Replies

RE: We simply had to enter a social security number into a Fed data base and check to see who it was linked to and if it matched the person we were hiring. If not, no job.

That would be the counter argument to this article, that is — IF eVerify were SIMPLY used like how you described it.

However, we know that government WILL always expand its mission into something else (which he just described in the article ).

As the author worries:

Soon, attending a meeting of a group that is a bit too enthusiastic about the Constitution or gun rights—or being arrested at an Occupy Wall Street rally—could well set off a “check this person” when he applies for a job. If the government can stop you from working, how can you be free to speak out in opposition?

It’s the need for prior permission rather than ex-post prosecution that makes E-Verify so dangerous. A simple delay in processing or resolving an “error” in your data is just as effective as outright denial, cheap to do, and easy to cover up.

Every tyranny silences opponents by controlling their ability to earn a living.

THEREIN LIES THE DANGER.

I worked at a company that used E-Verify 3 years ago. This article seems to have it wrong (at least back then). We simply had to enter a social security number into a Fed data base and check to see who it was linked to and if it matched the person we were hiring. If not, no job.

You might be thinking of the The Social Security Number Verification Service which is different from E-Verify.

http://www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnv.htm

I have been using this service for many years. But it is used solely to verify that the SSN and employee’s name match the Social Security records for payroll and tax reporting purposes. It does not verify the employee’s identity or their eligibility to work in the US. You cannot require a job applicant to provide their SSN but if a legitimate job offer is extended you can request it along with other information for purposes of running a pre-employment background check under applicable law.

Once hired however, the employee has to provide their SSN for payroll and tax reporting purposes (or proof they are in an “applied for status”) but they are not required to provide their actual SS card to the new employer to view. But the employer can face penalties if they file W-2’s under a SSN where the name does not exactly match the number – a mismatch. A mismatch can also cause the employee to not receive proper credit of their earnings, which is important information in determining their Social Security benefits in the future.

For these reasons, for payroll purposes we always use the name exactly as it appears on the employee’s Social Security Card or as verified by the SSN Verification Service. Occasionally I have an employee who goes by a nickname (one instance was a fellow who went by the first name Alex but his SS card said Alexey) or a female employee who gets married or divorced and wants us to change her name on her payroll records. I have to tell them that I can’t change their name or use a first name nickname for payroll unless and until they provide me with a new SS card with the name change.

When a new employee is hired however they must complete an I-9 (this BTW is nothing new, it has been required since 1986) and provide to the hiring employer, one document that establishes both identity and employment eligibility (on List A on the I-9) or one document that establishes identity (on List B), together with another document that establishes employment eligibility (on List C).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-9_(form)

The form I-9 requires the employee to provide their Social Security Number but does not require them to show their employer their Social Security card if they provide other documentation as to identity and employment eligibility as listed on the I-9. The employer is required to keep the I-9 on file (for three years after the date of hire, or one year after the date employment ends, whichever is later) but does not require the employer to submit the documentation to any government agency unless it is requested during an immigration audit.

The problem with the I-9 in my opinion has always been that it is required for the employer to view the identity and work eligibility documentation and attest to their validity but it has always been an “honor” system unless and until there is a problem (i.e. you’ve unwittingly hired an illegal because you thought their documentation looked good). I cannot possibly be an expert in forged documents but if I sign off on an I-9 form and the documentation is later found to be fraudulent, I could be held personally criminally responsible: “An employee who knowingly accepts fraudulent documentation can also be criminally prosecuted under other immigration laws”. So without verification system how am I to prove that I didn’t “knowingly” accept fraudulent documents?

Without a system like E-Verify (which is used (at least so far) only to verify I-9 documents) I have to use my best judgment that the documents I am required to view and verify at the start employment are legit. E-Verify, while not perfect, does provide me with some verification tools. E-Verify does more than just verify SSN’s. If an employee provides a Passport or a Green Card for instance, E-Verify will provide a photo that I can use to visually confirm that the new hire visually matches the pictures on file. If a new hire has forged a Green Card, the picture on file with INS will probably not match.

In all my years in PR/HR I’ve never questioned any I-9 documentation until recently. We recently hired a fellow, an older man who to the best of my knowledge was a US born citizen. But he couldn’t provide the documents as required by the I-9. He had a PA driver’s license but had lost his Social Security Card and couldn’t find his Birth Certificate, and his US passport was long expired and he had nothing else on the list of acceptable documents. He finally provided a faded copy of a BC but it looked as if it had been torn into several pieces, went through a washing machine several times and was taped back together rather haphazardly with huge chunks of it missing, most of it illegible and most importantly it lacked a raised seal. It was the only time I rejected an I-9 document.

We gave him directions to the closest Social Security office where he could obtain a replacement Social Security Card and information for obtaining a certified copy of his birth certificate and gave him three business days to get this done and provide the documentation, otherwise, legally we couldn’t continue his employment (we even gave him a few hours of paid time off in order to do so). He griped about this and I understood, but while he said he didn’t have to do this with his last employer, my response was, “just because your former employer wasn’t following the law, that doesn’t leave me off the hook”. He was actually able to obtain a new SS card without that much of a hassle.

Bottom line is that many people gripe about companies hiring illegal alien workers – some do this knowingly and some because they trust and hope that the I-9 documents are legit at face value. But put into place a system that allows employers to comply with the laws already on the books, now it’s an invasion of privacy? FWIW, that boat left the dock a long time ago.

Am I concerned about abuses and big government creep? Sure I am – absolutely! But do I think that giving a tool for an employer to verify the legal work status of new hires that they are already legally required to do is a bad thing? No. While it is preferable to me to have meaningful and effective boarder control and immigration laws, even at its best, it will not keep out all illegals and prevent them from working in the US illegally.

Furthermore, do I think that people should have to show proof of identity and citizenship when voting? Yes.