05-04-2011, 09:35 PM
Grace62 wrote:
There is a US Supreme Court case pending around this issue. US Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting.
At issue is whether a state (in this case Arizona) can force businesses to use a federally funded database to verify employee immigration status and eligibility to work. I believe it's called e-Verify.
There's a lot more...the Chamber has had a great deal to say about immigration enforcement and the workplace and the general stance is that they don't want businesses encumbered with regulations, though those regulations are generally intended to help prevent exploitation of both documented and undocumented workers.
As for your other comments, I've already said that I'm in general agreement.
Right, i've seen the complaints about E-Verify, but that's an argument about a possible use of an existing system, not I9 enforcement. Today, E-Verify is broadly a voluntary program, and for obvious reasons E-Verify participants are not likely to be subject to I9 enforcement action. I don't mean to split hairs here, but we were discussing the effects of auditing and enforcement, not of implementing E-Verify.
The Chamber has a long and storied past of taking strong positions on immigration reform and labor law, and they aren't shy about making a fuss. So with all of the major accomplishments of I9 enforcement, why is it so hard to find someone from the CoC crying foul? I think it's because the impact of I9 enforcement is so minimal that it's not even worth complaining about. I think that the Chamber is happy to accept the costs of I9 enforcement if it keeps other programs like E-Verify at bay a while longer.
Are you generally in agreement with this? It was my key point from the post in question:
rjmacs wrote:
However, i am unconvinced that deterrence in the form of fines (rather than, say, prison time) is likely to be effective. Auditing is anemic enforcement, chiefly effective in keeping those who are likely to comply in line. Those who stand to profit significantly by flouting the rules are weakly incentivized by the threat of minor financial sanctions.