Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Should businesses be forced to use E-Verify?

By Suzy Khimm

Embroiled in the ongoing immigration debate, a growing number of states and municipalities are rushing to embrace E-Verify, a federally created system that determines whether potential employees are legally permitted to work in the U.S. About 13 states, along with a dozen or so municipalities, have made the system mandatory for some or most businesses. Now even more states are trying to climb on board with the system, which verifies new hires with databases from the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security.

New Jersey is considering legislation that would make E-Verify mandatory for all businesses that employ more than 100 workers, and Pennsylvania is debating bills that would require all state contractors and subcontractors, and all construction companies to use the system. Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court agreed to review a case contesting a sweeping 2007 Arizona law that requires all businesses to use E-Verify and imposes sanctions on companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants, even going as far as revoking their business licenses.

The growing popularity of E-Verify isn't surprising, given the continuing failure of the federal government to enact comprehensive reform, despite its commitment to ramping up immigration audits on employers. The problem is there are serious questions about how accurate E-Verify is, whether it's fair to impose the cost of using such a system upon businesses, and what the negative repercussions might be for workers. Earlier this year, an independent review found that the system wrongly clears illegal workers 54 percent of the time -- a finding that shouldn't be terribly encouraging to those who were hoping the system would help curb illegal employment. On the flip side, 7 percent of U.S. citizens and legal immigrant workers were wrongly determined to be ineligible to work. A similar study from 2006-2007 found that error rates were 30 times higher for foreign-born workers and almost 100 times higher for naturalized citizens, raising questions whether the system is inherently discriminatory.

DHS has promised to review and update the system to make it more accurate, and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano remains an adamant supporter. But that hasn't quelled the concerns of immigration leaders such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, who supports a stronger, mandatory work
verification system but believes it hasn't proved to be up to the task. Meanwhile, as this Migration Policy Institute brief points out, there are concerns about the costs that mandatory E-Verify will impose upon businesses -- in new tech infrastructure, training and legal fees -- which could have a particularly hard-hitting impact on small companies. Finally, the Social Security Administration itself has complained that widespread use of E-Verify will sap resources and hundreds of millions of dollars from an agency that's already suffering from fiscal woes.

Some immigration policy analysts argue that best application of E-Verify right now -- in terms of both improved accuracy and minimal impacts on businesses and workers -- would be to expand pilot programs and explore the program on a voluntary, opt-in basis. The sweeping imposition of E-Verify in Arizona, by contrast, has had decidedly mixed results, in part because smaller businesses have simply declined to participate. Particularly given the current recession, it seems like the wrong time to impose the costs of using a potentially flawed system upon struggling businesses, not to mention the Social Security Administration.

Ultimately, advocates on both sides of the immigration debate see the adoption of a new national employment verification system as inevitable, in accordance with a 1986 law Congress passed that made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire illegal immigrants. But such a far-reaching, mandatory system needs to be rigorously evaluated and better funded if it's to perform as promised without needlessly punishing businesses and workers. Given the federal inaction on the issue, states and local communities have once again stepped into the breach. And the mounting, frequently politicized calls for an immigration crackdown could end up resulting in costly overreach.

Suzy Khimm is a political reporter for the Washington bureau of Mother Jones.

By Suzy Khimm  |  August 26, 2010; 11:55 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 'Those of us who work on children’s issues are very depressed'
Next: Why do more people think Obama is a Muslim?

Comments

"New Jersey is considering legislation that would make E-Verify mandatory for all businesses that employ more than 100 workers"

Because businesses with fewer than 100 employees don't hire ineligible workers? Why do so many regulations give small businesses a free pass?

Posted by: tl_houston | August 26, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

The left worries that E-Verify is somehow an undue burden. Ezra wrings his hands.

However, where was Ezra when the "instant check" system was installed to verify qualifications for buying a handgun?

I might add that the right to bear arms is an enumerated right and has just recently been held up (twice) byt the Supreme Court as an individual right.

Where was the whining then?

Posted by: WrongfulDeath | August 26, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

WrongfulDeath, you obviously do not even know who wrote the article, never mind what it actually says.

tl_houston, this day and age everyone is trying to avoid the appearance of putting a burden on 'small business'. Strictly speaking, everyone should use something like eVerify, including those who hire household help.

