Thread: Why Building the Wall Should Not Be Trump’s No. 1 Immigration Priority

by MARK KRIKORIAN December 19, 2016 4:00 AM

Mandating E-Verify and ending visa overstays will do more good, more quickly.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article first appeared in the December 19, 2016, issue of National Review.

Ironically, Donald Trump’s marquee immigration proposal — a border wall, which Mexico will pay for — is the part of his immigration platform least likely to make much difference. This is not to say it’s infeasible or even ill advised. Only about one-third of the border with Mexico has any kind of fencing, and half of that consists merely of low-rise vehicle barriers intended to stop truck traffic; anyone can easily climb over or under them (as I myself have done on many occasions). And the president doesn’t need further authorization from Congress to build a physical barrier, although he would eventually need additional funding.

As to Mexico providing that funding, the campaign said this could happen through higher visa fees or a tax on remittances. The latter is long overdue regardless and already in place in Oklahoma, which taxes all personal out-of-state wire transfers but refunds 100 percent of the tax to those who file their annual tax returns, thus levying the tax only on illegal aliens. A national version of this fully refundable payment would be a fitting way of making illegal aliens help pay for immigration enforcement.

All that said, the problem at the border isn’t so much physical as political. While incremental improvements are needed in infrastructure, technology, and personnel, the Obama administration has rendered the long buildup at the border through the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations moot by simply waving illegal aliens across and letting them stay. This is no exaggeration; Brandon Judd, head of the Border Patrol agents’ union, testified before Congress last year that 80 percent of apprehended illegal aliens are being released into the United States. Ending this catch-and-release approach to border enforcement (item No. 2 on Trump’s ten-point list) is probably more important than the wall, and quicker to implement.

The other immigration initiative on the incoming administration’s to-do list that has drawn a lot of attention is Trump’s pledge to deport 2 to 3 million criminal aliens. This represented a move toward realism, away from his comments early in the campaign that all illegal aliens would have to be deported; Trump realized that, as Andrew C. McCarthy has written regarding immigration violations: “Our goal is never to extirpate crime problems. . . . Crime problems are managed, not eradicated.”

But deporting criminal aliens neglected under President Obama’s laxity is an essential part of such management. And the figure of 3 million is probably an undercount: Immigration and Customs Enforcement itself estimated several years ago that there were 1.9 million deportable aliens with criminal convictions. Add to that close to a million people who were ordered deported but absconded, plus other alien criminals who weren’t convicted only because they jumped bail or were released by sanctuary cities, and there will be plenty to do with the enforcement resources now underutilized because of the huge decline in interior deportations under Obama.

There are two parts of any effective immigration-enforcement plan that are more important than either the Mexican border or criminal-alien removals: turning off the jobs magnet and ensuring that lawful foreign visitors actually go home when their authorized time is up. Both are included in the president-elect’s enforcement outline, but they need more attention — and administrative focus — than they have received.

Making legal status a labor standard, through rules such as those that provide overtime pay and prohibit employing child labor, is the most important single thing that can be done to reduce the incentive to immigrate illegally. Practically, that means requiring use of the free online system E-Verify for all new hires. E-Verify enables employers to check whether the ID information provided by their new hire is authentic. It is now voluntary; about half of last year’s new hires were screened through E-Verify. Making it mandatory will require an act of Congress. E-Verify is not a silver bullet — despite continuous improvements, some illegals still slip through, and a significant share (though a minority) of illegals work off the books. But any immigration-enforcement overhaul must include mandatory nationwide use of E-Verify if it is to have any chance of success.

The second enforcement initiative, policing visas and the visitors who use them, isn’t the arcane issue some may think. The old rule of thumb used to be that 60 percent of the illegal population snuck across the border and 40 percent overstayed visas, making visa-tracking important but secondary. New research from the Center for Migration Studies (no relation to my Center for Immigration Studies) found the reverse — now close to 60 percent of the 1,000 new illegal aliens settling in the U.S. each day are believed to be visa overstayers.

This needs to be addressed at both the front end and the back end. That is to say, the State Department needs to reduce its issuing of “nonimmigrant” (i.e., temporary) visas to people who are likely to stay here illegally in the first place, and the Department of Homeland Security needs to implement a check-out system for foreign visitors so we can know in real time who didn’t leave when he was supposed to.

