ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy

CATO INSTITUTE REPORT CRITICIZES E-VERIFY

Rate this Entry

The Cato Institute, a well-known libertarian think tank, has issued a report expressing serious concerns with the E-Verify system that many states are now requiring be used by employers and which will eventually be required of all employers nationally. Cato expressed concern about the reliability of the system and the adverse impact that will be felt by US citizens, particularly naturalized citizens, who are identified mistakenly as unauthorized immigrants. The report also believes E-Verify will encourage identity theft as workers attempt to avoid no match hits by pretending to be someone else. The report also expressed deep concern over the need to create a national ID system as part of implementing E-Verify, something that would be extremely expensive and has privacy implications.

Submit "CATO INSTITUTE REPORT CRITICIZES E-VERIFY" to Facebook Submit "CATO INSTITUTE REPORT CRITICIZES E-VERIFY" to Twitter Submit "CATO INSTITUTE REPORT CRITICIZES E-VERIFY" to Google Submit "CATO INSTITUTE REPORT CRITICIZES E-VERIFY" to StumbleUpon Submit "CATO INSTITUTE REPORT CRITICIZES E-VERIFY" to Reddit Submit "CATO INSTITUTE REPORT CRITICIZES E-VERIFY" to Digg Submit "CATO INSTITUTE REPORT CRITICIZES E-VERIFY" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. Another voice's Avatar
    I wonder if this report can be used in the no match rule case as evidence that the government has not gotten their act together to implement this.
  2. Not expensive's Avatar
    I understand the false positive argument. But expensive? Please. It is a simple Internet search. I was able to gain access in five minutes - they even provide web services so you can easily integrate your HR systems.

    The Cato Institute is an open-borders organization. How can anyone take seriously what they say? They don't want to solve the illegal immigration problem - because they don't view it as a problem.
  3. USC's Avatar
    "But expensive?"

    It is not the cost of the access we are talking about. Imagine this scenario; a USC comes up as a false positive and is unable to work, for two or so months till the bureaucracy sorts out their mess. Is the US going to pay him/her for his/her lost wages? If so, that is an expensive burden for the taxpayer to shoulder.
  4. Another voice's Avatar
    One would also have to consider the nightmare scenario that would create in an immigrant's Immigration process if you lose your job, a person may be out of status due to machine error. But I agree litigation costs for the federal Government can quickly add up.
  5. hmm's Avatar
    CATO Institute does offer their a very reasasonable alternative to e-verify (see page 14). In brief they suggest that the government give everyone a biometric ID card that would confirm person's employment eligibility (and I am guessing other things like citizenship) BUT the point is that the government does not store this information in its computers. Thus any employer would only have to verify that the employee has the same fingerprints and photo as those encoded on the card. It will be the government's job to make sure that the right people get the cards.

    It is clear why the government hates the proposal:
    a) nobody is trackable via ID cards, and
    b) if a card is issued by mistake there is no way to come back and correct it.

    Maybe a) is not a big deal because this is exactly how things stand now, and b) can be solved by renewing the card say every 5 years. Anyhow, this is all wishfull thinking.. nothing like this can happen due to strong government opposition but it is important to know what the issues are.

    Thanks to Greg for the link!
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: