eVerify

E-Verify: Making Life Harder for Workers and Small Businesses, With Enthusiastic MAGA Support

E-Verify makes life harder on immigrants who want to work, but it doesn't make things better for anyone—-even those who want to see those immigrants leave.

|

Florida's Trumpy congressman Matt Gaetz has an article in the Tallahassee Democrat encouraging his state to impose "E-Verify" on all workers, as some states already do. In other words, he wants to curb the alleged crisis of illegal immigration by ensuring that no one can work in his state without meeting government-imposed documentation mandates and getting approval from a government database.

Gaetz is a Republican, so feel free to insert the obligatory reference here to the GOP's alleged former devotion to not hobbling Americans with officious red tape.

Not that he admits that there is any red tape involved. Gaetz gripes that "Florida Senate President Bill Galvano…has argued E-Verify will be costly and time-consuming for businesses," but the congressman insists that this "couldn't be further from the truth. Not only is E-Verify free, it processes applications quickly and efficiently. It is a simple step employers can (and should) take to ensure they are hiring legal employees."

A new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) says otherwise. The congressman may believe that because the government doesn't literally charge a fee to run employees through their system, it's costless. But the paper's authors—economists Shalise Ayromloo, Benjamin Feigenberg, and Darren Lubotsky, all of the University of Illinois at Chicago—note that "there are non-trivial set-up, training, and compliance costs to using the system. These costs are particularly cumbersome for small firms, which a 2011 analysis suggested would spend $2.6 billion on compliance-related costs if forced to utilize E-Verify."

The law, which is currently imposed on some or all workers in 22 states, is thus widely flouted, and smaller firms are more likely to evade it.

The NBER paper is based on "a new analysis of administrative data from the Department of Homeland Security on usage of the E-Verify system." It finds "a high degree of non-compliance," especially "among firms with fewer than 20 employees," and infers from this that "the mandates may impose substantial costs."

Do not conclude from this that the system has no effect at all: The economists found reasons to believe that E-Verify produces "significant declines in Hispanic worker employment." But they saw "no evidence that native-born workers benefit from E-Verify mandates," and in fact found that those mandates "reduce employment among some lower-skilled groups of native-born workers." Specifically, "the passage of any E-Verify mandate reduces employment among natives with a high school degree or less education by 2.7 percent," an effect "entirely driven by reduced employment among low-skilled natives who are 16 to 40 years old."

So the costs of E-Verify don't seem to pay off by helping the lower-skilled Americans often invoked as an excuse for imposing the aggravating mandate.

Indeed, despite those employment declines among Hispanics, the authors did not find evidence that E-Verify lowers the actual "potentially undocumented population" in areas where the system is enforced. The authors suggest that they're instead getting by with "increases in supplementary family income sources"—i.e., being helped by others in their households.

All employers are supposed to use I-9 forms to check potential employees' citizenship status, but without E-Verify federal law doesn't force employees to verify the authenticity of whatever document a would-be worker supplies. The Cato Institute's Alex Nowrestah has found that the existing I-9 system already "costs employers an estimated 13.48 million man-hours each year." E-Verify magnifies those costs considerably. And when something goes wrong with the system, nearly half of the problem cases can take up to eight days to resolve, creating uncertainty and paralysis for both hired and hirer—and giving employers an incentive just to cut out potential workers who might have eventually made it through the system.

How often does E-Verify mistakenly mark people as legally unable to work when they should have been approved? About 0.15 percent of the time, which sounds impressive, but if it were applied to every American worker via federal mandate it would leave more than 187,000 people a year barred from work for no reason at all.

The system can be gamed with borrowed or stolen identify documents, and the low compliance with state mandates does not hold out promise of success for any federal mandate that might come along. But do not expect E-Verify's failures to produce a humble retreat if it were to be imposed nationally. Nowrastah speculates that the feds would instead try to "close the E-Verify loopholes" by integrating "other biometric information like fingerprints or perhaps even DNA into a national identity system." As we know from past government expansions of allegedly single-problem programs, such an identity system may well expand to other uses, from gun registries to tracking the members of minority groups—whatever your personal surveillance dystopia looks like, expanding E-Verify makes it more likely. The program embodies the "papers please" mentality that in more innocent days signaled a sinister tyranny to any decent American.

Advertisement

NEXT: As Progressive Twitter Erupts at Joe Rogan Endorsing Bernie Sanders, a Reminder: Elizabeth Warren's Sexism Gambit Backfired

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.

  1. No law should require free individuals to ask the government for permission to hire someone. It not only bad for capitalism but also violates our right to freedom of association.

    I maintain that people’s support for this is in no small part driven by their feeling like we have no control over our border. Setting the rules of naturalization is within the proper purview of Congress, and because those rules are routinely flaunted by illegal immigration, people feel it’s necessary to add layers of enforcement.

    Get control of the border and a lot of the support for criminalizing freedom of association goes out the window.

    1. Or, we could just ignore the authoritarian, shambling bigots.

      1. Oh, we do ignore you, RAK.

      2. You understand you’re talking about telling elected politicians to ignore the wishes of the voters, right? Or is this just your hatred of average people making you say ridiculous things again?

        Um, yeah, expecting elected politicians to ignore the will of the voters is not only impractical but also authoritarian–since setting the rules of naturalization is not only explicitly granted to Congress in the Constitution but also well within the proper purview of democracy.

