Immigration

E-Verify Turns Work Into a Privilege, and Empowers the Surveillance State

It's a bit of immigration "reform" that nobody needs.

|

With the clock ticking on the legislative session, President Obama held a Roosevelt Room meeting on immigration reform, even as House Speaker John Boehner dismissed the idea, at least for this year. At issue is the Senate's "Gang of Eight" bill. It offers many of America's 11 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship while still requiring them to pay back taxes. It's also designed to make legal immigration easier and illegal immigration more difficult. Lastly, it mandates the use of the federal government's intrusive and unreliable E-Verify system, aimed at cracking down on employers who hire unauthorized workers.

Opinions are mixed on the bill as a whole. Republicans claim the bill will increase budget deficits and unemployment, while decreasing native-born workers' wages. Democrats claim that immigration reform will reduce the federal deficit.

One thing that isn't up for debate are the significant drawbacks to mandating use of E-Verify for all US employers. Forcing United States businesses to use the system will encourage employers to discriminate against potential hires on the basis of nationality. Technical glitches will keep legal employees out of jobs. And creating one more national database for federal agencies to mine will pose a significant Fourth Amendment threat.

But the ACLU pointed out perhaps the biggest problem with a program like E-Verify. In attempting to solve a problem involving just a tiny fraction of workers, it brings the United States much closer to a "permission society," where the government grants or revokes the privilege to feed and clothe your family.

E-Verify is a system operated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA). It's used to verify an employee's eligibility to legally work in the United States. Currently, less than one percent of employers use it. The Gang of Eight bill makes using this system mandatory for every United States employer. And it must be used within three days of hiring. Beyond that, it mandates the use of tamper- and identity-theft resistant Social Security cards. Infractions can result in fines of up to $25,000 per violation or two years in prison.

A mandate with lots of mandates

The first problem with mandating E-Verify use is how much work it's going to create for employers. According to the E-Verify user manual, a freelancer who wants to contract out work will need to become a program administrator, tasked with chores like registering new users, opening and closing accounts and adding other program administrators and users.

In addition, the manual states that "Employers participating in E-Verify MUST:"

  • Follow E-Verify procedures for each newly hired employee while enrolled/participating in E-Verify.
  • Notify each job applicant of E-Verify participation.
  • Clearly display both the English and Spanish 'Notice of E-Verify Participation' and the 'Right to Work' posters.
  • Complete Form I-9 for each newly hired employee before creating a case in E-Verify.
  • Ensure that Form I-9 'List B' identity documents have a photo.
  • Create a case for each newly hired employee no later than the third business day after he or she starts work for pay.
  • Obtain a Social Security number (SSN) from each newly hired employee on Form I-9.
  • Provide each employee the opportunity to contest a tentative nonconfirmation (TNC).
  • Allow each newly hired employee to start and continue working during the E-Verify verification process, even if he or she receives a TNC.
  • Ensure that all personally identifiable information is safeguarded.

But, "Employers participating in E-Verify MUST NOT:"

  • Use E-Verify to prescreen an applicant for employment.
  • Check the employment eligibility for an employee hired before their company signed the E-Verify MOU.
  • Take any adverse action against an employee based upon a case result unless E-Verify issues a final nonconfirmation.
  • Specify or request which Form I-9 documentation a newly hired employee must use.
  • Use E-Verify to discriminate against ANY job applicant or new hire on the basis of his or her national origin, citizenship or immigration status.
  • Selectively verify the employment eligibility for a newly hired employee.
  • Share any user ID and/or password.

Every United States employer must do all of this and, you know, run the business.

If you like your racism, you can keep it

The E-Verify system requires all employers to go through the entire interview, offer, negotiation and acceptance process before they are allowed to check whether any applicant is eligible to work. Of course E-Verify's propensity to put the kibosh on the hire at the end of the process will lead employers to discriminate against non-native born workers to save themselves the expense. Any expectation otherwise stretches credulity.

From the people who brought you Healthcare.gov!

Republicans are behind the push to mandate E-Verify. Apparently the tiny percentage of workers who are currently undocumented is such a menace that it warrants creating another government-created, government-run federal database and website, which every American who employs another American must navigate. Republicans have been all-too-happy to point out the many, many errors and hiccups created when the Obama Administration forced Americans to either buy insurance on the market or use a website created by the federal government. But even with an extremely limited number of users, E-Verify is showing the same kinds errors, crashes, glitches and security holes users experienced when trying to use Healthcare.gov.

