E-Verify
View on Wikipedia


State requires E-Verify for most public employers
State requires E-Verify for some public contractors and subcontractors
State requires E-Verify for all employers
E-Verify is a United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees, both U.S. and foreign citizens, to work in the United States.[1] The site was originally established in 1996 as the Basic Pilot Program to prevent companies from hiring people who had violated immigration laws and entered the United States unlawfully.[2] In August 2007, the DHS started requiring all federal contractors and vendors to use E-Verify. The Internet-based program is free and maintained by the United States government. While federal law does not mandate use of E-Verify for non-federal employees, some states have mandated use of E-Verify or similar programs, while others have discouraged the program.[3]
E-Verify compares information from an employee's Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 to data from U.S. government records. If the information matches, that employee is eligible to work in the United States. If there is a mismatch, E-Verify alerts the employer and the employee is allowed to work while resolving the problem. Employees must contact the appropriate agency to resolve the mismatch within eight federal government work days from the referral date.[4] The program is operated by the DHS in partnership with the Social Security Administration. According to the DHS website, more than 700,000 employers used E-Verify as of 2018.[5]
Research shows that E-Verify harms the labor market outcomes of illegal immigrants and improves the labor market outcomes of Mexican legal immigrants and U.S.-born Hispanics, but has no impact on labor market outcomes for non-Hispanic white Americans.[6] A 2016 study suggests that E-Verify reduces the number of unauthorized immigrants in states that have mandated use of E-Verify for all employers, and further notes that the program may deter irregular immigration to the United States in general.[7]
History
[edit]The program was originally established in 1997 as the Basic Pilot program, a four-year pilot of a program that allowed employers to search government agencies' databases in order to determine whether a worker is legally allowed to work in the U.S.[8][9] Along with two other pilot programs, it was created to protect jobs for authorized U.S. workers and to ensure a legal workforce in the United States.[10] At the time, there was also another pilot program, the Employment Verification Pilot, could only verify work authorization for non-U.S. citizens; anyone who claimed to be a citizen could not be verified.[11] Another pilot program, the Citizen Attestation Pilot, allowed employers to look up an employee's social security number in a database maintained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[12] The Employment Verification Pilot and the Citizen Attestation Pilot were later discontinued.
Originally, an employer would hire an employee, have the Form I-9 filled out, and then call the Social Security Administration to ask whether the employee was either a U.S. citizen or a legal immigrant. If the Social Security Administration did not have that information, the employer would then look up the employee in a database maintained by the Immigration and Naturalization Services. If the employee was still not found, employer would need to call Immigration and Naturalization Services' office.[13]
In the two years since Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) finalized the regulations for electronically storing and/or generating I-9 records there has also been a steady increase in the number of administrative I-9 audits, in which employers are asked to deliver their I-9 records to ICE within 72 hours for inspection.[14]
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Verification Division reported that over 16,000 E-Verify compliance letters were issued in Fiscal Year 2010. Another 13,000 letters and over 26,000 emails were sent to employers in Fiscal Year 2011. Additionally, another 23,000 e-mails were sent in the first half of Fiscal Year 2012, alone.[15]
Operations
[edit]All employers, by law, must complete Form I-9. E-Verify is closely linked to Form I-9, but participation in E-Verify is voluntary for most employers. After an employee is hired to work for pay, the employee and employer complete Form I-9. After an employee begins work for pay, the employer enters the information from Form I-9 into E-Verify. E-Verify then compares that information against millions of government records and returns a result.[16]
On August 31, 2007, the program began to include facial image data to help enhance searches. The 14 million images kept by federal immigration authorities are being used in the program, and the government is in talks with some states to cross reference with state drivers license records.[10][17][18]
Impact