        1. You shouldn’t waste trying to have a conversation with a retard who’s entire outlook on life is based on getting repeatedly beaten by bigger, stronger boys when he was a child.

      3. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[3]”

        —-First Amendment

        That’s the legal basis of our freedom of association right there. The First Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law”–because freedom of association (like our other rights) is outside the proper purview of democracy, or, in other words, people should be free to associate with whomever they please regardless of whether it’s popular–just like they should be able to speak their minds in support of unpopular ideas or choose an unpopular religion.

        This is in contrast with Congress’ enumerated power:

        “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization

        —-US Constitution, Article I, Section 8

        I maintain that populism, in all its flavors, is a reaction to elitism, and elitism, in this sense, means elected politicians ignoring the will of the people on issues that are well within the proper purview of democracy. If you want to see Trump reelected, and more like him in the future, then by all means, encourage politicians to ignore the voters. That’s the recipe.

        Are you working for the Trump campaign?

      4. You really are taking an anti American worker positions. The worst impact is on Hispanic, Black and other minority citizens.

    2. Except, the Right is only selectively in favor of freedom of association in other contexts as well, not relating to immigration.

      They demand the freedom of association to refuse to bake gay wedding cakes (agreed), but then they are awfully quick to want to declare Antifa a “terrorist organization”, and quite a few of them are cool with spying on mosques. “Can’t be too careful ya know” Oh and just watch what happens when businesses refuse to serve cops, or ICE agents.

      Sorry but I don’t buy the rationalization of “oh they had *no choice* but to trammel upon freedom of association”.

      1. They demand the freedom of association to refuse to bake gay wedding cakes (agreed)

        Except that you’ve literally never once in your entire history of commenting at Reason, even back when you were still using your original cytotoxic handle, supported repeal of protected class legislation, and have explicitly argued at length in favor of compulsory cake baking among many other totalitarian thought-crimes.

        Turns out though that you can actually be 100% fully consistently in favor of freedom of association and still support border controls and domestic law enforcement against organized crime and terrorism. You just can’t be a selective anarchist or a radical Marxist Open Society Foundation stooge like you.

      2. “Except, the Right is only selectively in favor of freedom of association in other contexts as well, not relating to immigration.”

        Why take orders from “the right”–whomever they are?

        The right believes this. The right believes that. So what? Free people shouldn’t be required to ask the government for permission to exercise their freedom of association regardless of what the right or left says about anything.

        1. Little Jeffy sees everything as a “right vs left” issue, then lies about not being a lefty.

          1. I bet his mom is worried what he might do if “the right” climbed up a bridge.

            Jeff, if the right climbed up a bridge, would you jump off?

            1. Funny. My mother would say stuff like that.

              “And if Billy jumped off a bridge would you jump too?”

              Actually I probably would have. The bridge is not that high. Billy looks ok. See he is swimming to shore. If I don’t take the dare and jump too the other kids will think I’m a wuss.

              1. I would never let one of my friends jump off the bridge before I did.

                I once jumped off a cliff into a lake that was way too high. It freaked me out because my feet hit the bottom of the lake hard enough that it jarred my ankles and my knees. I could feel all the vegetation at the bottom of the lake all around my legs, and swimming to the surface took way longer than it should have. It wasn’t until I made it to the surface and opened my mouth to breathe that I started coughing on bits of my teeth. I was yelling when I hit the surface of the water, and when the bottom of my jaw hit the surface of the lake, it slammed my teeth together which such force that a bunch of them shattered. No more overbite!

                It’s a good thing I wasn’t stickin’ my tongue out.

                Good thing I was too young to die.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56kY74aJT1E

        2. Free people shouldn’t be required to ask the government for permission to exercise their freedom of association regardless of what the right or left says about anything.

          I AGREE WITH YOU here. Where I disagree, it is in your supposition that those who are in favor of criminalizing freedom of association in the context of E-Verify – which, broadly speaking, are on the right – are only doing so because they think that is their only recourse due to a supposedly “unsecured border”. No, their hostility to freedom of association runs much deeper than that. I do not believe for one minute that if the border were ever secured to the satisfaction of the immigration restrictionists around here, that they would then turn around and say “okay, let’s drop E-Verify now”. That won’t happen because they don’t believe that the concept of freedom of association even applies in this context.

          1. “Where I disagree, it is in your supposition that those who are in favor of criminalizing freedom of association in the context of E-Verify – which, broadly speaking, are on the right – are only doing so because they think that is their only recourse due to a supposedly “unsecured border”

            I’d love to be the genius who first noticed that people go overboard on enforcement and punishments when they feel like they have no control, but this is so obvious, it hardly needs much in the way of qualification.

            They introduced mandatory life sentences for “kingpins” back during the Bush Sr. administration because we couldn’t get any traction in stopping the flow of cocaine across our southern border. This made murder a lighter sentence in many cases than cocaine trafficking and made the cocaine industry even more violent in all sorts of ways. We libertarians often cite this as evidence that heaping harsher penalties doesn’t discourage drug traffickers so much as it makes drug traffickers more eager to kill potential witnesses against them (since the sentence for murder was often less than it was for cocaine trafficking) and use violent gangs for distribution purposes.