Before that happens though, eVerify must be made much more accurate then it is.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | August 26, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

WrongfulDeath, are you referring to a specific "instant check" system, or arguing a more general point? The post is arguing that this specific program is producing pretty horribly inaccurate results and is simultaneously being made mandatory for businesses to use. That seems like bad policy for a lot of reasons and should be addressed. Did/do background checks done for gun ownership produce horribly bad results?

Without more than you've given, I don't know that it's a valid comparison.

Posted by: MosBen | August 26, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Using data from the pro-open-borders "Migration Policy Institute" to assess the accuracy of E-verify is hardly credible. This Suzy Khimm is such a transparent apologist for the abuses of globalist capitalism that she must be getting her salary check signed directly by George Soros himself.

Posted by: MaryJessel | August 26, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The only people against using E-Verify are businesses who hire illegal aliens and other people who want to keep the status quo. The workplace enforcement promised in 1986 has never materialized and won't unless E-Verify is required to verify all jobs in the US. And that includes existing employees and all future hires. The detractors cite cases where identity theft allows an illegal alien to pass the E-Verify system. To combat this identity theft, the IRS and social security need to collaborate to uncover and eradicate identity theft. These steps, if followed and truly enforced, would free up millions of jobs now currently held. We also need to require E-Verify for all business licensees.

Posted by: merbc | August 26, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

@MosBen

I don't believe the system is so bad. I don't believe it is going to impose anything beyond trivial costs on legitimate employers. The post is all part of foot-dragging we have come to expect from the left when it comes to delivering comprehensive immigration reform. Sure you can have a fence, but we need a 3 year environmental study first. Yeah we can look at workplace enforcement, but first we have to be absolutely certain we have a system that is 100% accurate. Meanwhile we immediately give illegal immigrants documents allowing them to stay and work here?

But nobody on the other side is buying it. There is a deal to be done. Most people would support legalizing aliens already here if we got serious about enforcement. Waiting for perfect solutions is not getting serious.

Posted by: MrDo64 | August 26, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Who's asking for a perfect solution? According to the post eVerify is wrongly clearly illegals 54% of the time. That's not just "not perfect", it's worse than flipping a coin. I'm fine with an imperfect solution with mechanisms in place for people to appeal or to provide documentation proving they are here legally.

Posted by: MosBen | August 26, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

It is mandatory for employers to obtain ss information and withhold for that agency. It is mandatory for employers to withhold income tax. It is mandatory for employers to comply with the ADA. It seems like verifying that employees are in the country legally would be the first order of business before you reach the other requirements.

Posted by: jp31901cg | August 26, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

My father was born on April 23, 1905.What are the chances that he is alive and working? None, he died in 1999. This being said, he has had over thirty jobs that my brother and I know about since his death. How do we know that he has had more than 30 jobs. Well, he sometimes did not pay his taxes, local, state and federal; sometimes he failed to pay his credit card bills; and you get the picture. At some point, somebody who is chasing him contacts either my brother or myself and we send his death certificate. In this country we need a national ID that is to be presented when someone applies for a job, obtains any government service, and so forth. If you want to deal with illegal immigration, this is the path forward, but sadly the chances of this happening are zero. Why? The original immigration reform act of 1986 did have rigorous enforcement provisions, but the Chamber of Commerce did not want immigration enforcement - they want cheap labor - and so-called immigration rights and Latino groups did not want enforcement because they argued that Hispanics would be adversely affected - with somewhere between 75 and 80% of illegal immigrants in this country being Latino what a surprise. Does anyone think that these same groups will oppose any effective ID system to deal with the problem of illegal immigration? Until we have a national ID are discussion of immigration reform that will prevent future illegal immigration is a joke and a bad one at that.

Posted by: jeffreed | August 26, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Good grief. We've been promised an operational system for verifying immigration status since the 1986 amnesty. If the Feds can't put this together, contract it out to Mastercard or Visa. They accurately handle gazillions of transactions every day around the world.

In this situation perfection is an impossible goal. As MosBen suggests,put in place an appeal process. Just make sure that the process is speedy and makes sense and that there are adequate resources to support it (starving naturalization and immigration and ICE of staff and resources seems to be a common tactic of those in DC, and is not an acceptable rationale for demanding new legislation).

