How effective would e-verify actually be?

Companies should maintain a copy of the documents they relied on to offer employment and if they were duped, then it’s not on them.

The problem as I see it is, this has been going on for decades. Since the laws weren’t being enforced, some companies hired illegals and now have a competitive advantage. This forced other companies to do the same thing. Since it’s been going on now for about 40 years…this unlawful employment has become a part of our economy. When/if…the laws are enforced, many companies will suffer or possibly go bankrupt as a result. Our government should be ashamed…if they had any…for what they’ve allowed to happen?

They are required to keep copies.

The problem they have is that unless they are obviously and blatantly fraudulent there’s nothing they can do.

Even when they receive a “no match” letter from the IRS it states right on the letter that it’s not lawful grounds for termination.

1 Like

Which is exactly the thrust of this thread. This is also where liberals and conservatives disagree. Do liberals ever argue against e-verify when we know it would never be 100% effective? Furthermore I don’t think it would do much to prevent people from coming here illegally?

Where I’m going with this is…“we” are now addicted and there will be a painful withdrawal period once the law is actually enforced.

No question about that but we have plenty of time to work it out while we finish securing the southern border.

It’s not going to be particularly painful since even with a massive expansion of the immigration courts and ICE’s internal enforcement capabilities it would take a couple of decades at least to remove a significant portion of them.

One obvious solution is to start aggressively prosecuting all of the repeat offenders for felony reentry and giving them all a minimum of 3 years in prison on work gangs.

Since the vast majority are here for economic reasons that would instantly do away with their incentive for coming to start with and would strongly encourage “self deportations”.

The solutions are far more simple than most would have us believe.

2 Likes

Don’t want me to hire them, keep them out. I’m responsible for making a profit, not securing the border.

Better an illegal than a yankee.

2 Likes

The following of course is just my opinion.

The best method of reducing illegal aliens in the country isn’t building walls across the southern border (but I don’t mind walls in targeted urban areas). It address WHY illegal aliens come here and that involves denying them access to the jobs they need and birthright citizenship for those here illegally. The birthright question is really a topic for it’s own thread.

As someone on that works in HR the I-9 Federal form currently in use is very lacking in functionality and in process. First, the current I-9’s are basically cover-your-ass for employers and are lacking because employers are basically required to accept any presented documents at face value. Failure to do so will result in findings against the employer of racial profiling and discrimination. Luckily I work for a school system so in addition to the I-9 we are required by by state law to perform a 100% check on all new hires with the State Police & FBI. Secondly, that even then there is no external verification of legality to work as part of the I-9 process. It’s basically a paperwork drill and the I-9 must be stored for 3 years after date of hire or termination date, whichever is greater.

A true E-Verify system would need to go beyond current scope. It would need to integrate not only federal DHS records and State Department records but include those and additionally current data from (a) the IRS, (b) the SSA, © State level Department of Vital Records (Births, Deaths, etc.). It needs to be a smart system that integrates multiple data points to not only determine that Ronald McDonald, Male, SSN XXX-XX-XXXX, DOB 1/1/1960 is legal to work in the US, but that the new hire also make sense. If that same Ronald McDonald is currently being reported on tax roles as living and working in New York and suddenly he pops for an employment verification in California - that should raise a flag. That has to be cleared to confirm that Ronald is actually (a) moving to California or (b) Ronald his being hired in a physical or telecommuting situation and that it is not an identify theft case.

An important aspect of a successful E-Verify will also be a quick and accurate appeal process that brings a human into the loop to resolve false negatives.

Once such a system is in place, then employers can really be held responsible for hiring illegals.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

2 Likes

Your responsible as an employer to comply with state and federal employment law.

I know you disagree with this as you [c] feel you [c] allowed to do anything in search of profit, but that is not the case. Feel free to ignore the law as you [c] wish, but be ready for the consequences.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

I am not responsible for the contents of the workforce. Don’t want them hired, keep them out. If they’re in, they’re in. Better working than hanging around on the dole.

■■■■ that law. I’m a sanctuary employer.

And hopefully you [c} as the employer under such a system that chooses to ignore the law would be found guilty for such a violation and [a} pay a fine equal, at a minimum 3 times wages and benefits during the illegals period of employment, [b] receive a punitive fine of $25,000 for each illegal hired, and [c] be convicted of a felony with at least 1 year of imprisonment increasing the stay for each illegal hired.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

You hope I go to jail for hiring people who just came here looking for a better life.

How often do employers actually face the criminal penalties?

As you and I have both pointed out as things are now it’s all but impossible to hold them accountable as long as they have the required documents and those doc’s are not obvious forgeries.

E Verify is a good idea but as both of us have pointed out it needs much better database capability and integration to rally be effective.

Unfortunately neither party seems particularly interested in solving the problem.

You personally? No. You [c]? Yes.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

Yes and no.

Yes in the sense a single court order could stop it temporarily, but as we’ve seen court orders do occasionally get overturned. So in this case there wouldn’t be anything to stop a future administration from appointing a Scotus judge that was more inclined to interpret the 14th to include anyone born in the US even to illegals as is commonly done today.

So ultimately a precisely worded ammendment is essentially the only thing that guarantees an end to birthright citizenship to those not born of current US citizens. I’ll also add that even that doesnt totally end the possibility since yet another ammendment could be passed to nullify that. But in the practical sense amendments are extremely difficult to pass. To entertain the idea that this issue would be like the prohibition problem is unlikely.

So bottom line is single court orders and EOs is really short sighted bandaids for the problem.

Here’s a question how many people here illegally are working off the books? I that in NJ many people here illegally are working for small contractors and landscapers who pay people under the table.

1 Like

There is no © in my society.

1 Like

A single ruling by the SCOTUS can settle the question if not permanently at least for decades.

1 Like

No. The 14th Amendment precludes such a decision.

1 Like

It can’t.

A careful review and decision based on the original meaning and intent and BRC for those not legally present in the US is gone and properly so.

A giant database with everyone’s personal information contained within.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

smh