Our nation’s visa officers abroad are America’s other Border Patrol, but State Department leadership views them more as travel agents. As with the actual Border Patrol, this is a problem mainly of management and policy, not resources. The relevant law clearly says that every applicant for a temporary visa is to be assumed to be an intended illegal alien until he proves otherwise. In practice, the burden of proof is often reversed. Since 9/11, security screening has been taken more seriously, but preventing non-terrorist or non-national-security-related visa overstays is simply not a priority. In fact, an earlier version of the Foreign Affairs Manual, the body of regulations that govern the State Department, included this quote from a Truman-era immigration commission:
Shutting off the opportunity to come to the United States actually is a crushing deprivation to many prospective immigrants. Very often it destroys the hopes and aspirations of a lifetime, and it frequently operates not only against the individual immediately but also bears heavily upon his family in and out of the United States.

This perspective must change if immigration laws are to be enforced. Every visitor who overstays a visa represents a mistake by the State Department. If you think of the visa process as a “decision factory,” the decisions that result in overstays are analogous to products with manufacturing defects. And the defect rate is quite high; a long-awaited DHS report released in January found that more than half a million foreigners didn’t leave when they were supposed to in 2015, and even using DHS’s deceptive math (it inflated the denominator), that represents a defect rate of 10,000 parts per million, or 1 percent, which would be unacceptably high in any manufacturing process.

But even if State wanted to adopt a data-driven approach to reducing visa defects, getting data is hard, which is one of the chief reasons to push for the completion of an exit-tracking system for visitors. The DHS report on overstays is notable in part because there’s no routine source of such information; DHS itself admitted that “the process of matching data to determine overstays has been extremely difficult.” A fully functional exit-tracking system is essential. Congress first mandated such a system in 1996 and has re-mandated it seven times since. Janet Napolitano, Obama’s first DHS secretary, was openly disdainful of exit-tracking, and only in the past few years has the process of development even begun. No new law is needed — only consistent attention and pressure from the White House, Congress, and outside groups.

A comprehensive immigration-enforcement program would have many additional elements: restarting routine enforcement at the workplace and elsewhere by canceling Obama’s unilateral edicts that gut the law; reining in sanctuary cities; pressuring recalcitrant countries to take back their own citizens when deported; ending tax subsidies that effectively pay illegal aliens to stay here; and more.

But as important as those measures are, two tasks must take pride of place: denying illegals jobs and making sure visitors go home. Without significant progress on those two fronts, we cannot prevent illegal immigration.

— Mark Krikorian is the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...verstays-first

Use E-Verify.....stop all Welfare, Food Stamps and Section 8 Housing for all illegals......This should all be for CITIZENS Only!!!!!!! If they can't get a job...can't get food....and no place to live....they will leave on their own!!! And English only!!!!

Trump will get rid of all the nonsense going on with the laws. He will enforce the laws we have, he will change rules and regulations where needed, he will cancel executive orders, issue some of his own where applicable, he will deport visa overstays and start deporting all the others starting with criminal illegal aliens. He will also purge illegal aliens from welfare programs and without a doubt will have a team that enforces laws against illegal hiring.

With all that is there a chance we don't need the wall? It would be wonderful if with all that we don't need the wall, but I believe we still need the wall. The wall is about a $10 billion expense. So what's the fuss? The State Department lost $6 billion, the Defense Department can't find $!28 billion. If we spend $10 billion on a wall, we have the wall, we can see the wall, we can visit the wall, when we spend $10 billion on the wall, we have a wall. Why the big fuss over the wall? Especially when Trump is going to get Mexico to pay for the wall, one way or another? Stop worrying about the wall. We're going to have a nice tall sturdy, deep, wonderful beautiful wall.

The one thing about e-Verify is the fact that it apparently doesn't work. It's been in place for several years, and more and more are still working in this country.

It sounds good, but it just isn't 'working - at least not to any degree that can be seen.

The biggest problem is lack of will on the part of the
government and workers to enforce these laws. Hopefully, that will change.

We have to change things in our own states, cities, etc. All of the people running these governments obviously do not want to do anything about. If they did, we would see some results.

