E-Verify Make it Illegal to Hire Illegal Immigrants

1. 87

   GA Andersonposted 5 years ago

   There is a discussion about penalizing businesses that hire illegal immigrants on a thread not related to that topic - so I thought it might deserve discussion.
   
   I will grab one of Wilderness' comments to start:
   
   
   
   There is currently an employee verification process. It is called E-verify. Employers submit information from an I-9 form, (a form that contains citizenship or Green Card information), to an internet-based verification database that will verify Social Security numbers, and DHS, (Dept. of Homeland Security), flags.
   
   A Google search offer the following information:
   It is not federally mandated, it is a state's choice, and currently about twenty states mandate it's use.
   
   It does include some harsh penalties. First offense, (hiring illegal immigrants), can result in business suspension of ten days. A second offense could result in loss of business.
   
   Those sound like serious penalties to me.
   
   That same search offered these problems with the E-verify system:
   It cannot detect identity theft, ie. a valid SS# is given, it just isn't the valid number for the person giving it. Apparently, and I think rightly so, the system only verifies the SS# is valid, it doesn't reveal any information about who the number belongs to.
   
   There is no uniform, (or it appears, even sketchy), audit regimen to check that business' are using the system. It appears that the only way offending businesses are 'caught' is if some other event leads to the discovery that they hired illegal immigrants.
   
   False positives - as some would call them -  have occurred where the E-verify system identified legal American citizens and Green card holders as ineligible for employment. A figure of 6% was tossed around.
   
   There is more, but those are the basics that cover the discussions I saw.
   
   Some criticisms were:
   The false positives could cost citizens a job.
   The federal government has no business getting involved in a citizen's pursuit of employment.
   It is a political hand grenade to promote a program that could put a lot of American small businesses out of business.
   
   I have to admit, I am undecided. It seems such a simple call to say yes, of course SS# verification - the E-verify system - should be an easy tool to use to fight illegal immigration.
   
   But ...  some of the criticisms strike home too. I don't think the federal government has any business nosing around with my, (as a citizen),  pursuit of employment. And, (this one I had personal experience with as an employer), what safeguards are there for the small business owner that is legitimately fooled? Such as being given a valid green card or SS number - that wasn't valid for the person giving it. I couldn't find any information on an appeal process for accused businesses.
   
   Well?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      With all this brouhaha on this Immigration question, perhaps it is time to federally mandate, requiring compliance by all 50 states? Let's make those harsh penalties universal and consistent.
      
      I would allow employers additional additional information from the E-verify system. I don't think that we threaten privacy of most people by have the database provide name, birth year and place of birth associated with an SS#. You have to provide that for an application to apply for a job anyway. That would make it considerably more difficult for the card to be subject to fraud or misrepresentation. Also, this reduces incidents of false positives. If a business is not using the system and an illegal worker is found in their employ, then they are to be prosecuted, because you were suppose to use that system.
      
      With the problems associated with billions propose to build some silly wall, detention facilities for children and the appearance of certain amount of xenophobia and racism at the core of this debate, I don't think that this is too much to ask employers.
      
      Of course, there should be options for those employers that have been LEGITIMATELY fooled, but no breaks for negligence and not following mandated procedures.
      
      This ain't Mayberry, GA. I don't like the idea of focusing on supply, I want to eliminate demand, and that is far more effective. I am not going to allow the conservatives to have their cake and eat it too! Either we are serious about the problem or we are not, let's make up our minds?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I think it is unfair to categorize one side of the debate as xenophobic or racist.
         
         What we have is one side which appears to believethat open borders should be the norm. The other side worries about the costs involved and the effect on job opportunities and pay scale for current residents. That is typical of right and left. Liberal ideology wants to act,allowing the chips to fall where they may. Conservative ideology ponders the long term ramifications.
         
         E Verify should be expanded and improved. Your suggestions are all great. I think all sides would like to see an enforceable policy. No side is happy with the fact that Congress refuses to solve the problems. But, incorrectly demonizing one side of the debate does nothing to solve the problems.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I did not blame anybody, but the concerns I mentioned are considered in the air as part of this debate.
            If conservatives are so concerned about job opportunities they should be the first in line for increased employer sanctions. But, Republicans in Washington want to avoid it like the plague. Why is that? If you are not serious about addressing the problems for the reasons you state, what other explanations are left?
            