[edit]A 2015 study found that E-Verify reduced the average earnings of undocumented immigrants, improved labor market outcomes for male Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Hispanic men, and had no impact on U.S.-born non-Hispanic whites.[6] A 2016 study found that E-Verify "reduces the number of less-educated prime-age immigrants from Mexico and Central America—immigrants who are likely to be unauthorized—living in a state. We find evidence that some new migrants are diverted to other states, but also suggestive evidence that some already-present migrants leave the country entirely."[7] A 2019 analysis by the Cato Institute, which supports increased immigration, found that while E-Verify used to be effective at spotting illegal immigrants, it was no longer so.[19] The analysis estimated that the system only spotted the hiring of 16.1 percent of illegal immigrant workers in the fiscal year of 2018.[19]
Mandated use
[edit]Federal government
[edit]As of September 2007, most of the federal government did not use the system when hiring employees, but an Office of Management and Budget directive mandates that all federal government agencies sign up to use E-Verify by October 1, 2007.[20]
Social Security Administration failed to perform required verifications of the Social Security numbers of 19 percent of its own new hires during an 18-month period, according to a January 2010 report from the agency's inspector general.[21]
This article needs to be updated. (January 2016) |
Federal contractors
[edit]As of September 8, 2009, employers with federal contracts or subcontracts that contain the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) E-Verify clause are required to use E-Verify to determine the employment eligibility of 1) Employees performing direct, substantial work under those federal contracts and 2) New hires organization-wide, regardless of whether they are working on a federal contract. A federal contractor or subcontractor who has a contract with the FAR E-Verify clause also has the option to verify the company's entire workforce.[22]
OPT extension for students
[edit]In April 2008, U.S. government extended the duration of post-completion work authorization (the "Optional Practical Training" (OPT)) from 12 months to an additional 24 months, for a total of 36 months of work authorization between the various OPT authorizations granted by USCIS, for certain qualifying students with completed U.S. degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). In all circumstances, students are only eligible for this extension if their employer participates in the E-Verify program. If an employer does not participate in E-Verify, students working for those employers are only given 12 months of OPT, and can not get the 24-month extension even if they would otherwise qualify for the extension.[23]
State laws
[edit]There are a number of state laws requiring or limiting the use of E-Verify for employers. According to a 2012 survey by the Center for Immigration Studies, 16 states require use of E-Verify in some form. The survey found that six states have laws requiring all or nearly all businesses to use E-Verify to determine employment eligibility: Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina. Five states require use of E-Verify by public employers and all or most public contractors: Indiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Missouri. Three states require only public contractors to use E-Verify: Louisiana, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. Idaho only requires public employers to use E-Verify, while Florida only requires it for agencies under direction of the governor. Colorado and Utah encourage use of E-Verify, but allow for alternative means of employment verification. An E-Verify-only mandate in Utah is contingent on the state's effort to create a state-level guestworker program. The survey also found that some states have moved in the opposite direction, limiting or discouraging use of E-Verify: California, Rhode Island, and Illinois.[24]
In 2011, the Supreme Court of the U.S. rejected a suit arguing that Arizona's state law, which can cause employers found failing to use E-Verify to lose their state business licenses, was pre-empted by federal law. The ruling effectively confirmed that states may mandate the use of E-Verify.[25]
As of January 1, 2023, the following states require E-Verify for some or all employers: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.[26]
Alabama
[edit]The state of Alabama passed a law mandating employers to use E-Verify on new hires.[27] The "Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act" (H.B. 56) was signed into law on June 9, 2011.[28] The act makes it illegal for any business entity, employer, or public employer to "knowingly employ, hire for employment, or continue to employ" an undocumented immigrant to perform work within the state. Effective April 1, 2012, every employer in Alabama must enroll in E-Verify and use the program to check employment authorization. The act creates an incentive for using E-Verify as businesses and subcontractors that enroll in E-Verify are immune from liability for employing an undocumented immigrant. The act requires the Alabama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish and maintain an E-Verify employer service for any employer in the state with 25 or fewer employees that wants assistance. The Alabama DHS will enroll a participating business in E-Verify on its behalf at no cost.[29] This law is applied to businesses both inside and outside Alabama that do business with the state.
