{"id":22462,"date":"2020-02-04T15:19:33","date_gmt":"2020-02-04T20:19:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=22462"},"modified":"2020-02-04T15:19:36","modified_gmt":"2020-02-04T20:19:36","slug":"e-verify-federal-reserve-costs-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2020\/02\/04\/e-verify-federal-reserve-costs-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Dallas Fed Worries About E-Verify Costs"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Jumping into the immigration debate, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is attempting to throw cold water on the federal E-Verify<\/a> employee-screening program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A new \u201cworking paper\u201d<\/a> by the Fed branch acknowledges that E-Verify has had a positive impact in reducing employment of illegal aliens. The study notes that participation by\u00a0U.S. employers was higher in states that adopted universal E-Verify mandates, and that fewer illegal aliens live and work in those states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Researchers also affirmed the obvious\n— that mandating the use of E-Verify increases employer\nparticipation more than any government-contractor requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Texas does not require E-Verify, and, not surprisingly, workplace enforcement actions by ICE have netted large numbers of illegal workers in the Dallas Fed\u2019s backyard<\/a>. Last month, a local company<\/a> agreed to pay a $3 million fine and submit to criminal charges for illegal hiring.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overlooking and\nrationalizing such misbehavior, the Fed\u2019s working paper fixates on E-Verify\u2019s\npurported \u201ccosts.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAlthough E-Verify is free to use, it\ncreates an administrative burden for employers, who must take the time to enter\nthe information into the system and then deal with any non-confirmations,\u201d the\npaper states. \u201cThe penalty for non-compliance is substantial in most states \u2014 typically,\nthe business\u2019s license is revoked, but the likelihood of being caught is low.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, this incredible\nconclusion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA strictly enforced\nnationwide mandate that all employers use an employment eligibility program\nlike E-Verify would be incompatible with the current reliance on a large\nunauthorized workforce.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though putatively non-partisan, Dallas Fed boss Robert Kaplan<\/a> has opined on immigration policy, taking positions in opposition to the Trump administration. Applying a lopsided cost-benefit analysis to illegal activity while setting odds against enforcement, the working paper reflects Kaplan\u2019s biases. In its 45 pages, the speculative assessment makes no mention of the real costs that illegal labor imposes on law-abiding companies and society at large.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After some checking, we found the\nDallas Fed\u2019s 1859 working paper that concluded: “Abolishing slavery is costly for employers in terms of compliance\nand difficulty in hiring workers. A strictly enforced nationwide mandate\nthat all employers use free human\nbeings would be incompatible with the current reliance on a large slave\nlabor workforce.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That last paragraph is in jest, of course. Unfortunately, the Dallas\nFed appears to be taking itself oh so seriously today.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jumping into the immigration debate, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is attempting to throw cold water on the federal E-Verify employee-screening program. A new \u201cworking paper\u201d by the Fed branch acknowledges that E-Verify has had a positive impact in reducing employment of illegal aliens. The study notes that participation by\u00a0U.S. employers was higher in<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":17545,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[7177],"tags":[162,6704,1524,1185],"yst_prominent_words":[2019,7647,2321,2017,2187,4353,7648,1943,2013,2008,1963,7643,7646,7109,7649,1944,1945,7645,3996,7644],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22462"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22462"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22462\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22463,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22462\/revisions\/22463"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17545"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22462"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=22462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}