Already, individuals have been wrongly flagged as unauthorized to work.

At The Hill, Jessica St. Pierre tells her story of losing a high-paying job due to errors in E-Verify.

In November 2010, I landed what I thought would be an exciting job in the telecommunications industry. I filled out routine paperwork, and expected to get started right away.

I was shocked when the company's HR department told me that an electronic system had flagged me as unauthorized to work in the United States. I promptly went to the Social Security Office, where I was told that there was no problem. Little did I know that the error was an administrative one that involved E-Verify, a system that I—like most American workers–knew nothing about. By the time the error was corrected, it was too late – I was already out of a job.

I didn't know what E-Verify was or why it existed, but I knew my life would be changed forever. I had to figure out why my name was flagged by a government computer, while I worried about how to explain my termination to a perspective new employer. Three months later and after suffering much stress, I got a lower paying job. The computer mistakes still haunt me because I now fear it could happen again, if I ever look for another job.

Mandating and expanding the program nationwide will explode instances of problems for employers and job seekers.

Come back with a warrant

Beyond that, another national database concentrates information on regular Americans, which intelligence agencies and law enforcement will mine for incriminating evidence. The DEA and IRS have already been caught abusing databases, circumventing the Fourth Amendment to gather evidence against Americans without warrants or probable cause, through administrative subpoenas.

In a country still struggling out of a recession, with unemployment still too high, the last thing anyone needs is another federal requirement which will make getting hired and hiring more difficult.

E-Verify is pretty much the definition of a solution whose drawbacks are worse than the problem it's designed to solve. Mandating its use will make life harder for employers and employees. It will increase hiring discrimination. And it will help turn the U.S. into even more of a surveillance state.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

76 responses to “E-Verify Turns Work Into a Privilege, and Empowers the Surveillance State

  1. But? but? but? Can you just IMAGINE the TRAUMA I as a LEGAL humanoid, law-respectin’ person that I ams, might feel if I learnt that I had employed an ILLEGAL, law-disrespectin’ ILLEGAL varmint-personoid, to mow my lawn or chance the diapers of my fruit-of-my-loins?!?! Have some SYMPATHY, fellow humanoids, if I break my nose-joints trying to elevate Mine Own Sacred and Holy Nose! CLEANSE this Holy Land of LEGAL humanoids, against that them thar ILLEGAL humanoids, it has Been Decreed by None Less than Government Almighty!!!

  2. “…to mow my lawn or chance the diapers of my fruit-of-my-loins?!?!”

    If that is a typo, it is the best one ever.

    1. Google is paying 75$/hour! Just work for few hours & spend more time with friends and family.On sunday I bought themselves a Alfa Romeo from having made $5637 this month. its the best-job Ive ever had.It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out http://www.Buzz95.com

      1. Talk about tone-deaf.

  3. We can’t have serfs just moving from manor to manor at will!

    Besides, the nowhere in these United States recognized purely allodial title.

  4. So small employers could either be pushed out of business or drawn to a black market of unlicensed labor?

    Sure sounds like the land of the free.

  5. I guess I’m a little confused. I’ve always had to show identification including my SS card for evert job I’ve ever held? Is that not the norm?

    1. Was that before or after you were hired? Of course one shows your SS card after you’re hired so the tax paperwork can be filled out.

      1. After hired but before I could start work.

        1. That’s the same with every job I’ve had.

        2. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t care if someone works anonymously. I’m just not understanding how this is much different then what we’ve (or least most of us have) had to do for our entire lives. And I’m no spring chicken.

        3. That’s for the tax paperwork – nobody *verifies* your work-status under the old system. Though *I’ve* never shown anyone my SS card – I just give them my number. I’ve been asked for it a couple of times but I just laugh at them and say I lost it a couple of decades ago.

          Now, E-Verify will keep a (not very accurate) DB of who is allowed to work in this country and if your name isn’t on it employers can’t hire you, will just toss your resume.

          *Eventually* you might be able to get it fixed, at great expense of money and time – just like everything else the government does there’s no accountability of the accuracy of the DB.

          1. Ok. I get that. It seems like there is going to be some kind of requirement on employer compliance with immigration law though (at least in order to get amnesty passed). I’m wondering what the alternatives will be to that.

