions. Illegal immigration is simply unstoppable.

The Los Angeles Times: The Obama administration changed the definition of “deportation.” Citing that fact, Obama himself called his deportation statistics “a little deceptive.” Using the old definition, deportations declined by 40 percent under Obama.

How can we stop illegal immigration? It’s obvious: Go after the employers. Decisive enforcement. No more “catch and release.” Immigration policy will affect nearly every aspect of our society for generations. Let’s try applying a fact-based discussion to this complex problem.

Jonette Christian of Holden is a member of Mainers for Sensible Immigration Policy. She can be contacted at jonettechristian@ rocketmail.com.

Oregon lawmakers push to repeal sanctuary state designation, make English official language

...Gov. Kate Brown, Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, and House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland -- have all said they would not allow legislation rescinding Oregon's sanctuary state designation to progress. On the contrary, Brown has signed an executive order strengthening Oregon's laws shielding undocumented immigrants and ...

Williamson said in a statement Wednesday that she's "appalled" House Republicans would consider repealing the state's sanctuary designation.

"Oregon is better than this," she said. "This bill only serves to further divide and polarize our state, to scapegoat and threaten our immigrant populations."

House Bill 2917, sponsored by Esquivel, Nearman and Rep. Bill Post, R-Keizer, would require state agencies and contractors they hire to use the federal E-Verify system, which allows employers to check that prospective laborers are legally allowed to work in the United States.

Support Oregon Businesses that use E-Verify

OFIR encourages your support of Oregon businesses that use E-Verify, a federal matching program FREE to employers to help ensure that any newly created jobs go only to citizens and legal residents.  Please tell the business why you have chosen to do business with them.

Please, do your homework about the business - OFIR does not endorse any business.

Please find your favorite business on this newly released list of businesses that "choose to use" E-Verify!


 

Hundreds expected at rally against Trump's immigration proposals

SALEM — A pro-immigrant rally set for Saturday, Jan. 14, at the Oregon Capitol could draw several hundred demonstrators opposed to President-elect Donald Trump's positions on immigration.

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, U.S. Rep. Kurt Schrader and several state lawmakers are scheduled to participate in the rally from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on the steps of the Capitol.

As of Wednesday, Jan. 11, more than 500 people had indicated they plan to attend and 2,000 had expressed interest on the event's Facebook page.

The rally is one of 50 "National Day of Action Events Against Trump Policies," according to a news release by the One Oregon coalition.

Trump has said that he will seek to deport millions of undocumented immigrants from the country, end executive orders by President Obama that shield certain illegal immigrants from deportation, and start a Muslim registry.

The coalition is "deeply concerned about the impact this will have on immigrant and refugee communities, who are integral to Oregon's economy and future," said Diane Goodwin, a spokeswoman for Basic Rights Oregon, a member of One Oregon.

One of Obama's executive orders, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, protects from deportation undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. Young people who are eligible must apply for the program every two years, receive a work permit and may attend college.

"There are more than 700,000 individuals nationally and about 15,000 in Oregon whose lives are at stake, whose ability to continue their education and their career is at stake based on what President-elect Trump does," said Andrea Williams, executive director of Causa. "A lot of times, they have never been to their home country, don't know the language or have not been there for a very long time."

State lawmakers who have given their RSVP for Saturday's rally include Portland Democrats Rep. Alyssa Keny-Guyer, Sen. Michael Dembrow, Rep. Diego Hernandez, and Rep. Rob Nosse. Woodburn Democrat Rep. Teresa Alonso Leon, who became a U.S. citizen just five years ago, also plans to attend.

The One Oregon coalition of 60 organizations opposes anti-immigrant policies. Immigrant rights organizations Causa, APANO and Unite Oregon lead the group.

The coalition plans to support state legislation in 2017 aimed at reducing racial profiling during police stops, expanding Medicaid to more children and increasing affordable housing funding.