E-verify should be required of all employers.

Posted by: Beagle1 | August 26, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Let's just drop political correctness and get down to the real issue. As far as business people, immigration activists and politicians are concerned, the only good Mexican is a cheap Mexican. Cheap labor and cheap votes.

If I am a builder in Phoenix, do you honestly think I would hire a stone mason at an acceptable wage when I can get half-priced people from south of the border? Even if a someone were desperate enough to take the job at the wage I'm paying, I still probably would not hire them. Everyone who works for me is the same race and speaks the same dialect of Spanish. That is working out well for me and I am not going to take a chance on diversity.

I won't get in trouble. Hell, I will even get some kind of award from some pro-immigration organization.

This is not about race. It is about having a viable working class, diversity in employment and whether it makes sense to in-source cheap labor from third world countries. Mexico will not help solve a problem when we are already doing it for them.

As soon as America wakes up to these facts, we will come up with a reliable system to verify all employees are legally in this country.

Posted by: bobsteph1234 | August 26, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Let's just drop political correctness and get down to the real issue. As far as business people, immigration activists and politicians are concerned, the only good Mexican is a cheap Mexican. Cheap labor and cheap votes.

If I am a builder in Phoenix, do you honestly think I would hire a stone mason at an acceptable wage when I can get half-priced people from south of the border? Even if a someone were desperate enough to take the job at the wage I'm paying, I still probably would not hire them. Everyone who works for me is the same race and speaks the same dialect of Spanish. That is working out well for me and I am not going to take a chance on diversity.

I won't get in trouble. Hell, I will even get some kind of award from some pro-immigration organization.

This is not about race. It is about having a viable working class, diversity in employment and whether it makes sense to in-source cheap labor from third world countries. Mexico will not help solve a problem when we are already doing it for them.

As soon as America wakes up to these facts, we will come up with a reliable system to verify all employees are legally in this country.

Posted by: bobsteph1234 | August 26, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Beagle1 @ August 26, 2010 3:10 PM: You are correct that a verification mechanism is long overdue. But you ignore who is opposed to one:

1. Small businesses, that are worried about the cost;

2. Small businesses, that want to hire illegal labor;

3. Individuals, who want to hire the cheapest labor, regardless of legality;

4. Individuals & organizations who are opposed to any type of national id system.

Except for the first group, there is virtually nothing that can be done, at least in the current climate. In theory, the last group can be reasoned with, but having watched and heard the Tea Partiers, I do not see how that is possible.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | August 26, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

This article is full of pro amnesty propaganda. The accuracy of E-Verify has been documented to be 99.9% accurate. Any false reports from E-Verify are easily cleared up with a phone call and documentation. E-Verify is one of the most accurate government systems operated! It could be made better by linking it with the IRS, Social Security and DMV records. But then illegal immigration would be eliminated permanently!

Posted by: Stephen44 | August 26, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Suzy, your information is terribly out of date, if not simply untrue. First, the past studies of the system's accuracy are now obsolete and irrelevant, given recent improvements. (That you cited a 2006-2007 report is even a little funny, actually.) And since the Westat report, photo matching has been added to the verification process for most non-citizens, virtually eliminating identity fraud when "List A" documents are used.

As to the cost for businesses, your assertion that it would cause an undue burden is simply wrong. I own a company (Verifyi9.com) that is a Designated Agent of the E-Verify program. We have no setup fee, no monthly fee and verifications are less than $6. We have hundreds of small business clients and there have been zero complaints about cost, either startup or ongoing.

To participate (via a Designated Agent like us), all you need at a bare minimum is a fax machine and email. There is NO training to speak of, and it is incorrect to claim that an employer will incur additional legal fees... the employer essentially does nothing more than he is already required to do, which is exercise due diligence in the completion of the I-9 form.

Our small business clients can verify their first new hire within a couple of hours of contacting us at NO initial cost and with NO additional training and NO legal cost. Doesn't sound very difficult, does it?

The bottom line is that E-Verify works; it is easy to use and well worth the cost. If you have a bias against it, that's fine; but at least present accurate information.

