Jump to content

E-Verify

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ikonact (talk | contribs) at 08:18, 14 February 2023 (+ colorbox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

E-Verify logo
A map of U.S. states on E verify law. As of 2015,   Pink states Requires E-Verify for most public employers,   Blue states Requires E-Verify for some public contractors and subcontractors, and   Yellow Requires E-Verify for all employers

E-Verify is a United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees, both U.S. and foreign citizens, to work in the United States.[1] No federal law mandates use of E-Verify.

E-Verify was originally established in 1996 as the Basic Pilot Program to prevent companies from hiring people who had violated immigration laws and entered the United States illegally.[2] In August 2007, DHS started requiring all federal contractors and vendors to use E-Verify. The Internet-based program is free and maintained by the United States government. Use of E-Verify at the state level varies; some states have mandated use of E-Verify or similar programs, while others have discouraged the program.[3]

E-Verify compares information from an employee's Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 to data from U.S. government records. If the information matches, that employee is eligible to work in the United States. If there is a mismatch, E-Verify alerts the employer and the employee is allowed to work while resolving the problem. Employees must contact the appropriate agency to resolve the mismatch within eight federal government work days from the referral date.[4] The program is operated by the DHS in partnership with the Social Security Administration. According to the DHS website, more than 700,000 employers used E-Verify as of 2018.[5]

Research shows that E-Verify harms the labor market outcomes of illegal immigrants and improves the labor market outcomes of Mexican legal immigrants and U.S.-born Hispanics, but has no impact on labor market outcomes for non-Hispanic white Americans.[6] A 2016 study suggests that E-Verify reduces the number of illegal immigrants in states that have mandated use of E-Verify for all employers, and further notes that the program may deter illegal immigration to the United States in general.[7]

History

The program was originally established in 1997 as the Basic Pilot Program along with two other programs created to prevent undocumented immigrants from getting jobs.[8] The others were discontinued. In the two years since Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) finalized the regulations for electronically storing and/or generating I-9 records there has also been a steady increase in the number of administrative I-9 audits – where employers are asked to deliver their I-9 records to ICE within 72 hours for inspection.[9] The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Verification Division reported that over 16,000 E-Verify compliance letters were issued in Fiscal Year 2010. Another 13,000 letters and over 26,000 emails were sent to employers in Fiscal Year 2011. Additionally, another 23,000 e-mails were sent in the first half of Fiscal Year 2012, alone.[10]

Operations

All employers, by law, must complete Form I-9. E-Verify is closely linked to Form I-9, but participation in E-Verify is voluntary for most employers. After an employee is hired to work for pay, the employee and employer complete Form I-9. After an employee begins work for pay, the employer enters the information from Form I-9 into E-Verify. E-Verify then compares that information against millions of government records and returns a result.[11]

On 31 August 2007, the program began to include facial image data to help enhance searches. The 14 million images kept by federal immigration authorities are being used in the program, and the government is in talks with some states to cross reference with state drivers license records.[8][12][13]

During the United States federal government shutdown of 2013, E-Verify was anticipated to "be inaccessible for the duration of the shutdown." Also, "the 'three-day rule' for processing employment eligibility queries in E-Verify is indefinitely suspended pending a resolution of 2013 funding impasse."[14]

Impact

A 2015 study found that E-Verify reduced the average earnings of undocumented immigrants, improved labor market outcomes for male Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Hispanic men, and had no impact on U.S.-born non-Hispanic whites.[6] A 2016 study found that E-Verify "reduces the number of less-educated prime-age immigrants from Mexico and Central America—immigrants who are likely to be unauthorized—living in a state. We find evidence that some new migrants are diverted to other states, but also suggestive evidence that some already-present migrants leave the country entirely."[7] A 2019 analysis by the Cato Institute found that while E-Verify used to be effective at spotting illegal immigrants, it was no longer so.[15] The analysis estimated that the system only spotted the hiring of 16.1 percent of illegal immigrant workers in the fiscal year of 2018.[15]

Mandated use

Federal government

As of September 2007, most of the federal government did not use the system when hiring employees, but an Office of Management and Budget directive mandates that all federal government agencies sign up to use E-Verify by 1 October 2007.[16]

Social Security Administration failed to perform required verifications of the Social Security numbers of 19 percent of its own new hires during an 18-month period, according to a January 2010 report from the agency's inspector general.[17]

Federal contractors

As of 8 September 2009, employers with federal contracts or subcontracts that contain the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) E-Verify clause are required to use E-Verify to determine the employment eligibility of 1) Employees performing direct, substantial work under those federal contracts and 2) New hires organization-wide, regardless of whether they are working on a federal contract. A federal contractor or subcontractor who has a contract with the FAR E-Verify clause also has the option to verify the company's entire workforce.[18]

OPT extension for students

In April 2008, U.S. government extended the duration of post-completion work authorization (the "Optional Practical Training" (OPT)) from 12 months to an additional 24 months, for a total of 36 months of work authorization between the various OPT authorizations granted by USCIS, for certain qualifying students with completed U.S. degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). In all circumstances, students are only eligible for this extension if their employer participates in the E-Verify program. If an employer does not participate in E-Verify, students working for those employers are only given 12 months of OPT, and can not get the 24-month extension even if they would otherwise qualify for the extension.[19]

