Skip ahead to page content

federal_budget_and_spending.jpg

Should the government take your job away?

June 5, 2007 | By Nathaniel Ward

Should the federal government have the power to fire you from your current job? That’s a dramatic new role for the federal government buried in a provision of the immigration bill before the Senate.

Under this plan, Heritage experts Wes Dyck, Bill Beach and James Sherk explain, “American workers would actually need approval from [the Department of Homeland Security] to continue working in their current jobs.”

Millions of American citizens and legal residents, they continue, are not marked as either eligible or ineligible to work in the government’s current Employment Eligibility Verification System database. And if Washington bureaucrats cannot determine if someone is “approved” for work, an employer would have to fire him.

“Forcing companies to fire workers who fail EEVS verification would force millions of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants out of work because of bureaucratic mistakes,” Heritage’s experts argue.

This is a tremendous expansion of government intrusion into everyday life. Instead of targeting law-abiding American citizens and legal immigrants, they argue, the government should target its enforcement on those sectors of the economy where illegal immigrants are most likely to work, such as agriculture or construction.

Support Heritage’s research on immigration and other issues

Listen to Heritage’s radio ad on the costs of illegal immigration—or send the ad to your friends

Immigration update

Here’s the latest Heritage analysis of the Senate immigration proposal, which is expected to come to a vote this week:

  • What to do with illegal immigrants already here. Lawmakers, write James Carafano and Matthew Spalding, should “reject amnesty for those who have broken the law, create a powerful deterrent against further illegal migration, and insist that those who wish to live and work in the United States first return to their countries of origin and then apply, without partiality or prejudice and in line and on par with other applicants, for legal entry into the United States.”

    “Some backers of the Senate bill have decried such an ‘attrition’ strategy as wildly impractical or a ‘silent amnesty.’ But it is the only strategy that offers a fair and reasonable alternative between the extremes of legal amnesty and forced deportation. Unlike those alternatives, it relies on the marketplace and incentives to resolve over time this seemingly intractable situation in accord with core principles of governance and the interests and individual choices of a very large and diverse unlawful population.”

    Programs that might be implemented to encourage legal instead of illegal immigration could include: a real temporary worker program; a streamlined visa programs; an employment sponsorship system; and a national trust to encourage voluntary return.
  • Enhancing border security. National security expert James Carafano points out that Congress’ “proposal would not improve border security.” While it contains some useful programs, its amnesty provisions and its poorly-designed temporary worker program will encourage further illegal immigration even as it leaves the border unsecured with its ill-designed trigger mechanisms. In addition, he notes that the bill focuses on enforcement spending and not on actual enforcement results.
  • Ensuring workers are legal. Instead of expanding government meddling to ensure firms hire only legal immigrants and that temporary workers return home, Beach and Sherk write, a better solution would be to turn to surety bonds. Insurance companies that back these bonds would have an incentive to efficiently ensure that employers hire only legal workers, while temporary workers would have an incentive to leave the country when their visas expire.

Paulson: China needs to reform

Prompt Chinese adoption of free-enterprise reforms will benefit both China and the United States, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson said today at The Heritage Foundation.

By enacting fundamental changes and opening its economy to investors from abroad, including the United States, he explained, China would develop into a more balanced economy less dependent on exports. For example, opening Chinese capital markets to competition from top-tier American financial firms would benefit both nations’ economies.

Read on for Secretary Paulson’s remarks on the urgency of reform.

How (not) to stop gang crime

Gang crime is a serious problem. But Congress’ proposed solution—making such activity a federal offense—could actually make the problem worse by “detract[ing] from effective anti-gang strategies,” Heritage legal scholars Erica Little and Brian Walsh write in a new paper.

This approach is rife with unintended consequences, they explain.

Read more about the unintended consequences of this legislation.

In other news

Coming up at Heritage

To attend the following Heritage Foundation events, RSVP at Heritage’s events website. Or you can watch these events live online at Heritage.org.  All times are Eastern.

Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.