A new e-Verify bill is due for a Vote in Congress. The bill is HR6633. The Employee Verification Amendment Act of 2008. (Go to Thomas to review it). Congress Daily Reports: House Lawmakers Reach Deal On Bill To Renew E-Verify
Thu. Jul 31, 2008by Chris Strohm
House lawmakers have reached an agreement on legislation that would renew a program that allows employers to verify the legal status of their workers, breaking a stalemate between two committees over concerns about funding for the Social Security Administration. The bill emerged from behind-the-scenes negotiations among lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. The two sides had been at odds over writing language that would both reauthorize the Homeland Security Department's E-Verify program and preserve Social Security's ability to meet its core mission of providing services to seniors and the disabled. The bill would reauthorize for five years the E-Verify program, which is an online tool that employers can use to confirm a worker's information against Homeland Security and Social Security databases. The Senate still must come to an agreement on companion legislation. Without congressional action, the program will expire in November. The House bill would maintain E-Verify as a voluntary program, even though some states have mandated its use....The bill, which was discussed briefly on the floor Wednesday night, might come up for a vote as early as today. "I think that this bipartisan bill is necessary to pass," said House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, said E-Verify has proven to be an effective tool in stopping illegal immigrants from getting jobs.
Thu. Jul 31, 2008by Chris Strohm
House lawmakers have reached an agreement on legislation that would renew a program that allows employers to verify the legal status of their workers, breaking a stalemate between two committees over concerns about funding for the Social Security Administration. The bill emerged from behind-the-scenes negotiations among lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. The two sides had been at odds over writing language that would both reauthorize the Homeland Security Department's E-Verify program and preserve Social Security's ability to meet its core mission of providing services to seniors and the disabled. The bill would reauthorize for five years the E-Verify program, which is an online tool that employers can use to confirm a worker's information against Homeland Security and Social Security databases. The Senate still must come to an agreement on companion legislation. Without congressional action, the program will expire in November. The House bill would maintain E-Verify as a voluntary program, even though some states have mandated its use....The bill, which was discussed briefly on the floor Wednesday night, might come up for a vote as early as today. "I think that this bipartisan bill is necessary to pass," said House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, said E-Verify has proven to be an effective tool in stopping illegal immigrants from getting jobs.
I am hearing there is bi-partisan (Rep, Dem, ANTI and PRO) support for this bill and that some in the Business Community support it as well. I am very curious as to why. I am going to leave my opinion out of it and let you, the viewers, tell me why it should or should not be supported.
Posts
21 comments:
It's not going to work. Employers are still going find ways to exploit immigrants to the employers advantage. Officials are just using this bill to shut-up (bi-partisanly) all the ANTI's complaining and all the PRO's who are angry at the system.
Anon1, I do agree this is a delay tactic. But why are the employers supporting this bill? Liquid. Since you are a business owner, why do you think employers are lobbying for this bill´s passage?
I guess if anyone could tell if someone's talking to themself it's you anonymous. It takes someone nutty like yourself. Too bad you can't spy on other ppl like others on this message board can and you'd know that I am not Dee, but I'm sick of defending myself about that so i'll give you a liquid quote and not "dumb myself down" to your level.
"It's certainly no secret that illegal employment is what drives illegal immigrants to come to the United States," Bilbray said. "By using E-Verify, employers are no longer expected to be document experts. The liability of determining the legal status of an employee is placed on the government, not the business owner."
That should sum up your question, Dee.
If the pro-illegals in congress and business leaders are in approval of this bill it is because this bill will still only make e-verify voluntary not mandatory nationwide. It is a no brainer. The employers still get away with murder! At least they didn't kill it altogether though and some states are being wise enough to make it mandatory.
So Liquid, help me understand here. We do have everify in place now and it is voluntary. By having it in place, employers still do not have to use it, but the government is accountable if they do run people through it? I am leaning to their wanting to keep it in place as voluntary to they dont have to do it but can do as they are doing now. Hmmmm. I am still stuck.
Pat, Guess What. I agree with you.
Nothing has been set in stone as of yet as it still has not cleared Congress. However, Employers do use it simply because it takes liability off themselves and places it on the Government. The loop hole is still there though, as it does not catch numbers that are not duplicated or numbers that are made up.
Liquid, Between me and you (because I know you will get this) the Business lobbies are chasing for support on this bill. The business lobby that supports CIR. I am flabergasted on wondering why. As I have often said, I know there are 4 different perspectives. The business lobby is pushing this. I, as a member of the PRO lobby have been against this. There is much more going on than any of us know. And Liquid, I know you and I know I am much more informed than the general public.
I already explained to you why the business owners want it to pass and that is because it has no meat to it. It isn't mandatory, only voluntary. If it were made mandatory the businesses and the pro-illegals would be protesting it just like you were a few weeks ago.
Pat, I agree. I just think there has to be another ulterior motive. I dont know what that can be. I am hoping Liquid will know. I dont think its the obvious. If it was, then they would vote No and have nothing and let it lapse. There has to be something else. Again, I dont know what.
