Moving to mandatory E-Verify would pose significant burdens on both employers and employees.
Tens of thousands of legal workers would be prevented from getting new jobs due to errors in the system. If employers were required to submit their current workforce through E-Verify the impact would be even greater.
While individuals affected by E-verify errors are only a fraction of the workforce, they face significant hardships. Barred from working through no fault of their own, they are unable to earn a living or support their families, at least until they can clear up these errors.
Such individuals have limited recourse to correct the errors and be made whole. And those who are able to win lawsuits against the government over such errors, often do so long after the fact, potentially months or years after being prevented from working, and already having suffered significant harm.
Unless mandatory E-Verify is accompanied by guest worker and visa reform provisions sufficient to meet employer demand, industries that have a shortage of legal workers will face serious worker shortages. Employers would essentially be faced with a choice between breaking the law, operating with dramatic labor shortages, or outsourcing to other countries that have sufficient workers.
Moving to mandatory E-Verify would also impose significant costs on employers, who would need to devote time and resources to worker verification. While this cost might be marginal for some employers, particularly larger employers with fully-staffed human resources departments, it would likely to lead to hardship for smaller employers
So if I get all your BS straight you only buy American hate Walmart and Amazon and love Trump for his tariffs and his pissing contest with China and Iran.
Let me know how the above works out for you and your wallet.
The president missed his chance to make an offer that Democrats might plausibly support.
By Karl W. Smith May 20, 2019, 8:00 PM GMT+10
Not offering any kind of grand bargain. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
Karl W. Smith is a former assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina's school of government and founder of the blog Modeled Behavior.
The other group, call it the New York contingent — one of its leading proponents is former Manhattan resident Jared Kushner, the president’s adviser and son-in-law — sees immigration as a source of growth, but wants that growth concentrated in the high-skilled areas of the economy. More nurses and fewer nannies, in other words. The sign they want on the border says, “Expert Help Wanted.”
There are two ways to settle the differences between factions. One is to focus only on their point of agreement: that there are too many low-skilled immigrants. This has essentially been the administration’s policy since California-contingent adviser Steve Bannon’s departure in August 2017.
So it would seem the time is ripe for the second approach: the elusive grand bargain .. https://www.google.com/search?q=grand+bargian+on+immigration . Give both contingents some of what they want and force them to accept some of what they don’t. Allow more immigration than the California contingent would prefer, but not as much as the New York contingent would like. Crack down on undocumented workers — but through their employers. Enforce existing laws. If Nixon could go to China, was the thinking last week, then Trump can strike a grand bargain on immigration.
Far better would have been to adopt a comprehensive plan that radically increased the amount of merit-based immigration and fully implemented the E-Verify system. That second step would also bring into sharp relief the question of what to do about the undocumented population, estimated to be about 10.7 million .. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/ .. in 2016.
There are a number of solutions to that problem. One, proposed .. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/552397/melting-pot-or-civil-war-by-reihan-salam/9780735216273/ .. by so-called “reformicon” Reihan Salam, would give amnesty to the current undocumented population but end family-sponsored immigration. Such a move would encourage the assimilation of the undocumented population. Another would be to combine the concept of Heartland visas .. https://eig.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Heartland-Visas-Report.pdf .. with deferred enforcement and a path to legalization. Such a plan would allow undocumented residents who don’t qualify for the Dream Act to receive a similar deal if they got a job in declining communities.
I realize that proposals such as these would be subject to intense criticism from all sides. If anyone can weather such criticism, however, it’s Trump; above all else, I suspect, his base just wants some progress. When he announced his intentions three months ago to offer what sounded like a genuine compromise proposal on immigration, I implored Democrats .. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-08/trump-s-immigration-offer-is-too-good-for-democrats-to-pass-up .. to be open to it. I now beg the president to have the guts to make one.
Before his latest offer Trump has operated essentially by catering to the more conservative of his base - evangelist anti-abortion extremists and extreme anti-amnesty immigration nativists - and in so doing basically not satisfying more moderate conservatives, or Democrats.
Here’s Trump’s latest offer to end the shutdown — and why Democrats aren’t interested
The “deal” Trump is offering on immigration and DACA, explained.
By Dara Lind and Li Zhou Jan 19, 2019, 3:53pm EST
[...]
Democrats aren’t particularly interested in what Trump is proposing. “Democrats were not consulted on this and have rejected similar overtures previously,” a Democratic aide told Vox. “It’s clearly a non-serious product of negotiations among White House staff to try to clean up messes the president created in the first place. POTUS is holding more people hostage for his wall.”
After weeks of all-or-nothing intransigence, Trump’s announcement Saturday indicates that the White House realizes it’s losing the shutdown in the eyes of most Americans, and is willing to compromise to reopen the government. But Democrats also know the White House is losing the shutdown, and the compromise now on offer is something they are unlikely to take.
What Trump is offering: $5.7 billion for the wall in exchange for extensions of existing protections for some immigrants
Trump is pitching this as a compromise: He wants the wall; Democrats want to help DACA and TPS recipients. But the deal isn’t the result of conversations with Democrats. It’s reportedly the result of discussions that Vice President Mike Pence and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner have had with congressional Republicans (most notably South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham).
And it shows. What Trump is offering — temporary extensions of existing protections for both groups of immigrants — isn’t something that Democrats have been wildly enthusiastic about in the past. Furthermore, with Trump’s efforts to strip existing protections held up in court, it’s essentially a short extension of the status quo.
DACA recipients are currently being allowed to extend their protections for two years, just as they could under the Obama administration, while the administration fights in court to end the program. (People who don’t already have protections are no longer allowed to apply.) Without knowing when the Supreme Court will rule — or how the Trump administration will proceed if the Supreme Court agrees it can end DACA, since the original plan (issuing no renewals for expirations after March 2018) is obviously moot — it’s hard to say for sure that a three-year, one-time extension will protect DACA recipients for longer than waiting for the Supreme Court.
Here’s what Trump offered Saturday:
[...]
Trump is in a weakening position on the shutdown — and on immigration
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