State laws

There are a number of state laws requiring or limiting the use of E-Verify for employers. According to a 2012 survey by the Center for Immigration Studies, 16 states require use of E-Verify in some form. The survey found that six states have laws requiring all or nearly all businesses to use E-Verify to determine employment eligibility: Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina. Five states require use of E-Verify by public employers and all or most public contractors: Indiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Missouri. Three states require only public contractors to use E-Verify: Louisiana, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. Idaho only requires public employers to use E-Verify, while Florida only requires it for agencies under direction of the governor. Colorado and Utah encourage use of E-Verify, but allow for alternative means of employment verification. An E-Verify-only mandate in Utah is contingent on the state's effort to create a state-level guestworker program. The survey also found that some states have moved in the opposite direction, limiting or discouraging use of E-Verify: California, Rhode Island, and Illinois.[20]

In 2011, the Supreme Court of the U.S. rejected a suit arguing that Arizona's state law, which can cause employers found failing to use E-Verify to lose their state business licenses, was pre-empted by federal law. The ruling effectively confirmed that states may mandate the use of E-Verify.[21]

As of January 1, 2023 the following states require E-Verify for some or all employers: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.[22]

Alabama

The state of Alabama passed a law mandating employers to use E-Verify on new hires.[23] The "Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act" (H.B. 56) was signed into law on 9 June 2011.[24] The act makes it illegal for any business entity, employer, or public employer to "knowingly employ, hire for employment, or continue to employ" an undocumented immigrant to perform work within the state. Effective 1 April 2012, every employer in Alabama must enroll in E-Verify and use the program to check employment authorization. The act creates an incentive for using E-Verify as businesses and subcontractors that enroll in E-Verify are immune from liability for employing an undocumented immigrant. The act requires the Alabama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish and maintain an E-Verify employer service for any employer in the state with 25 or fewer employees that wants assistance. The Alabama DHS will enroll a participating business in E-Verify on its behalf at no cost.[25] This law is applied to businesses both inside and outside Alabama that do business with the state.

Arizona

The state of Arizona requires employers to participate in E-Verify: the Legal Arizona Workers Act has survived a number of constitutional challenges, up to and including the US Supreme Court[26] and is currently in effect. The Legal Arizona Workers Act requires all Arizona employers to use E-Verify with all newly hired employees, effective 1 January 2008.[27] As of December 2008, 5.6 percent of Arizona businesses had signed up with E-Verify.[27]

As amended, the law prohibits employers from intentionally and/or knowingly hiring illegal immigrants (or a person who employs or contracts with an illegal immigrant) and requires all employers to use E-Verify during the employment process and keep a record of the verification for the duration of the employee's employment or at least three years, whichever is longer.[28] Additional legislation prohibits the state government from entering into a contract with any contractor or subcontractor that fails to use E-Verify.[29] According to USCIS, there are 39,191 employers in Arizona using E-Verify at 84,703 hiring sites.[30]

California

In 2011, California passed an act to prohibit municipalities from mandating use of E-Verify.[31] At least 20 municipalities had required use of E-Verify,[32] for all businesses and/or companies doing business with the local government, including Mission Viejo[33] (2007), Temecula[34][35] (ordinance 5.06.030) (2010), Murrieta[36][37][38] (ordinance Chapter 5.04) (2010), Riverside,[39] Santa Maria[40][41] (only for city employees), Lake Elsinore[42] (Ordinance No. 1279)[43] (2010), Wildomar[44] (only for contractors) (2010), Lancaster[45] (Ordinance No. 934), Palmdale, San Clemente, Escondido, Menifee, Hemet, San Juan Capistrano, Hesperia, Norco, San Bernardino County, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Simi Valley.[32]

Cities considering E-Verify ordinances for businesses for 2011 are Costa Mesa,[46] San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria[47] (for all businesses) Santa Barbara, and San Jose. However, Costa Mesa[48][49][50] is the only city that has adapted the same state law as Arizona's SB-1070, allowing the City to arrest those without proper identification of resident status under suspicion of being unlawfully present in the United States.

Colorado

Colorado's E-Verify law became effective on 7 August 2006, and was amended on 13 May 2008, (H.B. 06-1343, amended by H.B. 07-1073 and S.B. 08-193). The amendment created the "Department Program" and is offered as an alternative to E-Verify, meaning that E-Verify is not mandated in Colorado. Public contractors must participate in either E-Verify or the Department Program. The state's Department of Labor and Employment is tasked with investigating complaints and can conduct on-site inspections and random audits of state agencies. It has the authority to request and review citizenship documentation of persons performing work on public contracts. Under the "Department Program" public contractors must consent to random audits to assess compliance with the law.[51]

Florida

On January 4, 2011, Governor Rick Scott signed an executive order requiring agencies under his direction to use E-Verify. It was superseded on 27 May 2011, with a similar E-Verify order that brought the policy more in line with standard E-Verify practices by requiring verification of new employees rather than both new and existing employees.[52][53] Specifically, all agencies under the direction of the governor have been directed to verify the employment eligibility of all new employees through E-Verify. Agencies not under the direction of the governor are "encouraged" to follow the same guidelines. All agencies under the direction of the governor must expressly require contractors to use E-Verify for all new employees hired by the contractor during the contract term as a condition of all contracts for the provision of goods and services to the state in excess of nominal value. Additionally, subcontractors performing work pursuant to the contract must use E-Verify. Agencies not under the direction of the governor are encouraged to follow these guidelines as well.[25]

Florida was the second state to join the E-Verify RIDE program, which allows employers to view State ID and driver's license photos during the verification process.[54]

On June 30, 2020, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill requiring government employers and private companies that contract with the government to use E-Verify.[55][56]

Agricultural workers are exempt from E-Verify in Florida. This explains why no violations have been found in a state with 775,000 undocumented workers.