That is a sufficient ulterior motive: pass a bill with no teeth and then all of us in the business community can relax again because those who have the best interests of this country in mind will have failed again and we the business leaders can continue to hire illegals and abuse them largely with impunity.
You can be sure the the business community opposed every effort to make E-verification mandatory which is the only way it can ever be effective. Voluntary use completely emasculates the concept except in those enlightened states where the legislatures have seen fit to make it mandatory as all states should in the absence of any backbone in D.C.
I think of Agriprocessor and all of the false documentation found in the HR Dept. Then I think of the abuse and exploitation of the workers. If the company were made to use eVerify then they would only hire citizens or legal guest workers. They would be forced to have safe working conditions and raise wages. But then on the otherhand, will this just be another excuse for the govt to serve as Big Brother? Or is this just another layer for the govt to mismanage? With a voluntary system, will the exploiters continue to exploit? If so, then what is the point at all.
I think the whole verify system and Immigration process needs an overhaul. Who is honest enough to lead us to true Immigration Reform that will truly benefit the country? I just dont know.
So does that mean you have changed your mind on the mandatory usage of e-verify now? A few weeks ago you were throwing a hissy fit over it's implemtation. You were screaming racial profiling and about it's inaccuracy even though I told you that ALL employees currently on a payroll or future hires would be under scrutiny. The other day on a news program it said that it is over 99% accurate!
Pat, I still have many questions about this bill. I am still thinking about the purpose and effectiveness of this bill and trying to understand the motivations of the sponsors and those that support it from both sides. Initially, after reading some articles about the loss of civil liberties with everify type mandates, I was concerned. Now, seeing abuses such as Agriprocessors, I know there has to be a way to stop exploiting employers. I am still thinking this one through. I would hope everyone is analyzing and studying these programs and deciding for themselves and they don´t stay cemented to one position. As Americans, we do have a right to change our minds.
Liquid, I have a question about the part of the bill that indicates Homeland Security will pay Social Security Dept for the use of its database. My question to you. Today, do employers pay a fee for e verify? If not, will they if this bill passes? If they dont pay, where do these funds come from or is it funny money, one govt pocket to another?
From what I understand, DHS pays SS from appropriated funds from Congress (Monies given to DHS yearly). Employers do not pay to use the service, although I don't know if in the future they plan to have the employers pay. If the employers are made to pay, I think there would be outcry for it by the employers, since simply the Government is suppose to give the employer the tools to verify legality of workers. We all pay, as tax payers, for any and all bills any way.
Liquid, Ok. I was re reading the entire post and you are right. The DHS was always supposed to pay SS, however the bill documents the need for "timely reimbursements" because DHS "delayed paying such reimbursement" so now they have reconsiled the past due bills and are making agreement on longer term funding going forward. This must be the deal made to ensure passage. Ok. It is getting clearer on why both sides are agreeing. DHS wants the plan to continue for 5 more years even in voluntary, business wants the voluntary aspect, the dems want SS funded. Aaaahhh... Follow the money and it all becomes clear.
Article:
The bill emerged from behind-the-scenes negotiations among lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. The two sides had been at odds over writing language that would both reauthorize the Homeland Security Department's E-Verify program and preserve Social Security's ability to meet its core mission of providing services to seniors and the disabled.
The bill would reauthorize for five years the E-Verify program, which is an online tool that employers can use to confirm a worker's information against Homeland Security and Social Security databases.
The Senate still must come to an agreement on companion legislation. Without congressional action, the program will expire in November.
The House bill would maintain E-Verify as a voluntary program, even though some states have mandated its use.
But, in a nod to Ways and Means, the bill includes provisions that would ensure Homeland Security provides timely reimbursements to the Social Security Administration for use of that agency's resources.
Lawmakers said Homeland Security had delayed paying such reimbursement. But the two agencies said last week they have reconciled payments and were working on a longer-term funding agreement.
Waste of money. Legalize immigrants instead.
Nelson said...
"Waste of money. Legalize immigrants instead."
Most of them don't want to be legalized, just legitimized. They don't want to be citizens of the United States. They just want to come here to work, and send money home. I actually have no problem with this. I know many people from around the globe that do this, and I don't see the backlash against them. Of course, most of them went through the motions to be here in the first place.
Most of those from Mexico are Fiercely patriotic of thier country, and see no reason to change alliances.
The issue isn't so much about brown people as much as numbers. We don't see the migration form Canada as we do from Mexico. Seems to be more of a communication issue. After all, most Canadians speak English..
(NOTE: see here for more reasoning:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5548695401579410439&postID=2840450376074752091)
Recalling the fence issue, congress passed it, but later cut the funding. This happens all the time on bills. It "appears" that in this instance, they addressed the issue head-on to avoid future funding problems. Also, it's a win-win for employers. They don't have to use a voluntary system but if they do and are caught with illegals, they can gain immunity from prosecution. What I want to see, but is being stopped by that liberal federal judge out west, is the proposal by Homeland Security that employers must respond to the SS no match letters. Employers don't like that one though. Recall Agri-Processors had hundreds of such letters and never responded.
Post a Comment