            But don’t get distracted by the specifics of the sentencing. Weird people at the time said that the reason the conservatives supported that kingpin law was because they wanted cocaine traffickers to kill each other. That’s an absurd explanation. Because they were wrong about harsher penalties hurting cocaine trafficking and distribution doesn’t mean the purpose of the policy was to make drug traffickers kill each other. The American people simply and often support harsher penalties when they feel like something is beyond their control.

            E-verify, increasing fines for littering to levels that are absurd, kicking football players out of the NFL for life because they tested positive for marijuana or cocaine more than once, life sentences of selling cocaine–it’s all the same thing. When my fellow Californians felt like judges weren’t giving repeat offenders sufficient jail time, they came up with the three strikes law–which, I remember, once gave a guy a mandatory life sentence for stealing someone’s pizza. Hey, it was his third felony! (He threatened to punch the guy if he didn’t give him the pizza, and that’s strong-arm robbery).

            There are words for people who always fill in the blanks with the worst possible interpretation of other people’s intentions. If the patient in question is rational, they call it “anxiety”. If they’re irrational, they call it “paranoia”. If you think support for E-Verify has absolutely nothing to do with the lack of border enforcement, then you might want to get yourself checked by a professional. Supporting more extreme measures as a reaction to a lack of control is common–and requiring employers to check IDs before hiring someone isn’t particularly extreme.

            It’s just wrong.

    3. Trump has done a lot to make E verify moot by reducing illegal immigration. He’s a hero of liberty in that regard.

      1. Libertarians For Bigoted, Authoritarian Immigration Practices can count on BigT’s membership!

        1. Libertarians for picking their ass and regurgitating Democratic Underground bumper sticker slogans can count on Hihn’s membership!

          You should consider fucking yourself up the ass with the nearest mop handle until you bleed out, Hihn.

      2. “Trump has done a lot to make E verify moot by reducing illegal immigration. He’s a hero of liberty in that regard.”

        And he’s done it without a wall.

        The wall is a distraction.

    4. It’s flouted you retard, not flaunted.

      1. My reasoning is valid regardless of the spelling, and if all you have to quibble with is the spelling, then you must have found it persuasive.

    5. No law should require free individuals to ask the government for permission to hire someone. It not only bad for capitalism but also violates our right to freedom of association.

      With mandatory tax reporting, mandatory social security withholding, mandatory workplace safety regulations, etc. that is effectively already the case. That is, you cannot hire someone unless you get permission from the government.

      I maintain that people’s support for this is in no small part driven by their feeling like we have no control over our border.

      Well, of course. As long as the US was largely geographically isolated, the US didn’t need employment verification. These days, where you can get to the US within less than a day from anywhere in the world, of course you need it.

      criminalizing freedom of association goes out the window.

      The way employment contracts function in the US, there are effectively three parties to them: the employer, the employee, and the state; that is, the state assumes various obligations as part of your choice to hire someone. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is. And as long as that’s the case, the state has a legitimate input into whether an employment contract can be made in the first place.

      1. With mandatory tax reporting, mandatory social security withholding, mandatory workplace safety regulations, etc. that is effectively already the case. That is, you cannot hire someone unless you get permission from the government.

        Your conclusion does not follow. Mandatory tax reporting just means that IF an employer hires someone, THEN the employer must remit tax withholding to the state on behalf of that employee. Mandatory tax reporting does not dictate who may or may not be hired by the employer.

        The way employment contracts function in the US, there are effectively three parties to them: the employer, the employee, and the state; that is, the state assumes various obligations as part of your choice to hire someone. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is. And as long as that’s the case, the state has a legitimate input into whether an employment contract can be made in the first place.

        That seems to be a common thread of argumentation of yours: that you claim to not like big government, but then you are more than happy to use the tools of big government to suit your aims.

        Guess what, by advocating for big government regulation to serve your aims, you aren’t getting rid of big government. You are only strengthening it and lending it more credibility than it deserves.

        1. Your conclusion does not follow. Mandatory tax reporting just means that IF an employer hires someone, THEN the employer must remit tax withholding to the state on behalf of that employee. Mandatory tax reporting does not dictate who may or may not be hired by the employer.

          No, it means that you cannot hire someone unless you comply with tax law; if there is some screw up with tax reporting, you will get punished. Likewise, you cannot hire someone unless you comply with immigration law; if there is some screw up with someone’s immigration status, you will be punished. The situations are the same.

          Guess what, by advocating for big government regulation to serve your aims

          I’m not advocating “for big government regulation”, I’m advocating for the rule of law.

          I’m also advocating for removing regulations in the right order: first shrink the size of all government programs and spending at all levels to less than 5% of GDP, then institute open borders and unilateral free trade.

          You want to reverse the two steps, and that simply doesn’t work. That doesn’t produce a libertarian or liberal society, it produces lawlessness, socialism, and authoritarianism. That is what you are advocating.

        2. Mandatory tax reporting just means that IF an employer hires someone, THEN the employer must remit tax withholding to the state on behalf of that employee.

          I realize you probably haven’t held a job in a long while, but most large employers will not hire you unless they can accurately determine your status as a tax payer and how to withhold for you. Determining citizenship is no different.

          In fact, the simplest thing to do would be just to dump e-verify altogether and fully associate citizenship information with tax information, since employers need to verify that already.

