Study: Fewer Jobless in States Where Employers Must Screen Illegals from Job Interviews

[carpro]

Study: Fewer Jobless in States Where Employers Must Screen Illegals from Job Interviews - Breitbart

Unemployment rates dropped during the recession in states which adopted the E-Verify program to screen illegal aliens from jobs, says a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

According to the new study,

All states that enacted or expanded E-Verify after 2008, save one, saw their unemployment rates drop, even when the national rate increased. More impressively, 12 of the 15 states that passed new measures experienced a drop in unemployment larger than the national average. Furthermore, states that made E-Verify mandatory for all employers, public and private, experienced the most pronounced decrease in their unemployment rates.


Enforcing immigration law and easing pressure on American workers is highly popular with voters. A poll released on election day found 59 percent believed the first step taken towards controlling illegal immigration should be requiring all U.S. employers to verify the legal status of their employees.

 

[Happy]

E-Verify is a joke!

 

[carpro]

E-Verify is a joke!

As long as it is voluntary, it will remain a joke.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Happy]

As long as it is voluntary, it will remain a joke.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Several individual states mandate the effort, and is still a joke.

"E-verify" is for verifying "employees". Employee's ARE those who are hired, WITHOUT "discrimination", per their citizenship, race, blah, blah.

The employer is required to access and enter the known documentation given the "employer", by the "employee"; with E-verity. Period. The employer has complied with the law.

And, so what?

IS the employer directed to KEEP the person employed or release the person from employment? No.

The employer may receive notice the E-verify was accepted, filed, received.
The employer may receive notice "E-verify" has no additional knowledge of the person.

So what? They will never say the person is not qualified to be employed.

IF, no record is revealed, stating a status, the employer can do a couple of things;
1) Nothing, and continue employing the person, suspecting or knowing he is an illegal alien.
2) Try to talk the "employee" himself, into requesting a government lawful "status" for employment.

An employee has NO obligation to do so.
And IF the employee does elect to make such request....the "employer" MUST continue to employ the person, keep him in any "training programs" intended for new employees, pay him, while "waiting" for a government response, (typically several weeks).

In the mean time - the employer is potentially, training and employing a person, that may be illegal, that may not continue in their employ..... oh goodie.

Like I said, it's a joke!

 

[HankD]

Several individual states mandate the effort, and is still a joke.

"E-verify" is for verifying "employees". Employee's ARE those who are hired, WITHOUT "discrimination", per their citizenship, race, blah, blah.

The employer is required to access and enter the known documentation given the "employer", by the "employee"; with E-verity. Period. The employer has complied with the law.

And, so what?

IS the employer directed to KEEP the person employed or release the person from employment? No.

The employer may receive notice the E-verify was accepted, filed, received.
The employer may receive notice "E-verify" has no additional knowledge of the person.

So what? They will never say the person is not qualified to be employed.

IF, no record is revealed, stating a status, the employer can do a couple of things;
1) Nothing, and continue employing the person, suspecting or knowing he is an illegal alien.
2) Try to talk the "employee" himself, into requesting a government lawful "status" for employment.

An employee has NO obligation to do so.
And IF the employee does elect to make such request....the "employer" MUST continue to employ the person, keep him in any "training programs" intended for new employees, pay him, while "waiting" for a government response, (typically several weeks).

In the mean time - the employer is potentially, training and employing a person, that may be illegal, that may not continue in their employ..... oh goodie.

Like I said, it's a joke!

Then it should be made an unjoke or dumped and replaced with something that illegals will fear.

HankD

 

[carpro]

Like I said, it's a joke!

So the survey is obviously garbage, according to you.

Now , if the law was changed to allow Everify prior to hiring. Then if an illegal was hired, the employer was fined and/or prosecuted for hiring them , what would you think?

 

[Reynolds]

E-Verify is a joke!

It is good at weeding out the dumber illegals.

 

[Jedi Knight]

 

[Happy]

So the survey is obviously garbage, according to you.

Now , if the law was changed to allow Everify prior to hiring. Then if an illegal was hired, the employer was fined and/or prosecuted for hiring them , what would you think?

Dealing with legalities is a tricky thing.
E-verify is what it says. It verifies, WHO (ie validates citizenship), of who an employee is.
It does not authorize an "employer" to take action "against" a foreign citizen, (who is without authorization to be in the US.)
Because an "employer" does not have the means or authority to provide "due process of law".

The Feds are responsible for foreigners, because foreigners fall into their "jurisdiction".
That too is tricky, because for the most part, foreigners DO NOT actually "LIVE" or "occupy" LAND that belongs to the Feds.

So, in effect you have a Foreigner, sneaking into a sovereign state, WHO the Feds are unaware of, but yet they still hold LEGAL jurisdiction over the foreigner.

Many avenues are "used" by the Feds to "document" "foreigners" who have "sneaked" (entered without authority) into the US.

One method is thru the "EMPLOYER", "employee" relationship, and where E-verify comes in as a useful tool for the Feds to "document" (foreigners previously, unknown to them, being IN the US).

A private citizen seeking employment, does so via an APPLICATION for employment. While the "Feds" forms (Applications) has changed some (and states often mimic what the Feds do, and private employers, mimic what the states do...in regards to "hiring"; and many other things).....the application itself has been very basic information....ie such as a resume, name, address, etc.

However, once a person is "hired", additional information is collected, beyond their name, address, and education and skill levels suitable for the "hired position".

The one primary thing that has somewhat changed per an Application, is requiring a SS number.
However that is no big deal, in attempting to discover legitimacy of a person, BECAUSE, the Feds hand them out like candy and the states, "on behalf of the Feds (per agreement) do the same thing".

A female who elects to have delivery of her "baby" IN a hospital, may or may not be approached to ASK her IF she wants to "apply" for a SS number FOR her new baby. As it had been in the past, there was always an APPLICATION required to actually APPLY for "any" program the Feds have in their arsenal.
However now, The Hospitals administration NOW fill out the paper work and make APPLICATION for all new born babies. (Even if and when the parent (mother or father or both) specifically notify the hospital they DO NOT WANT a SS number for their child).

So, just saying, while on one hand employers can be belittled, or some times legally charged for hiring ILLEGALS, they also can be legally charged for hiring an illegal and then firing them BECAUSE they are ILLEGAL.

And E-verify is not a legal means for employers to supersede the due process of law afforded everyone.
And no one has to give another extensive personal information to "seek" employment, which is why the E-verify is AFTER a person is hired, and THEN as an employee, particular questions can be required.
And there ARE laws for "firing" people, which does not "include" citizenship.
And an employer, can not fire the person and simply claim, well they were illegal, because they supersedes the law, affording them due process "of law".

A conundrum for sure.

This joint jurisdiction ( Feds over foreigners..& foreigners living in state jurisdiction is a constant riff between the states and Feds).

 

[Happy]

View attachment 1510

YEP!

DEPORT ~ Most Americans hearing "deport", think, being send out of the US.
However IF you listen closely to the Feds, they are highly interested in DOCUMENTING all foreigners.

Absolutely the Feds want the states to comply with "documenting" illegal foreigners.
But in many cases the Feds have NO PLACE to "detain" "keep" "set aside" illegal foreigners who actually are in a type of custody.
The states have repeatedly been burdened with providing the "place" to detain illegals, and the Feds rarely seem to get around to "picking up on the case".

WHEN the Feds actually do have a "hearing" for an "illegal", it often goes like:
Appearance before the Judge. (ie hearing)
Fine paid, IF illegal was caught in "additional" illegal activity, (say, like car theft, coyote, B & E, etc.)
The "illegal" becomes "documented" (ie Fed record of their existence and presence)
The "illegal" may be issued DEPORTATION papers.
Another hearing may or may not be set for a particular date.
The "illegal" may or may not attend the "hearing".
The "illegal", who is then, Documented, Paid fines, Issued deportation papers, IS RELEASED....
AND becomes a FED statistic....of documented and deported.

So while some say....DEPORT, DEPORT.....the Fed response is almost always....a quote of THEIR stats; THEIR records of how many they have "issued deportation papers"; and doesn't have to have anything to do with ACTUAL people being escorted out of the country!

 

[Happy]

It is good at weeding out the dumber illegals.

It's good to return the illegals to "their" country, but not so simple, BECAUSE of Federal laws.

 

[HankD]

It's good to return the illegals to "their" country, but not so simple, BECAUSE of Federal laws.

An 18 month prison sentence though expensive would be a great deterrent of recidivism.
Training in some kind of service or trade while in prison might help.

Yes expensive but maybe it would ultimately be a better way?

HankD

 

[Happy]

An 18 month prison sentence though expensive would be a great deterrent of recidivism.
Training in some kind of service or trade while in prison might help.

Yes expensive but maybe it would ultimately be a better way?

HankD

I have ZERO desire to financially support or educate an illegal alien, in or out of prison.

And no, Prison rarely "rehabilitates" or "reforms".

 

[HankD]

I have ZERO desire to financially support or educate an illegal alien, in or out of prison.

And no, Prison rarely "rehabilitates" or "reforms".

I feel differently about giving them some king of training.

My stepfather (a citizen by birth) had a sentence cut in half (18 months to 9 months) because he participated in a work program (Kitchen work).

That was the last time he spent in prison.
The work probably wasn't what caused the final decision to walk the "straight and narrow" but it did influenced him (he did become a chef).

HankD

 

[Happy]

I feel differently about giving them some king of training.

My stepfather (a citizen by birth) had a sentence cut in half (18 months to 9 months) because he participated in a work program (Kitchen work).

That was the last time he spent in prison.
The work probably wasn't what caused the final decision to walk the "straight and narrow" but it did influenced him (he did become a chef).

HankD

Your view is based on personal knowledge of a family member (ie bias).

My view is based on gathered stats of recidivism of once a prisoner is released, and again offends.
Stats vary, since some stats are specific to a repeating of the SAME type of crime, while other stats are more general of an ex-prison committing ANY crime....And so the stats range from somewhere around 68% to 75% that a prisoner released will again commit a crime.

 

[HankD]

Your view is based on personal knowledge of a family member (ie bias).

My view is based on gathered stats of recidivism of once a prisoner is released, and again offends.
Stats vary, since some stats are specific to a repeating of the SAME type of crime, while other stats are more general of an ex-prison committing ANY crime....And so the stats range from somewhere around 68% to 75% that a prisoner released will again commit a crime.

Did these alleged prisoners receive education, training or counseling?

Documentation please.

But personally I don't buy into the reasoning that when it comes to the rehabilitation of a human being that "successful" statistics are the only criteria for spending the resource.


HankD

 

[Happy]

Did these alleged prisoners receive education, training or counseling?

Documentation please.

But personally I don't buy into the reasoning that when it comes to the rehabilitation of a human being that "successful" statistics are the only criteria for spending the resource.


HankD

I'll give you one research findings. There are others you can look up if it interests you. I did not find, or particularly spend much time looking for a stat report on ...

All inmates involved in an educational program, and how they rank among being a repeat offender.

One study claims, OF THOSE, WHO DO participate in educational programs, are 43% less likely to re-offend, than those who do not participate in an education program.

If you elect to support prison educational programs, that would be your choice, I would like to have the same choice, and not be compelled (forced) to do the same as you might choose.


Why Prisoner Education Is Key to Reducing Crime

 

[HankD]

I'll give you one research findings. There are others you can look up if it interests you. I did not find, or particularly spend much time looking for a stat report on ...

All inmates involved in an educational program, and how they rank among being a repeat offender.

One study claims, OF THOSE, WHO DO participate in educational programs, are 43% less likely to re-offend, than those who do not participate in an education program.

If you elect to support prison educational programs, that would be your choice, I would like to have the same choice, and not be compelled (forced) to do the same as you might choose.


Why Prisoner Education Is Key to Reducing Crime

Oh understood about the personal choosing part.

Thanks for the site reference.

One of the biggest factors IMO is that the mindset of crime is potentially broken in an individual when education begins and one is compelled (there's that word again) to now make an association between work and money vs. crime and money. If one is equipped with the ability to make an honest day's wage well they at least have a choice. No guarantee they will make the work/money choice but at least the choice is there.

HankD

 

[carpro]

Prison education programs have almost zero effect on sex offenders and drug dealers. They don' t "rehabilitate' hardly at all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[HankD]

Prison education programs have almost zero effect on sex offenders and drug dealers. They don' t "rehabilitate' hardly at all.

True some won't/don't rehabilitate. Then break the cycle by the 3 time loser policy.

Third time - Life, no chance of parole, you die in prison.

HankD