Can someone give me a rational reason for this. (illegal immigrants, law, employment)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are employers not legally allowed to vet current employees through the E-verify system if they institute it for new hires?
It seems to me this is one GIGANTIC loophole, the likes of which I'm sure companies like Tyson with their much touted and heralded new "partnership with immigration authorities" are slipping through.
All it means is that from now on new hires will be verified, but any illegals currently employed can continue being employed with no fear of an ICE raid/silent audit now their company is "in compliance".
This makes ZERO sense to me, so if you can, please explain the reasoning.
Why are employers not legally allowed to vet current employees through the E-verify system if they institute it for new hires?
It seems to me this is one GIGANTIC loophole, the likes of which I'm sure companies like Tyson with their much touted and heralded new "partnership with immigration authorities" are slipping through.
All it means is that from now on new hires will be verified, but any illegals currently employed can continue being employed with no fear of an ICE raid/silent audit now their company is "in compliance".
This makes ZERO sense to me, so if you can, please explain the reasoning.
because implementation of E-verify at Tyson foods has nothing to do with Tyson having to go back a check SSNs and I-9s of current employees. E-verfy solved one problem, but is not a cure-all.
because implementation of E-verify at Tyson foods has nothing to do with Tyson having to go back a check SSNs and I-9s of current employees. E-verfy solved one problem, but is not a cure-all.
You totally missed the point. This isn't just about Tyson. All businesses should have to use e-verify on both current and new hires. It may not be a cure-all but it is like 96% accurate. I note how the illegal alien advocates constantly whine about the employers but when our side wants to see this useful tool put to work to stop the employers from hiring illegal aliens they don't want it used. It totally exposes what their true agenda is.
You totally missed the point. This isn't just about Tyson. All businesses should have to use e-verify on both current and new hires. It may not be a cure-all but it is like 96% accurate. I note how the illegal alien advocates constantly whine about the employers but when our side wants to see this useful tool put to work to stop the employers from hiring illegal aliens they don't want it used. It totally exposes what their true agenda is.
No...her point was- that Tyson's implementation of E-verify, did nothing about the "potential" illegal aliens employees currently employed at Tyson.
I can read.
your post goes on to toute the use of E-verify[for what reason I dont know] and whinning advocates of illegal immigrants. How does any of that-exactly- speak to her point? Her concern was with the current employees.
Quote:
but any illegals currently employed can continue being employed with no fear of an ICE raid/silent audit now their company is "in compliance".
No...her point was- that Tyson's implementation of E-verify, did nothing about the "potential" illegal aliens employees currently employed at Tyson.
I can read.
your post goes on to toute the use of E-verify[for what reason I dont know] and whinning advocates of illegal immigrants. How does any of that-exactly- speak to her point? Her concern was with the current employees.
It is mine and every other law abiding American's concern also. Why allow current employees to remain on the job if they are here illegally and only weed out new hires?
It is mine and every other law abiding American's concern also. Why allow current employees to remain on the job if they are here illegally and only weed out new hires?
It is mine and every other law abiding American's concern also. Why allow current employees to remain on the job if they are here illegally and only weed out new hires?
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Why allow current employees to remain on the job if they are here illegally and only weed out new hires?
Your question has nothing to do with E-verify since it is entirely voluntary (with few exceptions). Employers do not "allow current employees [to remain on the job] if they are here illegally." That would be an admission of knowingly violating federal law.
If you meant to ask why E-verify is limited to new hires only, here's why:
E-verify can only be used after form I9 is completed and the employee has accepted a job. Employer must use E-verify within three days of hiring the employee. There you have the 'rules' per Homeland Security.
But I'm sure those of you who "understand" already knew this, so I won't have to cite the links.
Your idea that all businesses should be forced to use E-verify is peculiar for someone who touts smaller government and less Federal interference in states' issues.
Then logically current employees HAVE filled out an I-9 AND accepted a job, so what's the issue with using E-verify to be SURE the company is in compliance? Aren't they created a two tier system of employee eligibility by ONLY using it for NEW hires?
Not necessarily so. I believe the I9 form came into existence around 1985 or so. Anyone hired before then is exempt. Why I don't know, they just are.
There are multiple employer exemptions to having to fill one out: persons employed on an intermittent basis, independent contractors (house cleaners, gardeners, contractors, etc.) or people whom an employer hires through another business which offers contract services. There are other things which excludes having to file an I9, too.
I suppose you could say it's a two-tiered employment system, but the first tier is for those employed before 1985 (1986?).
The 'issue' belongs to Department of Homeland Security. I don't think you would consider a lot of their decisions or implementations logical.
EDIT: If you're looking for rationality in DHS, I'd be very surprised if you find it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
