NYC mayor declares 'emergency' due to migrants
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
+1 to E verify but need to add enforcement |
Anonymous
|
Pre-Employment Inquiries and Citizenship
Most employers should not ask whether or not a job applicant is a United States citizen before making an offer of employment. The INA requires employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of all employees hired after November 6, 1986, by completing the Employment Eligibility Verification (I-9) Form, and reviewing documents showing the employee's identity and employment authorization. Other state and federal laws require some employers to use E-Verify. Federal law prohibits employers from rejecting valid documents or insisting on additional documents beyond what is required for the Form I-9 or E-Verify processes, based on an employee's citizenship status or national origin. For example, an employer cannot require only those who the employer perceives as "foreign" to produce specific documents, such as Permanent Resident ("green") cards or Employment Authorization Documents. Employees are allowed to choose which documents to show for employment eligibility verification from the Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents. Employers should accept any unexpired document from the Lists of Acceptable Documents so long as the document appears reasonably genuine on its face and relates to the employee. Federal law also prohibits employers from conducting the Form I-9 and E-Verify processes before the employee has accepted an offer of employment. Applicants may be informed of these requirements in the pre-employment setting by adding the following statement on the employment application: "In compliance with federal law, all persons hired will be required to verify identity and eligibility to work in the United States and to complete the required employment eligibility verification form upon hire." E-Verify employers must use the system consistently and without regard to the citizenship, immigration status, or national origin of employees. They must also notify every employee who receives a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) and should not make assumptions about employment authorization based on the TNC issuance. If an employee contests a TNC, employers cannot fire, suspend, modify a work schedule, delay job placement or otherwise take any adverse action against the employee just because the employee received a TNC. As stated above, the INA prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of national origin by smaller employers (with four to 14 employees). The INA prohibits retaliation against individuals for asserting their rights under the INA, or for filing a charge or assisting in an investigation or proceeding under the INA. Discrimination charges under the INA are processed by the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. For more information, contact IER at the numbers below (9:00 am-5:00 pm ET, Monday-Friday) or visit IER's website. Calls can be anonymous and in any language: 1-800-255-7688 (employees/applicants) 1-800-255-8155 (employers) 1-800-237-2515 and 202-616-5525 (TTY for employees/applicants and employers) www.justice.gov/ier https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-inquiries-and-citizenship |
Anonymous
Migrants are getting more free crap now than citizens. Please |
Anonymous
| Just democrat hypocrisy at its finest. Sanctuary city is wonderful as long as it's not in my backyard. |
Anonymous
| Guess the migrants can live with all the deranged homeless people in their tent cities defecting on the streets and their open market drug bazaars. |
Anonymous
Hilarious that CA and Illinois both FORBID E-Verify! Unreal, actually. |
Anonymous
Perhaps you should focus on the DEMOCRATS' response to the border crisis, which is to refuse to secure the border in the first place. No one would be hiring illegal immigrants if they weren't in the country in the first place, genius. But nice deflection, whataboutism, and gaslighting. Bravo. DP |
Anonymous
Oh, and NY of course. |
Anonymous
Exactly |
Anonymous
Is it possible that they use another system? |
Anonymous
| Public schools can't ask parents for ID as to legal or not. We can ask nothing. Can only enroll them and provide any services needed. I think that's true everywhere in US. |
Anonymous
Anonymous
and saying that they need to go after employers, yet we HAVE A SYSTEM THAT WORKS! and they refuse to mandate e-verify Title 42 is a good start, but here are bills that have been introduced in both chambers that would EFFECTIVELY END THE BORDER CRISIS. ☀Rep. Andy Biggs' (R-Ari.) H.R.1901 and Sen. Mike Lee's (R-Utah) S.884 introduced bills to address asylum fraud. ☀Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Cal.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have introduced mandatory E-Verify bills into the House (H.R.78) and Senate (S.71) respectively. Where are democrats? Why do they refuse to mandate E-Verify ? A 2016 study confirmed what many have known for years: The E-Verify system is remarkably effective at deterring illegal immigration. Researchers Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny found that "having an E-Verify law reduces the number of less-educated prime-age immigrants from Mexico and Central America — immigrants who are likely to be unauthorized — living in a state." They studied the direct effect that the adoption of E-Verify has on the illegal alien population. They focused on Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Utah — all states that adopted E-Verify policies. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40176-016-0053-3 |
Anonymous
|
To analyze how large influxes of immigrant workers, in this case, construction workers, impact the market, the Los Angeles Times studied the Southern California building trade. The Times wrote that over a few decades, construction workers went from being majority union, and majority U.S.-born, to majority immigrant. In the article conclusion, journalist Natalie Kitroeff wrote, “Nonunion shops made aggressive inroads into home building with workers who had less experience.
The result: Today slightly more than 1 in 10 construction workers are in a union, compared with 4 in 10 in the 1970s….an influx of immigrants who would work for less made it easier for builders to quickly shift to a nonunion labor force…” In a relatively short time, immigration played a leading role in eliminating solid, blue-collar United Brotherhood of Carpenters jobs that paid middle-class wages, offered health care, paid vacations and pensions. |
Anonymous