Georgia

Georgia requires both public and private employers to use E-Verify during the hiring process. In 2006 the state passed the "Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act" (S.B. 529), which applied to public employers, contractors, and subcontractors and was followed by a number of amendments.[57][58] In 2011, the state passed the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011" (H.B. 87), which extends required use of E-Verify to private employers.[59]

As of 1 July 2007, all public employers in Georgia were required to use E-Verify for all new employees. With additional amendments, the law now requires all public employees to permanently post the employer's federally issued user identification number and date of authorization on the employer's website. If the public employer does not have a website, then the local government is directed to submit the relevant information to the Carl Vinson Institute of Government of the University of Georgia to be posted by the institute on the website created for local government audit and budget reporting.[59]

An official at the state's Department of Labor told the Center for Immigration Studies that funding has not been made available for the auditing process rendering the law largely ineffective.[60]

Idaho

On 29 May 2009, Gov. Butch Otter signed Executive Order 2009–10, mandating, among other things, that state agencies verify that new employees are eligible for employment under federal and state law.[61] While the order does not specifically reference E-Verify, subsequent internal guidelines resulted in all state agencies using E-Verify to meet the order's requirements.[30] The order came into effect on 1 July 2009.

Public contractors and subcontractors are required to declare to the contracting state agency that they have "substantiated that all employees providing services or involved in any way on projects funded directly by or assisted in whole or part by state funds or federal stimulus dollars" are legally authorized to work in the United States. According to an official at the state's Department of Human Resources, public contractors are encouraged, but not required to use E-Verify to meet this requirement.[30]

On 14 July 2013, Idaho joined the E-verify RIDE program, which allows employers to view State ID and driver's license photos during the verification process.[62]

Illinois

Section 12(a) of the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act prohibited Illinois employers from using E-verify to verify the work authorization of their employees.[63] The United States Department of Homeland Security sued to prevent the law from taking effect as scheduled on 1 January 2008.[64] On 12 March 2009, agreeing with the federal government, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois ruled that Illinois' law is invalid under the Supremacy Clause to the U.S. Constitution because it conflicts with the federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). The case was United States v. Illinois, (No. 07-3261, C.D. Ill., 2009).[65]

As a rule, E-Verify is not required in Illinois. In fact, Illinois is the only state that has tried to block the use of E-Verify by private employers. Concerned about inaccuracies in the E-Verify data kept by the federal government as well as ongoing privacy implications for workers, Illinois enacted a law in 2007 that would have prohibited private employers from using E-Verify until the federal government made specific improvements to the system. However, DHS challenged the Illinois law in federal court and eventually won. Thus, the provision of the Illinois law prohibiting employers from using E-Verify was struck down, but the rest of the statute survived. An amended version of the law was enacted in August 2009, and it is that version which went into effect on 1 January 2010.[citation needed]

Under the new law,[66] which amends the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, Illinois employers are required to sign a sworn attestation either upon initial enrollment in E-Verify, or by 31 January 2010 if they are already enrolled in the program. The attestation form affirms that the employer has received the requisite E-Verify training materials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), and that all employees with access to the company's E-Verify account have completed mandatory online E-Verify tutorials. It further states that the employer has posted the required legal notices regarding its enrollment in E-Verify and certain non-discrimination procedures. The employer must retain the signed original attestation and proof of its employees' E-Verify training.[citation needed]

Indiana

On 1 July 2011, Indiana enacted S.B. 590.[67] Among other things, the law requires state agencies and political subdivisions to use E-Verify to determine work authorization status of all employees hired after 30 June 2011. The requirement to use E-Verify also applies to public contractors. The law does not contain any enforcement provisions or any auditing process to determine employer compliance.[30]

Louisiana

On 15 August 2011, two pieces of E-Verify legislation were approved in Louisiana. The first bill, H.B. 342, requires all state and local contractors who seek to do business with Louisiana to use E-Verify. The second bill, H.B. 646, encourages all private businesses to verify the legal status of their new hires by providing employers a safe harbor against sanctions if they use E-Verify or another method for determining worker eligibility.[68][69]

Minnesota

On 7 January 2008, then-Governor Tim Pawlenty signed Executive Order 08-01, requiring use of E-Verify for the state's executive branch employees and for some public contracts. Gov. Mark Dayton allowed the order to lapse in April 2011.[70] A new E-Verify provision requires use of E-Verify only for some public contracts. It requires state contracts for services in excess of $50,000 to require certification from vendors and subcontractors that they have implemented or are in the process of implementing the E-Verify program for all newly hired employees who will perform work under the contract. It exempts contracts entered into by the State Board of Investment.[71]