Posted by: Verifyi9com | August 26, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

To the folks saying the post is relying on inaccurate data: Can we get a link?

Posted by: MosBen | August 26, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

This article falsely states it is an undue financial burden on businesses. The E-Verify system is completely FREE for businesses to use!

Posted by: Stephen44 | August 26, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

This article has misquoted at least one of her sources. It is off by a factor of 10.

According to the Huffington Post article that is quoted:

"Westat reported that 93 percent of the cases checked were legal workers who were accurately identified on first try. Another .7 percent were legal workers who initially were rejected."

But according to the article:

"7 percent of U.S. citizens and legal immigrant workers were wrongly determined to be ineligible to work."

It may only be a decimal point, but ".7 percent" and "7 percent" are a full "order of magnitude different.

Furthermore, the implication that people are harmed by the "inaccurate" initial misidentification as ineligible to work is misleading. That misidentifaction is normally due to a discrepancy between the information submitted on the employment forms (I-9) and the Social Securities record system.

FIRST: There is no constitutional right not to resolve such record-keeping discrepancies.

SECOND: It is in the interest of anyone working with an inaccurate Social Security number to straighten out the problem. The risk is that that worker may not get full credit for their contributions and may subsequently never receive their full benefits.

The Social Security Administration has been trying for two decades to clean up these errors (and protect workers), but cannot resolve certain problems on its own. The problem is that it cannot be done without coincidentally identifying millions of illegal immigrants using fraudulent ID.

Posted by: kevin9 | August 26, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

"... legal workers who initially were rejected."

Good points, kevin9. The rejection rate is often misrepresented in other ways as well, usually because the writer (understandably) doesn't know how the verification process works.

The process is heavily weighted in favor of the legal worker. First, no legal worker is EVER denied a job by E-Verify if the system is used correctly. A new hire cannot be submitted until AFTER the job has been offered and accepted. The initial response from E-Verify does NOT prevent the worker from receiving the job... he already has it.

(A rejected legal worker has an avenue of recourse if it isn't used correctly.)

Second, the new hire is never "rejected" by E-Verify, initially or not. If there is no record or a mismatch of any type (name doesn't match DOB, DOB doesn't match Alien number, etc.) E-Verify returns a response of "Tentative Non-Confirmation" (TNC).

If a TNC is received, the employer is required to notify the new hire of the response in writing via forms provided by E-Verify. The forms clearly describe the employee's rights. The new hire is given the opportunity to contest or to not contest the TNC. If they contest, the employer must THEN provide the worker with a second E-Verify-generated form that explains what the worker must do to clear up the problem. (The worker must acknowledge receipt in writing as well.)

If a new hire chooses NOT to contest, then he/she is immediately deemed to be ineligible; the employer is prohibited by law from retaining the worker. The decision to not contest is recorded in E-Verify and a response of "Final NonConfirmation" is returned.

The contesting employee has EIGHT days to resolve the problem. Resolution involves going to a local SSA office or calling the Dept of Homeland Security, depending on the type of problem. (For this reason, E-Verify has NEVER denied a legal worker a job, when used correctly. All Final NonConfirmations based on SSA or DHS info must be confirmed by a live human being.)

During this time, the employer is prohibited from taking any action against the worker related to the TNC. He cannot terminate the worker, reduce hours, withhold training or otherwise penalize the employee.

After the 10th day, the E-Verify record is updated, usually with a final determination of eligibility (sometimes, the DHS or SSA may take longer to verify). If the worker is legal, all is well. If the worker is ineligible, the employer is prohibited from retaining the employee after the Final NonConfirmation is received.

As you can now see, the initial "rejection" by E-Verify cannot be used to gauge its effectiveness nor measure its accuracy. E-Verify NEVER disqualifies a legal worker, in and of itself. If a worker is initially "rejected," there is a clear path for both employer and employee to follow to resolve the problem that includes a manual, usually in-person review by a real person.

Posted by: Verifyi9com | August 26, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for educating us Verfiyi9com. Seems like the original posting contained some inaccuracies.

It's important that folks know that E-verify works and is in widespread use (ie required), as a non functional E-Verify system would indicate that there wasn't follow through on the commitments made by Congress in granting amnesty in 1986.