            I am a lefty, but not in favor of open borders and it is an exaggeration regarding the Left to believe that that is what we want. So, we do need to actwhile considering the long term ramifications. But, dragging your feet regarding a fundamental cause of the problem is doing nothing. I blame the conservatives more because they and Trump are the ones making the "big fuss".  Who benefits?
            
            I am glad you found some of my suggestions palatable.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Honestly, I'm probably very liberal on border considerations. I think we should have a clear immigration policy which gives deferential treatment to our southern neighbors. We share a history and have much in common.
               
               I think the fact that big business has undue influence in Washington is at the core of your concerns on your last post. I've always argued in favor of reigning them in. They should have zero influence over government policy. But, having once been a business owner, and now part of the work force, I can tell you it is insulting to have to fill out paperwork to prove citizenship. I get needing to verify employability but as an American citizen I consider the questions asinine when asked of me. Or you. And, as a business owner, I should not be held responsible if someone is illegally in the country. I wasn't a detective or in law enforcement. If someone presents themselves for employment I assume they are employable. It is their obligation to be honest and law enforcement's mandate to enforce the laws.
               
               Both sides of the aisle have their own reasons for dragging their feet but the only solution is to create fair laws governing immigration and enforcing them. I don't really blame Trump. He didn't write the current laws. His job is to enforce them.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Odd, this is one topic where I am more conservative than you would find me in regards to other areas of discussion.
                  
                  Let me ask you, is it really that simple to want to assume that someone is employable? You have to require that anyone that worked in a tavern be 21 years of age or older. That has to be verified or you could lose your liquor license. Basically, the honor system is not working, there are too many getting away with exploiting illegals for economic gain. So, the "boom" needs to be applied. How much work is it to screen applicants by SS# using an effective E-verify system while sitting at your laptop computer?
                  
                  Nothing gets passed in congress on the issue because the hardliners want to dismiss the democrats as part of the solution. I can tell you that if the GOP took a harder line toward internal enforcement many more of us, tired of having the blame placed solely on migrants, would get on board and something could be accomplished.

                  replyreport
                  1. 93

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Good point with the tavern worker, and it goes much further than that.
                     
                     A 16 year old grocery clerk can't sell alcohol or cigarettes.  MacDonalds has to watch that youngsters only do jobs they are old enough (by law) - if you're too young you can't pour coffee.  There are age limits when it comes to hours worked, particularly during the school year.  I suppose even the racial/sexual makeup of your business could be a problem - is that new applicant a woman, a transvestite, a transgender or something else?

                     replyreport
                  2. 60

                     Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     A simple SSN search is fair. Providing a driver's license and SSN is not a problem. Filling out all the forms that have been added are. My problem is I have never been one to bend the rules. I try to follow procedure. It was difficult as a small business owner to follow some in a town where I'd known people all of my life.

                     replyreport
      2. 87

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Hey Cred, I can support E-verify, but, in a different manner than you seem to.
         
         I don't think the program should be supplying anything more than a verification of a valid SS#. I wouldn't want it providing all that data you listed; Name, age, and place of birth. Just imagine what that triumvirate of information could be used for by bad actors.
         
         Most employer practices I am familiar with, have heard explained, and have used, involve the I-9 form, a SS card, and a state ID. I think that with the SS# verified, the other documents are sufficient to deter/detect illegals. As previously mentioned, I want the E-verify system to work like the firearms check system.
         
         Regarding a federal mandate, also as mentioned, I think it should be a state choice. Consider California, they welcome illegals. If their citizens want this posture, I think it should be their choice - as long as all other Federal laws are followed, and, as long as the burdens that state incurs by its actions are held to that state - and not passed on to other states, (as is currently the case).
         
         Wait, wait, don't jump yet. I know that position is full of holes, such as how to keep those illegal immigrants in that magnet state that California is. should we put up border checkpoints on interstate borders of non-E-verify states?  But still, this just feels like it should be a state sovereignty issue.
         