Mississippi

The Mississippi Employment Protection Act requires all Mississippi employers to use E-Verify with new hires.[72][73] Mississippi employers with 250 or more employees must comply with the law as of 1 July 2008.[73] The law goes into effect for employers with 100 to 249 employees as of 1 July 2009.[73] Employers with 30 to 99 employees must comply by 1 July 2010.[73] The law is effective for employers with fewer than 30 employees on 1 July 2011.[73] As of June 2011, a total of 4,336 employers representing more than 9,000 worksites in Mississippi were using E-Verify.[74]

Enforcement of the law, and its effectiveness, remains a significant problem. An official at the Mississippi Attorney General's office explained to the Center for Immigration Studies that his office is tasked with investigating complaints that the public may file about potential violations of the law. However, when asked how often such complaints are filed, he responded, "Rarely." This is consistent with information from a two-day immigration hearing held at the state capital in 2010. Then, a different spokesperson for the Attorney General's office explained that the office had received no formal complaints. A state representative told the Center for Immigration Studies that because the state law grants authority over E-Verify regulation to multiple state agencies, no agency has taken the lead and enforcement has been nominal.[25]

As of August 2012 Mississippi was the first state to use USCIS's RIDE program as part of its E-Verify efforts (Florida and Idaho have also since joined). On 13 June 2011, in an effort to improve E-Verify's accuracy in Mississippi, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) launched the "Records and Information from DMVs for E-Verify" (RIDE) program in the state. The RIDE program compares driver's licenses or other government-issued ID cards against data held by the state's motor vehicle agency.[75]

Missouri

On 7 July 2008, Missouri's E-Verify bill (H.R. 1549) was signed into law.[76] It became effective on 1 January 2009. The law prohibits businesses from knowingly employing, hiring, or continuing to employ an illegal immigrant to perform work within the state of Missouri. The E-Verify portion of the law does not apply to all businesses, but those businesses that do use E-Verify are provided an affirmative defense that the business has not violated the provisions of the law that prohibit the employment of illegal immigrant. All public employers are required to "actively participate" in E-Verify.[25]

Nebraska

On 8 April 2009, Nebraska's L.B. 403 was signed into law.[77] The law requires use of E-Verify by state agencies (and political subdivisions) and by public contractors starting 1 October 2009. Every contract between a public employer and public contractor must contain a provision requiring the public contractor to use E-Verify for new employees physically performing services within Nebraska. The requirement does not apply to public contracts made prior to the operative date of this act. According to state surveys, use of E-Verify appears to be low.[25]

North Carolina

The North Carolina governor signed H.B. 36 into law on 23 June 2011. All counties and municipalities were required to begin using E-Verify by 1 October 2011. The law also requires private businesses to use E-Verify for new employees, but exempts any "seasonal temporary employee who is employed for 90 or fewer days during a 12-consecutive-month period". Employers with 500 or more employees must be using E-Verify by 1 October 2012; employers with 100 to 499 employees must be using E-Verify by 1 January 2013; and employers with 25 to 99 employees must be using E-Verify by 1 July 2013.[78][79][80] The law does not include a random audit process for determining employer compliance.[25]

Oklahoma

The "Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007" (H.B. 1804) was signed into law on 9 May 2007.[81] Among other things, the law requires public contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify (or a third-party program with an equal or higher degree of reliability, should one appear). After 1 July 2008, public employers were prohibited from entering into contracts for the physical performance of services within Oklahoma unless the contractor (and any subcontractor) uses E-Verify to verify the work authorization of all new employees. If an independent contractor, contracting for the physical performance of services in Oklahoma, fails to provide to the contracting entity documentation to verify the independent contractor's employment authorization, the contracting entity is required to withhold state income tax at the top marginal income tax rate as provided under state law.[25]

Pennsylvania

On 5 July 2012, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed "Public Works Employment Verification Act" (S.B. 637). It requires some public works contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify to determine employment eligibility of all new hires. In order to ensure compliance, employers are subject to complaint-based and random audits. The act takes effect 1 January 2013. Under the act, "public work" means "construction, reconstruction, demolition, alteration, and/or repair work other than maintenance work, done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of the funds of a public body" where the estimated cost of the total project is in excess of $25,000 but does not include work performed under a "rehabilitation or manpower training program."[82]

The legislation was approved by both houses of the state legislature and aims to ensure that all construction jobs funded by taxpayers employ only documented workers by checking employees' information against government records.[83]

Rhode Island

In March 2008, Governor Carcieri issued an executive order requiring executive agencies to use E-Verify; and for all persons and businesses, including grantees, contractors and their subcontractors and vendors to use E-Verify.[84]

On 5 January 2011, less than 24 hours after his swearing-in, Gov. Lincoln Chafee rescinded Executive Order 08-01, calling it "an agent of divisiveness, incivility, and distrust among the state's citizens."[85] In defending his move, Gov. Chafee incorrectly claimed on at least two occasions that Rhode Island was one of only six states with an E-Verify mandate.[86]

South Carolina

The "South Carolina Illegal Immigration Reform Act" (H. 4400) was signed into law on 4 June 2008, and amended on 27 June 2011, (S. 20).[87][88][89] The law requires all employers to use E-Verify. The original version of the law gave employers the option of confirming the eligibility of new employees through either E-Verify or by checking the validity of driver's licenses and other identification cards. The 2011 amendment made E-Verify the exclusive method for confirming employment eligibility. South Carolina is said to have one of the nation's most effective E-Verify laws in that the state uses an audit process to ensure businesses are in compliance with the law.[25]

