• Home
  • About Us
    • Stacy E. Cozart Martin
    • Michael M. Jolic
    • Scott Bratton
    • Staff
  • Services
    • Non-Immigrant Visas
      • E-1/E-2 Visas
      • H-1B Visas
      • H-1B visas for Physicians
      • H-2B Visas
      • J-1 Visa Waivers
      • L-1A and L-1B Non-immigrant Visas
      • O-1 Visa
      • The TN for Professionals
    • Immigrant Visas
      • EB-11 Alien of Extraordinary Ability
      • EB-12 Outstanding Professors or Researchers
      • Multi-National Executive or Manager Category
      • Immigrant Investors/Employment Creation Visas
      • Immigration Issues for Physicians
      • National Interest Waivers (NIW)
      • National Interest Waiver for Physicians Working in Medically Underserved Areas
      • Permanent Residency based on Labor Certification (PERM)
      • I-9 Services
    • Asylum, Deportation, Removal and Crimmigration
      • Asylum
      • Removal Proceedings
      • Crimmigration
      • Bond
      • Appeals – Board of Immigration Appeals
      • Federal Appeals
      • Federal Litigation in District Courts
      • I-601A/I-212
      • Motion to Reopen
  • Consultation
  • News
  • Contact

Mobile Menu

Schedule A Consultation Now!

Give us a call to speak with an immigration attorney.

(216) 328-9878

  • Menu
  • Skip to left header navigation
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Speak with an Immigration Attorney  (216) 328-9878

MJB Immigration

Immigration Attorneys

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Services
    • Non-Immigrant Visas
      • E-1/E-2 Visas
      • H-1B Visas
      • H-1B Visas for Physicians
      • H-2B Visas
      • J-1 Visa Waivers
      • L-1A and L-1B Visas
      • O-1 Visas
      • The TN for Professionals
    • Immigrant Visas
      • EB-11 Visas
      • EB-12 Visas
      • Multi-National Executive or Manager Category
      • Immigrant Investors/Employment Creation Visas
      • Immigration Issues for Physicians
      • National Interest Waivers (NIW)
      • National Interest Waiver for Physicians Working in Medically Underserved Areas
      • Permanent Residency based on Labor Certification (PERM)
      • I-9 Services
    • Asylum, Deportation, Removal and Crimmigration
      • Asylum
      • Removal Proceedings
      • Crimmigration
      • Bond
      • Appeals – Board of Immigration Appeals
      • Federal Appeals
      • Federal Litigation in District Courts
      • I-601A/I-212
      • Motion to Reopen
  • Consultation
  • News
  • Contact

Article: Is Mandatory E-Verify on the Horizon?

August 25, 2019

<div itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Article”>
<h3 itemprop=”name”>
<!–ARTICLE TITLE START–>
Is Mandatory E-Verify on the Horizon?
<!–END ARTICLE TITLE–>
</h3><h4><i>by <a href=”http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?7114-Article-Private-Refugee-Sponsorship-Gains-Crucial-New-Support-by-Matthew-La-Corte#bio”>
<span itemprop=”author” itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Person”>
<span itemprop=”name”>
<!–AUTHOR NAME START–>
Jennifer Pawlak
<!–END AUTHOR NAME–>
</span></span>
</a></i></h4><br/>