Posted by: Beagle1 | August 26, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

One challenge that has to be overcome with e-verify is the accuracy/inaccuracy of the government databases. The harm to both employers (from lost work time) and to employees (from lost sanity) is the time associated with correcting information that can prompt "false illegal status." Just think of the waiting in line at your local DMV – to correct a driver's license mistake. The time, frustration, and bureaucracy of correcting what could be government error should not penalize small businesses. Maybe governments should reimburse employees (and employers) for the time it takes to correct e-verify errors. That would ease concerns with the costs associated with compliance and it would provide the incentive for government to clean up its databases. Tom Sullivan runs the Small Business Coalition for Regulatory Relief. He was Chief Counsel for SBA’s Office of Advocacy from 2002-2008.

Posted by: TomSullivan | August 27, 2010 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Obama Starts Amnesty

"Immigration and Customs Enforcement is dropping cases against illegal immigrants who have been detained for deportation, opting instead to let them go, saying they are not a criminal threat to the United States."

Posted by: charing60 | August 27, 2010 7:08 AM | Report abuse

It is amazing how many people want to say we simply are unable to deport the millions here suckling on American citizens' public money. Eisenhower did it with less personel in the 50's with Operation Wetback. Oh, I believe in America's ability to get rid of its infestation.

Posted by: vickie105 | August 27, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

It is amazing how many people want to say we simply are unable to deport the millions here suckling on American citizens' public money. Eisenhower did it with less personel in the 50's with Operation Wetback. Oh, I believe in America's ability to get rid of its infestation. Liberals seem to believe the invasion is good for our country. Strange, very strange indeed.

Posted by: vickie105 | August 27, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

It is amazing how many people say we simply are unable to deport the millions here suckling on American citizens' public money. Eisenhower did it with less personel in the 50's with Operation Wetback. Oh, I believe in America's ability to get rid of its infestation. Liberals seem to believe the invasion is good for our country. Strange, very strange indeed.

Posted by: vickie105 | August 27, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

It is amazing how many people say we simply are unable to deport the millions here suckling on American citizens' public money. Eisenhower did it with less personel in the 50's with Operation Wetback. Oh, I believe in America's ability to get rid of its infestation. Liberals seem to believe the invasion is good for our country. Strange, very strange indeed.

Posted by: vickie105 | August 27, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Your article is successful in stressing the importance of a viable employment eligibility verification program for the U.S. Since 1996, E-Verify has evolved into a very successful and accurate program. The same study you cite in your article (the ‘Westat’ report) attests to its success. For example, the study found that in approximately 96% of cases, the E-Verify findings were consistent with the workers’ true employment authorization status. In simple terms, the report confirmed that E-Verify accurately confirms more than 93% of authorized workers immediately and accurately prevents 2.9 percent of the unauthorized worker population from gaining employment. The E-Verify program is often criticized for incorrectly issuing tentative nonconfirmations (TNCs) to authorized workers and, most recently in connection with the Westat evaluation, verifying unauthorized workers as work authorized – again, as you cite in your article. But, your readers need the full context. Using a statistical model that relies on other studies to estimate the total number of unauthorized workers in the U.S. and not analyzing actual E-Verify cases, the report found that of the 6.2 percent of the estimated unauthorized workers run through E-Verify, the system is identifying 2.9 percent as unauthorized and the remaining 3.3 percent as work authorized. Thus, the 54 percent statistic widely cited refers to the 3.3 percent of the unauthorized population that is currently found work authorized by E-Verify. Finally, you state that “7 percent of U.S. citizens and legal immigrant workers were wrongly determined to be ineligible to work.” Not true; Westat found that in ‘0.7 percent’ of all cases, authorized workers were initially not found to be authorized. This is less than one percent of the time – not 7 percent as you stated.

More than 220,000 employers nationwide are currently participating in E-Verify – a number that grows by more than a 1,000 every week. The superb accuracy rate confirmed by Westat is significant given that nearly 15 million queries have already been run through the system since Oct. 1, 2009. E-Verify is a fast, easy, free, and accurate tool to help employers maintain a legal workforce and comply with immigration law. In fact, it’s the best available tool. E-Verify gives participating employers a significantly better track record for employment authorization verification than those employers who do not use the program. We believe employers who, as you say, are ‘rushing to embrace’ the program can remain confident that the system will work for them.

