{"id":2629,"date":"2013-03-05T12:03:16","date_gmt":"2013-03-05T16:03:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/?p=2629"},"modified":"2015-07-30T15:41:37","modified_gmt":"2015-07-30T19:41:37","slug":"immigration-subcommittee-hearing-highlights-e-verifys-effectiveness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2013\/03\/05\/immigration-subcommittee-hearing-highlights-e-verifys-effectiveness\/","title":{"rendered":"Immigration Subcommittee Hearing Highlights E-Verify’s Effectiveness"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last Wednesday, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security held a hearing entitled “How E-Verify Works and How It Benefits American Employers and Workers.” In opening remarks, full Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) highlighted the importance of a functional workplace enforcement tool. “E-Verify is not the entire solution, but it is a critical part of the enforcement solution, making it easier for employers to be able to know whether the person presenting their credentials to them for a job are indeed the person they say they are and have the authorization that they claim to have,” declared Goodlatte. (Bloomberg Government<\/em> Transcript, Feb. 27, 2013)<\/p>\n

Soraya Correa, an Associate Director from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, testified to the impressive accuracy of E-Verify. According to an independent evaluation of E-Verify, the program has a 99.7 percent accuracy rate for authorized employees. (Id.<\/em>) The study also found that 94 percent of final non-confirmations were accurately issued for unauthorized workers.<\/p>\n

Immigration enforcement champion Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) noted that E-Verify is one of the government’s most successful programs. “E-Verify immediately confirms 99.7 percent of work-eligible work employees. I don’t know of any government agency that has that kind of efficiency, and quite frankly, that’s probably as close to perfection as we’re going to get on this human earth.” (Id.<\/em>) Subcommittee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) added, “we had a hearing this morning in the very same room on drones, and they don’t have a 100 percent get-it-right rate\u2026. I just think that’s pretty doggone good.” (Id.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce embraced the benefits of E-Verify despite its previous criticism. “After a lot of analysis, we concluded that the Chamber should support a mandatory E-Verify system,” testified Randel Johnson, the Chamber’s Senior Vice President for Labor, Immigration and Employee Benefits. (Id.<\/em>) “I just want to note that we do support, unlike the president’s bill, the application of E-Verify to the entire workforce. His leaked bill, in fact, exempted something like 60 percent of all employers,” Johnson pointed out. (Id.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

The hearing also illustrated that E-Verify is not cost-prohibitive, as charged by many businesses and pro-amnesty groups. “In regard to the costs, I wanted to point out that another study reveals that three quarters of the employers stated that the cost of using E-Verify was zero,” noted Smith. (Id.<\/em>) “All I can say is our economist has looked at the studies [claiming $2.6 billion in compliance costs, and]believes those studies have overestimated the impact\u2026.” added Johnson (Id.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

E-Verify also received near unanimous approval by users. According to Correa, “E-Verify received a customer satisfaction score of 86 out of 100” and “the vast majority of users surveyed were likely to recommend E-Verify to other employers, were confident in its accuracy and were likely to continue using the system.” (Id.<\/em>; see<\/em> FAIR Legislative Update<\/a>, Feb. 25, 2013) Chris Gamvroulas, President of Ivory Development, lauded the program. E-Verify “has been proven to be easy to use, protects employees’ privacy and rights, and we generally find it to be an efficient and effective system,” stated Gamvroulas. (Id.<\/em>) “We believe that E-Verify is working as intended.” (Bloomberg Government<\/em> Transcript, Feb. 27, 2013)\u00a0 Representative Smith, noting the ease of passing E-Verify funding extensions through both Houses of Congress, added “it has overwhelming congressional support.” (Id.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

The hearing marked the latest example of how amnesty advocates resist any enforcement mechanisms. Despite testimony of the extraordinarily high accuracy rate, pro-amnesty Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) claimed, “I am concerned about the error rate.” (Id.<\/em>) Emily Tulli, an attorney for the pro-amnesty National Immigration Law Center (NILC), expressed “grave concerns” about E-Verify and claimed the program “makes all workers, citizens and immigrants alike, more vulnerable in the workplace.” (Id.<\/em>) Audaciously, Tulli completely dismissed enforcement stating “the best enforcement measure is actually a broad and robust legalization plan.” (Id.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Representative Raul Labrador (R-ID) challenged Tulli’s testimony. “I’m having a hard time with your testimony” because “all you’re throwing out is reasons why we shouldn’t have E-Verify, reasons why we have a problem with E-Verify.” (Id.<\/em>) “And I think that if advocates for immigration reform keep coming here and having problems with the enforcement mechanisms that we need to have in order to have a viable immigration system, I think you’re going to spoil any chance that we have right now to have comprehensive immigration reform,” Labrador concluded. (Id.<\/em>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last Wednesday, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security held a hearing entitled “How E-Verify Works and How It Benefits American Employers and Workers.” In opening remarks, full Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) highlighted the importance of a functional workplace enforcement tool. “E-Verify is not the entire solution, but it is a<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":37,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","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":[5,3,11,6,4,10,7],"tags":[162],"yst_prominent_words":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2629"}],"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\/37"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2629"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2629\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2631,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2629\/revisions\/2631"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2629"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=2629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}