Arizona Is Weighing Nonsensical New E-Verify Measures
The proposal would harm business owners, consumers, and workers without much benefit in return.

Republican lawmakers in Arizona are advancing a collection of bills targeting illegal immigrants and their activities in the state. One in particular, House Concurrent Resolution (HRC) 2060, has the potential to disrupt all manner of peaceful economic interactions.
Arizona law requires that all employers use the federal E-Verify program to ensure that hired employees are eligible to work in the United States. HCR 2060 would add to existing requirements by mandating that employers use E-Verify to check the legal status of subcontractors and independent contractors. Noncompliant employers could face felony charges and fines of $10,000 per undocumented employee.
HCR 2060 has already passed the Arizona House. If it passes the Senate, it will appear on the ballot in November. And though its sponsor, House Speaker Ben Toma (R–Glendale), says the proposal would keep "Arizona from becoming like California" and stop illegal immigrants from "tak[ing] advantage of Americans," plenty of Arizonans are concerned about its economic consequences.
That includes over 100 Arizona business, faith, and community representatives, who charged in an open letter to state politicians that the "anti-immigrant proposals" being considered by the Legislature "will cause unnecessary disruption to the workforce." Given that "Arizona currently only has 71 available workers for every 100 open jobs," the letter calls for elected officials "to support legal work permits for long-term immigrant contributors" rather than participating in "political gamesmanship."
For all the support E-Verify receives from state and national politicians, the employment verification system has many downsides. It's costly (especially for small businesses), it negatively affects lower-skilled native-born workers, and it's easily gamed. Rather than just impacting undocumented immigrants who want to work, it punishes employers for consensual hiring practices and forces native-born workers to get yet another permission slip to do their jobs and live their lives.
"Nationwide, the surge of E-Verify queries has not coincided with any significant reduction in the number of illegal workers," wrote David J. Bier, associate director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, in 2019. "From 2007 to 2016, the number of illegal workers hovered around 8 million, even as the number of E-Verify queries increased tenfold….The only independent audit of the E-Verify system in 2012 concluded that half of all illegal workers run through the system evaded detection, primarily by borrowing the identification of legal workers."
"The E-Verify program has made significant improvements over the years," says Sam Peak, senior policy analyst at Americans for Prosperity, a libertarian advocacy group. "Despite this, making it mandatory for more people likely exposes them to many uncertainties that could disrupt the hiring process."
HCR 2060's vague language might also leave the door open for Arizonans to face legal consequences, perhaps unknowingly, if the businesses they patronize don't comply with E-Verify mandates. According to the resolution text, any person who "commits obstruction of the legal duty to use E-Verify," including acts "in association with any person who has the intent to obstruct, impair or hinder any person from using the E-Verify program as required by law," is "guilty of a class 6 felony."
What exactly the phrase in association with means is not clear. "What happens if a household unknowingly hires a roofing company that does not use E-Verify?" asks Peak.*
Mandating E-Verify for more Arizona workers will inevitably lead to headaches and increased compliance costs for employers and consumers. Voters would do well to remember those consequences if HCR 2060 appears on the ballot in November.
*CORRECTION: This quote has been updated to correct a mistyped word in the source's comment.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yeah, sure. Negatively affects lower skilled citizens.
Quite like how all the entry level jobs pay below minimum wage because they can just hire an illegal who is desperate for work and won't ever complain so he never gets deported. You know, negative effects for a whole generation that have helped keep people who could once work as a laborer or dishwasher to begin learning a business and skills back in poverty.
But, yeah, let's not do anything that might disincentivize people from coming to the state expecting to find work when they're not legally allowed to work there. That would be bad.
Here in Florida Governor Desantis pushed mandatory e verify through the legislature.
Illegals are self deporting to other states.
Seems like a win all around for the citizens of Florida.
So, I write this with the assumption that Harrigan got the details correct.
I oppose requirements that someone needs to check subcontractors - you can't vet the entire labor chain. You vet your employees. The contractor is responsible for vetting their employees. Their sub-contractors are responsible for vetting *their* employees.
Side note: If you're an 'independent contractor' you can't get a business license without the state vetting your employment-status to start with. And independent contractors would be responsible for vetting *their* employees like any other company.
This bill accomplishes nothing and poses an undue burden on everyone. Everything the bill is trying to do is already done with the current system.
First change is literally stating state and county welfare offices have to verify citizenship before giving away taxpayer money.
A. IF A CITY OR TOWN RECEIVES STATE MONIES FOR WHICH A 24 PORTION IS USED TO FUND ANY PUBLIC WELFARE PROGRAM, THE CITY 25 OR TOWN SHALL VERIFY THAT AN ADULT RECIPIENT IS LAWFULLY 26 PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER FEDERAL LAW BY USING THE 27 E-VERIFY PROGRAM BEFORE DISBURSING PUBLIC WELFARE MONIES AND 28 SHALL KEEP A RECORD OF THE VERIFICATION FOR AT LEAST THREE 29 YEARS. 30 B. DUE TO THE ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT OF ILLEGAL 31 IMMIGRATION ON THIS STATE, REGULATION OF PUBLIC WELFARE 32 PROGRAMS THAT USE STATE MONIES IS A MATTER OF STATEWIDE 33 CONCERN.
