E-Verify bill passes out of Senate Commerce Committee today

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:24 am Post subject: NC Lawmaker and Media Advisory: E-Verify over 99% accurate!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC Lawmakers and Staff:

We were very pleased to see Senate Bill 32 "Employers Must Use Federal E-Verify Program" passed by a strong margin in the Senate Commerce Committee this morning.

Now the bill heads to the Senate Appropriations committee where we hope it will be passed with teeth in the bill to handle unscrupulous employers that hire illegal aliens.

Ron Woodard of NC Listen and I had planned to say that E-Verify was 99 percent accurate during our presentations to the committee this morning.

We held off because our opposition has been trying to get lawmakers not to support SB 32 claiming that the E-Verify system has an accuracy rate of only 87%!

This is not true!

One company that hires a large volume of foreign nationals, Intel, released a study of their E-Verify inquiries saying that 13% of those they processed were improperly flagged by the E-Verify system. While it is possible that Intel is being politically biased or has a training problem in the use of the E-Verify system, it is also possible they get a higher error rate because of their dependence on foreign labor.

According to the official Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) E-Verify is 99.6% accurate!

Here are the official numbers from a recent DHS Fact Sheet

"Jan. 8, 2009 DHS FAct Sheet

A recent study conducted by Westat, a social science research firm which monitors the effect of various changes made to the E-Verify program, found that between April and June 2008:

- Approximately 96.1 percent of all cases queried through E-Verify were instantly found to be employment authorized (this is a substantial improvement from 94.2 percent);

- About 99.6 percent of all work-authorized employees verified through E-Verify are verified without receiving a tentative nonconfirmation or having to take any type of corrective action;

- Erroneous tentative nonconfirmations (those that were work-authorized but who received a nonconfirmation) have improved from 0.5% to 0.4%. Ultimately, these mismatches are successfully resolved; and

- Of all queries received, final nonconfirmations (meaning not work-authorized) are 3.5 percent; down from 5.3 percent. "

Source Link
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/everify_fact_sheet8Jan09.pdf


We are distributing this notice to all NC Lawmakers and to members of the NC Media.

We ask that lawmakers, staff, members of the media, and even our opposition working against SB 32 please utilize the official governmental data regarding the accuracy of E-Verify instead of the Intel corp. report.

We would also like to note that according to state laws passed with our help in 2007, all new hires for state employment in NC have been required to be processed with the E-Verify system and we have heard of no significant problems with the current deployment of E-Verify by the state of North Carolina.

William Gheen
President, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
www.alipac.us

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=162263

Alright!!!!

Now is the time to start beating up on our Appropriations committee senators who can be named at the following link:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Committees/Committees.asp?sAction=ViewCommittee&sActionDetails=Senate%20Standing_89
Actually, I am in the process of emailing everyone in the NC Senate to make sure they understand that while I may not be a voting constituent, I am still a state resident, a taxpayer and an American.

I think you'll find that the Intel data was a prominent feature of Rep.
David Price's platform to squelch E-Verify in the US Congress.

Having had a somewhat detailed exchange with his press secretary
recently, perhaps I can shed a little more light on the subject.

BTW - Consider this as notice Mr. Feagan, I am about to publish your commentary.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

June 17,2009




Our district director informed me that you had emailed her
some questions about Congressman Price’s position on the E-Verify Program.


Every US employer, including government contractors, are
bound by law to employ only authorized workers, and employers are required by law to use the I-9 form to verify that each new employee is authorized to work in the country. E-Verify is a voluntary program that any business can use to facilitate verification. Congressman Price has supported E-Verify and has worked to improve the accuracy of the program. His Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill would reauthorize the program and increase
funding for E-Verify by 15%.

While Congressman Price agrees that Congress should be making
it easier for employers to determine the employment eligibility of their
workers, he has concerns with regard to the error rate of E-Verify and the financial burden that requiring participation in the system would place on businesses during a recession. The Appropriations Committee report, which accompanies Rep. Price’s homeland security appropriations bill, explains the concerns:


The most recent audit [of the program], which is nearly two years old, shows an unacceptably high rate of individuals falsely identified as ineligible to work. Of particular concern is the report’s conclusion that nearly 1 in 10 naturalized citizens is reported by Basic Pilot/E-Verify as non-work authorized. While [US Citizenship and Immigration Services] claims these results have improved as the system’s functionality has evolved, new evidence of increased accuracy has been largely anecdotal. The Committee strongly urges USCIS to update and publish regular Basic Pilot/E-Verify accuracy and performance audits, so that Congress and Administration policy makers can remain informed of the system’s strengths and weaknesses.


