May 20, 2008 4:14 PM
This is the second in a three part series on e-verify.
Steve Levy wants to make e-verify mandantory in Suffolk County. But there is a growing outcry nationally against it being used at all.
Hearings on e-verify earlier this month prompted a New York Times editorial to warn that the burdens imposed by the new system threaten to overwhelm the Social Security Adminstation at a time when it has a backlog of over half-a-million cases. The paper also reminded readers that programs like Steve Levy's would require the firing of known U.S. citizens if the database indicated they were not work authorized!
The Atlanta Journal Constitution opposes e-verify because the program will have a disproportionate impact on women. If a woman changes her name through marriage or upon divorce and the change is not properly indicated in the system's database, her employer will receive a notice that she is not authorized to work.
Testimony a few weeks ago from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) provides glimpses of the problems associated with the program.
The e-verify system relies on a database of persons authorized to work in the U.S. created and maintained by the Social Security Administration. It is used to enforce laws within the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. But it has some major holes, largely arising from the inefficiency of Homeland Security. For example, when a permanent resident becomes a U.S. citizen, Homeland Security updates its database to reflect this, but it does not transfer this information to Social Security. The employer of the U.S citizen might receive a "tentative non-confirmation" notice indicating that the employee was not work authorized. Similarly, people who change their names due to marriage or divorce might also be issued "tentative nonconfirmations".
The GAO also found that some employers engaged in illegal discrimination against employees who had received tentative nonconfirmations. These actions included "restricting work assignments, reducing pay, or requiring employees to work longer hours or in poor conditions" while they contested tentative nonconfirmations. The GAO also reported that some employers used e-verify to pre-screen job applicants, even though this is prohibited under e-verify procedures.
Mitchell Laird testified on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He addressed a situation similar to that in which Steve Levy wants to place Suffolk businesses. The State of Arizona has a statute like the one Levy is considering that makes e-verify mandantory. According to Laird, Arizona, "by creating a new and devastating penalty for violation of immigration laws, the Arizona legislature is creating tremendous pressure on Arizona employers to discriminate against prospective employees because of their appearance, nationality, or language skils." So even without foulups, e-verify encourages discrimination.
And foulups do occur and they tend to heighten discrimiantion against Latinos legally in the United States.
In the final anysis, you just have to ask yourself, how much do you trust the Federal government to maintain an error-free database trustworthy enough to stake your job on?
Read the final article in this series