When you get a copy of your birth certificate in Texas, it looks like a child's honor roll certificate with almost no information and is printed from the computer. It is not a copy, of the original.

It is a farce of an instrument that anyone with a computer can create all day long. All they need to do is either steal, or have made a seal. Or better yet, how many people actually look at a seal, to see if it is real. It could be any seal.

The government needs to match up the 1099 with filed tax returns. That would nab a lot of them as well as discover the employer.











Check out the SS numbers when they file for welfare.

nntrixie wrote (excerpt):

The one thing about e-Verify is the fact that it apparently doesn't work. It's been in place for several years, and more and more are still working in this country.

E-Verify needs to be part of a comprehensive immigration enforcement plan. No law has passed the U.S. Congress to require the usage of E-Verify nationally. Those using it are only doing so voluntarily. E-Verify isn't a solution by itself, but neither is any other single item. Greatly reducing illegal immigration will take a combination of things and a nationally mandated E-Verify program would be very useful.

MAP OF STATES WITH E-VERIFY LAWS



PUBLISHED: Fri, MAY 27th 2016 @ 8:00 am EDT
The following map identifies the states that have taken action against the hiring of illegal aliens by requiring some (or all) businesses to use E-Verify. States in red or orange have taken no steps to curb the hiring of illegal workers who wish to compete for jobs with American workers. States with all other colors have taken some steps to curb illegal hiring.


Alabama
HB 56 - Passed in 2011, HB 56 is regarded as many as the nation's toughest immigration enforcement law passed at the state level. HB 56 requires all employers, public and private, to use E-Verify by April 2012 to ensure the workplace eligibility of all new hires. It also requires E-Verify use as a condition of being awarded any government contract, grant or incentive. The penalty for noncompliance with the E-Verify mandate is a suspension or revocation of a business license, or loss of a contract, grant or incentive. Back to Top

Arizona
HB 2779/HB 2745 - Passed in 2007, HB 2779 prohibits employers from knowingly hiring undocumented workers and requires all employers to use E-Verify, effective January 1, 2008. It was followed up in 2008 with HB 2745, which prohibits government contracts to any businesses not using E-Verify, effective May 1, 2008. Penalty is suspension or revocation of a business license or contract cancellation Back to Top

California
AB 1236 - In October, 2011, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law AB1236, which prohibits municipalities from enacting or maintaining mandatory E-Verify ordinances. The measure voided a number of ordinances already on the books. Back to Top

Colorado
HB 1343/SB 193 - Passed in 2006, HB 1343 requires prospective state and local government contractors to either use E-Verify or participate in an alternative state program concerning the examination of work documents. It also prohibits state and local government agencies from entering into contracts with employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens.

In 2008, SB 193 extended the requirement to existing state contractors and, under the alternative program, established a new requirement to submit for each new hire an affirmation that legal work status was examined. Penalty is contract cancellation and possible debarment. Back to Top

Florida
Executive Orders - Effective Jan. 2011, Executive Order (EO) 11-02 requires E-Verify used by all state agencies and contractors assigned to perform work pursuant to a state agency contract. EO 11-116 clarifies that the E-Verify requirement for state contractors applies to "all contracts for the provision of goods and services to the state in excess of nominal value." Penalties include possible denial of future projects. Back to Top

Georgia
SB 529/HB 87 - Passed in 2006, SB 529 requires the phased-in use of E-Verify by public employers, contractors and subcontractors through July 1, 2009. HB 87, passed in 2011, requires all private businesses with more than 10 employees to use E-Verify as of July 1, 2013. Failure to comply could result in the suspension or denial of a business license, occupational tax certificate, or other document required to operate a business in the state. Back to Top

Idaho
Executive Order - In May, 2009, Gov. Butch Otter signed EO 2009-10, which led to regulations requiring all state agencies and contractors to use E-Verify. Penalties include contract cancellation. Back to Top

Illinois
HB 1774/HB 1743/SB 1133 - HB 1744 barred Illinois companies from enrolling in E-Verify pending the resolution of accuracy and timeliness issues. A court case invalidated the bar and led to the enactment of HB 1743, which allows companies to use E-Verify but creates privacy and antidiscrimination protections for workers when employers violate E-Verify procedures. Illinois also enacted SB 1133, which prohibits the state or localities from requiring employers to use E-Verify. Back to Top