South Carolina conducted approximately 6,000 audits of businesses under the 2008 version of the law. During the first year – 1 July 2009, through 30 June 2010, when the law applied to businesses with 100 or more employees (a total of 2,300 employers) — South Carolina conducted approximately 1,900 audits. The second year, when the law applied to every employer, the state conducted audits of approximately 4,200 businesses.[25]

Every public employer must register and participate in "federal work authorization program to verify the employment authorization of all new employees." See SC Code Section 8-14-20(A). Public employer must also require public contractors and subcontractors to agree to use e-verify or "to employ only workers who" possess or qualify to obtain a SC drivers license or identification card. See SC Code Section 8-14-20(B). The latter requirement applies as follows: "(1) on and after 1 January 2009, with respect to contractors, subcontractors, or sub-subcontractors of five hundred or more employees; (2) on and after 1 July 2009, with respect to contractors, subcontractors, or sub-subcontractors of one hundred or more employees but less than five hundred employees; and (3) on and after 1 January 2010, with respect to all other contractors, subcontractors, or sub-subcontractors." See SC Code Section 8-14-20(D).

SC Code Section 41-8-20 requires that "(A) All private employers in South Carolina shall be imputed a South Carolina employment license, which permits a private employer to employ a person in this State. A private employer may not employ a person unless the private employer's South Carolina employment license and any other applicable licenses as defined in Section 41-8-10 are in effect and are not suspended or revoked. A private employer's employment license shall remain in effect provided the private employer complies with the provisions of this chapter. (B) All private employers who are required by federal law to complete and maintain federal employment eligibility verification forms or documents must register and participate in the E-Verify federal work authorization program, or its successor, to verify the work authorization of every new employee within three business days after employing a new employee. A private employer who does not comply with the requirements of this subsection violates the private employer's licenses. (C) The South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce shall provide private employers with technical advice and electronic access to the E-Verify federal work authorization program's website for the sole purpose of registering and participating in the program. (D) Private employers shall employ provisionally a new employee until the new employee's work authorization has been verified pursuant to this section. A private employer shall submit a new employee's name and information for verification even if the new employee's employment is terminated less than three business days after becoming employed. If a new employee's work authorization is not verified by the federal work authorization program, a private employer must not employ, continue to employ, or reemploy the new employee. (E) To assist private employers in understanding the requirements of this chapter, the director shall send written notice of the requirements of this section to all South Carolina employers, and shall publish the information contained in the notice on its website. Nothing in this section shall create a legal requirement that any private employer receive actual notice of the requirements of this chapter through written notice from the director, nor create any legal defense for failure to receive notice. (F) If a private employer is a contractor, the private employer shall maintain the contact phone numbers of all subcontractors and sub-subcontractors performing services for the private employer. The private employer shall provide the contact phone numbers or a contact phone number, as applicable, to the director pursuant to an audit or investigation within seventy-two hours of the director's request. HISTORY: 2008 Act No. 280, Section 19, eff 4 June 2008; 2011 Act No. 69, Section 9, eff 1 January 2012."[90]

Tennessee

The Tennessee Lawful Employment Act (HB 1378) was signed into law by Governor Bill Haslam in June 2011. Effective 1 January 2017, private employers with 50 or more employees under the same FEIN are required to use the federal E-Verify employment verification process. This applies to employees working in or outside the state of Tennessee. Private employers with fewer than 50 employees may choose to use E-Verify for newly hired employees or request and maintain documents under the TLEA’s list of authorized identity and employment eligibility documents. The TLEA covers "non-employees" as well, while not employed directly, are paid directly by the employer for labor or services. Companies in Tennessee are required to request and maintain copies of certain identity and work authorization documents for non-employees, unless an exception applies (i.e. workers are employed by a separate company).[91]

Texas

On 3 December 2014, Governor Rick Perry issued Executive Order RP 80, relating to state agencies using the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify System. The order requires all agencies under the direction of the governor to verify the employment eligibility of all current and prospective agency employees through the E-Verify system. It also requires all agencies under the direction of the governor to include, as a condition of all state contracts for services, a requirement that contractors utilize the E-Verify system to determine the eligibility of all persons employed during the contract term to perform duties within Texas and all persons (including subcontractors) assigned by the contractor to perform work pursuant to the contract.[92]

Utah

The "Private Employer Verification Act" (S.B. 251) was signed into law on 31 March 2010.[93] It requires all private employers who employ more than 15 or more employees as of 1 July 2010, to use a "status verification system" to verify the employment eligibility of new employees, though it does not mandate use of E-Verify. As an alternative to E-Verify, businesses can use any other federal program the state deems equivalent to E-Verify, including "the Social Security Number Verification Service or similar online verification process implemented by the United States Social Security Administration." (Note: However, the E-Verify is considered to be more reliable than the mere verification through a Social Security Administration database that the social security number, name of employee, and date of birth all match.[94]) The law exempts employers of aliens on H-2A (temporary agricultural) and H-2B (temporary, non-agricultural) visas. An official at the Social Security Administration told the Center for Immigration Studies that the program is not sufficient for determining immigration status.[25]

