ILNews

Mandatory use of E-Verify could bring new headaches for US companies

Marilyn Odendahl
August 14, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

The red hot economy of the 1990s demanded a steady supply of unskilled and semi-skilled labor, a demand that was often filled with undocumented workers. Cities across the Midwest openly welcomed these individuals. Companies, trying to feed an insatiable appetite for workers, were placing help-wanted ads in newspapers in other states.

What a difference a decade can make.

The September 2001 terrorist attacks and the stumbling economy, capped by the Great Recession, have dramatically changed the country’s attitude toward illegal immigrants. Calls for tightening the borders, denying government benefits and increasing deportations have replaced the conciliatory feelings.

brown-jenifer.jpg Brown

The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act that passed the U.S. Senate in June responded to the public outcry to stop undocumented workers from getting jobs by including the mandate that all employers use the Employment Eligibility Verification system, commonly referred to as E-Verify.

E-Verify taps into the government database and gives immediate feedback on whether or not the name of the new hire matches the Social Security number he or she provided.

In political arenas, the Internet-based system is touted as a foolproof mechanism to bar illegal immigrants from working. Elected officials from Capitol Hill to city councils have been requiring businesses that land government contracts or receive tax incentives to use E-Verify.

Employment and immigration attorneys call the mechanism the best system currently available but, they noted, it is not infallible and problems for employers could grow if its use becomes mandatory.

Moreover, E-Verify does not address the larger problem: The U.S. is home to an estimated 10- to 15-million illegal immigrants and the current immigration system provides no pathway for these workers to be hired, especially for positions in the service sector.

“Until the government gets its act together to draft legislation that addresses the significant number of undocumented people, I think (employers) are stuck in the middle,” Jenifer Brown, partner at Ice Miller LLP, said. “The companies and industries that employ, albeit unknowingly, undocumented workers are doing so because they can’t find sufficient American workers to fill the unskilled and semi-skilled jobs.”

Unintended consequences

gresk-paul.jpg Gresk

At present, E-Verify is receiving mixed reviews from employers. Inaccurate outcomes, like not recording a name change, can result in the system questioning the employee’s immigration status.

A “tentative nonconfirmation” can then lead to an appeal which places the company in limbo, not knowing if the worker will be able to get authorization or if the hiring process will have to be started again.

If the employers find E-Verify to be a difficult system to navigate, or if the appeals process increases costs and adds time, employers might try to avoid the headaches by not hiring people who look foreign.

Jeffery Mallamad, partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, called this potential rise in discrimination an “unintended consequence.”

Pointing to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, attorney Paul Gresk doubted employers will turn to hiring all-white workforces. The previous immigration bill contained penalties for discrimination, and it is likely that any bill emerging from this Congress will also include methods to deter such actions.

More influential on employers’ hiring practices may be the quality of the immigrant workers, said Gresk, founding partner of Gresk & Singleton. In particular, Hispanic young men tend to be physically strong and highly motivated, he explained, and they are also very loyal to their employers, not hopping from job to job.

“Employers come to us all the time and say, ‘God, these are the best workers I’ve ever had,” Gresk said.

Extra help needed

In Elwood, Ind., Red Gold, Inc. adds roughly 600 seasonal workers to its 1,400 full-time workforce every summer when the tomatoes start to ripen. The company has relied on E-Verify for several years and, according to Tim Ingle, vice president of human resources, has found the system easy to use. It has not been costly and it has not made hiring difficult.

He attributed Red Gold’s positive experience to the company’s recruiting practices and ability to attract the same migrant workers year after year. People who are not legal are not going to go to a business that uses E-Verify, he said.

However, Ingle drew a distinction between Red Gold, which hires migrant labor to help with processing the tomatoes, and farms, which use a transient workforce to harvest fruits and vegetables.

Food safety and food security could become concerns if any immigration reform does not include a way for foreign workers to come and help pick crops. Similar to when Alabama and Georgia passed some of the toughest anti-immigration laws in the U.S., farmers in those states had trouble finding workers and crops rotted in the fields.

Ingle’s point echoed Brown’s reminder about the need for unskilled and semi-skilled workers.

mallamad-jeff.jpg Mallamad

Jackson Lewis LLP partner Amy Peck also called for reasonable laws that will allow employers to hire foreign workers. The government needs to enact a comprehensive strategy with reasonable legislation that businesses can follow.

“If the government strengthens E-Verify and clears up some of the concerns, I think that legislation could help, but we know that if you push a balloon in one part, it pops out in another,” Peck, who works in the firm’s Omaha office, said. “You can’t enforce your way out of an immigration problem.”

Shifting the burden

The Senate’s immigration reform bill gives the responsibility for securing the borders to the federal government, but interior enforcement is shifted to employers. Companies and businesses will bare the brunt of enforcing immigration laws and have more of the burden of ensuring their workforces are legal, Peck said.

Mandating the use of E-Verify is a key part of shifting the burden, she said. Also, the government will likely up the number of audits of I-9 forms and increase the monetary fines for violations.

On top of this, the government can use E-Verify to find aberrations in a company’s workforce that may indicate discrimination against foreign-born workers or willingness to hire undocumented workers.

E-Verify is a goldmine of information, Peck said. The government can look at the characteristics of a business’s employees in terms of citizenship status, social security numbers and names, and then run statistical analysis to find potential problems. This information could then be shared with other government agencies.

“Compliance is going to be the top objective for every savvy and intelligent company,” she said. “Before, it got pushed to the bottom of the pile. Now companies are forced to have strong policy and procedure that ensures they have a legal workforce.”

Overriding all of this is the fallacy that E-Verify will net illegal workers.

Peck pointed to one employer as an example. For more than 10 years, the company used E-Verify. But when the government did an I-9 audit, 60 percent of the workforce – more than 300 workers – was found to be undocumented.

Such a situation where a large swath of the employees is suddenly identified as illegal could be devastating to employers. Some might have to cut an entire shift or shut down operations altogether.

E-Verify is easy to evade through stealing or borrowing another person’s identity, Peck cautioned. It is not a fail-safe system.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT