Supreme Court’s E-Verify Decision

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Compare the slant of these two articles. It's all in the wording!!!




Supreme Court’s E-Verify Decision Devastating for Employers, (no illegal pronoun)Immigrant Workers
Immigrants rights advocates and employers, including farmers, are lashing out at the Supreme Court's May 26 decision upholding Arizona’s right to demand employers use the controversial e-Verify system, which is meant to confirm whether someone is in the country legally.
The decision also allowed Arizona to continue the so-called “business death penalty,” which entails denying a business license to employers found guilty more than once of violating a 2007 law against hiring undocumented workers.

The e-Verify system has been widely criticized for errors, including flagging legal and native-born residents as undocumented. That’s among the reasons Illinois sought to ban its use by private employers. A federal court shot down those efforts, but the Illinois legislature did pass a state law trying to safeguard against the misuse of the system.
All employers with federal contracts are required to use E-Verify, and Texas Republican Congressman Lamar Smith is among those pushing to make it mandatory nationally.
Immigrants rights groups are allied with employers – even those that they allege exploit undocumented immigrants – in stridently opposing mandatory e-Verify use. The Supreme Court decision was the result of a lawsuit filed by the Chamber of Commerce opposing Arizona’s law. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other employer groups also sued unsuccessfully over the mandate that E-Verify be used by federal contractors. Florida has proposed a bill similar to Arizona’s regarding E-Verify. The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce opposes it.
Agricultural employers and immigrants rights groups point out that the nation’s guest worker program and overall immigration system are so badly broken that agricultural growers will simply not be able to find the needed employees especially during harvest times if they really are barred from hiring undocumented workers.
Lynn Tramonte, deputy director of the group America’s Voice Education Fund, said in a press release:
Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling is a dagger in the heart of Arizona agriculture. If this type of law spreads nationwide, we will essentially deport the entire agriculture industry—including jobs held by Americans—and be forced to import more of our nation’s food supply. Passing a mandatory E-Verify law without comprehensive immigration reform will kill American jobs and farms, burden small businesses, reduce tax revenue, and drive undocumented workers further underground.
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack made similar points in an op-ed:
As Secretary of Agriculture I have met farmers and ranchers all over the country who worry that our immigration system is broken. They are unable to find the necessary number of farmworkers and sometimes struggle to verify their work authorization papers - all while wondering if they'll have enough help for their next harvest.
And while some American citizens step up and take these jobs, the truth is that even when farmers make their best efforts to recruit a domestic work force, few citizens express interest, and even fewer show up to spend long hours laboring in the hot sun.
In a twist on the misguided idea that immigrants “steal” American jobs, Vilsack described immigrant farm workers essentially protecting U.S. jobs(now that's a twisting of the truth) through their crucial role on U.S. farms:
If American agriculture lost access to adequate farm labor, it could cost the industry as much as $9 billion each year. Already, some American producers are opening up operations in Mexico. So we must take action to prevent the further outsourcing of farm-related jobs.(Do you see the scare tactics here?)
Meanwhile, the Bay Citizen nonprofit news outlet described how lucrative wineries in Napa Valley, Calif., have found it in their own self-interest to treat undocumented workers fairly, rather than paying them as little as possible or sometimes not at all as is often the case in agriculture and other industries that hire large numbers of undocumented workers.
Emmy-winning producer Scott James reported:
Without migrant labor, most of it from Mexico, the wine producers in Napa would be hard pressed to fill a carafe, much less the valley’s nine million annual cases. Experts estimate that 8,000 to 12,000 illegal migrants reside (often seasonally) in Napa, although the number is impossible to confirm.
Ten years ago, they could be found living in the woods in makeshift camps, sleeping on fetid mattresses and drinking from dirty streams. Today they receive subsidized housing, or can reside in three tidy dormitory complexes near St. Helena and Yountville where up to 180 workers pay $12 a day for room and board.)The tax payer is paying billions to subsidize the farm growers. When you add up all the perks the migrants get, it come out to between $25-$35 an hour.)
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entr..._workers_and_/