         You are right, we aren't Mayberry anymore, but that doesn't mean Mayberry values and perspectives aren't valid anymore.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Hey Cred, I can support E-verify, but, in a different manner than you seem to.
            
            I don't think the program should be supplying anything more than a verification of a valid SS#. I wouldn't want it providing all that data you listed; Name, age, and place of birth. Just imagine what that triumvirate of information could be used for by bad actors.
            
            Kudos to you, GA
            
            First, I disagree, I don't think that information: name, date and place of birth is providing your life's story. Even with that, this information is available FOUO basis, not available to everyone. I am looking for a more comprehensive fool proof system
            
            As the current administration constantly reminds us, this is a national problem. Are we going to leave it to piecemeal state regulation? There are still too many coming and too many circumstances where they are working when they shouldn't be. So, obviously the statuo quo is not working. So, if illegals can enter and leave at will in California and New Mexico, how much pressure does that put on the other 48 states? Should each state be responsible for building the portion of the wall covering its border with Mexico? But, are we not ALL asked to pay for "the Wall"?
            
            I won't jump, GA, but this is a valid concern, your position just allows illegals to enter through the side door and complicate enforcement issues on an interstate basis. In plumbing you seal the leak in the pipe from one source only to have it all flood somewhere else? Everybody complained to Obama about enforcing immigration laws on the National level, now that it is here, who do I hear complain? A National problem calls for a National solution.
            
            The ideas of the past were quaint and appropriate for a simpler, less complex time, but new realities require NEW ways of looking at things. Mayberry values may be valid, but are for the most part superceded by more pressing problems.

            replyreport
            1. 87

               GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Uncle! Uncle! My mind knew a national rule is needed. It was my heart that got in the way. You know buddy, that old passion over reason mistake.
               
               However, we still differ on all that data returned to employer. If I remember correctly, even a beginner identity thief could use those three pieces of data to get the fourth - the mother's maiden name. And those four pieces are enough to steal anyone's identity - that isn't protected by paid identity protection services. I just don't see that data as needed by the employer. Their responsibility is verifying a valid SS#. That is E-verify's purpose.
               
               GA

               replyreport
   2. 93

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't realize that the system assigns penalties: I thought it was only a verification process.  Are you sure about that, or are those penalties a different law that some states use?
      
      I don't find it unreasonable that business be required to take some precautions as to eligibility of work.  E-verify, coupled with a couple forms of ID (just as we do today) sounds reasonable.  If 3 forms of ID (including E-verify) all show the same ID then a business has done it's part.  Yes, some will still find a way through, but I would expect it to be small.
      
      The bigger problem is false positives (or negatives, for that matter).  Not only is 6% way out of line for false positives, we must have a quick, easy method of fixing problems built into the system.
      
      There is another potential problem, too - California (where else ) prohibits any jurisdiction from requiring E-verify.  The battle there could take some time, although we could also simply let them be overrun.  And then pay the price to keep the state afloat...

      replyreport
      1. 87

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I may have been too broad in my description of those penalties Wilderness. The ones I mentioned are typical for most states, but penalties do vary by state, with some being just loss of Federal or State contracts, and others including civil monetary penalties - in addition to business license suspension or loss.
         
         Here is a link that gives state-by-state E-verify penalties
         
         Regarding your "multiple IDs" thought - that is similar to what I think is reasonable. But ... I have not moved beyond a gut-reaction such as Live to learn expressed. I am still working through it.
         
         If E-verify doesn't create and save a database of people checked by employers, (similar top the way a firearms check works), as appears to be the case, then I don't really have an objection, other than just the aversion to being challenged as a citizen.
         
         I am also more in support of E-verify being a state mandate, rather than a federal one. A comparative example of Arizona vs. California comes to mind. Different state attitudes should be a state's choice. As I understand it, it is already a federal mandate for business with federal contracts.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 93

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            As you pointed out above, it would be nice if states could handle their own "immigration"...but the thought is so full of holes, major holes, that it is unworkable.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Exactly !      It has to be federal , it has to have a" bite " , that's why Trump is doing this , first stage ,, some kind of wall ,  phaze II , employers and you all know there will be an amnesty package to "protect employers "and present illegal employees .    Even if by executive ordered clause , Trump must STOP the hiring and protectionism by corporate and political -financial collusion.

               replyreport
            2. 87

               GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               yeah, I know. And I admitted it. That thought was just my passion for keeping government out of my life - as much as reasonably possible. My reason knew better on this issue. See what happens when passion overrules reason.
               
