Politics & Policy

Insist on E-Verify

(Larry Downing/Reuters)

Our first order of business on immigration policy must be to make sure that our immigration laws can be enforced so we can have an immigration policy worthy of the name. A significant number of illegal immigrants, and a tacit official tolerance for it, is incompatible with that goal.

If we want to make sure that illegal immigration is brought down and kept down — even as the American economy grows stronger — then the most important step we can take is not building a border wall or arresting illegal border crossers, with or without families. Roughly two-fifths of illegal immigrants did not cross the border illegally in the first place. They came here legally and then overstayed their visas.

The most important step is to keep illegal immigrants from having gainful employment, whichever route they took to be here illegally. We must make it possible and mandatory for employers to verify that their new hires are present in the United States legally. After all, it’s the prospect of economic advance, rather than crime or political chaos, that drives almost all illegal immigration. To get control of it — and not just at the border — we have to take away the economic incentive. The knowledge that it will be much more difficult to make money in the U.S. will serve as a humane deterrent against future illegal immigration. Moreover, mandatory verification for new hires will make it harder for existing illegal immigrants to switch jobs, so some of them will leave. In addition, the mandatory implementation of E-Verify would make it easier to prosecute employers who exploit illegal workers and depress wages for lower-income Americans.

The Trump administration has been hesitant to put E-Verify front and center — it’s not as emotive as the president’s signature lines about immigration, and the business wing of the party is opposed. But, as we’ve seen over the last few weeks at the border, once illegal immigrants are in the country, even if they have just arrived, it’s a significant challenge to remove them. E-Verify would serve as a deterrent and diminish the illegal population without the government having to directly remove anyone (although, obviously, deportation is a completely legitimate tool of enforcement).

Once we have stanched the flow of illegal immigration in a durable way, we can consider granting amnesty to those illegal immigrants who have put down roots and avoided trouble. At that point, we will have greater confidence that we have ended the familiar cycle in which one amnesty, by inviting more illegal immigration, begets another.

The House is scheduled to vote on immigration this week. A bill sponsored by the House leadership attempts to split the difference between immigration hawks and moderate Republicans. Even if it passes the House, is not likely to survive a filibuster in the Senate, so the main purpose of the vote is to put legislators on record about what they want in immigration policy, and to exert an influence on the ultimate political settlement of this issue.

The current version of the bill contains several laudable provisions. Granting amnesty for people who came here illegally as minors and who have been law-abiding otherwise; re-orienting legal immigration from the reunification of extended families to the recruitment of skilled workers; reductions in legal immigration; allowing children to be held with their parents while their asylum claims are processed: We have endorsed all of these ideas and favor them still (provided, of course, that the amnesty is coupled with serious enforcement measures).

But the bill does not mandate the use of E-Verify for new hires. Conservatives should insist that it does.

NOW WATCH: ‘Trump Wants Republicans To Drop Immigration’

The Editors comprise the senior editorial staff of the National Review magazine and website.

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

The March for Life Is a March for Truth

Pro-lifers are marching today, as they do every year, to commemorate a great evil that was done in January 1973 and to express solidarity with its innocent victims. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade eliminated legal protections for unborn children in all 50 states, and did so without any ... Read More
Law & the Courts

The March for Life Is a March for Truth

Pro-lifers are marching today, as they do every year, to commemorate a great evil that was done in January 1973 and to express solidarity with its innocent victims. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade eliminated legal protections for unborn children in all 50 states, and did so without any ... Read More

A Nation of Barbers

It seems almost inevitable that long hair is unwelcome at Barbers Hill High School. There’s a touch of aptronymic poetry in Texas public-school dress-code disputes. When I was in school in the 1980s, at the height of the Satanism panic, the local school-district superintendent circulated a list of ... Read More

A Nation of Barbers

It seems almost inevitable that long hair is unwelcome at Barbers Hill High School. There’s a touch of aptronymic poetry in Texas public-school dress-code disputes. When I was in school in the 1980s, at the height of the Satanism panic, the local school-district superintendent circulated a list of ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Clarence Thomas Speaks

Those who know Justice Clarence Thomas say that any perception of him as dour or phlegmatic couldn't be more off-base. He's a charming, gracious, jovial man, full of bonhomie and easy with a laugh, or so I'm told by people who know him well. On summer breaks he likes to roam around the country in an RV and stay ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Clarence Thomas Speaks

Those who know Justice Clarence Thomas say that any perception of him as dour or phlegmatic couldn't be more off-base. He's a charming, gracious, jovial man, full of bonhomie and easy with a laugh, or so I'm told by people who know him well. On summer breaks he likes to roam around the country in an RV and stay ... Read More
U.S.

Nadler’s Folly

Jerry Nadler must have missed the day in law school where they teach you about persuasion. The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover-up. He said ... Read More
U.S.

Nadler’s Folly

Jerry Nadler must have missed the day in law school where they teach you about persuasion. The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover-up. He said ... Read More