Virginia

On 11 April 2010, Virginia's H.B. 737 was signed into law.[95] In early 2011, Gov. Robert McDonnell announced that he would push up the deadline by 18 months to 1 June 2011.[96] The state's E-Verify policy requires both state agencies and businesses contracting with Virginia to use E-Verify, the result of two pieces of legislation. On 25 March 2011, an E-Verify bill aimed at public contractors was signed into law: H.B. 1859.[97] Effective 1 December 2013, employers with more than an average of 50 employees for the previous 12 months entering into a work or service contract in excess of $50,000 with any state agency must register and participate in E-Verify. Failure to comply with the law results in the employer being debarred from contracting with any state agency for a period up to one year. Such debarment ends upon the employer's registration and participation in E-Verify.[30]

Criticism

In the U.S. government fiscal year 2017, E-Verify was used in 34,853,666 cases, returning a TNC (Tentative Non-Confirmation) in or 383,390 cases. An estimated 13.6% of these TNCs were issued in error, resulting in an estimated 10,000 work-eligible individuals being denied employment. Due to the sheer number of cases, even a small error rate has a significant impact.[98] Prospective employees who are erroneously flagged can find themselves navigating a Kafkaesque system involving multiple government agencies.[99]

As of 2012, "the overall accuracy of E-Verify for employment-authorized workers, as measured by the FNC (Final Nonconfirmations) accuracy rate, was approximately 94 percent.".[100] However, the margin of error, currently around 8%, is decreasing, as many of the errors came from changing last names after marriage or not informing the government of changes in citizenship status.[citation needed] As of 2018, 98.88% of E-Verify applicants were approved to work.[101]

Chris Calabrese of the American Civil Liberties Union opposes E-Verify, citing concerns that it could expand into an onerous national ID system: "Employers are not police officers, except in this one context where we suddenly want them to be law enforcement agents who are going to police their workforce."[102]