               Luckily, from the OP and onward, my comments had a bad door  for reason to sneak in when passion smoldered out, (or was doused).
               
               GA

               replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   The problem isn't ARE there laws , regulations , directives about the illegal hiring , paying or taxation  of legal or illegal workers .   The problem is enforcement of existing law,   by local , state or even federal enforcement of ALL US labor laws .
   
   ".... I don't think the government  has any business nosing around in my pursuit of employment ..........." What ?  !   Do you pay taxes  , enjoy refunds , tax write offs ,  do you benefit from  labor safety and discrimination protections , from law enforcement in protecting you on the way to work to having insurance , providing benefits or actual  pay  , ?   This goes right back to obeying of ALL law of  the land from immigration , civil law ,   traffic ,   employment at any level.
   
   You or I don't GET TO PICK  or chose the laws we WISH to obey, we are obliged to do as you and I have long discussed about changing legislation to avoid  criminal political violence or even revolutionary acts in other threads   .   It's about law enforcement and the freedoms or even  liberties  actually provided by  law enforcement , the pursuit of life , liberty and gainful , safe , legal and equal opportunity employment for all .
   
   It's about obeying law. Not whether or not we wish to.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think you misunderstood my point ahorseback.
      
      " I don't think the government  has any business nosing around in my pursuit of employment"
      
      I was not talking about picking and choosing which laws to obey. Nor was I referring to any of the areas covered in your second paragraph.
      
      What I was referring to was the government looking over my should as I pursue legal employment. The government doesn't have any business tracking my legal employment efforts, or history. I could arguably say the same for an illegal immigrant's "pursuits." But, when it comes to the actual process of hiring, getting the job, then that's different - now a verification process makes sense.
      
      Maybe an analogy to drug testing might work. An applicant isn't drug-tested when they apply for a job, but they are when they are offered the job.
      
      If E-verify works like a firearms check does - in that no database of information is retained after the "check," then my aversion is just an unfounded gut-reaction, and I can live with it, but, if E-verify retains any information submitted, and the government builds a database dossier of my employment efforts or history, I would have a big problem with that.
      
      I don't disagree with you at all concerning the need to enforce, (and abide by), our current laws, (or work to change them as you noted) - all of them, but that wasn't the point of my statement.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 93

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         The IRS already has a dossier of all your employment history, right back to the first employer that filed a W-2 for you.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Now you are forcing me to get 'picky' Wilderness.
            
            First, as noted, the reference was about my "pursuit" of employment. (that's the "picky" rational)
            
            Second, even so, why would I want another agency tracking me?
            
            My reason may be winning the battle of my thoughts on this topic, but my passion is still putting up a fight. :-)
            
            GA

            replyreport
3. 83

   psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

   There would be some other consequences to do this, first some crops would not get harvested and some animals would not get slaughtered and processed and some hotels and other facilities would not have cleaners.  Certain industries are dependent on illegals to that extent.  After that eventually some prices for things would go up a lot and some farmers and other business people would go broke as cheaper imports computed for the market.
   
   I am not saying that to advocate one way of the other.  It's just a thing that would happen.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      In the short run, perhaps. In the long run that's a stretch. And, anyway. If people are paid substandard wages,  because they are immigrants, is that fair? Shouldn't the long term solution include fair wages? Taking advantage of people because they are illegally working should not be a reason to avoid a fair and equitable solution,

      replyreport
      1. 93

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         There is a concept in the justice about having "clean hands" before the court system will provide help.  Suing a friend for stealing your dope or reneging on a contract with the two of you defrauding a third party won't get you much.
         
         Should it not extend to wages and illegally working?

         replyreport
   2. 74

      Castlepalomaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds about right.

      replyreport