E-Verify Misses Half of Illegal Workers, Report Finds

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

WASHINGTON - The system Congress and the Obama administration want employers to use to help curb illegal immigration is failing to catch more than half the number of unauthorized workers it checks, a research company has found.

The online tool E-Verify, now used voluntarily by employers, wrongly clears illegal workers about 54 percent of the time, according to Westat, a research company that evaluated the system for the Homeland Security Department. E-Verify missed so many illegal workers mainly because it can't detect identity fraud, Westat said.

"Clearly it means it's not doing it's No. 1 job well enough," said Mark Rosenblum, a researcher at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan, Washington think tank.

E-Verify allows employers to run a worker's information against Homeland Security and Social Security databases to check whether they are permitted to work in the U.S. The Obama administration has made cracking down on employers who hire people here illegally a central part of its immigration enforcement policy, and there are expectations that some Republicans in Congress will try in coming weeks to make E-Verify mandatory.

E-Verify correctly identified legal workers 93 percent of the time, Westat said. However, previous studies have not quantified how many immigrants were fooling the E-Verify system. Much of the criticism of E-Verify has focused on whether U.S. citizens and legal immigrants with permission to work were falsely flagged as illegal workers.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is writing the Democrats' immigration bill and has fought expanding E-Verify because of its flaws, said Wednesday that the fact that E-Verify was inaccurate so often shows that it is not an adequate tool.

"This is a wake-up call to anyone who thinks E-verify is an effective remedy to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants," Schumer said.

A so-called worker verification process like E-Verify is considered essential to any immigration overhaul proposal that has any chance of approval in Congress.

Westat's report, completed in December 2009 using data from the previous year, was quietly posted on Homeland Security's Web site Jan. 28 along with a summary that pointed out E-Verify is accurate "almost half of the time."

"While not perfect, it is important to note that E-Verify is much more effective" than the I-9 paper forms used by most employers, the summary said.

Rosenblum, who has studied E-Verify, said Westat's evaluation shows it doesn't make sense to substantially expand and invest in E-Verify without fixing the identity theft problem.

Bill Wright, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the agency, part of the Homeland Security Department, has created an anti-immigrant identity fraud unit in Buffalo, New York, to address the issue.

The agency is developing a way for people to screen themselves through E-Verify so they can show potential employers they can legally work.

About 184,000 of the nation's 7 million to 8 million employers are using E-Verify, the Homeland Security Department says on its Web site.

Congress gave DHS about $100 million to spend on E-Verify in its 2010 budget.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/25...s-report-finds/

[peejay 327]

The system Congress and the Obama administration want employers to use to help curb illegal immigration is failing to catch more than half the number of unauthorized workers it checks, a research company has found.

E-Verify correctly identified legal workers 93 percent of the time, Westat said.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is writing the Democrats' immigration bill and has fought expanding E-Verify because of its flaws, said Wednesday that the fact that E-Verify was inaccurate so often shows that it is not an adequate tool.

"This is a wake-up call to anyone who thinks E-verify is an effective remedy to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants," Schumer said.

Clowns like Schumer slay me. What a #######. His agenda has been obvious for years since he is always front and center on any legislation that has had anything to do with the 7 illegal alien amnesties that have already been passed so far and the others since then that have failed to be passed because of public outcry. Schumer is Mr. Amnesty first and foremost. He is currently writing the Dumbocrats latest comprehensive immigration bill (aka: blanket illegal alien amnesty).

This far Left retard's logic is that if the current tool only catches 50% of illegal aliens then it is flawed and should not be used altogether. Better to catch 0% of illegal aliens rather than to use a flawed system that catches 50% of them.

This idiot is just another party hack that is more concerned with future Dumbocrat votes from amnestied illegal aliens than with helping the American worker when there is long termed 10%+ unemployment. If you can't get the American vote...just import votes. No wonder he does everything in his power to keep illegal aliens from being deprived of work or, heaven forbid, deported.