Employer part:
Every employer, after 7 hiring an employee, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR 8 shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee, 9 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR through the e-verify 10 program and shall keep a record of the verification for the 11 duration of the employee’s, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S OR 12 SUBCONTRACTOR’S employment or at least three years, whichever 13 is longer.
This would be obtainable from the subcontracted entity and any contractor hired. So not exactly onerous. No different that running a background check which is very normal.
Yes Fiona has got the details right. It appears to be a pretty dumb bill written either by someone at heritage or someone who has no clue about the actual everify laws.
Everify system is meant for direct employees with very clear definition of what employer means. States can not really introduce their own definitions.
Secondly, there are many legal immigrants categories such as F1, G4, o4 and many more where people are legally present, need to drive but are not eligible to work and hence can not be e-verified.
Most states require you to present i94, a very good document issued by CBP as evidence of legal presence and it works really well.
Looks like the nativists have gotten high on the everify cool aid they have Benn trying to sell voters.
Fuck e-verify. Gov do your job and leave business alone to do their job, which isn't immigration enforcement.
When all you have is a hammer...
You can be sure that a politician will try to fuck you with that hammer.
Check out the Paul Pelosi fan over here
When you have a human trafficer in charge of the Government they're not likely to crack down on their business.
Thank you. Under what principle of liberty can businesses be forced to do the federal government's job of border enforcement? Or become tax collectors for federal, state and local government? Bear in mind that businesses are not compensated for any of this bullshit. The cost is borne by the consumer. And the same assholes imposing this crap will be the first ones bitching about greedy businesses and shrinkflation.
Under what principle of liberty must people require permission from the government to provide for themselves?
I believe that is Article 6, Section 25, Subsection 20.23. Also known as the FYTW clause.
HCR 2060 would add to existing requirements by mandating that employers use E-Verify to check the legal status of subcontractors and independent contractors.
How could that possibly be enforced? In the construction industry, would they require a business to collect an i-9 for every employee of every subcontractor?
If you have a sub contractor from a company, they would have their own records and be able to send them over.
This is to avoid getting around issues such as hiring contractors instead of employees. Where I may be able to see a burden is with Uber or Instacart.
If you have a sub contractor from a company, they would have their own records and be able to send them over.
Why is it my job to police the work site? And you think this isn't going to end up a racist shit show every time a brown person gets accused of not being the person for whom they sent you records?
This reeks of union influence.
This reeks of union influence.
Hard to find a labor law that doesn't.
And you think this isn’t going to end up a racist shit show every time a brown person gets accused of not being the person for whom they sent you records?
No. Because I don't assume employers and police to be outright racist after living here for decades. This is a trope of the left and shocked you are pushing it. There is zero evidence racism drives usage as it is applicable to all applicants. No different than major corporations running background checks on all applicants. I've had my verification run on every job.
As for policing of employees, because that is a legal requirement of employment. Just like filing a w2 and doing with holding. It is a standard application of employment law. It is far less onerous than other required regulations involving benefits such as Healthcare.
If you're going to make an argument. Make one. Appeals to emotion dont work on me. Meanwhile I prefer to stop being burdened with increased taxes born because employers don't want to spend the 5 minutes it takes to run an e verify check. They even outsource this check just like they do background checks. It is often the same damn fucking company. So fuck off with the emotional cries. The greater harm is on the taxpayer here as linked below.
I’ve had my verification run on every job.
Yeah, you're exactly right.
My last startup I got bought twice, once when going from consultant to employee, then when we sold our product to a "company" another when the company was acquired by a big company. All three times I was "hired" by the newly formed company I went through the background check and verification.
The company I worked for before that had to do all of that shit, and I helped FOUND that company with friends I'd known for a decade... but we all got verified. Even the CEO who owned the company did it.
There's nothing new to this. The problem comes entirely from the fact that there are tens of millions of illegal immigrants working, and there's a decades long history of employers abusing the system by hiring cheap, illegal, labor under the table. To the point where employers are disincentivized to hire legitimately in many industries. They just cannot compete unless they break the law like their competition.
Everify is cheaper, simpler, and easier than having to do a real background check. Submit the docs, the employee is verified legal, quick and easy. Now the employer who isn't complying with the byzantine laws has one fewer excuse. More to the point, the one who is has an easy way to shield himself from liability. And his competition has greater incentive to do so as well.
Personally, I'd much rather have far fewer ridiculous mandates on employers and employees. Make it simple, the minimum number of laws necessary, and just enforce those rules equally. Like that's ever going to happen.
Even then, if the one rule is "Must be legally entitled to work in the USA", then a simple, electronic verification of employment eligibility sure seems like a good way to do it.
Because the ACLU won't be watching this while salivating to sue everone involves.
Safety requirements already require vetting of subcontractors. It's a part of responsible care. In short, everyone audits one step down. I audit the general contractor and general contractor shows not only that he verifies his own but also that he audits his subcontractors.
This isn't anything new or unusual in heavy industry.
If they have it why do I care ? Why should I be verifying whether subcontractor has done their job or not ?
