{"id":22475,"date":"2020-02-05T14:54:57","date_gmt":"2020-02-05T19:54:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=22475"},"modified":"2020-02-05T14:54:59","modified_gmt":"2020-02-05T19:54:59","slug":"illegal-immigrants-labor-unions-congress-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2020\/02\/05\/illegal-immigrants-labor-unions-congress-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"House to Vote on a Union-Backed Bill that Rewards Illegal Immigration"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Tomorrow the House will vote<\/a> on a union-backed bill containing an ill-advised provision that enhances the primary motivator of illegal immigration \u2013 working in the United States. H.R. 2474<\/a>, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act upends federal labor law to reward illegal aliens while making it next to impossible for businesses to fire illegal aliens with union status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like\npresent day unions claim to do, FAIR has long defended the rights, welfare, and\ndignity of working-class Americans, while acknowledging that working in the\nUnited States is the primary motivator of illegal immigration. The presence of\ncheap foreign labor depresses wages and reduces opportunities for American\nworkers. Union leaders, from Samuel Gompers to A. Philip Randolph to Cesar\nChavez, have all understood this. Now, big labor supports mass immigration and\nlegislation like the PRO Act which would entrench currently-working illegal\naliens in their jobs, removing any incentive for employers to obey the law and\ndismiss unauthorized workers. Why? To enrich union bosses and bolster their\nranks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) currently allows illegal aliens to allege employer violation of their collective bargaining rights before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). However, unlike legal workers and American citizens, illegal aliens cannot receive back pay from the NLRB as a remedy \u2013 something that was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Hoffman Plastics Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB<\/a><\/em>. The PRO Act would allow them to receive back pay during the time they took jobs illegally, further entrenching illegal labor and displacing more American workers. Worse, illegal aliens would be allowed to sue their employers in court if the NLRB does not act fast enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\naddition to owing back pay and other damages from so-called unfair labor\npractices, the PRO Act subjects employers to civil penalties of up to $100,000.\nThis means that if an employer makes the admirable decision of firing an\nillegal worker to hire an American instead, they could face an unfair labor\npractice charge alleging that the illegal alien was fired for union status\nrather than being here illegally. This is not right. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\nshould Congress do instead? It\u2019s simple \u2013 the biggest magnet for illegal\nimmigration is employment. The only real solution to this problem is mandating\nE-Verify, which would ensure that even unscrupulous employers cannot hire\nillegal aliens instead of American workers. Only when the price of hiring\nillegal aliens outweighs the benefits will we have achieved a victory for the\nAmerican worker, and most importantly, turn off the magnet that has driven\nillegal immigration for decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Members of Congress must stand with those American workers negatively affected by an ever increasing illegal workforce and vote NO on the PRO Act. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tomorrow the House will vote on a union-backed bill containing an ill-advised provision that enhances the primary motivator of illegal immigration \u2013 working in the United States. H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act upends federal labor law to reward illegal aliens while making it next to impossible for businesses to fire<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":41,"featured_media":14524,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[156],"tags":[1524,5691,1185,284],"yst_prominent_words":[1985,2019,1938,2169,2008,2011,2411,7683,7680,7678,7687,7686,7681,7677,7676,7679,7684,7682,1933,1937],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22475"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/41"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22475"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22475\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22476,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22475\/revisions\/22476"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14524"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22475"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22475"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22475"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=22475"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}