Whether you are Dem, Rebub, or Independent (like me) you should be disgusted with azzwipes that put party above country.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's surely reasonable to ensure that sufficient testing is conducted to see if the system works and whether it represents value for money.

I'd imagine that the reason for the 50% score isn't simply that illegal workers falling through the cracks, but that legitimate workers also give false positives.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So, what happened with REAL ID Act? I thought that was supposed to go into effect December 2009, and then there would be no more fake ID's?

Utah Legislature: Bill would allow Utah to opt out of federal ID data law

SALT LAKE CITY — A bill that would opt Utah out of the federal Real ID Act passed through a legislative committee with favorable recommendation Wednesday afternoon.

If passed, HB234 would release the state from complying with some of the heavy requirements of the act, including putting a GPS chip in every driver's license to monitor state and national border crossings.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Stephen Sandstorm, R-Orem, said the law would only hold Utah accountable for the portions of the act the state has already been phasing in, including the new requirement that a birth certificate be shown to obtain a driver's license. Other than that, the state wouldn't have to fund parts of the act such as uploading all birth certificates, driver's licenses, Social Security numbers and other personal information onto a national database.

Sandstorm said 15 states have already passed legislation to opt out of the act, but his bill is not part of the state's rights bills being discussed in both houses.

The single dissenting vote was Sen. Jon Greiner, R-Ogden, who is Ogden's police chief.

"As a law enforcement officer, I need to use all the tools I can get," he said, "and now you're trying to take some of them away."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7000118...D-data-law.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's surely reasonable to ensure that sufficient testing is conducted to see if the system works and whether it represents value for money.

I'd imagine that the reason for the 50% score isn't simply that illegal workers falling through the cracks, but that legitimate workers also give false positives.

It is not generating that many false positives, when 93% of legal workers pass okay without any problem. But, a 1 in 2 failure rate for not identifying those that are not eligible to work is troubling. After all, isn't the whole purpose of the screening to identify ineligible workers?

[peejay 327]

It's surely reasonable to ensure that sufficient testing is conducted to see if the system works and whether it represents value for money.

I'd imagine that the reason for the 50% score isn't simply that illegal workers falling through the cracks, but that legitimate workers also give false positives.

The article stated that it correctly identified legal workers 93% of the time. The 7% of legal workers that were flagged are more than capable of rectifying any discrepancy. My wife and stepdaughter often have to present additional documentation when navigating their way through American life to get what they want. So that is hardly any reason to scrap E-Verify altogether. Rather it means that more should be invested to improve the current system to make it more effective.

Edited February 27, 2010 by peejay

[Ali G. 37]

I wonder what e-verify actually checks.

Does it check, name, address and DOB?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I wonder what e-verify actually checks.

Does it check, name, address and DOB?

It is supposed to check against the SSA, and DHS databases, to verify that the identity and the social security number match the list of eligible workers,

Edited February 27, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[scandal 951]

Clowns like Schumer slay me. What a #######. His agenda has been obvious for years since he is always front and center on any legislation that has had anything to do with the 7 illegal alien amnesties that have already been passed so far and the others since then that have failed to be passed because of public outcry. Schumer is Mr. Amnesty first and foremost. He is currently writing the Dumbocrats latest comprehensive immigration bill (aka: blanket illegal alien amnesty).

This far Left retard's logic is that if the current tool only catches 50% of illegal aliens then it is flawed and should not be used altogether. Better to catch 0% of illegal aliens rather than to use a flawed system that catches 50% of them.

This idiot is just another party hack that is more concerned with future Dumbocrat votes from amnestied illegal aliens than with helping the American worker when there is long termed 10%+ unemployment. If you can't get the American vote...just import votes. No wonder he does everything in his power to keep illegal aliens from being deprived of work or, heaven forbid, deported.

Whether you are Dem, Rebub, or Independent (like me) you should be disgusted with azzwipes that put party above country.

Peejay, calling yourself an Independent is like calling the Pope an agnostic. You fool no one.

The thing is, as I read Bill's OP, I came to approximately the same conclusion that you did, but boy would I word it differently. Oh, so differently.