Indiana
SB 590 - Passed in 2011, SB 590 requires state and local government agencies and contractors to use E-Verify. The bill also creates a state tax credit incentive for private employers to use E-Verify. Back to the Top

Kansas
Executive Order by the Office of the Secretary of State which has used E-Verify -- and has required all contractors with that office to use E-Verify -- since 2011. But the rest of Kansas state government has declined to follow. Back to the Top

Louisiana
HB 342/HB 646 - Passed in 2011, HB 342 requires all state and local government contractors to use E-Verify. Penalties include contact cancellation and debarment. HB 646 requires public and private employers to either use E-Verify or check and retain acceptable work authorization documents. Those using E-Verify are not subject to civil penalties if an employee is later found to be working unlawfully. Back to Top

Minnesota
Executive Order - In January 2008, Governor Tim Pawlenty issued an executive order requiring E-Verify use by all state agencies and companies seeking a state contract in excess of $50,000. The executive order expired 90 days after Pawlenty left office but a state budget deal subsequently reinstated the state contractor requirement effective July 20, 2011. Back to Top

Mississippi
SB 2988 - Passed in 2008, SB 2988 requires public and private employers to participate in E-Verify by July 2011. Penalties include license suspension and contract debarment. Back to the Top

Missouri
HB 1549 - Passed in 2008, HB 1549 requires all public employers, businesses with a state contract or grant in excess of $5,000 or any business receiving a state-administered or subsidized tax credit, tax abatement or loan to use E-Verify. Penalties include loss of a business license or contract. Back to Top

Nebraska
LB 403 - Passed in 2009, LB 403 requires state and local governments and contractors to use E-Verify effective October 1, 2009. The bill also includes incentives for private employers to use E-Verify. Back to Top

North Carolina
HB 318/SB 1523/HB 36 – Passed in 2015, HB 318 requires all state and local government contractors to use E-Verify. A 2006 bill, SB 1523, requires all state agencies, offices, and universities to use E-Verify by March 1, 2007. Passed in 2011, HB 36 requires all counties, cities and private employers with more than 25 employees to use E-Verify by July 2013. Seasonal workers are not required to be verified through E-Verify. Penalties can include civil fines. Back to Top

Oklahoma
HB 1804 - Passed in 2007, HB 1804 requires public employers, contractors and subcontractors to participate in E-Verify and requires income tax withholding for independent contractors who do not have valid Social Security numbers. Back to Top

Pennsylvania
SB 627 – Passed in 2011, SB 627 requires all public works contractors and subcontractors with contracts of $25,000 or greater to use E-Verify by January 1, 2013. Penalties include debarment. Back to Top

Rhode Island
Executive Orders - In March 2008, Governor Carcieri issued an executive order requiring state agencies, grantees, contractors and their subcontractors and vendors to use E-Verify. Shortly after taking office in 2011, Gov. Lincoln Chafee rescinded Gov. Carcieri's executive order. Back to Top

South Carolina
HB 4400/SB 20 - Passed in 2008, HB 4400 requires the mandatory use of E-Verify for all public and private employers by July 1, 2010. After a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision, SB 20 replaced the law’s civil penalties for noncompliance with loss of a business license. Back to Top

Tennessee
HB 1378/SB 1965 - Passed in 2011, HB 1378 requires all public and private employers with more than 6 employees to either use E-Verify or check and retain acceptable work authorization documents. On April 21, 2016, the Governor signed into law SB 1965, which requires mandatory E-Verify use for all employers with 50 or more employees effective January 1, 2017. Back to Top

Texas
Executive Order/SB 374 - In Dec. 2014, Texas Governor Rick Perry issued RP-80, which requires E-Verify use by state agencies and contractors, at least with respect to those employees assigned to the contract. In 2015 Texas enacted SB 374, which requires state agencies and institutions of higher education to use E-Verify as of September 1, 2015. The law did not require state contractors to enroll but the Attorney General issued a subsequent finding that it does not negate the related requirement under Gov. Perry’s executive order. Back to Top