The American Farm Bureau Federation opposes E-Verify and stated in July 2011 that it "could have a significant, negative impact on U.S. farm production, not only threatening the livelihoods of many farmers and ranchers in labor-intensive agriculture but jeopardizing as well the health of the rural economy, where agriculture plays an important role."[103]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Introduction to E-Verify".
  2. ^ Orrenius, Pia; Zavodny, Madeline; Greer, Sarah (January 2020). "Who Signs up for E-Verify? Insights from DHS Enrollment Records". Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Working Papers. 2020 (2002). doi:10.24149/wp2002.
  3. ^ "E-Verify Program, US Immigration, I-9, Employer Sanctions". Shusterman Law. 6 November 2013. Retrieved 17 March 2021.
  4. ^ "Resolving a tentative nonverify". 6 February 2011. Retrieved 6 June 2010.
  5. ^ "Fact Sheet: E-Verify". immigrationforum. 14 August 2018. Archived from the original on 3 February 2019. Retrieved 5 February 2022.
  6. ^ a b Orrenius, Pia M.; Zavodny, Madeline (1 April 2015). "The impact of E-Verify mandates on labor market outcomes". Southern Economic Journal. 81 (4): 947–959. doi:10.1002/soej.12023. ISSN 2325-8012.
  7. ^ a b Orrenius, Pia M.; Zavodny, Madeline (1 December 2016). "Do state work eligibility verification laws reduce unauthorized immigration?". IZA Journal of Migration. 5 (1): 5. doi:10.1186/s40176-016-0053-3. ISSN 2193-9039.
  8. ^ a b "U.S. Department of Homeland Security Fact Sheet". Archived from the original on 20 March 2008. Retrieved 2 November 2007.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  9. ^ "ICE Releases Guidance on Evaluating Electronic I-9 Systems". LawLogix Group, Inc. John Fay. 18 October 2012. Retrieved 12 November 2012.
  10. ^ "Can E-Verify "Self-Assessment" Help an Employer?". The National Law Review. LawLogxGroup, Inc. 2 August 2012. Retrieved 22 October 2012.
  11. ^ "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Companion to Form I-9". 12 April 2010. Retrieved 5 May 2010.
  12. ^ Franklin, Stephen (25 September 2007). "Fighting the flood of phony IDs". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2 November 2007.
  13. ^ Casey, Winter (10 August 2007). "Administration announces border, immigration initiatives". National Journal's Technology Daily. Archived from the original on 17 December 2007. Retrieved 2 November 2007.
  14. ^ Binshteyn, Nataliya (2 October 2013). "Government Shutdown Prompts E-Verify Closure, Imperils Other Immigration Services". The National Law Review.
  15. ^ a b Bier, David (29 May 2019). "E-Verify Let 12 million Illegal Hires Happen Since 2006–80% of Attempts". Cato Institute. Retrieved 5 June 2019.
  16. ^ "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Statement for the Record: E-Verify". 20 May 2008. Archived from the original on 17 December 2008. Retrieved 5 May 2010.
  17. ^ "SSA fails to E-Verify 19 percent of new hires, IG says". 11 January 2010. Retrieved 5 May 2010.
  18. ^ "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services E-Verify Fact Sheet". 18 December 2009. Archived from the original on 26 December 2009. Retrieved 26 December 2009.
  19. ^ "Questions and Answers: Extension of Optional Practical Training Program for Qualified Students". 25 April 2012.
  20. ^ Jon Feere, "An Overview of E-Verify Policies at the State Level," July 2012, Center for Immigration Studies. Available at: http://cis.org/e-verify-at-the-state-level
  21. ^ Kephart, Janice. (26 May 2011) Arizona Catches a Break from the Supreme Court | Center for Immigration Studies. Cis.org. Retrieved on 18 October 2011.
  22. ^ https://www.e-verify.gov/about-e-verify/history-and-milestones
  23. ^ "Alabama Immigration Law: E-Verify Now Required". Reuters. 10 June 2011.
  24. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 1 December 2011. Retrieved 10 November 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  25. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Jon Feere, "An Overview of E-Verify Policies on the State Level," Center for Immigration Studies, July 2012. Available at: http://cis.org/e-verify-at-the-state-level
  26. ^ Mears, Bill (25 May 2011). "High court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses". CNN. Retrieved 26 May 2011.
  27. ^ a b McCombs, Brady (11 December 2008). "State's employer sanctions law goes mostly unused". Arizona Daily Star.
  28. ^ "Page Redirection". www.azleg.gov.
  29. ^ "Format Document".
  30. ^ a b c d e Jon Feere, "An Overview of E-Verify Policies at the State Level," Center for Immigration Studies, July 2012. Available at: http://cis.org/e-verify-at-the-state-level
  31. ^ "Enrolled" (PDF). leginfo.ca.gov. Retrieved 4 February 2021.
  32. ^ a b Feere, Jon. (14 October 2011) California Limits E-Verify, Supports Illegal Hiring Practices | Center for Immigration Studies. Cis.org. Retrieved on 18 October 2011.
  33. ^ E-Verify Legislation Guide. Clientconnexions.com. Retrieved on 18 October 2011.
  34. ^ Temecula Municipal Code (Temecula, California). Qcode.us. Retrieved on 18 October 2011.
  35. ^ "Temecula mandates E-Verify use | Inland News | PE.com | Southern California News | News for Inland Southern California". www.pe.com. Archived from the original on 17 July 2010.
  36. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 July 2011. Retrieved 3 February 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  37. ^ Avants, Maggie. (4 January 2011) Murrieta's E-Verify Ordinance Makes National Headlines – Murrieta, CA Patch Archived 15 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Murrieta.patch.com. Retrieved on 18 October 2011.
  38. ^ Lovett, Ian (4 January 2011). "Patch of California Cracks Down on Illegal Immigration". The New York Times.
  39. ^ Riverside, California | City of Arts & Innovation | City Jobs. Cityjobs.riversideca.gov. Retrieved on 18 October 2011.
  40. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2010. Retrieved 3 February 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  41. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 December 2010. Retrieved 3 February 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  42. ^ City of Lake Elsinore : Business License Archived 17 December 2010 at the Wayback Machine. Lake-elsinore.org. Retrieved on 18 October 2011.
  43. ^ Lake Elsinore, California. Codepublishing.com. Retrieved on 18 October 2011.
  44. ^ WILDOMAR: Council adopts limited E-Verify policy Archived 30 August 2010 at the Wayback Machine. Nctimes.com (11 August 2010). Retrieved on 18 October 2011.
  45. ^ City of Lancaster : Business Licensing Archived 7 January 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Cityoflancasterca.org. Retrieved on 18 October 2011.
  46. ^ City could use E-Verify for immigration status – Daily Pilot. Articles.dailypilot.com (14 August 2010). Retrieved on 18 October 2011.
  47. ^ Tom Davidson. Santamariatimes.com (13 August 2010). Retrieved on 18 October 2011.