The conclusion is that a system that spots 93% of legal workers and 50% illegal ones is indeed worth pursuing when the alternative is no system at all. Yes, there is a concern for the 7% of legal workers that now must provide secondary evidence of their legal status. That would suck to do, I'm sure we'd all have a sense of moral outrage that our legal status was being questioned, but the system has provisions for that. Meanwhile, keeping 50% of illegals out of the workplace would be an immediate boon. Not just in that those people wouldn't have access to the benefits of American society to which they're not entitled. But because of the deterrent effect to illegals and their potential employers, many of whom will likely become discouraged and not attempt to break the law.

The difference between you and me is that I'm able to express that conclusion without using demeaning epithets like '#######', 'idiot' , 'Dumbocrat', 'retard', 'azzwipes'. If you really want to reach out to us Democrats in a spirit of bipartisanship to fix those areas of Immigration reform where there is (or ought to be) broad consensus across the political divide, just how do you propose to do so with such language? You shame yourself and obscure your valid point by speaking in this way.

[justashooter 430]

It's surely reasonable to ensure that sufficient testing is conducted to see if the system works and whether it represents value for money.

I'd imagine that the reason for the 50% score isn't simply that illegal workers falling through the cracks, but that legitimate workers also give false positives.

the reason that 50% of illegals can fool e-verify is that they have stolen identities from legitimate people who have the right to work. it's a multimillion dollar industry. realID is the best answer.

[peejay 327]

Peejay, calling yourself an Independent is like calling the Pope an agnostic. You fool no one.

The thing is, as I read Bill's OP, I came to approximately the same conclusion that you did, but boy would I word it differently. Oh, so differently.

The conclusion is that a system that spots 93% of legal workers and 50% illegal ones is indeed worth pursuing when the alternative is no system at all. Yes, there is a concern for the 7% of legal workers that now must provide secondary evidence of their legal status. That would suck to do, I'm sure we'd all have a sense of moral outrage that our legal status was being questioned, but the system has provisions for that. Meanwhile, keeping 50% of illegals out of the workplace would be an immediate boon. Not just in that those people wouldn't have access to the benefits of American society to which they're not entitled. But because of the deterrent effect to illegals and their potential employers, many of whom will likely become discouraged and not attempt to break the law.

The difference between you and me is that I'm able to express that conclusion without using demeaning epithets like '#######', 'idiot' , 'Dumbocrat', 'retard', 'azzwipes'. If you really want to reach out to us Democrats in a spirit of bipartisanship to fix those areas of Immigration reform where there is (or ought to be) broad consensus across the political divide, just how do you propose to do so with such language? You shame yourself and obscure your valid point by speaking in this way.

The fact is that I have actually voted for Democratic candidates in the past as well as for Republicans. However, while not all Democrats are far Left (such as the Blue Dogs), the far Left has become the dominant face of the party. When you have Shumer writing the immigration reform bill for the Senate and Luis Gutierrez writing the immigration reform bill in the House it is quite obvious the direction both of these bills are heading. This and a whole lot of other issues have caused me to flee from the party (along with many that have voted for them in the past). Sorry to show my contempt for Shumer and his ilk, but there will never be any bi-partisanship in any legislation as long as the the most extreme members are the ones that end up writing and controlling the direction of the legislation. Shumer may be popular enough to get elected in NY, but the vast majority of America is not NY. Look at this guy's voting record and agenda and you will plainly see he this guy likely wouldn't get elected in middle America (i.e.: most of America). He certainly isn't the guy to be writing immigration related legislation that would be palatable to most of the country. It is absurd to hire a "Teddy Kennedy" clone to write immigration legislation when Kennedy's attempts were shot twice because it stank.