          2. You HAVE shown your SS card or other proof of your SS number to get a drivers license or a professional license.

            That is already required by law: 42 USC ? 666.

            1. Uhm, I just showed my military ID for my driver’s license and I didn’t show my SS card when I joined the military, just my birth certificate and *told* them my SSN number.

              As for alternatives – why not keep the old system. Don’t dragoon the employer into being a law enforcement agent and leave the onus to dig out illegal workers on the state and fine/jail the employer if it can be proved that they *knowingly* hired illegal workers?

              1. “As for alternatives – why not keep the old system.”

                I hear ys but seems like if there is going to be immigration reform at all, then there is going to be some sort of employer compliance demands (beyond the status quo). I’m not suggesting there should be, just that that there will be so wondering if something else would be preferable to the E-Verify in terms of some sort of employer compliance.

                1. Why not shift the burden to the state? Employers already send government all the data they need to figure out workers’ status.
                  This seems like a database in search of a cover story.

          3. I recall reading somewhere that false positives (or negatives, I guess) were running about 10%.

            That’s 10% of legal citizens who would have to spend months trying to fix an error in order to get a job. After losing the one that caused them to find out about the error in the first place.

            1. Yeah, that’s pretty unacceptable.

            2. If they already live here, they have a lot of time to get that taken care of before looking for a job.

              Just like I have a copy of my Social Security Card and my birth certificate. If I didn’t, and needed to get them tomorrow, I’d be out of luck. But I got them years ago, and am done for the jobs of the future.

              1. So you think that people should have to check themselves against E-Verify regularly in case they want to change jobs in the future? That is a reasonable thing to mandate?

        4. Same for me too. I’ve always had to “show my papers”.

          Reason continues the drum beat for open borders. If you’re an anarchist, fine, you don’t believe in governments.

          But why do they think these arguments would be persuasive to anyone else?

  6. Lots of people wonder why I put so much focus on conservative violations of liberty, but this is a big reason why. For those of us who live in one of the deep red states that have adopted strict, comprehensive anti-immigrant legal schemes they are the biggest recent threat to overall liberty. They attack critical liberties; empowering police to search and seize more; preventing voluntary transactions in employment or housing; and even preventing certain Good Samaritan behavior if the recipient is an illegal alien. It really is astoundingly broad.

    Do not misunderstand, there is a national government and it is currently out to usurp basic freedoms (which is why I have a great deal of criticism for it too), and it is usually coming from a progressive position in doing that. Focus on it is always welcome and I ultimately agree it is the worse problem overall. But in the deep red states we have devils too. Save us from statists of all stripes!

    1. “…they are the biggest recent threat to overall liberty.”

      Like the tallest mountain in Florida.

  7. Some states already use e-verify for government positions, and it has not been a disaster that ACA website was. And just compare the “mandates” of E-verify with the ACA’s, apples and oranges.

    Being able to work here is more or less a privilege. I had to take TB tests and go through background checks for any job that required me to teach or take care of children. I had to go through federally ran databases to get my green card and citizenship. Obtaining student visas involve its own share of headaches.

    If a private contractor created a website or system that worked better than E-verify, Reason writers will still complain, because their default position is “you should be able to hire illegal immigrants”

    1. “If a private contractor created a website or system that worked better than E-verify, Reason writers will still complain, because their default position is “you should be able to hire illegal immigrants”

      Well, yes. The issue is forbidding free-trade between consenting people, E-Verify is just the most intrusive means the government uses to prevent that.

      1. The consent is a moot point if you’re not authorized by the government to do business, and if the applicant isn’t authorized to work here.

        Can I just buy a gun from my cousin if we both consent to the price? Should a daycare hire a random woman without background checks?

        Forcing EVERY business to go through E-verify is probably a bad idea. But unless the employer in some kind of a hiring spree, it’s won’t be a long term headache.

        Personally, I don’t have problem with enforcing E-verify for government jobs or ANY job that concerns public safety. Big retailers won’t much issue with complying with it.

        1. You seem to be conflating E-Verify with a background check.

          All E-Verify does is check to see if its legal for you to work in this country. That’s it. No criminal check at all.

          And yes, at least where I live, you can buy a gun from your cousin (or a random stranger you met on the street) if you both consent to the price. And yes, a daycare should be allowed to hire a woman (or even, gasp, a *man*)without a background check – just as its customers can decide if that background check is something they require.