Utah
SB 81/SB 251/HB 118 - SB 81, passed in 2008 and made effective on July 1, 2009, requires public employers, public contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify and makes it illegal to discharge a lawful employee while retaining an unauthorized alien in the same job category. Penalties include debarment for contractors. Passed in 2010, SB 251 require​d ​private employers with 15 ​or more ​employees to use E-Verify by July 1, 2011. ​The measure did not provide for non-compliance penalties or enforcement. In 2011 ​Utah enacted ​HB 116, which establishes a state guest worker program but also complicates SB 251’s requirements by creating Verify Utah, an alternate verification program. Technically, the requirement for private employers with 15 ​or more employees to use ​E-Verify still exists, but cannot be considered a hard mandate like in other states since there is no enforcement and the guest worker program, lacking a needed federal waiver, was never established. Back to Top

Virginia
HB 737/HB 1859 - Passed in 2010, HB 737 requires all state agencies to use E-Verify by December 1, 2012. Passed in March 2011, HB 1859 (combined with SB 1049) requires all state contractors with at least 50 employees and a contract worth at least $50,000 to use E-Verify. Penalties include debarment for contractors. Back to Top

https://www.numbersusa.com/resource-...rify-state-map

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

MAP OF STATES WITH E-VERIFY LAWS



PUBLISHED: Fri, MAY 27th 2016 @ 8:00 am EDT
The following map identifies the states that have taken action against the hiring of illegal aliens by requiring some (or all) businesses to use E-Verify. States in red or orange have taken no steps to curb the hiring of illegal workers who wish to compete for jobs with American workers. States with all other colors have taken some steps to curb illegal hiring.


Alabama
HB 56 - Passed in 2011, HB 56 is regarded as many as the nation's toughest immigration enforcement law passed at the state level. HB 56 requires all employers, public and private, to use E-Verify by April 2012 to ensure the workplace eligibility of all new hires. It also requires E-Verify use as a condition of being awarded any government contract, grant or incentive. The penalty for noncompliance with the E-Verify mandate is a suspension or revocation of a business license, or loss of a contract, grant or incentive. Back to Top

Arizona
HB 2779/HB 2745 - Passed in 2007, HB 2779 prohibits employers from knowingly hiring undocumented workers and requires all employers to use E-Verify, effective January 1, 2008. It was followed up in 2008 with HB 2745, which prohibits government contracts to any businesses not using E-Verify, effective May 1, 2008. Penalty is suspension or revocation of a business license or contract cancellation Back to Top

California
AB 1236 - In October, 2011, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law AB1236, which prohibits municipalities from enacting or maintaining mandatory E-Verify ordinances. The measure voided a number of ordinances already on the books. Back to Top

Colorado
HB 1343/SB 193 - Passed in 2006, HB 1343 requires prospective state and local government contractors to either use E-Verify or participate in an alternative state program concerning the examination of work documents. It also prohibits state and local government agencies from entering into contracts with employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens.

In 2008, SB 193 extended the requirement to existing state contractors and, under the alternative program, established a new requirement to submit for each new hire an affirmation that legal work status was examined. Penalty is contract cancellation and possible debarment. Back to Top

Florida
Executive Orders - Effective Jan. 2011, Executive Order (EO) 11-02 requires E-Verify used by all state agencies and contractors assigned to perform work pursuant to a state agency contract. EO 11-116 clarifies that the E-Verify requirement for state contractors applies to "all contracts for the provision of goods and services to the state in excess of nominal value." Penalties include possible denial of future projects. Back to Top

Georgia
SB 529/HB 87 - Passed in 2006, SB 529 requires the phased-in use of E-Verify by public employers, contractors and subcontractors through July 1, 2009. HB 87, passed in 2011, requires all private businesses with more than 10 employees to use E-Verify as of July 1, 2013. Failure to comply could result in the suspension or denial of a business license, occupational tax certificate, or other document required to operate a business in the state. Back to Top

Idaho
Executive Order - In May, 2009, Gov. Butch Otter signed EO 2009-10, which led to regulations requiring all state agencies and contractors to use E-Verify. Penalties include contract cancellation. Back to Top