Looks like harassment by paperwork.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fair-illegal-immigration-costs-arizona-taxpayers-nearly-3-2-billion-a-year-301766153.html
I'll take the chance that they don't provide 3.2B in taxes to offset their costs. Send them to Fiona neighborhood.
I would trust an organization with a stated purpose of reducing immigration to conveniently omit any positive information. That’s not an ad hominem. I’m not saying that they’re wrong. Just pointing out that they say right up front that they are going to focus on the bad and ignore the good. It’s right there in their mission statement. It’s called lying by omission. Can I tell you what they are omitting? Not without doing some research. But the fact that they only say negative things sure suggests they pretend any positives do not exist.
https://www.fairus.org/about-fair
Can you provide a locale where illegals have generated more revenue than they have caused to be spent?
No.
Could it be they don't provide $3.2B in taxes because they are not able to pay taxes?
It's more than that. They're not allowed to legally work and pay taxes, but they are allowed to apply for assistance. And with zero legal income they tend to qualify. Let them legally work so they can't qualify, and pay taxes. Another bonus about letting immigrants legally work is that they pay payroll taxes, but don't have a SSN. That's pure profit for the government.
lol even in the best circumstances these people would be a net drag on the fisc. You can call that racist if you want; I really don’t care.
They are able to pay taxes.
Anyone can pay taxes - even if they don't owe taxes. You just fill out the form and send in a check.
No, it couldn't. Illegal aliens can obtain an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) from the IRS. The IRS does this specifically to allow the illegal aliens to pay taxes. If there was no legal mechanism for them to pay taxes the IRS wouldn't be able to enforce collection actions for those unpaid taxes.
>>Voters would do well to remember those consequences if HCR 2060 appears on the ballot in November.
voters already turned Arizona into a clown show halfway to California ... sorry Jesse
This one is to make arizona being the required burdened state foe the rest of the country. Having seen the decimation of things like closure of Trauma 1 hospitals throughout the entire county due to uncompensated care, I'm for this. Especially the requirement Fiona ignored despite being the biggest change with using e verify in welfare checks by government agencies.
I do not see a problem with more use of eVerify.
Says the guy who never had to make payroll.
It is such a small cost added to background checks as to be laughable. Costs less than even the required tax documents. It is a single form worked through an online portal. A one time check as well. Not yearly like taxes.
I was a small business employer for 20 years. I never ran a background check on anybody. If they did the job they kept it and got a raise. If they fucked up they got fired. I don't need the fucking government to tell me how to run a business. I pay the federal government to enforce immigration law. If they can't handle that task I'm not willing to be drafted into their police force.
You type with a Brooklyn accent.
"Ain't no government stooge tellin me wut to do."
Sheesh. I don't own the business, but we run background checks on everyone who comes through the front gate. If we didn't, we'd have our safety certifications and our insurance revoked.
Drug addicts are flat out dangerous around heavy equipment.
Freedom means asking having your papers in order. Anyone who says otherwise is a fascist.
Well has a U.S citizen i already have to have my papers in order to get any job and many jobs require background checks just because. but for some reason a certain group doesn't need any evidence of anything to do whatever they like.
Doesn’t make it right.
My argument is that immigrants should be allowed to work if they want to. Legally. It's not a choice between open borders and machine gun nests. I'm for high fences and wide gates. And letting them legally work.
I can't believe they want me to pay 25$ to hang out with you all. I've been posting here since before you even had to have an account.
This would piss me off if I were an Arizonan.
The fact is that I want slave labor. I need people to do menial tasks, and I don't want to pay them and I don't want them to feel in any way free to do anything else. What I want to do is threaten them with retaliatory action if they don't do what I say. Because I am an evil monster.
This is the only reason anyone supports illegal immigration. We. Need. Slaves.
OK, since it might be government overreach to force businesses to vet the immigration status of employees, then drop the requirement. But then fine any business that has illegals on the payroll. Business owners can decide to do their own vetting or not.
How do you catch them to assert the fine?
And in other not too long ago news....
Biden orders the take-down of border security measures.
Maybe Arizona wouldn't be doing this if Democrats in D.C. weren't so F'En stupid.
Uh-oh. Fiona said the quiet part out loud. E-Verify is no burden for legal immigrants. Only illegal immigrants will have a problem. Then of course we have the admission in the OP that these law-abiding illegal aliens just steal someone else's info to pass through the E-Verify check.
Nothing good comes out of Arizona.
> The proposal would harm business owners, consumers, and workers without much benefit in return.
The isn't the benefit. The point is the symbolism. The modern conservative movement is all about symbolism over substance. Cheap gestures to rally the unthinking.
Fine any business who has hired an illegal 100K. End all federal subsidies for illegal aliens. No more asylum except for Palestinians.
Deport anyone here illegally. Allow for work permits but only at US Embassies based on the US employer offering a job after three Americans have turned the position down.
Time to get serious about our Republic.
No more asylum except for Palestinians.
You really need to stop smoking the blue crack. It's not doing you any good.
I think you missed the joke.
See, there's no such thing as "Palestinians" - so he's saying no more asylum.