Thread: Federal Court Rules in Favor of Mandatory E-Verify for Feder

Congratulations
to the hard working, good citizens of Maryland...
A Small victory but keep em coming. Many small victories in battle can help win a war...


Federal Court Rules in Favor of Mandatory E-Verify for Federal Contractors
Thursday, August 27, 2009, 1:20 PM


Congressmen Who...

Voted to Table Sessions' E-Verify Amendment to Homeland Security Spending Bill
Updated Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 12:25 PM
July 8, 2009 - Senate Vote to Table Sessions Amendment to DHS Appropriations (tabling failed; amendment then passed voice vote)
A "Yes" vote to table is a vote against the mandatory use of E-Verify for federal contractors. A "No" vote to table is a vote for the mandatory use of E-Verify for federal contractors. Voted YES Count: 44 Voted NO Count: 53 Akaka (HI)
Bayh (IN)
Begich (AK)
Bennet, M. (CO)
Bingaman (NM)
Boxer (CA)
Brown (OH)
Burris (IL)
Cantwell (WA)
Cardin (MD)
Carper (DE)
Casey (PA)
Dodd (CT)
Durbin (IL)
Feingold (WI)
Feinstein (CA)
Franken (MN)
Gillibrand (NY)
Inouye (HI)
Johnson (SD)
Kaufman (DE)
Kerry (MA)
Kohl (WI)
Lautenberg (NJ)
Leahy (VT)
Levin (MI)
Menendez (NJ)
Merkley (OR)
Mikulski (MD)
Murray (WA)
Nelson, Bill (FL)
Reed (RI)
Reid (NV)
Sanders (VT)
Schumer (NY)
Shaheen (NH)
Specter (PA)
Stabenow (MI)
Udall, M. (CO)
Udall, T. (NM)
Warner (VA)
Webb (VA)
Whitehouse (RI)
Wyden (OR)
Alexander (TN)
Barrasso (WY)
Baucus (MT)
Bennett (UT)
Bond (MO)
Brownback (KS)
Bunning (KY)
Burr (NC)
Chambliss (GA)
Coburn (OK)
Cochran (MS)
Collins (ME)
Conrad (ND)
Corker (TN)
Cornyn (TX)
Crapo (ID)
DeMint (SC)
Dorgan (ND)
Ensign (NV)
Enzi (WY)
Graham (SC)
Grassley (IA)
Gregg (NH)
Hagan (NC)
Hatch (UT)
Hutchison (TX)
Inhofe (OK)
Isakson (GA)
Johanns (NE)
Klobuchar (MN)
Kyl (AZ)
Landrieu (LA)
Lieberman (CT)
Lincoln (AR)
Lugar (IN)
Martinez (FL)
McCain (AZ)
McCaskill (MO)
McConnell (KY)
Murkowski (AK)
Nelson, Ben (NE)
Pryor (AR)
Risch (ID)
Roberts (KS)
Rockefeller (WV)
Sessions (AL)
Shelby (AL)
Snowe (ME)
Tester (MT)
Thune (SD)
Vitter (LA)
Voinovich (OH)
Wicker (MS)
Sessions Amendment #1371 The U.S. District Court in Maryland ruled in favor of an executive order first issued during the Bush Administration that would require all federal government contractors to use E-Verify. The order was delayed once by Pres. Bush and three times by Pres. Obama while they were awaiting the outcome of lawsuits filed by various business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Under the court's ruling, all federal contractors holding contracts of more than $100,000, regardless of size, will be required to use E-Verify, beginning on Sept. 8. Subcontractors will also be subject to the rule if their portion of the contract is more than $3,000. The court rejected all arguments presented by the plaintiffs.

Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. wrote that "the decision to be a government contractor is voluntary" and "no one has a right to be a government contractor."

Last month, the Department of Homeland Security agreed to implement the rule, and it's been backed by the Senate. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) offered an amendment that was adopted to the Homeland Security spending bill that would require all federal contractors to E-Verify on new hires. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) offered another amendment that was also adopted to the same bill that would require federal contractors to use E-Verify on all existing employees as well. Both amendments, however, must make it through a conference committee in the fall that will rectify the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.

After the court's ruling, U.S. Chamber of Commerce official Robin Conrad said that the Chamber is obviously disappointed with the decision.

"Our concern is the practical impact on employers ... employers will be required to reverify existing employees who work on federal contracts, which has the potential to impact hundreds of thousands of workers."

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) applauded the court's decision.

"There are more than 12 million citizens and legal immigrants unemployed, and even higher-than-average unemployment rates among blacks and U.S.-born Hispanics. It would be wrong to allow jobs that should go to them to go to illegal immigrants instead. I am hopeful that the Chamber will choose not to appeal this decision. The Chamber should stand up for American workers and encourage all its member businesses to enroll in E-Verify."

Numbers Link..Sorry if this is a dup and Im sure many of you have seen it on NumbersUSA...

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/ ... order.html

My Faxes at Numbersusa were sent... please, everyone, if you have not sent your faxes yet at numbersusa, do so immediately!!!

Someone please explain why a yes vote to table means a no vote on E-Verify. It seems nothing in Congress is straightforward. The vote should be yes to use E-Verify or no, not to use it. I understand quite well that tabling means delaying consideration, but just think how much time Congress could save by not voting on tabling and then voting for cloture and then going to committees, and then finally voting in one chamber which has to go to conference committee, as lobbyists write midnight amendments.

Originally Posted by vortex

Someone please explain why a yes vote to table means a no vote on E-Verify. It seems nothing in Congress is straightforward. The vote should be yes to use E-Verify or no, not to use it. I understand quite well that tabling means delaying consideration, but just think how much time Congress could save by not voting on tabling and then voting for cloture and then going to committees, and then finally voting in one chamber which has to go to conference committee, as lobbyists write midnight amendments.

A yes vote to table means it's scrapped and not allowed to be voted on. It's laid on the table and left there and goes no further.

vortex wrote,

Someone please explain why a yes vote to table means a no vote on E-Verify. It seems nothing in Congress is straightforward. The vote should be yes to use E-Verify or no, not to use it. I understand quite well that tabling means delaying consideration, but just think how much time Congress could save by not voting on tabling and then voting for cloture and then going to committees, and then finally voting in one chamber which has to go to conference committee, as lobbyists write midnight amendments.

Darn it vortex, what are trying to do to the status quo? You sound like you are advocating for simplicity and (?)common(?) sense.

How dare you use the word "straightforward" and "Congress" in the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence.

Good shot, roundabout!
When I say at a meeting I want to throw this idea on the table, it doesn't mean that the idea is immediately dead.
Of course, never in my business life have I had to read thousands of pages of legalese overnight, only to find what I read was changed and I have no idea what I vote on.
Congress is a mess.

vortex, I like your last sentence,

vortex wrote,
"Congress is a mess."

Lots of work to do.

Moving to News from General Discussion and amending the subject line to read as the title of the article is to help avoid duplicates.
Thank you.

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-4479--0-0.html