Archive for Monday, May 14, 2012

Immigration measure rejected in budget talks

May 14, 2012


— A proposal to require government contractors in Kansas to use the federal E-Verify database to ensure employees aren't illegal immigrants won't survive legislative negotiations over the state budget.

House and Senate negotiators have concluded they don't want to include a major policy change in the spending plan for the fiscal year beginning July 1.

The proposal would require companies having contracts with the state worth more than $50,000 to submit a notarized statement saying they use E-Verify to check the status of new employees.

During a debate last week, Rep. Anthony Brown, a Eudora Republican, persuaded House members to add the proposal to the chamber's proposed budget, imposing the policy for only a year. Senators did not consider the idea before approving their version of the budget.


kansanjayhawk 6 years ago

Interesting that when campaigning they say they support requiring E-verify but after the special interests get involved our legislators sometimes wilt.

Cait McKnelly 6 years ago

Interesting that all of the laws coming out of these state houses are to punish the illegal immigrant and not the employer that hires them.

jhawkinsf 6 years ago

One of them knows for certain that they are engaging in illegal activity. The other is walking a tightrope between determining whether or not an applicant is legal while not engaging in such improper behavior as racial profiling. One person's behavior is black and white. The other is full of grey. However, if it's shown that either or both knowingly engaged in illegal behavior, they both should be punished.

William Weissbeck 6 years ago

jhawkinsf: there is a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, and you should be first in line. Ignorance as an intentional business model is not an excuse. Many of these businesses "shield" themselves by using agencies to provide the workforce. They know exactly what they are doing.

jhawkinsf 6 years ago

I'll admit that it was a long time ago, pre-computers and such, but I had an employee who worked for me for a couple of years. He was a nice guy and a good worker. After a couple of years, he decided to quit. On his last day, we shook hands and he told me that the documentation he provided to me when he was hired was false. Those years he worked there, he didn't even use his real name. I had been calling him something other than his correct name.
I owned a small family business, one that employed between 8-10 people at any given time. But when one did quit, or was sent home, or went home voluntarily, there is great need and temptation to hire the roommate or friend of one of your current workers. Is that person legal? From my experience, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance. I could greatly decrease the chances of hiring illegal immigrants if I simply chose not to hire people with foreign accents. But we all know what I'd be accused of then, don't we.
Put people in a no win situation and they'll likely not win.

jhawkinsf 6 years ago

I was listening to the radio a couple of weeks back when they reported that over 50% of the illegal immigrants to this country came from Mexico. Next on the list was China at under 5%. They didn't mention Canada, but since you did, care to enlighten us as to the percentage of illegal immigrants coming from our northern neighbor.

jhawkinsf 6 years ago

I agree that illegal is illegal. And I am not at all in favor of any discrimination, regardless of skin color, country of origin, or any other protected class. I was trying to interpret your comment about Canadians. Quite frankly, I'm not sure why you bring them up or where you're going with that reference, other than to suggest that racial profiling might be easier if done against brown skinned people. But as I said and as I'll say again with emphasis, I reject racial profiling as anything other than abhorrent.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.