<span itemprop=”articleBody”>
<p>Date: July 25</p>
<div id=”post-073e867-title”>
<div>
<div>
<img
src=”https://cdn.website-editor.net/de8d6555ce7640cea5e80738bafdee0c/dms3rep/multi/desktop/AdobeStock_85204873+%281%29.jpeg”
/>
<br/>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id=”post-component-7905fc6″>
<figure>
<figcaption>
<em></em>
</figcaption>
</figure>
</div>
<div id=”post-component-798d44c”>
<div>
<p>
In the greater discussion of the benefits or pitfalls of E-Verify,
the elephant in the room is our economy’s reliance on undocumented
workers. Regardless of your opinion on the subject, everyone knows
that there are unauthorized workers working on farms and
construction sites, in hotels and restaurants, and many other
places. As (I hope) you know, the I-9 was established in 1986 by
the Immigration Reform and Control Act to stop the employment of
unauthorized workers and penalize employers for same. A few decades
later, E-Verify was established as an add-on to make it easier for
U.S. employers to nearly instantly confirm that they are hiring
authorized workers. And yet, an estimated 7.6 million unauthorized
immigrants are working in the U.S. (
<a
href=”https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/ft_19-06-17_keyfindingsimmigrants_update_total-us-labor-force-grows-2007-number-unauthorized-immigrant-workers-declines/”
>
as of 2017, according to Pew Research
</a>
).
</p>
<p>
You may recall from
<a
href=”https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/e-verify-one-step-time-jennifer-pawlak/”
>
my first post on the topic
</a>
that E-Verify is largely voluntary. Some states and municipalities
require it for all employers, and it is required for all federal
contractors. But that’s basically it. Why then was there so much
work put into E-Verify if it isn’t required for all employers (like
the I-9 form itself)? Good question. Perhaps because of the human
capital it would require to run the program. Unlike the I-9 which
is not filed anywhere, real people have to be involved in the
running of E-Verify, both on the government and employer side –
programmers, help-desk personnel, employer admins, compliance
staff, and many many others. The E-Verify program as it exists
today is probably not equipped to support the approximately 164
million workers in the U.S. Another possibility for not requiring
E-Verify is the national labor shortage and the associated
political quagmire.
</p>
<p>
What’s more, the government’s released immigration plan <u>left out</u> mandatory E-Verify. For an administration that has
been staunchly committed to
<a
href=”https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/trump-administration-immigration-policy-priorities/”
>
immigration reform
</a>
, the omission surprised a lot of people. Eric Levitz discusses
this in
<a
href=”http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/trump-e-verify-fox-news-makes-it-too-hard-to-hire-the-undocumented.html”
>
his recent article for New York Magazine
</a>
.
</p>
<blockquote>
“Trump’s argument here is not that E-Verify is easily subverted or
prone to error. Rather, in the president’s view, the problem with
E-Verify is that it works.”
</blockquote>
<p>
Reading between the lines, this is an acknowledgement that certain
businesses cannot sustain themselves without unauthorized workers.
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id=”post-component-4c471a2″>
<figure>
<img
src=”https://cdn.website-editor.net/de8d6555ce7640cea5e80738bafdee0c/dms3rep/multi/desktop/PC+Everify2.png”
/>
<figcaption>
<em></em>
</figcaption>
</figure>
</div>
<div id=”post-component-d7247dc”>
<div>
<p>
The quagmire I mentioned goes something like this: the
above-referenced industries need workers, and they need them fast.
U.S. Workers (generally) don’t want to a) do the work, or b) do the
work for the offered wages. Unauthorized workers are willing to
work for less than U.S. Workers and are willing to take the risks
associated with working without a visa. (Some employers hire
workers with the promise of future sponsorship or other benefits.
Oftentimes, those promises never come to fruition, but that’s a
separate issue…) So, an employer is left with a choice: employ
U.S. Workers at a higher wage, if they can find someone willing to
do the work, or employ an unauthorized worker. Mandating E-Verify
means virtually taking away the latter option. In turn, prices go
up, profits are slashed, consumers complain, and so on and so
forth. This is a marked oversimplification, but I think you get the
idea. In essence, the “la la la I can’t hear you!” mentality has
“worked” for those types of organizations. (Of course, there are
plenty of examples of employers getting fined for employing
unauthorized workers.
<a
href=”https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fines-arrests-more-oh-my-jennifer-pawlak/”
>
Here are just a few
</a>
.) And politicians are staying away from the issue because it’s
impossible to come to a solution that makes everyone happy. There
is no middle ground. E-Verify is or it is not.
</p>
<p>
Could Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) summer 2019 raids
be seen as a precursor to some sort of immigration reform enactment
to come, sooner rather than later? What about the new rule
prohibiting asylum seekers from applying from a 3rd-party country?
Both are certainly signs pointing to that possibility, but it’s
hard to know what to really expect. “Expect the unexpected” seems
to be the <em>modus operandi</em> these days.
</p>
<p>
The good news is that if E-Verify is mandated, we can assume that
there will be some ramp-up time. This should give employers time to
get registered (it’s really not bad, but does involve a skills test
for administrators), update their policies and procedures, study up
on how to actually use the system (some of which I’ve covered
<a
href=”https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/e-verify-basics-jennifer-pawlak/”
>
here
</a>
), and just generally get used to the additional step in the
on-boarding process. We may also see regulatory changes around the
use of E-Verify, penalties for non-compliance, and other changes to
the program’s general administration. But it will all be doable!
</p>
<div>
</div>
<p>
What’s next?
</p>
<p>
This brings me to the end of my series on E-Verify. Did I miss
anything? Does your company use E-Verify? Does your Chief
Compliance and/or Risk Officer have a handle on your I-9 program?
What burning questions do you have for me? I want to hear from you!
</p>
<p>This post originally appeared on <a href=”https://www.paragoncompliancellc.com/is-mandatory-e-verify-on-the-horizon” target=”_blank”>Immigration Impact</a>. Reprinted with permission.</p>
</div>
</div>

