PORTLAND, Ore. - From immigrants' rights groups to religious, labor and business organizations, more than a dozen groups in Oregon joined in a national day of action on Wednesday to voice their united opposition to the Electronic Employment Verification System (EEVS), commonly known as E-Verify. It is a government database that some employers use to check the immigration status of workers or job applicants. In a few states, its use is mandatory, but not in Oregon. However, a bill in Congress would change that.

Immigrants' rights groups are not the only ones concerned about the possibility. Others opposing E-Verify that participated in the day of action include the American Friends Service Committee, CAUSA, the Main Street Alliance, the Oregon Association of Nurseries, PCUN, and SEIU Local 49.

Kevin Diaz, legal director with the ACLU of Oregon, says a person's immigration status won't matter on the job, if their information in the federal database is wrong.

"If for some reason your check doesn't clear because of one of those errors, it could mean that you lose some employment, or you may not be able to start work until that all gets cleared up. That may require you to go to various federal agencies to figure out where the errors are."

Those who support making E-Verify mandatory say the system is not unreliable, and that a survey last year of employers who use it indicated most are satisfied with it. The current controversy is about making it mandatory.

The ACLU also has privacy concerns about the database, says Diaz. He points out that, even if the error rate is small, it translates to more than 1 million legal workers with inaccurate records.

E-Verify proponents contend it would put more workers on the job legally and drop Oregon's unemployment rate. However, Diaz says that that view assumes jobless workers in other industries would want to relocate and retrain for the kinds of jobs in agriculture or food service often held by undocumented workers. He's convinced mandatory E-Verify would create more problems than it solves.

"Essentially, you're causing the potential to lose jobs for Americans. You've got an extra burden that falls particularly hard on small business. You have the potential to lose tax revenue. And it doesn't even accomplish what it says it's supposed to accomplish."

The legislation (HR 2164) to make electronic work-eligibility checks mandatory is in the House Judiciary Committee in Congress today.



get more stories like this via email

Advocates for immigrants are pushing back on a bill signed by Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds in the last few days of the legislative session, modeled on a recent, controversial Texas law.

Senate File 2340 gives local law enforcement officers and judges the authority to deport undocumented immigrants.

Erica Johnson, executive director of the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, argued the bill is an overreach, and said Iowa law enforcement officers are not authorized to enforce it.

"This is a pretty clear intervention into federal territory," Johnson pointed out. "U.S. immigration law is governed by federal law."

Much like the author of the Texas bill, supporters in Iowa blame the Biden administration for failing to slow illegal immigration, so the state has decided to take matters into its own hands.

Johnson contended the bill and other anti-immigrant sentiment during the just-completed legislative session target the very people Iowa, with its dwindling population, will depend on for its future workforce.

"What we need is communities that are safe, where workers have access to dignified, safe workplaces," Johnson emphasized. "The truth of what Iowa's future could be depends on immigrants and immigrant workers in our state, and unfortunately, this law could take us back, away from that possible future. "

Johnson added her organization will pursue legal ways to block the bill from taking effect in July.


get more stories like this via email

The future of Senate Bill 4 is still tangled in court challenges. It's the Texas law that would allow police to arrest people for illegally crossing the border. But groups are speaking out about the impact of "Operation Lone Star" on the youngest migrants. Governor Greg Abbott continues to bus migrant families to other states, many with young children - more than 100,000 families so far.

Robert Sanborn, CEO of Children at Risk, works to improve the quality of life for boys and girls in Texas, and contends the policy has put trauma on top of trauma.

"We never want children to be political pawns. We don't want maximum chaos on the backs of children. We want children to grow up and be assets for our community," he contended.

Sanborn points out that 2.2 million children in Texas are immigrants, and said it would be less stressful for kids if families were not bused in the middle of the night, and if they were allowed to pick their destination.

When immigrants arrive at the border, they are evaluated to determine if they're eligible for asylum.

Beatriz Zavala, clinical coordinator at El Paso-based Humanitarian Outreach for Migrant Emotional Health, or "HOME," said the children in this situation are at higher risk for mental health disorders.

"What is particularly troubling is the profound disregard for the stability and protection these families need. The impact on their mental health is undeniable. These are not just statistics. These are children, real children," she said.

As part of Operation Lone Star, families have been bused to Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. The governor has said the practice is needed to keep the Texas-Mexico border safe.


get more stories like this via email

Legislation in Albany would create the first right to counsel for people in immigration court.

The Access to Representation Act would provide immigrants the right to an attorney in their New York immigration cases, ending the tendency to represent themselves if they cannot afford one.

Estimates show a backlog of more than 330,000 immigration court cases, and fewer than half have attorneys. Studies show without legal counsel, migrants are less likely to remain in the U.S.

Marlene Galaz, director of immigrant rights policy for the New York Immigration Coalition, described what the bill would do.

"It has a six-year ramp-up to start implementing and building infrastructure," Galaz outlined. "Having a pipeline between law schools for law students to go into immigration practice, and getting to nonprofits and so on."

Galaz noted most opposition centers around the $150 million to fund the program but pointed out the total expenditure is less than 1% of the state's $229 billion budget. She added anti-immigrant rhetoric has also damaged support for the bill. Currently, it is in the state Senate Finance Committee.

The New York City Comptroller's office said enacting the bill would benefit the state financially. It could keep about 53,000 people from being deported, which would result in almost $8.5 billion in local, state and federal taxes over the next 30 years.

Galaz emphasized the influx of migrants has saturated the court system, leading to what could have been an avoidable backlog.

"I firmly believe that if these investments had been made when we first asked for them, I believe, like, three years ago, then we wouldn't be struggling," Galaz contended. "We would have had the infrastructure built to address an increase in welcoming our newest neighbors."

A Vera Institute survey showed 93% of New Yorkers across party lines and regions support access to attorneys for all people, including those in immigration court, and government-funded attorneys for them.


get more stories like this via email