There are no known counter protests to the event. Oregonians For Immigration Reform, which frequently clashes with Causa on policy proposals, had no plans for a counter demonstration Saturday, said OFIR President Cynthia Kendoll. OFIR has scheduled a meeting the same day as the demonstration to discuss the results of the election and 2017 legislation.

Trump's immigration proposals have begun to address many of the frustrations some Americans have had with immigration policy and practices, Kendoll said.

"I think the Trump administration has nailed it when he said we need to reassess what we are doing and why and how is it benefiting the United States," Kendoll said.

She said she supports Trump's plan to end the DACA program.

"Those parents made the choice for their children to pick them up and bring them to this country," Kendoll said. "I didn't make that choice for them."

OFIR attempted to advance ballot initiatives last year that would have made English the official language of Oregon, required businesses to use a federal program to verify citizenship of employees and required proof of citizenship to vote. The initiatives ultimately were tied up in court after immigrant rights organizations and the ACLU challenged the ballot titles.

OFIR plans to offer at least four pieces of legislation next session, though Kendoll declined to disclose specifics Wednesday, Jan. 11. None are expected to gain momentum in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Also published in the East Oregonian

OFIR meeting - Saturday, Jan. 14 at 2:00pm

Alert date: 
2016-01-08
Alert body: 

Plan to join us for our upcoming OFIR membership meeting this Saturday, January 14 from 2:00 - 4:00pm at the Best Western Mill Creek Inn across from Costco in Salem, OR.

Learn what the future may hold with a Trump presidency.  We will be discussing local election results, as well.  There is reason for hope in our immigration efforts.

The Oregon Legislature will start the 2017 session next month.  Find out what's in the hopper and what OFIR members can do to get involved.

OFIR President, Cynthia Kendoll traveled with Center for Immigration Studies for a week long intensive study of the northeastern US /Canadian border.  She will give a photo presentation and discussion of her trip.

Invite a friend, relative, neighbor or co-worker to join you! 

 

 

 

Hidden Ipsos Poll: Public Strongly Backs Donald Trump’s Plan To ‘Pause’ Legal Immigration

Hidden Ipsos Poll: Public Strongly Backs Donald Trump’s Plan To ‘Pause’ Legal Immigration

immigration
AP/DAMIAN DOVARGANES

A just-released poll shows that Donald Trump’s campaign-trail immigration and labor policies have overwhelming public support, and strong opposition from just one-sixth of voters. 

The Ipsos poll shows that only about one-in-six Americans strongly oppose Trump’s policies towards immigrant labor, repatriations, sanctuary cities, Islamic migrants, employer oversight and his ground-breaking proposal to reduce legal immigration.

Trump’s labor and immigration policies are “strongly” backed by .... an average support of almost 60 percent, versus strong opposition of just 15 percent. Roughly 10 percent did not answer the questions.

Ipsos is a highly rated polling firm, but conducted the poll in September and hid the pro-Trump answers until Nov. 16, a week after the election....

Trump’s promise to start “immediately deporting” illegals who have committed crimes gets 75 percent strong and somewhat support, and only 7 percent strong opposition. That’s 10-to-one support.

Sixty-two percent support and 13 percent strongly oppose, “detaining or immediately deporting all people who enter the U.S. illegally.”

Sixty-seven percent of respondents support, and only 9 percent strongly oppose, the implementation of current laws that levy fines on employers who hired illegals instead of Americans...

The poll shows that Trump’s revised plans to minimize the danger of immigrant Islamic terrorism is backed by 59 percent, and strongly opposed by 12 percent. That result echoes the public’s strong opposition to Islamic doctrines.

The most significant result in the poll, however, is the strong support for reductions in legal immigration, which amounted in 2015 to roughly one new immigrant for every two Americans entering the workforce, or one immigrant for every two American births... 57 percent, back reductions in legal immigration, while 13 percent did not take a position.

On the campaign trail, Trump called for a two-year pause in legal immigration....

