Comments on: E-verify: An effective no-return policy https://www.immigrationreform.com/2018/08/22/e-verify-an-effective-no-return-policy/ The Official Blog of FAIR Fri, 28 Dec 2018 15:07:57 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.10 By: Stephen Russell https://www.immigrationreform.com/2018/08/22/e-verify-an-effective-no-return-policy/#comment-91421 Sat, 25 Aug 2018 14:16:23 +0000 http://live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io/?p=17523#comment-91421 Expand nationwide, must update E Verify Xboard for all industries, business.

]]>
By: Anon Ymous https://www.immigrationreform.com/2018/08/22/e-verify-an-effective-no-return-policy/#comment-91419 Sat, 25 Aug 2018 13:55:16 +0000 http://live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io/?p=17523#comment-91419 In reply to Ricardo H..

America has been very patient and gracious with the huge influx of illegal aliens. Most nations would simply execute them for what they are: a foreign invader.
Time for the US to do the same.

]]>
By: Leland https://www.immigrationreform.com/2018/08/22/e-verify-an-effective-no-return-policy/#comment-91418 Sat, 25 Aug 2018 04:45:47 +0000 http://live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io/?p=17523#comment-91418 In reply to Ricardo H..

First of all, there is an entire study here that examined this question. It does not support what you say. Second, you say American employers don’t want to pay more. If you make it illegal to employ people here without permission and enforce it through e-verify, they will have no choice but to pay more.

]]>
By: Ricardo H. https://www.immigrationreform.com/2018/08/22/e-verify-an-effective-no-return-policy/#comment-91415 Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:47:57 +0000 http://live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io/?p=17523#comment-91415 Arizona prides itself as being a tough-on-immigration state and to me that is plain hypocrisy. I want to tell you of this case from just a couple of years ago. This actually happened.
in 2015 a farmer from Mexico made a some bad choices about his crops that he ended up broke, with no money to plant for the following harvest. He rented his land for the next season, left the money to his family and moved to Arizona to look for a job, and save some money to restart his farm. He crossed the border with a tourist Visa and He had no trouble finding work for a State government contractor doing road work. It turns out that it’s very hard to find Americans who want to work outside in the sun when everyday it gets to 110-115F and people connected to the government can hire cheap illegal immigrants because they WILL NOT be audited like private companies.
A similar case was in the news in Alabama where a truck full of illegal immigrants crashed in their way to work. They were hired by a government contractor to do road work. The company was connected to a republican state congressman.
No legal immigrant will take a low paying hard or dangerous job; and American employers don’t want to pay more to find American workers who might be willing to do them. And this is true even for government jobs in the toughest immigration state in America

]]>
By: Leland https://www.immigrationreform.com/2018/08/22/e-verify-an-effective-no-return-policy/#comment-91402 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 04:09:32 +0000 http://live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io/?p=17523#comment-91402 This conclusion, which most illegal advocates would have dismissed when the program began ten years ago, is beyond obvious. Make life difficult for illegals, oh the horror of it all, and they will not persist in their illegal activity. In other words, don’t reward illegal behavior by letting them work and they will not bother to come. There was a guy on Tucker Carlson who was saying that everyone should be able to work “without a piece of paper from the government”. There is no other conclusion to draw except that this person wants open borders. No doubt he would deny that, they always do, but the practical effect would be exactly that. Even the La Raza web site always said the same thing. It’s always “we have a right to protect our borders, but….”. Always the same con job. Like “I’m for free speech, but….”.

]]>