Is it too much, too little? Is Barbour going to pay for this in the business community?
STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR
ON SENATE BILL 2988
MARCH 17, 2008“Today, I have signed into law SB 2988, a bill designed to discourage illegal immigration in Mississippi by creating new penalties for hiring illegal immigrants. I appreciate the efforts of Lieutenant Governor Phil Bryant and others in the House and Senate who have worked so hard on this issue.
Any employer who knowingly hires an illegal alien should be held accountable, and that is the goal of SB 2988. While I have signed this legislation into law, I have serious concerns about specific provisions of the bill that could have unintended negative consequences. I urge the Legislature to make the necessary technical changes to ensure this bill will have the intended effect.
Senate Bill 2988 mandates that employers utilize the federal E-Verify program administered by the Department of Homeland Security. I am concerned about andating the E-Verify system as the sole source from which an employer in Mississippi can verify a potential employee’s eligibility, especially since the federal government itself has said E-Verify is not a reliable system. According to a 2006 Report prepared for the United States Department of Homeland Security: “The accuracy of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) database used for verification has improved substantially since the start of the Basic Pilot program. However, further improvements are needed, especially if the Web Basic Pilot becomes a mandated national program – improvements that USCIS personnel report are currently underway. Most importantly, the database used for verification is still not sufficiently up to date to meet the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) requirements for accurate verification, especially for naturalized citizens. USCIS accommodates this problem by providing for manual review that is time consuming and can lead to discrimination against work-authorized foreign-born persons during the period that the verification is ongoing, especially naturalized citizens.” Mississippi’s economy is growing; we have record employment. We don’t want American citizens or others legally here to lose jobs because the verification system is technologically flawed. I urge the Legislature to add other reliable verification systems beyond E-Verify to confirm the hiring eligibility of potential employees.
The requirement to use E-Verify to determine the eligibility of potential new employees is phased-in, depending on the businesses’ number of employees. Smaller businesses are not required to use the federal program until July 1, 2011; however, SB 2988 establishes employers’ use of E-Verify as an absolute defense against suits brought by a former employee, as it should. But the bill does not make plain that the smaller employers are immune from these private suits until the mandate to use E-Verify goes into effect for employers in their size category. It should be made plain that small employers are exempt from and will be held harmless from the private litigation referred to in Section 2(4)(e) until such time as they are required to use the E-Verify system under the statue’s timetable in Section 2(7).
Also, while the intent of SB 2988 is to hold employers accountable for their actions, the term “employing entity” is used in certain places without being defined. I ask the Legislature to clarify that an “employing entity” in this bill is the entity that is the employer of the employee found to be an illegal immigrant.
Employers are understandably concerned when government applies new regulations to their businesses, especially when these new regulations provide for powerful penalties, even including loss of current contracts or of a license to do business in our state. Employers, therefore, can be expected to be very cautious in hiring with the sword of these penalties hanging over their heads.
It is, therefore, very important that the law be written clearly and be interpreted predictably. SB 2988 falls short of that standard, and it also limits compliance to a system of verification that even its provider, the U.S. Government, says is insufficiently reliable.
I look forward to working with the Legislature this session to make these greatly needed technical amendments.”
This is why Bush and company have done little in the way of fighting illegal immigration. The moneyed elite they serve, likes having cheap labor. The far right is split on the issue. The xenophobes want all brown people gone. The Wall Street contingent sees immigration reform as a threat to their cheap labor. `
ReplyDeleteIllegal immigration along with outsourcing and unfair trade laws have also driven down wages here in the US.
Here's what gets me: The damn thing passed 111-8 in the House. 111-8. Even if Barbour hadn't signed it, that is far, far beyond the minimum required for a veto-proof majority.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't have expected a Republican governor to veto this bill, and of course Eaves wouldn't have either--in fact, he contributed to its passage by criticizing Republicans for not kicking "the Spanish people" out of the state during the election season.
But where were the so-called Democrats--majorities in both houses, mind you? When a bill like this passes, it makes me wonder why I bother voting for Democratic legislators. From an immigrants' rights point of view, I may as well be voting Republican. 111-8. If the 5th Circuit doesn't get rid of this bill, history will judge us all by that number.
I am interested to know the cutoff for no. of employess to be considered a "small business".
ReplyDeleteAs Barbour said, the language here is pretty vague and the whole bill appears to have been a complete waste of time, no matter what side of the immigration issue you are on.
