Professional Documents
Culture Documents
APRIL 2010
a National ID?
BY STUART ANDERSON, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and executive director, National Foundation for American Policy.
recent report on E-Verify, which seeks electroni-
A
SHORTCOMINGS IN E-VERIFY
cally to verify lawful work status in the United From an immigration enforcement perspective, the clearest
States, indicates a significant gap remains in the shortcoming in the system is that E-Verify cannot reliably pre-
system’s ability to prevent illegal immigrants vent people from using a false identity to appear eligible to
from being hired. That and other problems with work even if they are ineligible. In a 2005 report describing the
the system are not new but have taken on new urgency with Basic Pilot Program, the forerunner to E-Verify, the Govern-
Members of Congress seeking to require all U.S. employers to ment Accountability Office (GAO) stated: “…the program
use E-Verify. The gap in the system is likely to increase calls for cannot currently help employers detect identity fraud . . . If an
a National ID card. unauthorized worker presents valid docu-
“
In 1986, Congress made it against the mentation that belongs to another person
law for U.S. employers to knowingly hire a
person who is not authorized to work in the
U.S. legislators authorized to work, the Basic Pilot Pro-
gram may find the worker to be work-
United States. This “employer sanctions”
rarely abandon authorized. Similarly if an employee pres-
law failed to reduce illegal immigration. programs that ents counterfeit documentation that con-
Some argue these provisions have not been don’t work well, tains valid information and appears
sufficiently enforced. Others point out em-
ployers are not document experts and can
despite the costs authentic, the Basic Pilot Program may
verify the employee as work-authorized.” 2
violate civil rights laws if they excessively or the impact “ Changing the name of the program to E-
scrutinize the documents presented to them. on law-abiding Verify has not eliminated this problem.
Some hope a way around the false docu-
ment and civil rights dilemmas is to require
individuals. A December 2009 report on E-Verify by
the consulting group Westat, which is on
employers to use the electronic verification contract to the U.S. Department of Home-
system known as E-Verify. In theory, the system is voluntary. land Security, identified similar shortcomings in the system:
However, the federal government, along with some state legis- “Due primarily to identity fraud, the inaccuracy rate
latures, has started to require employers to use E-Verify. Federal for unauthorized workers is approximately 54 percent. Ap-
contractors, for example, cannot receive U.S. government con- proximately 3.3 percent of all E-Verify findings are for un-
tracts unless they utilize E-Verify. authorized workers incorrectly found employment authorized
To start using E-Verify, an employer must enter into a and 2.9 percent of all findings are for unauthorized workers
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the federal gov- correctly not found employment authorized. Thus, almost half
ernment, specifically the Department of Homeland Security’s of all unauthorized workers are correctly not found to be em-
(DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services bureau ployment authorized (2.9/6.2) and just over half are found
(USCIS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). After to be employment authorized (3.3/6.2). Consequently, the
enrolling, the employer transmits information electronically inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers is estimated to be ap-
on new hires that are checked against SSA and DHS databases.1 proximately 54 percent with a plausible range of 37 percent to
1 0 0 0 M A S S A C H U S E T T S AV E , N W ● WAS H I N G TON , D C 2 0 0 0 1 ● W W W. C AT O . O R G
64 percent.”3 database would house everyone’s information.
The Westat analysis reached the same con- The cards would not contain any private infor- IMMIGRATION REFORM
BULLETIN
clusion as the GAO: “This finding is not sur- mation, medical information or tracking
prising, given that since the inception of E- devices. The card would be a high-tech version
Verify it has been clear that many unautho- of the Social Security card that citizens already
rized workers obtain employment by commit- have.” 7
ting identity fraud that cannot be detected by Employers would be compelled to use
E-Verify.” 4 the system. “Prospective employers would be
U.S. legislators rarely abandon programs responsible for swiping the cards through a
that don’t work well, despite the costs or the machine to confirm a person’s identity and
impact on law-abiding individuals. The more immigration status. Employers who refused to
typical response is to expand the program and swipe the card or who otherwise knowingly
increase the burdens on taxpayers and affected hired unauthorized workers would face stiff
parties. In this case, the “affected parties” are fines and, for repeat offenses, prison sen-
everyone in America who wishes to hold a job. tences,” write Schumer and Graham.8