[scandal 951]

The fact is that I have actually voted for Democratic candidates in the past as well as for Republicans. However, while not all Democrats are far Left (such as the Blue Dogs), the far Left has become the dominant face of the party. When you have Shumer writing the immigration reform bill for the Senate and Luis Gutierrez writing the immigration reform bill in the House it is quite obvious the direction both of these bills are heading. This and a whole lot of other issues have caused me to flee from the party (along with many that have voted for them in the past). Sorry to show my contempt for Shumer and his ilk, but there will never be any bi-partisanship in any legislation as long as the the most extreme members are the ones that end up writing and controlling the direction of the legislation. Shumer may be popular enough to get elected in NY, but the vast majority of America is not NY. Look at this guy's voting record and agenda and you will plainly see he this guy likely wouldn't get elected in middle America (i.e.: most of America). He certainly isn't the guy to be writing immigration related legislation that would be palatable to most of the country. It is absurd to hire a "Teddy Kennedy" clone to write immigration legislation when Kennedy's attempts were shot twice because it stank.

His name is Charles Schumer, not Shumer. Once is a typo. Three times is ignorance.

You may consider him to be "far left" and out of touch, just as I think Senators such as Jim DeMint and Jeff Sessions are far right and totally out of touch with a great deal of the American mainstream. The fact is that our system works by consensus. No bill, no matter who proposes it or writes it, becomes legislation unless and until it gets through the legislative sausage grinder. We live in America, a country with regional and ideological differences and the system is designed to give everyone a chance to weigh in on policy and shape bills before they become law.

I don't call Jeff Sessions ugly names just because he voted against the bipartisan 2007 Immigration bill which had support from prominent Republicans such as John McCain and Jon Kyl and Lindsay Graham and President Bush. I respect the fact that his views differ radically from mine, and I recognize he is acting out of his honest beliefs in what is best for America, just as I believe Charles Schumer and Harry Reid and Barack Obama do the same.

Ugly name calling in American politics is nothing new, but that doesn't change what it is. Ugly. And it doesn't change what people like you who engage in it are. Ugly name callers.

[mawilson 2,133]

It's surely reasonable to ensure that sufficient testing is conducted to see if the system works and whether it represents value for money.

I'd imagine that the reason for the 50% score isn't simply that illegal workers falling through the cracks, but that legitimate workers also give false positives.

Unless the system fails to detect identity theft (an illegal worker using some real person's name and social.)

[peejay 327]

His name is Charles Schumer, not Shumer. Once is a typo. Three times is ignorance.

You may consider him to be "far left" and out of touch, just as I think Senators such as Jim DeMint and Jeff Sessions are far right and totally out of touch with a great deal of the American mainstream. The fact is that our system works by consensus. No bill, no matter who proposes it or writes it, becomes legislation unless and until it gets through the legislative sausage grinder. We live in America, a country with regional and ideological differences and the system is designed to give everyone a chance to weigh in on policy and shape bills before they become law.

I don't call Jeff Sessions ugly names just because he voted against the bipartisan 2007 Immigration bill which had support from prominent Republicans such as John McCain and Jon Kyl and Lindsay Graham and President Bush. I respect the fact that his views differ radically from mine, and I recognize he is acting out of his honest beliefs in what is best for America, just as I believe Charles Schumer and Harry Reid and Barack Obama do the same.

Ugly name calling in American politics is nothing new, but that doesn't change what it is. Ugly. And it doesn't change what people like you who engage in it are. Ugly name callers.

Gee...that there 2007 legislation must have been good stuff with all them there "prominant" Right wing Republicans jumping on board the amnesty bus with Teddy Kennedy and crew. It must have been a regular bi-partisan orgy love fest! So why didn't it become law? So why is this clown Schumer going down the same Hershey highway again? Stupid is as stupid does. Even Forrest Gump gets it and he is intellectually challenged. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So what is Schumer's excuse? Calling a spade a spade may seem ugly, but it is still a spade. Of course we can call it a shovel, but it is the same thing only more polite.

I'm not so naive to believe what goes on in DC is all about what is good and best for America. I didn't fall off a turnip truck yesterday.

[scandal 951]

I didn't fall off a turnip truck yesterday.

Well aren't you just the cat's pajamas!