The immigration si very dicey. While I am agree with Tom that immigrant rights have to be pursued, there also has to be a balance found between immigrant rights and the rights of the American worker. Right now the taxpaying American worker is getting the short end of the stick, while the corporate masters line their pockets with profits from cheap labor.
ReplyDeleteI know a lot of legislators were taking serious heat from their constituents after the JT & Dave stunt.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if Barbour had vetoed it, I don't think the Democrats would be rallying for a veto, and neither would Bryant. He wouldn't want to go against his boss.
Jake, that's interesting, because I heard from a credible source that one of the reasons Democrats supported the bill was was so that Barbour would veto it, for the business reasons he outlined in his formal response to the bill, and then they could land on him--as they had in last year's elections--for not being tough enough on immigration.
ReplyDeletePhil Bryant is the godfather of anti-immigrant grandstanding, and Franks gave him an amen, but Barbour refused to play along with him on it and Eaves hammered him for that--including in one commercial that focused exclusively on Barbour's purported failure to get rid of immigrants.
I think we all know that the current situation vis-a-vis immigration is based on racism, not workers' rights, and that this racism was exploited by people on both sides of the aisle last year. As we speak, this racism is being exploited in the Musgrove Senate campaign, where he is also promising to drive illegal immigration out of Mississippi (an oblique reference to Lott's support of comprehensive immigration reform). It is becoming increasingly clear that a large chunk of the Mississippi Democratic Party is taking the same position on gays and immigrants today that the party took on African Americans forty years ago, and I think that's a shame.
Tom, I was speaking my personal viewpoints on immigration, not pertaining to that bill.
ReplyDeleteWe have a long way to go to get to the gay rights thing in Mississippi. I wish our party leaders would not say some of the things they do, but in the same breath may I say I don't want to die in that ditch. We are way down the evoloutionary ladder of progressive politics. Kitchen table issues must be addressed first and education levels raised to get a majority to be as enlightend as you and I on gay rights.
Oh, I gotcha. Well, in general, Jeff, I think we probably agree on immigration. Ever been to a MIRA meeting? I've been to a few; not enough because Wednesdays are bad for me right now, but at one of the first ones I went to someone passed around a photocopy of an actual contract that workers on the coast were required to sign. It said the worker didn't have the rights that go with being an employee, didn't have the rights that go with being an independent contractor, and would be expected to work full-time or more. It was basically a slavery contract.
ReplyDeleteSo, yeah, workers' rights is a real issue vis-a-vis immigration and that's why I think comprehensive immigration reform is needed. Everybody working in the United States should be protected by the same regulations--minimum wage, workplace conditions, and so forth. That's also why I'm more sympathetic to bills that target employers than I am to bills that target immigrants.
With respect to immigration and gay rights, I'm not asking all politicians to be progressive. It's great when they are, but I know some can't be. But what I want is for them to at least do what Haley Barbour did in 2007 by not trying to use immigration and anti-gay legislation as wedge issues. Barbour mostly avoided those topics, and when he did discuss them, he did so in very measured ways (saying, for example, that he didn't know what would have happened on the coast without the influx of workers). Eaves exploited prejudices. Franks exploited prejudices. (Bryant exploited prejudices too, of course.) I'm not asking every politician to be part of the solution, but that doesn't mean every politician has to be part of the problem, either.
35 percent increase in hate crimes against Latinos between 2003 and 2007. And this bill, for me, falls right into that general dynamic. We have to do better.
Immigrant Rights? If you are illegally inside the United States your right is to leave. End of discussion. Its not racist to want people to follow the law.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I there probably was a group of Democrats who were pushing the limits of Barbour. However, I don't know how anyone would think he would actually veto that bill with it hitting the front page everyday.
ReplyDeleteSecond, there are lot more issues than this immigration bill. The racism and xenophodia extend a lot further than illegal immigrants. People are targeting legal immigrants. Companies are importing people and paying them at ridiculously low wages under false pretenses.
Matthewn, if only it were that easy. If illegal immigrants just sat around sucking up our tax dollars all day like so many of our legal citizens do, that would be one thing. But the fact that the vast majority of these people work their asses off and thereby contribute to the greater good of the economy and society makes it hard to just say "leave."
ReplyDeleteHow about we make the legal citizens who don't vote, yet feel they are entitled to their piece of the pie instead of having to work for it leave?