Any significant reduction in immigration would raise Americans’ salaries and wages, cut welfare spending, reduce housing costs and drop unemployment, according to recent studies by a Wall Street advisory group that backed Hillary Clinton, and by the National Academies of Sciences.

More importantly, a major reduction in immigration would force Democrats to give up their 20-year strategy of gaining political dominance by importing government-dependent poor workers and voters...

Screen Shot 2016-11-17 at 1.54.35 PM

 Many polls show that most Americans do like immigrants, and they want to be seen liking immigration — but they also want a reduction in the annual immigration of 1 million people, which cuts salaries for the 4 million Americans who enter the job market each year. ...

This same outspoken response is also visible in a pre-election poll of the midwesterners who gave Trump his election-winning state victories, and of Latinos, who mostly prioritize the economy over additional immigration of their ethnic group. On Nov 8, “actual election results from counties with large Latino populations suggests that Trump probably did no worse than [Gov Mitt] Romney among Latinos, and probably did better,” said Harry Enten, a data analyst at Fivethirtyeight.com.

These disparate views of Americans are highlighted in the IPSOS poll by unusually strong opposition to Trump’s campaign-trail promise to extend the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Overall, 42 percent strongly or somewhat supported building a wall, while 32 percent strongly opposed a wall, said the poll.

But this response from the 1,005 adult respondents is likely influenced by party solidarity because it was conducted Sept. 1 to Sept. 2, 2016, during the political campaign where Trump’s main theme was construction of a border wall...

Similarly, 23 percent of the poll’s respondents strongly opposed cancellation of the Obama’s 2012 quasi-amnesty for younger illegals, who are called ‘Dreamers” by Democratic advocates. When asked if they support or oppose “Ending the executive orders that protect people who were brought to the US illegally when they were children,” 23 percent said they were strongly opposed, and 23 percent said they “strongly” support the proposal. Overall, 43 percent of Americans support an end to the amnesty, while 45 percent somewhat or strongly oppose ending the amnesty.

But when the same question is asked without any reference to “children,” support for repatriations spikes and opposition crashes. Sixty-two percent support — and only 13 percent strongly oppose — “detaining or immediately deporting all people who enter the U.S. illegally.” That’s four-to-one support for enforcing immigration laws. 

The public’s conflicting answers may also be caused by the poll’s lack of information about the scale and economic impact of current immigration.

Trump deportations would hit Idaho ag, where a fourth of all workers are undocumented

What would happen to an industry that loses one-fourth or more of its employee base?

Idaho’s agriculture industry, and particularly its farming sector, might run head-on into that hypothetical question if President-elect Donald Trump follows through on a pledge to reverse his predecessor’s executive actions on immigration and deport undocumented immigrants en masse.

Agriculture represents about 4 percent of Idaho’s $65 billion annual gross domestic product, and about the same percentage of the state labor force..... - approximately 45,000...

But Pew’s analysis says Idaho’s undocumented workers dominate in the state’s agriculture industry....

The state’s agricultural industry employs more than 40 percent of Idaho’s undocumented immigrant population, and more than one-quarter of all state ag workers are undocumented. Idaho, Washington and Oregon are the only three states in the nation where agriculture is tops in both of those metrics, said Jeffrey Passel, senior demographer with Pew and one of the study’s authors.

The share of agriculture workers who are unauthorized “tends to be very high everywhere,” Passel said. But Idaho’s agriculture sector is “a little bit unusual” because it also employs the largest portion of the state’s unauthorized immigrants. Nationwide, construction and the leisure/hospitality industry, which includes hotel service workers, employ the most unauthorized immigrants.

“Just 4 percent of unauthorized workers are in agriculture” nationwide, Passel said.