Now this is a conservative slant on the same subject.
Maine Voices: National E-verify system would keep American jobs at home
We lose jobs in two ways, by either exporting or 'in-sourcing' them. Let's close off the second way.
HOLDEN - Too many workers. Not enough jobs. What to do? Politicians and business elites want to create new jobs with borrowed money, but this solution has downsides. It threatens our credit with foreign lenders; and in the long term, it heaps more debt on our children.
A less-costly but rarely mentioned solution concerns protecting and reclaiming American jobs. Globalists may shudder at the words "American" and "protecting," but let's consider this idea anyway.
Even before the recession, Americans were losing jobs in two ways: 1) the outsourcing of jobs abroad and 2) the "in-sourcing" of foreign workers. Either way, the job goes to a lower-wage foreign worker.
Neither party has a plan to reduce the outsourcing of good-paying jobs. And most of the jobs we are currently creating do not match the pay, the hours or the benefits of the 8.75 million jobs lost in the recession.
In other words, the United States is not creating the kind of jobs that will boost spending that fuels our economy.
Republicans, however, have a plan for reclaiming jobs taken by millions of illegal workers, and freeing those jobs up for unemployed Americans. The irony of the Republican plan is that it seeks what Democrats have advocated for years: going after unlawful employers.
House Republicans are currently lining up behind legislation that requires all employers to use E-verify, an electronic system, that instantly determines the eligibility of most workers. The practice was just approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in ruling on an Arizona statute requiring it there.
E-verify is accurate, fair, cost effective and simple to use. But Democrats are torn, and their big tent is problematic. Democrats want to be seen as the pro-worker party, standing up to greedy employers, and championing the cause of minorities and the poor.
But on the other hand, they don't want illegal immigrants to lose their jobs and go home. Democrats want to provide another pathway to citizenship, i.e. amnesty No. 8, for the mostly Hispanic illegal workers and their families, who will naturally gravitate to the Democratic Party.
Democratic leadership sees their future in the exploding growth of Hispanic voters. Not surprisingly, President Obama's most recent immigration speech said nothing about E-verify or a plan to penalize greedy employers.
But what is the right thing to do? And whose job should come first? Most illegal immigrants are not picking fruit or doing "jobs Americans won't do." That slogan is a lie.
Eight million illegal immigrants hold American jobs, and 7 million are in construction, manufacturing, service and repair, and transportation.
The overwhelming majority of workers currently employed in each of these fields are native-born Americans. In short, Americans want these jobs, and they deserve them.
With E-verify legislation, we could bypass a federal government that has flatly refused to enforce immigration laws over multiple administrations. And it would be exceedingly difficult for President Obama to veto this legislation.
Who would take these jobs? The unemployment rate for native-born blacks with the same skill set as most illegal workers was a whopping 40.7 percent last August, and it was 36 percent for native-born Hispanics.
Minorities, the working poor and the young are undeniably hit harder than any other groups in this recession. They desperately need those jobs.
Time after time, when the federal government raided big illegal immigrant employers during the last years of the Bush administration, native-born workers, mostly minorities and refugees, lined up to take those jobs, and the hourly wages increased.
This pattern was repeated in multiple companies: Crider Poultry in Georgia, Howard Industries in Mississippi, Swift Meats in Colorado, and Smithfield Foods in North Carolina, to name a few. The notion that employers cannot survive without illegal workers is false.
With E-verify legislation, the United States could reclaim millions of jobs for our poorest and most vulnerable citizens. No other jobs plan comes even close to generating this many jobs at so little cost and so much savings for taxpayers.
E-verify was recommended to Congress by President Clinton's U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. More than 238,000 employers are already using E-verify voluntarily; a thousand new employers sign up every week, and the Obama administration requires all federal contractors to use it.
But will Democrats face down self-serving ethnic and business lobbies in their party, put American workers first, and join Republicans in passing mandatory E-verify, reclaiming American jobs?
Or will they try to force another massive amnesty and blame Republicans for being anti-immigrant?

[REWHBLCAIN]

The first one is so painful to read and gave me a headache.

Liberals sure can tell a story now can't they?

[REWHBLCAIN]

No wonder........



About Working In These Times

Working In These Times is dedicated to providing independent and incisive coverage of the labor movement and the struggles of workers to obtain safe, healthy and just workplaces.

As newspapers have declined, so has labor journalism. Workers—those now protected by unions, those lacking a union at work and those seeking to reform their unions—are increasingly absent in media. This is especially true for the most vulnerable workers, particularly those who are undocumented and easily exploited. The stories of these and other workers are not being told. The dearth of labor coverage in print media is reflected online, where original reporting on labor and workers’ rights issues is scarce.