Illinois
HB 1774/HB 1743/SB 1133 - HB 1744 barred Illinois companies from enrolling in E-Verify pending the resolution of accuracy and timeliness issues. A court case invalidated the bar and led to the enactment of HB 1743, which allows companies to use E-Verify but creates privacy and antidiscrimination protections for workers when employers violate E-Verify procedures. Illinois also enacted SB 1133, which prohibits the state or localities from requiring employers to use E-Verify. Back to Top

Indiana
SB 590 - Passed in 2011, SB 590 requires state and local government agencies and contractors to use E-Verify. The bill also creates a state tax credit incentive for private employers to use E-Verify. Back to the Top

Kansas
Executive Order by the Office of the Secretary of State which has used E-Verify -- and has required all contractors with that office to use E-Verify -- since 2011. But the rest of Kansas state government has declined to follow. Back to the Top

Louisiana
HB 342/HB 646 - Passed in 2011, HB 342 requires all state and local government contractors to use E-Verify. Penalties include contact cancellation and debarment. HB 646 requires public and private employers to either use E-Verify or check and retain acceptable work authorization documents. Those using E-Verify are not subject to civil penalties if an employee is later found to be working unlawfully. Back to Top

Minnesota
Executive Order - In January 2008, Governor Tim Pawlenty issued an executive order requiring E-Verify use by all state agencies and companies seeking a state contract in excess of $50,000. The executive order expired 90 days after Pawlenty left office but a state budget deal subsequently reinstated the state contractor requirement effective July 20, 2011. Back to Top

Mississippi
SB 2988 - Passed in 2008, SB 2988 requires public and private employers to participate in E-Verify by July 2011. Penalties include license suspension and contract debarment. Back to the Top

Missouri
HB 1549 - Passed in 2008, HB 1549 requires all public employers, businesses with a state contract or grant in excess of $5,000 or any business receiving a state-administered or subsidized tax credit, tax abatement or loan to use E-Verify. Penalties include loss of a business license or contract. Back to Top

Nebraska
LB 403 - Passed in 2009, LB 403 requires state and local governments and contractors to use E-Verify effective October 1, 2009. The bill also includes incentives for private employers to use E-Verify. Back to Top

North Carolina
HB 318/SB 1523/HB 36 – Passed in 2015, HB 318 requires all state and local government contractors to use E-Verify. A 2006 bill, SB 1523, requires all state agencies, offices, and universities to use E-Verify by March 1, 2007. Passed in 2011, HB 36 requires all counties, cities and private employers with more than 25 employees to use E-Verify by July 2013. Seasonal workers are not required to be verified through E-Verify. Penalties can include civil fines. Back to Top

Oklahoma
HB 1804 - Passed in 2007, HB 1804 requires public employers, contractors and subcontractors to participate in E-Verify and requires income tax withholding for independent contractors who do not have valid Social Security numbers. Back to Top

Pennsylvania
SB 627 – Passed in 2011, SB 627 requires all public works contractors and subcontractors with contracts of $25,000 or greater to use E-Verify by January 1, 2013. Penalties include debarment. Back to Top

Rhode Island
Executive Orders - In March 2008, Governor Carcieri issued an executive order requiring state agencies, grantees, contractors and their subcontractors and vendors to use E-Verify. Shortly after taking office in 2011, Gov. Lincoln Chafee rescinded Gov. Carcieri's executive order. Back to Top

South Carolina
HB 4400/SB 20 - Passed in 2008, HB 4400 requires the mandatory use of E-Verify for all public and private employers by July 1, 2010. After a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision, SB 20 replaced the law’s civil penalties for noncompliance with loss of a business license. Back to Top

Tennessee
HB 1378/SB 1965 - Passed in 2011, HB 1378 requires all public and private employers with more than 6 employees to either use E-Verify or check and retain acceptable work authorization documents. On April 21, 2016, the Governor signed into law SB 1965, which requires mandatory E-Verify use for all employers with 50 or more employees effective January 1, 2017. Back to Top

Texas
Executive Order/SB 374 - In Dec. 2014, Texas Governor Rick Perry issued RP-80, which requires E-Verify use by state agencies and contractors, at least with respect to those employees assigned to the contract. In 2015 Texas enacted SB 374, which requires state agencies and institutions of higher education to use E-Verify as of September 1, 2015. The law did not require state contractors to enroll but the Attorney General issued a subsequent finding that it does not negate the related requirement under Gov. Perry’s executive order. Back to Top