          Big retailers (or big anything) never have a problem complying with government dictats – its the small to medium sized businesses that are driven out of the market by ever increasing compliance costs.

        2. Too bad they didn’t require it to be President.

          1. Actually, if the 10% figure is true, it would be a hilarious way to shrink federal departments.

            “We passed this law, so now we have to let go 10% of federal employees, until we can fix the database.”

            Can we get this passed just for government jobs, as a reasonable compromise?

    2. E-Verify will create headaches and increase the regulatory burden for small employers.

      But just because employment is treated as a privilege and because you had to go through some rigamarole doesn’t mean it should be that way.

      If a private contractor created a website or system that worked better than E-verify, Reason writers will still complain, because their default position is “you should be able to hire illegal immigrants”

      Of course, and why not? It’s a legitimate criticism. As Cathy says:
      it brings the United States much closer to a “permission society,”

      You should be able to hire (and nor hire) whoever you want. Voluntary exchange is a right, not a privilege.

      1. Hire or not hire whoever you want? Where you been for the last 45 years or so?

        Your ship of yearning sailed long ago

    3. Being able to work here is more or less a privilege.

      Go back to North Korea you fucking America-hater.

    4. Yep, Reason is for open borders. Anything short of that, and they’ll be against it.

      I’ve found Reason has the worst and most irrational arguments on their open borders position.

  8. E-Verify will create headaches and increase the regulatory burden for small employers.

    Every law is restriction of liberty. Every regulation creates a complience burden. But the inconvenience is justified when the consequences of having the law or regulation are a lot less baleful than the consequences of not having it. Duh.

    1. From the linked article it seems the “consequences” are the destruction of the Euro-socialist nanny state.

      If unfettered immigration is the tool to destroy socialism, then if you need me, I’ll be at the border placing ladders on ranchers’ fences.

      1. If those are the only choices, I’ll take a socialist 1st world nation over a libertarian 3rd world one. All else considered, Sweden still looks a helluva lot more inviting than Somalia.

        1. Argumentum ad Somaliam? That’s all you got? Thin gruel indeed!

          1. Fine. Produce a libertarian nation that’s not Somalia. Avoiding the point is thinner gruel still.

            Destroying socialism doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to get libertarianism as an alternative. Perhaps you could show me an example a nation that’s become more libertarian as a result of massive 3rd world immigration?

            1. Fine. Produce a libertarian nation that’s not Somalia. Avoiding the point is thinner gruel still.

              Fallacy #2:The Unicorn

              Destroying socialism doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to get libertarianism as an alternative.

              I agree, but so what?

              Perhaps you could show me an example a nation that’s become more libertarian as a result of massive 3rd world immigration?

              I don’t think we’d agree about what would be considered “libertarian”, though some would argue that Dubai has been made both more prosperous and freer due to its “massive 3rd world immigration”.

              1. Fallacy #2:The Unicorn

                Ah, but I’ve never said that a libertarian nation couldn’t exist. I’m simply stating that you haven’t produced a stateless society worth living in.

                I do note that while your source states that the “Unicorn” argument has been rebutted by “better minds”, he fails to produce those rebuttals.

                I don’t think we’d agree about what would be considered “libertarian”, though some would argue that Dubai has been made both more prosperous and freer due to its “massive 3rd world immigration”.

                Even if I accept Dubai as libertarian (I don’t), I’ll point out that Dubai is a monarchy, not a democracy. If you’re arguing that monarchy is more conducive to freedom than democracy, I’ll certainly agree.

                However, given that the laws and policies of Dubai are not subject to popular approval, I submit the population has little influence over Dubai politics.

                When you’re ready to surrender democracy to have your 3rd world immigration, let us know.

            2. Perhaps, Haw, you can point me in the direction of a country that ahs become freer by becoming more totalitarian?
              `

              After all, it’s you who are advocating a policy change, not us.

              1. Given that you seem to equate implementation of any law you disagree with to “totalitarianism”, essentially you’re asking me which countries have become freer by implementing the rule of law.

                I submit that the question answers itself.

            3. History has a number of examples of well-functioning libertarian societies. They weren’t perfect, but they were much freer than the US today.