IDAHO TOPS IN AMNESTY ELIGIBILITY

Idaho ranked first among states in the percentage of undocumented immigrants who could avoid deportation under President Obama’s executive action on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and related moves on pathways to citizenship — more than 60 percent, according to Pew. That’s because such a high percentage of Idaho’s undocumented population, nearly 9 out of 10, is Mexican. That population qualifies at a higher rate based on DACA’s criteria regarding longevity and family ties.

Trump has proposed immediately reversing Obama’s actions and deporting anyone in the U.S. illegally.

A measurable if imperfect proxy for undocumented population is foreign-born workers. .... Almost all are Hispanic, he said.

The state’s unemployment rate is tight at 3.8 percent. “We have been short of workers here for the last two or three years,” Troxel said.

‘DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN-BORN LABOR’

Troxel said that if workers are deported, “it will have impact.”

“If food prices go up because it can’t get harvested or processed by the existing workforce, then there’s going to be dramatic repercussions,” he said.

Like Troxel’s group, the Idaho Dairymen’s Association has supported and worked for immigration reform to address the status of undocumented workers. Dairy workers are needed year-round, not seasonally, so the industry has little use for H-2A visas granted to temporary agricultural workers.

“Any change in immigration policy that brings some certainty to what that policy is, is a positive...

Donald Trump won ... now what?

On Tuesday, Americans elected Donald Trump as the 45th President, and according to exit polling, many based their vote on Trump's tough stance on illegal immigration and his pro-American worker positions. So what can we expect from a Trump Administration?

Historically, a President's first 100 days in office are when they can accomplish the most, and in late-October, Trump laid out a fairly detailed plan for his first 100 days, including actions he plans to take on immigration.

First, Trump said he'll cancel Pres. Obama's executive orders and actions. This includes ending Obama's executive amnesties -- DACA and DAPA -- and could also mean an end to his extension of the OPT program that allows foreign students who graduate with a degree in a STEM field to stay and work in the U.S. until they can get an H-1B visa and an end to Obama's regulation that allows H-1B holders to stay and work after their visa expires if their employer has applied for an employment-based green card on their behalf, just to name a few.

Second, Trump announced that he would cancel ALL federal funding for Sanctuary Cities. He's likely to receive some pushback on this; Seattle has already announced that it will continue to be a Sanctuary City under a Trump Administration, but if Trump does withhold funding, that policy will probably end quickly. The question is: how far will Trump go? Will he only block law enforcement funding, or will he also block funding unrelated to law enforcement.

Third, Trump will begin removing the 1 million criminal illegal aliens still present in the United States who have already been ordered removed. Most have not been removed because of Pres. Obama's Priority Enforcement Program which only allows for the removal of the most dangerous criminal aliens. Some have not been removed because their countries won't take them back. On the latter issue, Trump has also pledged to block new visas to countries that refuse to repatriate their citizens.

Fourth, Trump has promised to suspend immigration from terror-sponsoring countries. There's been some debate over whether a President has the authority to do this, but federal law specifically gives the President discretion to block entry to foreign citizens. It'll be interesting to see how Congress responds to Pres. Obama's demands to dramatically increase refugee resettlement during the lame-duck when they'll have to pass a spending bill to keep the government running past Dec. 9.

Fifth, Trump promises to have legislation introduced within the first 100 days that fully funds the building of a border fence (with Mexico paying for it) and includes Kate's Law that would establish minimum sentencing guidelines for aliens who illegally re-enter the United States.

Just as important will be who Trump appoints to certain key positions throughout his Administration. The Attorney General, DHS Secretary, and Secretary of State will all play key roles in ending illegal immigration and reducing overall immigration numbers.

For Roy's reaction to Trump's election and a list of things Trump promised to do, read his new blog here. I've also posted a blog reviewing what happened in the House and Senate races and what impacts there may be for immigration.

 
 


 

You haven't voted yet? Read this!

Alert date: 
2016-11-05
Alert body: 

NOTE:  It's too late to MAIL your ballot.  You must deliver it to an authorized, secure dropsite.

