There Is Nothing Confusing About E-Verify



Late last week, media outlets began to amplify a baseless claim by an attorney representing the illegal alien charged with first-degree murder in Mollie Tibbetts’ death.

According to the attorney, the Iowa dairy farm that employed Cristhian Bahena Rivera may have been confused by the E-Verify system.

Not only is this claim incorrect as it relates to Rivera’s employment, it perpetuates a fundamental falsehood about E-Verify – that the worksite verification system is somehow confusing or burdensome for employers.

First, the employer, Yarrabee Farms, did not use E-Verify, but rather the Social Security Administration’s Number Verification Service (SSNVS). Unlike E-Verify, SSNVS does not firm whether an employee is authorized to work in the United States, it only verifies whether an employer’s records match SSA’s records. In fact, it is illegal to use the service to verify SSNs of potential new hires. It can only be used for tax filing purposes once an official employer-employee relationship has been established.

Second, E-Verify isn’t confusing. The attorney is simply parroting the same tired talking points used by open borders interests who hate E-Verify for its effectiveness.

Employers actually like E-Verify because it’s easy, fast, and free to use. It also means that businesses are no longer required to become document experts. When an employer uses E-Verify, the liability of determining the legal status of an employee is placed on the government, not the employer. So if a mistake is made, the employer is off the hook – provided he was using E-Verify.  And of course employees like it – if they’re legal – because they know it protects them from having to compete against those who have no legal right to be in the U.S.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) estimates that it takes an average of 12 minutes to learn about, complete, assemble, and file the E-Verify I-9 form. E-Verify returns initial verification information to the employer within 3 to 5 seconds. It would take an employer more time to make a cup of coffee than it would to verify a job applicant’s eligibility for work.

Confusing? I don’t think so.

About Author

avatar

RJ Hauman joined FAIR in 2015, bringing valuable legislative, regulatory, and political experience to the organization. In his role, he oversees the Government Relations department and leads FAIR’s advocacy efforts before Congress and the administration. RJ also serves as a FAIR media spokesperson on a variety of immigration issues and pending legislation. During his time on Capitol Hill, RJ gained immigration policy experience as an aide to former Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA), who chaired the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. RJ holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Clemson University.

4 Comments

  1. avatar

    Why isn’t there a push to make E-Verify MANDATORY for all US Employers, not just Federal Contractors?

    • avatar

      Because the “Cheap Labor Lobby” OWNS much of the congress, and that very much includes plenty of Republicans. Paul Ryan undermined Bob Goodlatte’s bill that would have mandated E-Verify. The Western Growers Association crowed about stopping E-Verify because they want their illegal workers.

  2. avatar

    Don’t you just love the laziness of the media that takes the word of an attorney, friend, family member, man on the street, as gospel when it comes to some criminal. How about doing your fricking job and go consult someone who would actually know,

    Look at last week when the media was in full victim mode about the illegal who was apprehended taking his “in labor” wife to the hospital. She was not in labor but going for a C-section. She was taken there, safely. None of the media bothered to get the actual story from ICE which was the guy was wanted in Mexico for murder. When that was revealed, the media, naturally, moved on without a second thought. Like the story of the 2 year old supposedly “separated” from her mother and when that fell apart a week later, it was ignore it and move on to the next “outrage”.

    Chuck Todd was saying yesterday that the idea of media bias is “not based in much fact”. Nonsense. Just look at Todd who is married to a Democratic consultant. Whenever he has a Democrat or NeverTrumper on, which is most of the time, he can’t nod his head in agreement fast enough. Some pro Trump person can’t get a few words out before he’s disagreeing with them.

FAIR blogs can now be found on our main site at https://www.fairus.org/blog