</span>

<hr/><h4>
<a name=”bio”></a>
About The Author<br/>
</h4>

<!–AUTHOR BIO START–>

<p>
<b>Jennifer Pawlak</b> is an active and proud member of P.E.O., and is active in other local and national philanthropies. She regularly fund-raises for the JDRF, American Diabetes Association, and serves as a McGill University Global Ambassador.

</p>
<!–END AUTHOR BIO–>
<p><hr/>
<div class=”ilwFinePrint”>The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of <span itemprop=”publisher” itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Organization”>
<span itemprop=”name”>ILW.COM</span></span>.</div></p>
</div>
{$inline_image

Filed Under: Uncategorised

You May Also Be Interested In:

Legal Alert Title

May 11 – Permanent Residency, House Bill

Article: Obtaining I-551 Stamp as Evidence of Conditional Lawful Permanent Residency during COVID-19 By Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP

Article: Stuck Abroad And Unable To Return To The U.S. Within 180 Days? By David H. Nachman, Esq., Michael Phulwani, Esq. and Ludka Zimovcak, Esq.

May 8 – Travel Restrictions, COVID-19

May 7 – Top Articles And News For April 2020

Article: Recommendations for U.S.C.I.S. Reopening Offices during Covid-19 By Alan Lee, Esq.

Article: COVID-19 Exacerbates Form I-829 Processing Pain for EB-5 Investors, Mandamus Lawsuits Growing in Popularity By Matt Galati

May 6 – Healthcare Immigration Now

Previous Post: « Aug 23 – Immigration Compliance for Employers, Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children
Next Post: Article: Corporate Corner: Immigration Compliance for Employers, Part 2 No-Match Letters – Trends &amp;amp; Tips for Employers By Wolfsdorf Rosenthal »

Primary Sidebar

Have a Quick Question?

Send us a message and one of our immigration attorneys will respond to you within 24 hours.

Footer

Martin Jolic and Bratton LLC (formerly known as Sharon & Kálnoki LLC) is a full service Cleveland-based immigration law practice. We offer representation for almost all immigrant and nonimmigrant processes to clients worldwide.

Phone: (216) 328-9878
Fax: (216) 328-9879
Email: info@mjbimmigration.com

6050 Oak Tree Blvd., Suite 250
Independence, Ohio 44131

AILA Member Logo
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Services
  • Consultation
  • News
  • Contact

Site Footer

Attorney advertising. This website is informational only. Information provided herein does not address any specific set of individual facts. Each immigration case is unique and nothing on this or associated pages, documents, forms, comments, e-mails, articles or other communication constitutes legal advice for any individual case or situation. Information provided on this site is not intended as a substitute for legal advice directed to a particular set of circumstances. Legal advice on specific, individual cases should be obtained from an experienced immigration attorney. In exchange for using this site to gather information, you agree not to hold any person involved in the preparation and presentation of this site responsible or liable, either directly or indirectly, for any damages whatsoever that may arise from the use, misuse, and/or reliance on anything contained within this site. Viewing or using information presented on this website is not privileged and does not create an attorney-client relationship. An attorney-client relationship will be created only upon the express agreement of the parties.

Copyright © 2021