If you have not yet voted, read this one article before casting your vote:

It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!, by Tom Tancredo, Breitbart.
 
Read the full article. Here are some excerpts:
 
In the early days of Bill Clinton's campaign to oust President George Herbert Walker Bush from the White House in 1992, his campaign strategists concocted a slogan that defined Bush as a failure and set the guardrails for the Democrats' entire campaign: "It's the economy, stupid."
 
It stuck, and as they say, the rest is history.
 
... I, Tom Tancredo, the man who has championed border controls and immigration enforcement more than any other national figure, say: no big deal. It's the Supreme Court, stupid!
 
... what I care about most - and what all patriots and constitutionalists should tattoo on their eyelids - is that Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton, must make the next Supreme Court appointments.
 
Yes, I know: There is no way to guarantee that Donald Trump will make the same appointments to the Supreme Court that Ted Cruz or Tom Tancredo would make.
 
Republican President Richard Nixon gave us the author of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, and George H.W. Bush gave us David Souter. But what is guaranteed is that Trump's appointments to federal courts will be 1,000 percent better than Hillary Clinton's. (Can you spell Associate Justice B-a-r-a-c-k -O-b-a-m-a?)
 
Constitutional conservatives understand that our immigration laws are meaningless if they are not enforced. It will mean nothing if President Trump orders a wall built from Brownsville to San Diego if a lawsuit brought by a dozen leftist groups results in a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down that order as contrary to the Constitution.
 
The same is true for every single important issue you can name, from education choice to refugee admissions, from criminal justice reform to repeal of Obamacare. If Hillary Clinton is allowed to remake the entire Supreme Court for a generation in the image of Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor, our Constitution is dead and salt poured on the gravesite.
 
What is most important - and most important by a factor of one hundred - is that the Scalia vacancy and every other vacancy that occurs be filled by a judge who respects the Constitution as a restraint on Congress and the President, not a blank slate for creating a socialist utopia of "transformative justice."
 
Yes, immigration policy is one of the two most important challenges that will confront the president sworn in on January 20, 2017. The other is Islamist terrorism. I hope Donald Trump spells out ambitious, sensible and effective plans for meeting those two challenges.
 
... What I care about very much and what I know for a 100 percent certainty is that those decisions and proposals by President Donald Trump will be one thousand percent more consistent with my constitutional principles than the decisions made by President Hillary Clinton.
 
What is not in the spotlight of media coverage of the campaign is this truth: Even if Trump and Congress deadlock on new immigration policies, all President Trump has to do to change direction radically is to order the robust enforcement of our current immigration laws. Bingo!
 
... After eight years of Obama's government by executive decree, not only in immigration but across a broad spectrum of government programs, our Constitution is in tatters.
 
If we invite four more years of this lawlessness with a Supreme Court clearing the way for every new insult to American sovereignty and the rule of law, there will be no possibility of returning to the constitutional government we inherited from ten generations of patriots.
 
... What we need most is the conscientious enforcement of existing immigration laws that have been subverted and castrated by Obama.
 
After a housecleaning and restaffing the upper echelons of the Department of Homeland Security, a simple order from President Trump to the 25,000 officers of the US Border Patrol would be sufficient to halt 95 percent of the illegal traffic across our border. That order would be only ten words: Do your job, and call me if you need anything.
 
The really good news is that such simple policies - the actual enforcement of existing immigration laws - do not require new legislation. They do not require cutting a deal with Senator Chuck Schumer or the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. What the enforcement of immigration laws does require is a Supreme Court that respects the Constitution and the President's oath to take care that laws be faithfully executed.
 
If Clinton's Supreme Court reverses the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court ruling that invalidated Obama's "executive amnesty," then new immigration laws will be meaningless because they will mean whatever President Hillary Clinton wants them to mean.
 
In 2016, we have come to a day or reckoning in American politics. Patriots must take sides, and also must take up arms. In politics, our arms are our votes. Those votes will not be cast for mythical perfect candidates, for better candidates that should have won or might have won, but didn't. We have to vote for one of two candidates who have a chance to take that oath of office on a cold day in January.
 