              The US was pretty much a libertarian country until about 1913. From about 1870 till then, it was the fastest growing economy in the world, and definitely not a Somalia. (Interesting fact: the murder rates in the Kansas cowtowns and other Wild West towns were lower than those of modern Democrat-dominated, gun-controlled havens like DC, or Baltimore, or Detroit, or Chicago, or Detroit, or Newark, or Oakland, or even NYC.) The US also had massive immigration during that period as well.

              In fact, the US of this period was way more libertarian than Somalia. For example, one must have as passport to enter Somalia. The US did not have such requirements until the Travel Control Act of May 22, 1918.

              It’s been a perpetual warfare state and expanding welfare state since about 1913.

              1. The US was pretty much a libertarian country until about 1913.

                “Their Constitution, such as it may be, was made here, not there; went over with them from the Old Puritan English workshop, ready-made. Deduct what they carried with them from England ready-made, ? their common English Language and that same Constitution, or rather elixir of constitutions, their inveterate and now, as it were inborn, reverence for the Constable’s Staff; two quite immense attainments which England had to spend much blood, and valiant sweat of brow and brain, for centuries long in achieving; ? and what new elements of polity or nationhood, what noble new phasis of human arrangement, or social device worthy of Prometheus or of Epimetheus, yet comes to light in America? Cotton crops and Indian corn and dollars come to light; and half a world of untilled land, where populations that respect the constable can live, for the present, without Government: this comes to light; and the profound sorrow of all nobler hearts, here uttering itself as silent patient unspeakable ennui, there coming out as vague elegiac wailings, that there is still next to nothing more. ‘Anarchy plus a street constable:’ that also is anarchic to me, and other than quite lovely!”

                1. “I foresee too that, long before the waste lands are full, the very street-constable, on these poor terms, will have become impossible: without the waste lands, as here in our Europe, I do not see how he conld continue possible many weeks. Cease to brag to me of America, and its model institutions and constitutions. To men in their sleep there is nothing granted in this world: nothing, or as good as nothing, to men that sit idly caucusing and ballot-boxing on the graves of their heroic ancestors, saying, “It is well, it is well!” Corn and bacon are granted: not a very sublime boon, on such conditions; a boon moreover which, on such conditions, cannot last! ? No: America too will have to strain its energies, in quite other fashion than this; to crack its sinews, and all but break its heart, as the rest of us have had to do, in thousand-fold wrestle with the Pythons and mud-demons, before it can become a habitation for the gods. America’s battle is yet to fight; and we, sorrowful though nothing doubting, will wish her strength for it. New Spiritual Pythons, plenty of them; enormous Megatherions, as ugly as were ever born of mud, loom huge and hideous out of the twilight Future on America; and she will have her own agony, and her own victory, but on other terms than she is yet quite aware of.”

                  –Thomas Carlyle

            4. Perhaps you could show me an example a nation that’s become more libertarian as a result of massive 3rd world immigration?

              America and, even more so, Canada. Leave us out of your collectivisst delusions.

              1. Loverly circular logic there – permitting massive 3rd world immigration is libertarian, therefore the more a country that permits 3rd world immigration the more libertarian it becomes.

                I think that one is called “begging the question”.

                1. I think this is you making shit up. Never said any of that.

                  Canadian politics is becoming less and less Quebec-centric largely because of immigration and that is super-good for freedom.

              2. This would be a good argument if only those who immigrate moved here for the American dream, and not the American freebie.

            5. Singapore’s got lots of immigrants (1/3 is neither citizen or permanent resident). Some skill based restrictions apply as well since 1987.
              They’re not all brown, so I don’t know if you think they count.
              Biggest issue they have with immigration is their country is too small.

  9. The consent is a moot point if you’re not authorized by the government to do business, and if the applicant isn’t authorized to work here.

    Fuck off, slaver.

  10. You can have a welfare state or unrestricted immigration. You cannot have both.

    We chose welfare state. The result follows.

    1. No.

      You cannot hava a welfare state. Period.

      Immigration hastens the fall of a doomed system… maybe.

      1. Ding ding ding

    2. We chose welfare state.

      Oh? I don’t remember being asked.

      1. Its in the social contract? Remember, the one you implicitly agreed to abide by simply by being alive.

        If you *don’t* wish to agree to the terms and conditions then simply don’t open up the software packaging, uh I mean don’t be born.

        1. Being aborted is it’s own reward

    3. Sure you can. Exempt immigrants from it.

      I mean not having a welfare state would be nice, but the fact that we don’t doesn’t mean we have to be xenophobe protectionists, too.