  48. ^ "Council declares Costa Mesa a 'Rule of Law City'". The Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 23 July 2011. Retrieved 3 February 2011.
  49. ^ "Calif. City Takes Stand Against Illegal Immigration as Ariz. Boycott Battle Rages". Fox News. 20 May 2010.
  50. ^ "L.A. Now". Los Angeles Times.
  51. ^ www.colorado.gov https://web.archive.org/web/20120805033426/http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251695475820&ssbinary=true. Archived from the original on 5 August 2012. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  52. ^ "Suspend" (PDF). www.flgov.com. 2011. Retrieved 4 February 2021.
  53. ^ "Sunshine (State) Surprise – Florida's New E-Verify Requirement". The National Law Review. Greenberg Traurig, LLP. 10 January 2011. Retrieved 1 July 2012.
  54. ^ "E-Verify on the fritz likely due to Florida going live on the RIDE Program". JD Supra.
  55. ^ Ceballos, Ana (30 June 2020). "DeSantis (quietly) signs requirement for electronic verification of immigration status". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
  56. ^ Caina Calvan, Bobby (1 July 2020). "Without fanfare, Florida governor signs E-Verify legislation". Associated Press. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
  57. ^ "Sb529.HTML". Archived from the original on 18 September 2011. Retrieved 29 September 2011.
  58. ^ Pickel, Mary Lou (19 March 2008). "Ga. employers use system to deter illegal workers". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
  59. ^ a b "Hb87.HTML". Archived from the original on 26 April 2012. Retrieved 24 August 2012.
  60. ^ Jon Feere, "An Overview of E-Verify Policies at the State Level," Center for Immigration Studies, July 2012. Available at: http://cis.org/e-verify-at-the-state-level; See also, http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/iteam/I-Team-Illegal-Workers-20120213-pm-pk
  61. ^ "Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter – The State of Idaho". idaho.gov. Archived from the original on 10 September 2012. Retrieved 28 August 2012.
  62. ^ "Idaho Joins E-Verify RIDE Program". alipac.us.
  63. ^ Marks, Alexandra (7 July 2008). "With E-Verify, too many errors to expand its use?". Christian Science Monitor.
  64. ^ "Notice for Illinois Employers about E-Verify". United States Department of Homeland Security. 6 October 2008. Archived from the original on 2 March 2010.
  65. ^ "E-Verify again an eligibility verification option for Illinois employers". 16 August 2009. Retrieved 26 December 2009.
  66. ^ "New Illinois E-Verify Law Takes Effect on January 1, 2010: Special Illinois Procedures Required". Retrieved 7 July 2012.
  67. ^ "Enrolled Act, Senate Bill 0590". in.gov.
  68. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 25 January 2013. Retrieved 28 August 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  69. ^ "Louisiana Passes E-Verify Bills Covering State Contractors and Private Employers". Numbers USA. 8 July 2011.
  70. ^ Sasha Aslanian (19 August 2011). "Budget deal brings E-Verify back, but with a twist". publicradio.org.
  71. ^ "File not found – Minnesota House of Representatives". state.mn.us. Archived from the original on 30 August 2012. Retrieved 28 August 2012.
  72. ^ "Mississippi Requires Use of E-Verify by Employers". Business & Legal Reports, Inc. 25 March 2008.
  73. ^ a b c d e "Mississippi Employment Protection Act (Senate Bill 2988)". Mississippi Senate. 2008.
  74. ^ "USCIS and Mississippi Implement New E-Verify Tool to Combat Fraud Fact Sheet". USCIS.
  75. ^ "USCIS and Mississippi Implement New E-Verify Tool to Combat Fraud". USCIS.
  76. ^ "Corel Office Document" (PDF). Retrieved 4 February 2021.
  77. ^ "LB403" (PDF). nebraskalegislature.gov. Retrieved 4 February 2021.
  78. ^ "House bill" (PDF). www.ncleg.net. 2011. Retrieved 4 February 2021.
  79. ^ "Phase-In Mandatory E-Verify Law Passes in North Carolina". The National Law Review. Jennifer G. Parser. 11 July 2011. Retrieved 10 April 2012.
  80. ^ "North Carolina to Join Ranks of States Requiring Employers to Enroll in E-Verify". The National Law Review. Poyner Spruill LLP. 29 January 2012. Retrieved 7 April 2012.
  81. ^ "Microsoft Word - 637D3054.RTF" (PDF). Retrieved 4 February 2021.
  82. ^ "Bill". www.legis.state.pa.us. Retrieved 4 February 2021.
  83. ^ "New Law Mandates E-Verify for Public Construction Projects in Pennsylvania". The National Law Review. Greenberg Traurig, LLP. 21 July 2012. Retrieved 22 July 2012.
  84. ^ http://www.riaclu.org/documents/Carcieri_Executive_Order_immigration.pdf [permanent dead link‍]; "State of Rhode Island Division of Purchase – E-Verify Information". Archived from the original on 7 January 2010. Retrieved 26 December 2009.
  85. ^ http://www.governor.ri.gov/documents/executiveorders/2011/Executive_Order_11-02.pdf Archived 14 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine; "Chafee says marriage equality, rescinding E-Verify important to economic growth". Archived from the original on 10 January 2011. Retrieved 4 January 2011.
  86. ^ "Chafee says only six states use E-Verify". @politifact.
  87. ^ "2007-2008 Bill 4400: Illegal aliens". South Carolina Legislature Online. 9 January 2008. Retrieved 4 February 2021.
  88. ^ Jackson, Vince (25 January 2009). "E-Verify system works, Pickens County officials say". Retrieved 26 December 2009.
  89. ^ South Carolina Immigration Law Faces Legal Challenge. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved on 18 October 2011.
  90. ^ Feller, Rachel (2009). "Preempting State E-Verify Regulations: A Case Study of Arizona's Improper Legislation in the Field of Immigration-Related Employment Practices". Wash. L. Rev. 84: 289.
  91. ^ "Employment Verification". TN.gov. 1 February 2021. Retrieved 4 February 2021.
  92. ^ "Office of the Governor Rick Perry – Executive Order RP 80- Relating to state agencies using the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify System".
  93. ^ S.B. 251 Substitute Bill Documents – 2010 General Session. Le.utah.gov. Retrieved on 18 October 2011.
  94. ^ "Social Security Verification vs. E-Verify".
  95. ^ "Bill Tracking - 2010 session > Legislation". lis.virginia.gov.
  96. ^ "Virginia to advance date for E-Verify to 1 June". The Washington Times.
  97. ^ "§ 2.2-4308.2. Registration and use of federal employment eligibility verification program required; debarment". law.lis.virginia.gov.
  98. ^ "Error Rates in E-Verify".
  99. ^ "The high cost of E-Verify". 28 June 2013.
  100. ^ "EVALUATION OF THE ACCURACY OF E-VERIFY FINDINGS" (PDF). www.uscis.gov. 2012. Retrieved 4 February 2021.
  101. ^ Tatiana Sanchez (23 Jan 2018) E-Verify doesn't prevent many companies from hiring undocumented workers, ChicagoTribune.com. Archived from the original on 21 February 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
  102. ^ The Problem with E-Verify. Reason Magazine (12 February 2013).
  103. ^ E-Verify. American Farm Bureau Federation web site. Retrieved on December 2, 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=E-Verify&oldid=1139277088"