          1. I doubt he’s ever held a job, period. He’s a Canadian college student from Toronto, living on the day dole.

    6. The government shouldn’t force anyone to use E-Verify. It should just subject any landlord, employer or government worker who negligently rents property to, employs or grants government benefits to a criminal alien the sum of $1000 per day or per incident, whichever is more.
      So what’s negligence? It would be failure to obtain an E-Verify clearance.
      So if you hire Pedro to work for your roofing business for a year – that’s fine. But if he’s a criminal alien, you didn’t E-Verify and you get caught, the fine is $365,000. Government worker who grants food stamps to a criminal alien? Or a school administration officer who clears them to attend school on the taxpayer dime? $1000 fine. Minimum. For each case. Rent a home for six months to a criminal alien without an E-Verify clearance? Hope the rent was a lot more than $30,000 a month, because that’s the fine you’ll be paying.
      No freebie government handouts, no jobs, no place to live… they’ll leave. Give them 6 months to do that – then put a bounty on them and send them to prison for two years when caught.
      All the moaning about $2.6 billion for compliance? A drop in the bucket. Immigrants cost us over $115 BILLION a year just by being here. Invest one years’ worth of costs in building the wall, expanding E-Verify and ejecting the criminals and we can SAVE $100 billion a year. Put that in your “economic cost” pipe and smoke it.

      1. “The government shouldn’t force anyone to use E-Verify. It should just subject any landlord, employer or government worker who negligently rents property to, employs or grants government benefits to a criminal alien the sum of $1000 per day or per incident, whichever is more.”

        Actually, there’s this thing called “justice”, and fining people for crimes they didn’t commit themselves is called “injustice”.

        There is no good justification for why I should be required to enforce federal law. I should be free to hire anyone I want to mow my lawn, and I should be free to rent my apartment to anyone I please. If you don’t like it, well, fuck you. I’m not here for your benefit. There’s a system of government where no one is allowed to anything unless it’s in everyone’s benefit, and it’s called “authoritarian socialism”. I’m a libertarian capitalist. I’m living life for me–not you.

    7. Get rid of the welfare system and I’ll stop caring about importing poverty through a porous border.

      1. I’m not willing to wait for the government to stop being socialist before I can enjoy my right to freedom of association.

        This is like suggesting that we should get rid of all mass shootings at schools before we should be allowed to exercise our Second Amendment right to bear arms.

        P.S. I’m not wiling to wait for the government to get our border under control before we start slashing socialist welfare programs either. Why not slash spending on rent subsidies, SNAP benefits, and Medicaid now? Believe me, the problem with those programs isn’t that they give benefits to illegal aliens. It’s that they’re socialist welfare programs that force me to contribute my income under the threat of violence whether I want to contribute or not. There isn’t anything about being robbed of my income to benefit American citizens, specifically, that makes me feel better about being robbed of my income. We can stop that shit right now–regardless of what happens at the border.

      2. Bingo. Many of us are sick and tired of supporting fat tattooed unwed mothers of many with carts overloaded with junk food at Walmart, and perfectly able-bodied people on SSI and SSD because they have ADD or PTSD or one of the many syndromes that for the most part do not prevent a person from working (I’ve known at least 2 blacksmiths on disability!) while the farms around here pretty much have little choice but to hire illegals. I don’t blame the immigrants, I blame Lyndon Johnson for this.

    8. I agree we should get control of the border.
      However, if we end the Jobs/Welfare magnets the illegals will self deport and we will save many times the supposed 2.6 Billion$ to e-verify.
      We will also gain a lot more than 2.6 Billion$ in tax revenue if we get our jobs back and end wage stagnation.

      1. You make being free to hire cheap labor for lawncare, construction projects, child care, and care for the elderly sound like it’s a bad thing.

        It’s not.

        Do you imagine that forcing Americans to pay more for the services they want would improve our standard of living?

        Sounds to me like you got your head on backwards.

        1. Still an option, we call them teenagers and college students.

          1. Supply and demand. Having more options is better. Why has the price of natural gas and oil gone down in the wake of the fracking revolution? Because the supply increased.

            Having more labor available makes it cheaper.

            The alternative to teens and college students working at menial jobs is laying around and doing little or nothing. You have to pay them a lot more to get them off their asses.

            That’s why the minimum wage is racist. By artificially inflating wages by way of the minimum wage, we draw middle class white kids into the job market at the expense of minorities. This is why the unemployment rate among African-American teens is typically twice what it is for white kids. During recessions, the disparity in unemployment rates is worse.

  2. Sorry, but illegal aliens are just that: Illegal. They do not belong here.

    I can think of no moral or ethical argument why we shouldn’t identify them via eVerify and deny them employment (and call ICE). If illegal aliens cannot work here, then they will leave, which is what should happen anyway.

    We have a legal process to come here, just like every other country on the planet. Why is it wrong to insist that foreigners follow our laws?

    1. Even if you oppose immigration controls, attacking E-Verify is attacking the wrong thing. E-Verify is to make compliance easier; it doesn’t impose requirements of its own.

      1. Robert, to address the problem of illegal aliens, I would simply mandate the use of eVerify for all employers. And make it easy AF to use so that compliance is not a costly proposition. Compliance cost is a legitimate concern. I deal with compliance issues in ‘BigCorp’ from time to time and it can be formidable. I get it.

        Example: I don’t consider an hour of time as particularly costly, if eVerify involves entering data into an internet-based form, submitting it, and receiving an electronic confirmation that is storable in a machine readable format.

        If we are serious about ridding our country of illegal aliens, then we need to deny them employment, and make them leave.

    2. Libertarians are known for opposing laws we do not agree with. Saying something or someone is illegal because they are illegal is not an argument.

      Many of us would change the law so those individuals would be here legally. Reagan did that back in the day.

      1. Libertarians are known for opposing laws we do not agree with. Saying something or someone is illegal because they are illegal is not an argument.

        It’s a simple fact that if you aren’t a US citizen and don’t have a valid visa and you are in the US, you are present illegally, which makes you an “illegal alien”. Whether you agree with the laws on citizenship or immigration is irrelevant, the terminology is clear and standard.

        Many of us would change the law so those individuals would be here legally. Reagan did that back in the day.

        Yes, he did, in exchange for a commitment for strong border enforcement and employment verification. None of that happened. In fact, Reagan opened the floodgates to illegal immigration. And he flipped California to the Democrats that way.

        Furthermore, Reagan didn’t help immigrants, he only helped illegal aliens. Immigrants like myself couldn’t take advantage of the Reagan amnesty; we were screwed. It took me decades to become a US citizen, while people who received amnesty managed to get naturalized within a few years.

        The Reagan amnesty screwed legal immigrants, it screwed California, it was grossly unjust, and it demonstrated what a bad idea such policies actually are.

        Never again.

        1. And he flipped California to the Democrats that way.

          This is complete bullshit. Wanna know why? Because TEXAS didn’t flip blue, in fact it got even more red after Reagan’s amnesty. And Texas certainly had just as many, if not more, illegal immigrants than California. If your hypothesis was correct, then all of the states with substantial amnestied populations should have flipped blue. But they didn’t.

          What flipped California blue was Pete Wilson and the 1990s campaign by California Republicans to scapegoat Mexicans as the source of the state’s problems. Which backfired heavily on them.

          1. This is complete bullshit. Wanna know why? Because TEXAS didn’t flip blue, in fact it got even more red after Reagan’s amnesty. And Texas certainly had just as many, if not more, illegal immigrants than California.

            Source? Of course you don’t have one because you’re just making that up. In fact, today, Texas has nowhere near the number of illegals that California does. And legal immigrants (like myself) are pissed that Democrats are falling all over themselves to give illegal aliens citizenship and government handouts, something we had to work for for decades.

            What flipped California blue was Pete Wilson and the 1990s campaign by California Republicans to scapegoat Mexicans as the source of the state’s problems. Which backfired heavily on them.

            Californians were pissed off by what illegal aliens had done to the state. That’s why they passed Prop 187 with nearly 60% of the votes in 1994, establishing a state-run citizen screening program and prohibiting illegal immigrants from using non-emergency healthcare, public education, and government services. These measures would have been effective, but the courts invalidated Prop 187. That was basically the beginning of the end for California.

            1. Yes!
              The court reversing Prop 187 let illegals know that California was open for invasion.

  3. About 0.15 percent of the time, which sounds impressive, but if it were applied to every American worker via federal mandate it would leave more than 187,000 people a year barred from work for no reason at all.

    This calculation is based on the assumption that everyone in the country would be run through e-verify every year. But the program is only used on new hires, so the number is wildly overstated.

    1. Good catch! Not the first time that scammy stats have been used by the Open Borders crowd.

    2. So illegals who are already working just get a pass? What makes you think checking all employees on a regular basis isn’t going to be the next step once it has to be done for new hires?

    3. So what is an acceptable number of people unjustly denied a job then?

    4. Not only that, but it assumes that those thereby “barred” from work would not otherwise have been so barred, and it assumes the bar would be long standing. E-Verify is just a tool employers can use. It doesn’t mean an employee can’t convince the employer that the check was wrong. Not only that, but it alerts the employer and therefore hopefully the employee to the mistake in the record, and therefore allows for timely correction. Otherwise the employee might go who knows how long not knowing about this “bomb” that lies in the record that might go off any time. Why not find out about it sooner rather than later?

  4. In other words, he wants to curb the alleged crisis of illegal immigration by ensuring that no one can work in his state without meeting government-imposed documentation mandates and getting approval from a government database.

    Collecting and verifying that data is already required by law and has been for over 30 years. E-Verify just makes it easier for employers. It’s exactly the same type of system that NICS is for federally licensed firearms dealers. Except that NICS is not optional. And much more invasive. And 100% supported by hypocritical subhuman cunts like you.

  5. The solution to illegal immigration is legal immigration. Just give people a renewable permit to live and work as non citizens. It would save money being spent on deportation, detention, border enforcement and walls. No benefits. After a period of time the individual could apply for citizenship.

    What we have now is failing for the same reason the war on drugs is failing.

    1. I agree, and will support exactly this. Right after the welfare state is dismantled. If people can come here legally and be self-sufficient–without welfare support–so be it.

      1. https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates

        Immigrants because they did not vote to create the welfare state are not the cause of it. Your fellow citizens did that.

        The argument is specious.

        First you are assuming facts not in evidence, that immigrants use social welfare more than others. That has been disputed. Fact is if people cannot legally work you are blaming them for not finding legal work.

        If you are illegal and I make you legal that problem goes away. Legality can change with the stroke of a sharpie.

        The welfare state and immigration are separate issues. Immigration did not create it nor sustains it. The legal and constitutional constructs of this country do. Again define what really you mean by welfare state. Medicaid, SNAP, section 8 gets complicated.

        Non citizens cannot vote. You and I can. When was the last time you voted on a measure to “dismantle the welfare state”. Never. So the argument is a false dichotomy. You can change immigration law without progress on welfare law.

        Second

  6. If employers didn’t want to be de facto federal immigration agents then they shouldn’t try to be engines of our economy.

  7. Should not be any wonder that whote supremacist nativist (Trumpistas, to be succinct) **love** E-Verify. The concern over the costs imposed on employers is a nevermind for them because they not only proved they’re racists, economically incompetent, homicidal (after sending their acolyte on a murdering rampage through the Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso) and fond of fapping over images of crying immigrant girls asking the government to return their parents to them, they also proved they’re just a bunch of anti-liberty Fascists.

    The Trumpist maggots will be replaced – by far BETTER people. So, Trumpists, better get your tikki torches. Light up, baby! Let’s see that empty, stupid look in your faces while you chant “They shall not replace us!”, you fucking morons.

    1. “Far better people”…wow such low regard for Americans.

    2. The Trumpist maggots will be replaced – by far BETTER people.

      That’s pretty much what the Germans said about the Jews.

      Old Mexican: you’re a racist, a fascist, and a bigot.

      1. It is not without irony that “La Raza” is pretty much the same as “Deutsche Volk”.

    3. after sending their acolyte on a murdering rampage through the Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso

      That faggot killed far fewer people in one instance than your fellow beaner cartel members do on a weekly basis.

  8. We got a situation here. In the 1970s Congress imposed paperwork requirements on employers to collect credentials of employees for authorization to work in the USA.

    So what does E-verify do? Just provide a voluntary means by which employers may check on the veracity of those credentials. It’s not the only government facility set up for applicants to check on their eligibility for stuff.

    If government is going to impose certain requirements, is it a bad thing for government to supply a relatively simple means by which applicants can check their eligibility? Was it a good thing that until recently you weren’t able to check whether you were on the no-fly list?

    At least with E-verify you have a means to find out if there’s something wrong with an employee’s documents, and thereby have a chance to correct the record within a reasonable period.

  9. Remember when Democrats were all about e-verify, because it was their way of deflecting Republican concerns about illegal immigration towards their eternal “blame corporations for everything” narrative? “Blame the companies that hire them!”

    Pepperidge Farm remembers.

    That’s the trouble with all of these Reason “Republicans aren’t paragon libertarian!” articles. We all know Democrats are happy to be worse.

  10. “E-Verify makes life harder on immigrants who want to work”

    “E-Verify makes life harder for illegal migrants who want to work illegally.” There FIFY.

    1. Bingo, give that man a cigar!

  11. Easy solution..fine any business 100K per illegal immigrant found working there. The marginal benefit of the illegal would be removed (even for programmers) and no need for all this stuff. Libertarians should be for very strong borders or face the risk of all these “big papa” immigrants will be more than happy to elect statists who will destroy the Bill of Rights in a heartbeat. Why do we have the new deal? Certain immigrants voted for that closet degenerate FDR cause he gave them stuff…

    1. Some of those businesses would simply shut down. Most of them look the other way because they just cannot find enough workers.

      Then the proposal is for the government to enact and enforce more laws and fines rather than letting them run their business as they see fit in order to combat authoritarianism?

      A lot of commenters here seem to have issues with the democratic process and a two party system. Instead an authoritarian government should enforce policy to insure that your preferred party stays in power indefinitely.

      1. Some of those businesses would simply shut down. Most of them look the other way because they just cannot find enough workers.

        They can’t find enough workers because they aren’t paying enough.

        They aren’t paying enough because they can’t be competitive if they paid more.

        The wouldn’t be competitive if they paid more because they are burdened by massive government-imposed non-wage labor costs.

        The solution to that is to eliminate the non-wage labor costs and put American workers on an equal playing field with workers in other countries.

        Your solution, namely importing illegals while pricing American citizens out of the labor market through regulations, is a recipe for disaster, in addition to being grossly unfair. And while those illegal aliens can simply leave the country when they get into trouble with the IRS, the US government will throw the book at US citizens.

        Your views and policies are not just destructive, they are reprehensible.

        1. You are not going to drop regulations on food processing. As it is we get outbreaks of contamination on a regular basis. E-verify is just one more big government big brother regulation.

          Those meat processing jobs pay $15-20/hr. A lot of people just would rather take a lower paying job in retail or at a call center. There are American workers at those plants just not enough of them.

          It is current policy that makes these people serfs. If they could work legally they could compete in the job market like anyone else and the market would adjust accordingly.

          People are not imports. They are autonomous individuals who have chosen to migrate for reasons of their own. Giving them temporary renewable residency and work permits would solve many problems with the current system. It is in line with libertarian and free market principles of movement of goods, services, and people. If the current system was “working” we would not be having this discussion.

          These people are already here. Millions of them. You are never going to deport them all. Trying to force them into poverty to convince them to leave is the cause of the problem. Not the solution. Like drug prohibition it doesn’t work and never will.

          1. You are not going to drop regulations on food processing. As it is we get outbreaks of contamination on a regular basis.

            Texas sharpshooter argument. Also irrelevant.

            Those meat processing jobs pay $15-20/hr.

            So? Why do those jobs have to be in the US? Why can’t they pay three times as much? Why have they to be done manually? Why does meat have to be so cheap (beef in the US costs 1/5th of what it costs in Switzerland).

            The illegals you want to import (and the hidden costs the impose on US society) are nothing but regulatory capture benefiting certain kinds of consumers and certain kinds of industries, while American taxpayers have to foot the bill.

            These people are already here. Millions of them. You are never going to deport them all. Trying to force them into poverty to convince them to leave is the cause of the problem

            Those people would leave in a heartbeat if they couldn’t get jobs, banking, benefits, or government services in the US anymore.

            1. I get you had a hard way to go. My wife who is also an immigrant is more in line with this way of thinking. We went through all this why should it be easier for them?

              That is really what it is about. We are never going to agree. I will not change position nor will you.

              I will end with one thought.

              “Those people” are not going to leave with a heartbeat and never have. Kicking the can down the road is the way to go dems or Republicans. Same story every year every decade. Nobody wants to reform the system because it works for the government and contractors.

              1. That is really what it is about. We are never going to agree. I will not change position nor will you.

                I frankly don’t care whether you change positions. What matters is the future of this country, and if open borders people like you win, it will destroy the US as we know it. Importing cheap foreign labor, whether legally or illegally, is a prescription for turning the US into a third world sh*thole.

                We went through all this why should it be easier for them?

                You are missing the point. This isn’t about personal misgivings. If I thought that giving illegal aliens the right to stay and work in the US were good for the US, I’d have no problem with it. But it isn’t. Apart from the disastrous economic consequences, it undermines the rule of law and undermines basic fairness, and in doing so, it destroys the social fabric that has made the US great.

                “Those people” are not going to leave with a heartbeat and never have

                They will both leave with and in a heartbeat if they can’t make a living in the US, can’t bank, can’t rent or buy a home, and don’t receive government benefits.

                1. Cmon

                  Economic consequences. Those people are here already many of them working ‘illegally’ the economy is booming right?

                  Rule of law. Yeah it was a felony to be caught with an oz of pot. It was a crime for homosexuals to do what gay people do. It was rule of law that black people had no rights. I won’t go further on that. I am a libertarian.

                  Basic fairness. You mean human dignity. The basic right of all human beings to have a chance to earn a living. Have the ability to move from one place to another. Have the opportunity to escape oppression and corruption. Have the chance to leave war and find a place of peace and opportunity. Have the chance to prove you can produce in an open free market economy.

                  I have tried to stick to consequential arguments here. Give me a moral one.

                  1. Economic consequences. Those people are here already many of them working ‘illegally’ the economy is booming right?

                    The US economy has serious fundamental problems. It has entitlements it can’t pay, there is a massive stock market and real estate bubble, the US middle class is stagnating, life expectancy is stagnating, labor force participation rates are stagnating, and many blue collar workers have dropped out of the workforce because they can’t compete with illegal aliens.

                    Rule of law. Yeah it was a felony to be caught with an oz of pot. It was a crime for homosexuals to do what gay people do. It was rule of law that black people had no rights. I won’t go further on that.

                    Yes, there were bad laws. There are also plenty of good laws that keep this society functioning. What’s your point?

                    The basic right of all human beings to have a chance to earn a living. Have the ability to move from one place to another. Have the opportunity to escape oppression and corruption.

                    No, those are not “basic human rights”, they are a communist utopia. You’re a socialist and you are for the kinds of “liberties” socialists like. You are most certainly not a libertarian.

            2. “Why does meat have to be so cheap (beef in the US costs 1/5th of what it costs in Switzerland).”

              We got more cows.

              1. That’s your justification for letting millions of unskilled and illegal workers stay in the US? The fact that wealthy ranchers raise gigantic herds on public lands with government subsidies? And with that kind of idiotic reasoning you call yourself a libertarian?

                If labor costs go up for meat processing, we will have fewer cows. We can save the subsidies and below market land leases that we give the ranchers that raise these cows. All of that is both libertarian and good.

              2. Incidentally, Switzerland and the US both have about 0.2 cows per capita, so, no, the US does not have a glut of cows relative to Switzerland; that doesn’t explain the cheap beef in the US.

                1. The US is the largest producer of beef on the planet followed by Brazil.

                  Cows in Switzerland are like pets or dairy cows.

                  So ya wanna pay 5x more for a burger you are welcome to.

                  1. The US is the largest producer of beef on the planet followed by Brazil.

                    We’re talking about the cost of beef and labor costs; your reasoning was that the US needed cheap third world laborers because “we have a lot of cows”. But you need to look at cows relative to country size to determine whether “we have a lot of cows”, not at absolute numbers.

                    Cows in Switzerland are like pets or dairy cows.

                    Good, so that’s what US cows can become as well. It’s the mark of a civilized, prosperous nation.

                    So ya wanna pay 5x more for a burger you are welcome to.

                    I don’t want to pay massive amounts of income, state, and local tax to pay for the government services, healthcare, and retirement that those “cheap” workers require, because their taxes sure as hell aren’t paying for it. In effect, you’re forcing me to subsidize these workers.

                    I also don’t want to live in a country whose population is half third world peasants. You know who has even cheaper beef than the US? India, Kenya, and Nigeria. If you want cheap beef, rather than destroying the US, why don’t you move there? Or just have it shipped to you frozen.

                    1. I never said cheap laborers. The cost of labor will respond to normal market forces if the immigrants have legal work permits. What is happening now is a market distortion.

                      There are some fields that pay very well and still there are worker shortages. Plumbing and nursing for example. In those cases there is a laborious process where an employer can apply for a limited number of temporary work visas. The worker is stuck to the same employer on whatever terms they offer. This is another market distortion and leads to political cronyism.

                      It is not a simple supply and demand calculation. Wages depend on many other factors such as worker and consumer preference, competition, availability of people qualified or willing to do a particular job, new technology or techniques, other market forces. Socialism fails because nobody can predict or manipulate the market which includes labor.

                      With burgers once the price reaches a certain point I will just eat something else. Those veggie burgers are pretty decent. So the whole industry will just diminish because there is no profit in it. Meat would be a luxury item as it is in many places.

                      Also the price of beef is determined by many factors including the price of shipping and transport. Right now the American beef industry benefits because it is cheaper to get the product on the shelves and process it where the cows are.

                      Also quality figures into the choices I make as a consumer. I recall reading how sailors and soldiers in WW2 did not like Australian beef, which was plentiful, because it was tougher than American so the cooks found ways to soften it up.

                      I don’t want to pay for those social service benefits and have a welfare migration either. You realize that is in part because these people can’t find legal work. I am proposing that those with permits be excluded from welfare benefits. There should be a clear path to citizenship better than what we have now.

                    2. Also look at the dairy industry here. It produces far more than demand and what they can export so it is heavily subsidized. It is a big part of our trade deal with Canada. The same will happen when you distort the market for anything with labor, subsidies, or tariffs.

                      Switzerland doesn’t produce much beef because they do not have those wide open spaces for those cattle. They need to import hence the price difference. Where you have fish people eat fish and so on. Japanese people eat a lot of fish. They do produce some of the finest beef on the planet and for an expensive treat I can get it.

                      Think of the whole production line from the rancher to the butcher counter at my grocery or the McDonalds worker. All of it I take for granted. The government did not give me that. Central planning did not. All of those jobs what will happen when the price goes to 5x.

                      Peasants. Well that is not a nice way to refer to people. Even so the fortunes and opportunities to people everywhere rises when economic and trade barriers are lifted. The farmer in Kenya gets more income. He can then purchase quality farm equipment from say John Deere in Illinois and so on.

                      That is the goal. It is actually how things work in a free market.

                      Kenya has one of the fastest growing economies in Africa btw.

                    3. I never said cheap laborers. The cost of labor will respond to normal market forces if the immigrants have legal work permits.

                      But they don’t have work permits, they are illegal aliens who form a cheap, easily exploited labor force that can outcompete American blue collar workers.

                      I don’t want to pay for those social service benefits and have a welfare migration either. You realize that is in part because these people can’t find legal work. I am proposing that those with permits be excluded from welfare benefits.

                      They receive massive government benefits even without welfare; every resident costs the government $20000/year on average, even taking no welfare benefits. Anybody who doesn’t pay that much in taxes makes America poorer.

                      On top of that, most of those people will marry and have kids, those kids will be American citizens, and they will receive welfare, healthcare, and education for those kids as if they were American citizens.

                    4. “On top of that, most of those people will marry and have kids, those kids will be American citizens, and they will receive welfare, healthcare, and education for those kids as if they were American citizens.“

                      Yeah or the children may be your grandkids ortho surgeon . Are you genetically superior?

                      Right ‘they ‘ do not have work permits. That could be changed with the stroke of a sharpie.

                      Instead you want to double down on a failed policy.

                    5. To just add.

                      Those children will not be as if American citizens. They will be American citizens.

                      The most prosperous freedom loving country in the world was built on that.

                      Perhaps some of here no longer value those principles.

                    6. “But they don’t have work permits, they are illegal aliens who form a cheap, easily exploited labor force that can outcompete American blue collar workers.“

                      And you want to keep that going, even make it worse. Underbidding because you have no other choice to put food on the table is not outcompeting. It is not a competition at all.

  12. How often does E-Verify mistakenly mark people as legally unable to work when they should have been approved? About 0.15 percent of the time, which sounds impressive, but if it were applied to every American worker via federal mandate it would leave more than 187,000 people a year barred from work for no reason at all.

    Nobody needs to fail e-verify. You can check your e-verify information online any time; if it’s incorrect, you can have it corrected.

    This is minimally intrusive compared to the requirements all other western democracies have for citizen identification.

  13. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page……. Read more

  14. Christan, which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page……………..> Read more

  15. Truthfully, the large influx of immigrants, many illegal, in our area has given the horse farms and racing stables cheap and easily exploitable labor (they will work 7 days a week and tend not to make workers comp claims when injured), to the disadvantage of many working class Americans. It pretty much froze the pay of exercise riders, which I did for years. 20 years ago $600 a week was a darn good living; now it’s just getting by as the costs of groceries and housing have increased. Up north at racetracks that are fussy about licensing requirements, riders make about 50% more. Just a personal observation from a worker’s perspective.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.