Bill Wright
Deputy Press Secretary
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Posted by: billwright1 | August 27, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Your article is successful in stressing the importance of a viable employment eligibility verification program for the U.S. Since 1996, E-Verify has evolved into a very successful and accurate program. The same study you cite in your article (the ‘Westat’ report) attests to its success. For example, the study found that in approximately 96% of cases, the E-Verify findings were consistent with the workers’ true employment authorization status. In simple terms, the report confirmed that E-Verify accurately confirms more than 93% of authorized workers immediately and accurately prevents 2.9 percent of the unauthorized worker population from gaining employment. The E-Verify program is often criticized for incorrectly issuing tentative nonconfirmations (TNCs) to authorized workers and, most recently in connection with the Westat evaluation, verifying unauthorized workers as work authorized – again, as you cite in your article. But, your readers need the full context. Using a statistical model that relies on other studies to estimate the total number of unauthorized workers in the U.S. and not analyzing actual E-Verify cases, the report found that of the 6.2 percent of the estimated unauthorized workers run through E-Verify, the system is identifying 2.9 percent as unauthorized and the remaining 3.3 percent as work authorized. Thus, the 54 percent statistic widely cited refers to the 3.3 percent of the unauthorized population that is currently found work authorized by E-Verify. Finally, you state that “7 percent of U.S. citizens and legal immigrant workers were wrongly determined to be ineligible to work.” Not true; Westat found that in ‘0.7 percent’ of all cases, authorized workers were initially not found to be authorized. This is less than one percent of the time – not 7 percent as you stated.

More than 220,000 employers nationwide are currently participating in E-Verify – a number that grows by more than a 1,000 every week. The superb accuracy rate confirmed by Westat is significant given that nearly 15 million queries have already been run through the system since Oct. 1, 2009. E-Verify is a fast, easy, free, and accurate tool to help employers maintain a legal workforce and comply with immigration law. In fact, it’s the best available tool. E-Verify gives participating employers a significantly better track record for employment authorization verification than those employers who do not use the program. We believe employers who, as you say, are ‘rushing to embrace’ the program can remain confident that the system will work for them.

Bill Wright
Deputy Press Secretary
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Posted by: billwright1 | August 27, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Bureau of Prisons
http://www.bop.gov/about/facts.jsp
======================================

Government has four basic functions and the first in that is
1. Protecting the good people from the bad people.
2. Protecting the good people from bad businesses.

The illegal aliens do not have a horrendous crime rate, but it is higher than any other group in this country. Due to the way folks are accounted for when they are arrested, we won't ever know the real figures, but they are very much higher than those posted by BoP.

And we need the first protection constantly in this society created by Congress. The Gangs in Los Angles are notorious and widely discussed in the press.
We need the second protection, and almost anyone who knows where the safety laws dealing with cars came from, for example, knows how serious those safety protections by the Feds are.

This country and its people need to be protected from the illegal aliens. The solution is to close the border, and that item has been very high on the 'enforce the law' agenda for a long time.

And so.. we have businesses that run a dozen checks on the people they hire, but they don't want to do an E Verify? We can be pretty sure with that, that they don't give a hoot about the people of this country either!! And some don't.. and many of the businesses run by internationals are first in line as they protest.

The Feds published an excellent article on this issue.
The right way to mend immigration
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031703115.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I adamantly appose the idea of amnesty at any level, but this article makes an excellent point on the way to solve this problem. E-Verify, and Biometric Identifications are central to success.

I thoroughly recommend the people protect themselves and insist business, large and small, be made to use E.Verify. It needs programming work, and Obama is loath to spend any money protecting American Citizens from illegal aliens, but with that programing effort, we would wind up in a far, far better place.

Posted by: joelwisch | August 28, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Yes, I think E-Verify should be mandatory for all jobs in the US - existing and future hires. And it should be used to check all business licensees as well. If this is done, there would be far fewer people trying to come across our borders. I get the feeling the federal government is hoping we forget about E-Verify. They want to throw money at the border, throw up their hands and say "well, we tried and failed - might as well grant amnesty to those here illegally."

Posted by: merbc | August 28, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company