{"id":657982,"date":"2026-02-10T18:07:30","date_gmt":"2026-02-10T23:07:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wvmetronews.com\/?p=657982"},"modified":"2026-02-10T20:56:18","modified_gmt":"2026-02-11T01:56:18","slug":"e-verify-bill-is-blatantly-anti-business","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wvmetronews.com\/2026\/02\/10\/e-verify-bill-is-blatantly-anti-business\/","title":{"rendered":"E-Verify Bill is Blatantly Anti-Business"},"content":{"rendered":"

Listen to “Commentary – TJ Meadows” on Spreaker.<\/a><\/p>\n

Republicans were once known as a party supportive of business, especially small businesses. Judging from those pushing new mandates on private employers to use the E-Verify system, the evidence \u2014 at least as it pertains to some in the House \u2014 points in a different direction.<\/p>\n

House Bill 4198<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, sponsored by Del. Elias Coop-Gonzalez, places several new requirements on private businesses.<\/p>\n

First, it requires every covered employer to enroll in E-Verify and maintain an active employer account. Participation isn\u2019t optional. If you are an employer under this article, you must be in the system.<\/p>\n

Next, when someone is hired, the employer may put that person to work, but only provisionally. The new hire works conditionally while their eligibility is checked. The employer must still complete the verification even if the employee leaves or is terminated within the first three business days. A short stint on the job does not remove the obligation.<\/p>\n

If E-Verify cannot confirm that a worker is authorized to work in the United States, the employer may not hire, continue to employ, or rehire that individual. Continued employment would violate the rule.<\/p>\n

Finally, the bill imposes a record-keeping duty. Verification records must be kept for the duration of employment or at least three years \u2014 whichever is longer. The intent is to ensure a paper trail for audits or compliance reviews.<\/p>\n

Taken together, the provision makes E-Verify a routine and documented part of hiring: enroll, verify every hire, act on the results, and retain the records.<\/p>\n

Federal law already requires employers to complete I-9 forms and, in some cases, to use E-Verify. Noncompliance carries penalties, including fines. There is already a mechanism to ensure illegals can’t work here.<\/p>\n

HB 4198 would have layered on additional state penalties that run into the thousands, although many of those were stripped out after delegates learned leveraging fines for enforcement was not in the state\u2019s purview legally.<\/p>\n

On third reading with right to amend<\/a><\/strong><\/span> Tuesday, the bill as amended was passed after lengthy debate<\/a><\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n

If lawmakers wanted to signal that the state is unfriendly to business, this approach risks doing just that. Should companies employ individuals who are not legally authorized to work? Of course not. But the federal government already has a compliance framework in place that businesses are following.<\/p>\n

In remarks to Del. David McCormick, House Majority Leader Pat McGeehan suggested the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce and other business associations like it oppose the mandate because they benefit from employing illegal labor.<\/p>\n

\u201cPerhaps they oppose it because a lot of the associations you just named love to make money at the expense of our people through illegal labor,\u201d McGeehan said.<\/p>\n

McCormick rejected that claim outright \u2014 and rightly so, it was a cheap shot.<\/p>\n

Businesses in this state meet market needs here, pay taxes here, and employ West Virginians \u2014 many of them constituents of the very lawmakers advancing these proposals. Casting broad accusations at the business community serves little purpose.<\/p>\n

Members of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce and the entire business community would be justified in asking for an apology for having their standards unjustly questioned so publicly. McGeehan, who will face former WVU football great Quincy Wilson in November, knows better. Perhaps Wilson is more pro-business? Voters can make that decision.<\/p>\n

More broadly, the state inserting itself deeper into this process looks less like sound policy and more like political messaging on a controversial national issue. Many of the delegates supporting this bill have never made a payroll or run a business. That lack of experience can show when mandates are crafted without regard to operational realities or an understanding of the rigors of business.<\/p>\n

Government already shifted its burden of eligibility verification onto businesses through the I-9 federal system. Fine. But why add another layer in West Virginia?<\/p>\n