During Committee debate, Rep. Price also referenced
statistics from Intel Corporation, which reported that almost 13 percent of workers they ran through E-Verify in 2008 were not initially confirmed. All of these workers were eventually work-authorized, but “only after significant investment of time and money” and “lost productivity”, Intel reported.


Additionally, a study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
estimated that mandating E-Verify for all federal contractors would cost the private sector $10 billion and that this cost would be disproportionally borne by small businesses.


Given that there is no updated audit to show that the system
has improved, he believes that before Congress requires businesses to use this program, the accuracy of the database and cost to small businesses must be addressed.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if
you intend to distribute or publish this information in any form.

Thanks,

Phil Feagan
Press Secretary
Office of Congressman David Price (NC-4)


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Of course that generated a prompt request for further info:



]Mr. Feagan

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I note that my direct questions regarding the $10 billion cost to the private sector apparently referenced by Ms. Auman went completely unanswered, and I must assume therefore that you do not have that information. Could you please send me a link to the referenced study by the US Chamber of Commerce, or perhaps tell me where I may obtain a printed copy?

I also noted that Rep. Price used one of the largest immigrant employers in the country as an example to justify his argument before Committee. How would one assume that translates to actual error rates among smaller employers, particularly since that is where "the cost would be disproportionally borne" according to the US Chamber of Commerce?

I would assume the cost to major corporations would be nominal in actual dollars and cents, as they are spread out over a much larger asset base and ultimately passed along to the consumer, but that's just my personal observation.

It would also help to understand the numbers if Intel provided Rep. Price with more detailed information. As I understand it, E-Verify is only used to screen prospective new hires, so I am uncertain how rejecting applicants results in "significant investment of time and money” and “lost productivity”, as Intel reported. Do you have any further details which might be pertinent to Intel's assertions?

You have cited an " Appropriations Committee report, which accompanies Rep. Price’s homeland security appropriations bill", stating that "of particular concern is the report’s conclusion that nearly 1 in 10 naturalized citizens is reported by Basic Pilot/E-Verify as non-work authorized."

Although the report was admittedly two years old, I was wondering if you can provide the total number of employees submitted for screening, and then break that down for me by the number of US citizens screened, the number of legal permanent residents screened, the number of valid visa holders screened, and the number of conditional permanent residents screened, as well as the number of naturalized citizens subjected to the screening.

If you do not have those numbers handy, would you please forward me a link to the agency Rep. Price used for his Committee report and I will be happy to research them myself.

In theory, the number of "naturalized citizens" should in fact be the smallest demographic in the group, and therefore not an accurate representative sampling of the data in question so far as ascertaining a true picture of the efficacy of the E-Verify program.

I find it somewhat alarming that Rep. Price appears to have so little faith in USCIS policies and programs that he would define their assertions regarding improved implementation and accuracy of E-Verify as anecdotal.

Could you please explain in detail what exactly leads Rep. Price to define their (USCIS) claims as anecdotal? I'm guessing there is something concrete available upon which to base such an opinion, and I'd be most grateful if you could clarify the water for me as it were?

Thank you for your considerate and informative response, and I look forward to hearing from you again soon.


Regards,
XXX

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Naturally, an ever-so-polite response arrived shortly thereafter:






The Chamber of Commerce study is available here: http://www.uschamber.com/NR/rdonlyres/eziyiocguz2qx3m52konjrte6xefldw2hwg4km3442wzbcaz2jfxledkxw7nkhexokvmssthpvfe6kk4uriuwjv3mwe/080811everify_appendix.pdf

The comments by Intel on the Executive Order announcement are attached.

Anecdotal means exactly that.
The Appropriations Committee needs sound statistical justification to make its decisions, and there has been no comprehensive audit of the E-Verify program since the September 2007 evaluation previously mentioned. That audit is available here: http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/WebBasicPilotRprtSept2007.pdf


I hope this is helpful.

Thanks,
Phil




(Note the effort to be more sensitive and available; now we are on a first name basis - BTW, did he actually answer any of my questions?)

Phil sounds just wonderful!
I spent the morning emailing members of the Appropriations Committee, telling them that since the Char-Meck area unemployment is now at 11 percent, this SB 32 is crucial to the survival of taxpayers, therefore fiscal health in the state. Illegals are here for nothing more than our money and free services, education, healthcare, etc. and are able to send money home because they live in a heap in tiny, cheap apartments.
Let's see if anyone cares to respond.