For myself, when I cast my ballot, I will not be asking whether Donald Trump's immigration policies are 100 percent in tune with my own. It is enough that whatever policies he finally adopts, my country has a 1,000 percent better chance of survival than if Hillary Clinton is making Supreme Court appointments designed to complete Obama's dream of remaking America into something the patriots who died in battle at Bunker Hill, Omaha Beach and Fallujah would not recognize.

 

Forget the fence — E-Verify shuts down illegal immigration's magnet

Ten years ago today, President George W. Bush signed into law the Secure Fence Act, a bill requiring the kind of 700-mile partition on our southern border so controversially called for by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

The mandate to build double-layered fencing, which was designed to stop not only illegal border-crossers on foot, but also drug-traffickers by car, passed breezily in both chambers and garnered a supportive vote from Hillary Clinton, then in her fifth year as New York’s junior senator.

Trump’s proposal, of course, shows we never actually got what our reps voted for, a scenario known all too well by immigration-control advocates.

While an advisor to former Mexican president Vicente Fox in the early 2000s, Fredo Arias-King led a delegation to discuss immigration policy with members of Congress; what he was told in closed-door exchanges has become lore in restrictionist circles.

Several dozen congressmen from either side of the aisle not only candidly voiced their absolute support for open-borders, but also admitted their active abuse of our immigration laws...

In any case, a reaffirmation of the decade-old Secure Fence Act is likely not even necessary...

The biggest magnet for illegal immigration is employment: the “linchpin” to deterrence according to the former chair of the 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform, Barbara Jordan.

In Mexico, for instance, a relatively wealthy country compared to many other immigration-sources, average wages are just 10 percent of what they are in America. E-Verify would go farthest in securing this linchpin, certainly more so than a longer and higher fence.

Co-administered by DHS and the Social Security Administration, the ‘electronic verification’ system allows employers to verify that their potential employees are actually authorized to work in the country...

Where it’s been most comprehensive, the results have been striking.

When Arizona made E-Verify mandatory in 2008, it was so successful in pushing illegal aliens back home that the neighboring Mexican state of Sonora sent a delegation to Tucson to complain that they couldn’t handle the returning influx.

Their burden was likely vast, judging by the immediate benefits experienced by Arizona. The state’s public school system immediately began experiencing relief with a $50 million surplus suddenly appearing on the books that year. Apartment buildings reported alien-tenants moving out by the thousands (leading, no doubt, to more affordable rents for American residents).

And, although the law went into effect around the time of the financial crisis, when many illegal aliens likely had additional motivations to leave, researchers have found that Arizona had by far the largest decline (20 percent) in illegal-alien figures in the country, breaking the ceiling, no doubt, on long-depressed working-class wages in that state.

Other benefits of the program abound. Since E-Verify uses government data rather than documents provided by potential employees, it removes the possibility of Social Security and identity fraud, a chronically underreported crime that’s created a giant mafia-run black market and which disproportionately hurts American children.

The system also reduces the threat of discrimination against applicants...

But like any law, a federal E-Verify mandate is good only to the extent it’s enforced.

Currently, it is illegal for employers to “knowingly hire” an illegal alien — a prohibition set out in 1986’s Immigration Reform Control Act (IRCA)...

A drywall company in Washington state recently became the first such defendant sentenced in the entire history of that state’s western district court. The attorney for the company pleaded with the judge that IRCA after all was a law “broken daily” and that his client’s “employment practices have been indistinguishable from thousands of other employers nationwide who have ignored IRCA at no peril.”

Returning the country to a nation of laws will require an amped up vigilance on the part of its citizenry. They’ll have to show the political elite that if they continue to ignore the American people, it will be at their peril, not America’s. 

Smith is an attorney in Washington, D.C.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - E-Verify