    4. Sure you can. Exempt immigrants from it.

      I mean not having a welfare state would be nice, but the fact that we have one doesn’t mean we have to be xenophobe protectionists, too.

    5. Sure you can. Exempt immigrants from it.

      I mean not having a welfare state would be nice, but the fact that we have one doesn’t mean we have to be xenophobe protectionists, too.

    6. As tarran said, you just can’t have a welfare state. Canadian immigration is freer than America’s although still too restrictive and it hasn’t combined with our welfare state to end Canada. This is because immigrants tend to use welfare less than or the same as natives.

    7. It’s not just the welfare state that makes unrestricted immigration a problem.

      A nation is more than a group of people who happen to live in the same zip codes. People around the world believe different things, and those beliefs are in many ways expressed in the institutions they support. Unfettered immigration doesn’t just change culture, it changes the laws you live by.

      It’s bad enough having to deal with the laws Progressives support. How many of you want to import Pakistani law? Saudi law? Chinese law?

      1. How many of you want to import Pakistani law? Saudi law? Chinese law?

        This. Never. Fucking. Happens.

        A nation is more than a group of people who happen to live in the same zip codes.

        Not really.

  11. The first problem with mandating E-Verify use is how much work it’s going to create for employers.

    No, the first problem is that it’s the antithesis of what America is supposed to be about. The fact that it’s a huge productivity drain is a bit down the list of reasons why it’s terrible.

    1. Huge productivity drain? Please. What about the drain on the public coffers from having 10’s of millions of poverty stricken people enter the country illegally?

  12. I believe that immigration laws should be greatly relaxed. But having been a victim of identity theft, I’m in favor of stronger identification systems and in theory don’t see a problem with systems such as e-verify as long as the bugs (and reduced regulation) could be worked out. With the technological capabilities that now exist, it’s actually fairly disappointing that all identification isn’t a trivial process with extremely high accuracy. The issue I see with any identification system (strong or weak) is abuse by those that can circumvent it. So really it comes down to how to prevent the severity of that abuse. Currently identity theft is a fairly deep violation that is hugely widespread.

    1. But identity theft is separate from the question of employment isn’t it?
      I mean to the extent that illegals engage in identity theft in order to get a job, it is a direct consequence of identification requirements.

      If an employer wasn’t required to write down SSN’s of employees, it would be one less reason to steal them.

      Why do you think increasing the prevalence of id checking is going to discourage people from stealing ids?

      Do you want to stop teenagers from getting fake drivers’ licenses by making grocery stores card people too?

      1. E-verify is specifically designed to find people who are claiming to be someone they are not. An illegal immigrant may purchase a false identification in order to obtain a job. This action (along with others) is one of the reasons that identity theft exists. If you improve the identification system, then you make it more difficult to obtain/steal another person’s identity. Improving could consist of biometrics or other identification systems other than just a password (i.e. ssn). Passwords are not good id systems and id systems are not good passwords. A lot of people would question the cost of such a system, but such a system could easily be an app on an iphone or android device – so a device you could probably already find in 99+% of businesses in the US.

  13. Let the federal government E-Verify when employers fill out IRS w-forms.

    Stop mandating to business and the individual. Enough is enough.

  14. […] it [E-Verify] brings the United States much closer to a “permission society,” where the government grants or revokes the privilege to feed and clothe your family.

    A No-Work list which will not be abused for political reasons either. Right, guys???

  15. Non-discrimination laws already intersect with other laws to affect the hiring process. For example, export control laws prevent hiring a non-US person for certain positions. But anti-discrimination laws mean you’re not allowed to ask certain questions about nationality or citizenship. The result is that you’d better work with legal counsel and HR to define strict guidelines on how to screen applicants and then train all hiring managers and interviewers to follow these guidelines.

    Usually it is OK to ask ‘Are you eligible to work in the US?’ and provide a list of eligibility requirements.

  16. So do the rest of us get to break the law too, or just the foreign nationals among us? You Libertarians should try living in some of the barrios with the US before you push this garbage.

    The last thing we need is more undereducated people who are prime candidates for drawing government benefits. We don’t have a shortage. How in the hell can we demand the poor get to work when we allow foreign nationals to take the jobs at the low end?

  17. As a small employer, I would have no problem with using e-verify if it were a simple process.

    If we don’t mandate e-verify, it leaves an open door for illegals to keep coming here.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.