Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Red Mountain

(2,058 posts)
8. There was a brief mention of e-verify
Wed Apr 2, 2025, 04:01 PM
Apr 2

E-verify is used to be sure the person you are hiring is eligible to work in the US.

In NC any business that employs more than 25 people is required to use it.

The argument against requiring everybody to use it is usually 'the cost of compliance is too high'.

Can't possibly be worse than payroll taxes, etc.

I'm not sure how they calculate that but I'm guessing it's a bullshit excuse designed to create a loophole for unscrupulous employers.

Two big issues......existing employees are not required to be certified when the employer passes the 25 employee threshold.

And it creates an incentive to create shell companies that employ fewer than 25 people to avoid e-verify. See the construction industry.

Anyway......why not require every business with any number of employees certify their employees are eligible to work annually?

Seems reasonable. If somebody pops up as ineligible they should have plenty of time to make amends......and the system should be geared towards helping them rather than forcing them out.

Am I crazy? Would this not have a positive impact?

I personally know undocumented people that have been working in the US for 20+ years. Worked alongside them. Good people. Their employer knows good and well they aren't here legally. They have families and kids who are US citizens. For those people I would create an exception.........not so much their employers.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»ICE Raids Idaho Lawmaker'...»Reply #8