Utah
SB 81/SB 251/HB 118 - SB 81, passed in 2008 and made effective on July 1, 2009, requires public employers, public contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify and makes it illegal to discharge a lawful employee while retaining an unauthorized alien in the same job category. Penalties include debarment for contractors. Passed in 2010, SB 251 require​d ​private employers with 15 ​or more ​employees to use E-Verify by July 1, 2011. ​The measure did not provide for non-compliance penalties or enforcement. In 2011 ​Utah enacted ​HB 116, which establishes a state guest worker program but also complicates SB 251’s requirements by creating Verify Utah, an alternate verification program. Technically, the requirement for private employers with 15 ​or more employees to use ​E-Verify still exists, but cannot be considered a hard mandate like in other states since there is no enforcement and the guest worker program, lacking a needed federal waiver, was never established. Back to Top

Virginia
HB 737/HB 1859 - Passed in 2010, HB 737 requires all state agencies to use E-Verify by December 1, 2012. Passed in March 2011, HB 1859 (combined with SB 1049) requires all state contractors with at least 50 employees and a contract worth at least $50,000 to use E-Verify. Penalties include debarment for contractors. Back to Top

https://www.numbersusa.com/resource-...rify-state-map

The information you provided shows exactly why we need a E-Verify plan passed out of Congress and signed into law requiring its use nationally for every company, business, corporation, that employs more than 5 people. For example, look at California and Illinois, they have actually banned the use of E-Verify. Most others have only enacted it to require state, local government, and the contractors they do business with to use it. Virginia requires it for state and local government, but only require for state contractors that have 50 employees and do over $50,000 worth of business with the state. This hodgepodge of state laws just isn't cutting it. Like I said earlier, we need a nationally mandated requirement that reaches out and touches everyone that employs more than 5 people.

It's way past time for the federal government to step up on this and a visa entry-exit program that works.

It isn't working in Texas in regard to 'institutions of higher learning', that I know.

Also, in Texas it looks as if only the original contractor must use it - leaving the field open for any 'sub-contractor' like the manpower companies.

I don't know exactly how it works. I have asked some employers who have used it, but they just tell me it shows if someone is eligible to work.

What exactly does that mean and how do they arrive at that conclusion.

Perhaps if it is mandatory, it might work, depending on how it is written.

Of course, it's possible it does work, but the employers ignore it.

It isn't making a dent in Texas, that I know - state rules or not. You can see that on any road construction crew.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

. . . I don't know exactly how it works. I have asked some employers who have used it, but they just tell me it shows if someone is eligible to work.

What exactly does that mean and how do they arrive at that conclusion. . .

E-verify tells the employer if the Social Security number they entered matches the name they entered and if that person is legally eligible to work in the U.S. (Were they born here? Do they have citizenship? Do they have a green card? Those make them legally eligible to work.)

What E-verify can't do is tell the employer if that is YOUR Social Security card or if you stole it, or bought it from a document seller. Or if it is a fraudulent duplicate card with a real matching legal name and number on it (but not your real name), and you have some other fake IDs to back it up.

Exactly,

So it just tells you that the person to whom that card was issued is eligible to work - not the one presenting it.


An illegal was getting food stamps on my DIL SS# some years back.


About 10 years ago, my son was going to work for a company and the state agency that used to be Texas Employment (it now has some new name) did the paper work for all hires for that company.

My son waited as two illegals got their papers filled out, and left. As he sat down, the employee told my son, 'The ink isn't even dry on those SS#'s.'

Our state, every state, knows. They simply have no desire to do anything about it.

The law concerning contractors is an example. To many people they would think our state is actually doing something. Actually, what they are doing is exactly what our government(s) always do when faced with rising anger from the people. They pass laws that are just covers and loopholes so the people
who are paying them can continue on their way.



Have you ever thought about how many illegals might be using your information?

You won't know until some policeman stops you and finds there's a warrant out for bad checks, or some other kind of fraud. You won't know until you apply for credit and find you have bad debts on your credit.

When you do find out, it's up to you to fix it. The government makes us vulnerable to this kind of thing and then it's up to us to fix it.