June 12, 2008
E-Verify: Coming to a Federal Contractor Near You
Helen Glover reported this morning that e-verify legislation has stalled on Smith Hill because it contains monetary penalties for businesses which fail to comply. Apparently, the General Assembly has the power under these circumstances to pull a company's license but not to fine it.
In the meantime, President George Bush has mandated e-verify for companies which do business for the federal government.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that President George Bush has signed a directive putting the requirements in place, thus bringing federal contractors under the same requirements already in effect for federal agencies
This is a list by company, parent company and dollar amount of all 1,727 federal contracts being performed in Rhode Island, companies which now must E-verify all new employees.
[Source: USASpending.gov]
I see Ira Green on that list. Now THAT is a company that's going to have a REAL problem. Either the owner is going to have to fire 75% of his staff and hire LEGAL workers to do their job or he's going to have to work to actively LIE to the government in order to continue operating profitably.
Posted by: Greg at June 12, 2008 5:53 PMI can't wait to see Brown University comply!
Posted by: john at June 12, 2008 5:54 PMThis legislation was dubious to begin with. It was going after the "illegals" that at least were being productive members of society (i.e. working).
The notion behind it was that these people were costing the state money due to the social services they were consuming.
It would have been better to enact legislation that would require any individual consuming taxpayer funded services (e.g. schools, health-care, etc.) to verify whether or not they were "legal".
If not legal, no service, no cost to the taxpayer.
Posted by: George Elbow at June 12, 2008 6:44 PMMonique,
Great job on usaspending.gov ! What a fabulous resource .Some known abusers on the list in R I . Compiling a list and I'll foward it .
*** "This legislation was dubious to begin with. It was going after the "illegals" that at least were being productive members of society (i.e. working)." ***
I work for a company that has had to lay off a number of people due to the down turn in the economy. First round was 25 people back in April. Many of those were legal immigrants as well as US citizens. Following week, we found out 6 more would be going because they were NOT legal immigrants. Don't have any idea how or when they found out they were illegals but it is appreciated bay the rest of us. Those 6 took work from 6 LEGALS & US CITIZENS, luckily for only an extra week but it's not right that those 6 ILLEGALS continued to work while honest people are on the street.
YES, it does cost LEGAL members of society no matter how productive illegals are!
Jake,
Just curious, when and how did your ancestors arrive here "legally"?
When the "orginal settlers" came ashore, were they "legal"? A few Indians may have a dissagreement with you if you say they were.
This is a difficult issue to be sure.
My view is that when "immigrants" were streaming in generations ago, they had to work hard, help each other, etc. and assimilate. There were NO gov't hand-outs or accomodations (e.g. bi-linqual nonsense).
My objection to illegal immigration is the whole gov't handout / welfare thing that occurs, along with the idea that they don't have to assimilate.
Take those away and I feel alot better about the issue.
I'm not sure you or I are any more "legal" than anyone else that is here, unless you are an American Indian. Even then, they may have migrated here from other locales.
Posted by: George Elbow at June 12, 2008 8:56 PM