Advertisement

May 18, 2013

Immigration Compromise Makes Bipartisan Headway as Congress, Business and Labor Converge on Solutions

The movement to craft a bipartisan plan for comprehensive immigration reform appears to be making genuine headway despite the Capitol’s reputation for gridlock. The tide toward progress has been helped by an unlikely compromise between U.S. business and labor groups, represented by the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, who recently reached abreakthrough agreement to support a series of principles that will make it easier for employers to hire foreign employees when American workers cannot fill needed jobs. The new scheme would include a new worker visa program that may obviate the two camps’ long-standing disagreement about the prospect of a temporary worker program. Moreover, a joint statement released by the groups cites the need for a new federal agency bureau that will inform Congress and the public about labor market needs and worker shortages.

In addition, House Republicans are debating a closed-door proposal that includes eventual citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. Under the House version, undocumented immigrants would first be allowed to live and work in the country on a provisional basis and subsequently qualify for “green cards” through employer or family-based sponsorship. For its part, the Senate is also involved in active talks about comprehensive immigration reform and prominent senators from both parties have recently held high-level meetings with President Obama about this issue, prompting Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican – South Carolina) to state that it was “one of the best meetings” he had “ever had with the [P]resident.”

As the debate surrounding immigration reform progresses, E-Verify, the federal government’s electronic employment verification program, is also becoming a key component of the effort to overhaul the nation’s long-broken immigration system. To this end, the bipartisan group of senators who recently introduced a framework for immigration reform called for the introduction of a mandatory program such as E-Verify in order to give businesses an accurate and secure means of verifying employees’ work authorization. Although thousands of employers voluntarily use E-Verify as part of their employment eligibility verification process, the program is only mandatory for federal government agencies and contractors, as well as certain states and localities that have enacted measures requiring employees to E-Verify prospective hires. For a state-by-state analysis of E-Verify statutes across the country, please consult our interactive E-Verify map.

©2013 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Nataliya Binshteyn focuses her practice on global business immigration matters. Her experience includes representing political asylum applicants in immigration proceedings before Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges. Nataliya has experience conducting client interviews, researching country conditions and applicable laws, and soliciting expert testimony as well as drafting affidavits and immigration documents for filing with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

703-903-7583

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.