Arizona
[edit]The state of Arizona requires employers to participate in E-Verify: the Legal Arizona Workers Act has survived a number of constitutional challenges, up to and including the US Supreme Court[30] and is currently in effect. The Legal Arizona Workers Act requires all Arizona employers to use E-Verify with all newly hired employees, effective January 1, 2008.[31] As of December 2008, 5.6 percent of Arizona businesses had signed up with E-Verify.[31]
As amended, the law prohibits employers from intentionally and/or knowingly hiring illegal immigrants (or a person who employs or contracts with an illegal immigrant) and requires all employers to use E-Verify during the employment process and keep a record of the verification for the duration of the employee's employment or at least three years, whichever is longer.[32] Additional legislation prohibits the state government from entering into a contract with any contractor or subcontractor that fails to use E-Verify.[33] According to USCIS, there are 39,191 employers in Arizona using E-Verify at 84,703 hiring sites.[34]
California
[edit]In 2011, California passed an act to prohibit municipalities from mandating use of E-Verify.[35] At least 20 municipalities had required use of E-Verify,[36] for all businesses and/or companies doing business with the local government, including Mission Viejo[37] (2007), Temecula[38][39] (ordinance 5.06.030) (2010), Murrieta[40][41][42] (ordinance Chapter 5.04) (2010), Riverside,[43] Santa Maria[44][45] (only for city employees), Lake Elsinore[46] (Ordinance No. 1279)[47] (2010), Wildomar[48] (only for contractors) (2010), Lancaster[49] (Ordinance No. 934), Palmdale, San Clemente, Escondido, Menifee, Hemet, San Juan Capistrano, Hesperia, Norco, San Bernardino County, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Simi Valley.[36]
Cities considering E-Verify ordinances for businesses for 2011 are Costa Mesa,[50] San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria[51] (for all businesses) Santa Barbara, and San Jose. However, Costa Mesa[52][53][54] is the only city that has adapted the same state law as Arizona's SB-1070, allowing the City to arrest those without proper identification of resident status under suspicion of being unlawfully present in the United States.
Colorado
[edit]Colorado's E-Verify law became effective on August 7, 2006, and was amended on May 13, 2008, (H.B. 06-1343, amended by H.B. 07-1073 and S.B. 08-193). The amendment created the "Department Program" and is offered as an alternative to E-Verify, meaning that E-Verify is not mandated in Colorado. Public contractors must participate in either E-Verify or the Department Program. The state's Department of Labor and Employment is tasked with investigating complaints and can conduct on-site inspections and random audits of state agencies. It has the authority to request and review citizenship documentation of persons performing work on public contracts. Under the "Department Program" public contractors must consent to random audits to assess compliance with the law.[55]
Florida
[edit]On January 4, 2011, Governor Rick Scott signed an executive order requiring agencies under his direction to use E-Verify. It was superseded on May 27, 2011, with a similar E-Verify order that brought the policy more in line with standard E-Verify practices by requiring verification of new employees rather than both new and existing employees.[56][57] Specifically, all agencies under the direction of the governor have been directed to verify the employment eligibility of all new employees through E-Verify. Agencies not under the direction of the governor are "encouraged" to follow the same guidelines. All agencies under the direction of the governor must expressly require contractors to use E-Verify for all new employees hired by the contractor during the contract term as a condition of all contracts for the provision of goods and services to the state in excess of nominal value. Additionally, subcontractors performing work pursuant to the contract must use E-Verify. Agencies not under the direction of the governor are encouraged to follow these guidelines as well.[29]
Florida was the second state to join the E-Verify RIDE program, which allows employers to view State ID and driver's license photos during the verification process.[58]
On June 30, 2020, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill requiring government employers and private companies that contract with the government to use E-Verify.[59][60]
On May 10, 2023, Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 1718 that required all employers, both public and private with 25 or more employees, to use E-Verify. The law goes into effect on July 1, 2023.[61]
Georgia
[edit]Georgia requires both public and private employers to use E-Verify during the hiring process. In 2006 the state passed the "Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act" (S.B. 529), which applied to public employers, contractors, and subcontractors and was followed by a number of amendments.[62][63] In 2011, the state passed the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011" (H.B. 87), which extends required use of E-Verify to private employers.[64]
As of July 1, 2007, all public employers in Georgia were required to use E-Verify for all new employees. With additional amendments, the law now requires all public employees to permanently post the employer's federally issued user identification number and date of authorization on the employer's website. If the public employer does not have a website, then the local government is directed to submit the relevant information to the Carl Vinson Institute of Government of the University of Georgia to be posted by the institute on the website created for local government audit and budget reporting.[64]
An official at the state's Department of Labor told the Center for Immigration Studies that funding has not been made available for the auditing process rendering the law largely ineffective.[65]
Idaho
[edit]On May 29, 2009, Gov. Butch Otter signed Executive Order 2009–10, mandating, among other things, that state agencies verify that new employees are eligible for employment under federal and state law.[66] While the order does not specifically reference E-Verify, subsequent internal guidelines resulted in all state agencies using E-Verify to meet the order's requirements.[34] The order came into effect on July 1, 2009.
Public contractors and subcontractors are required to declare to the contracting state agency that they have "substantiated that all employees providing services or involved in any way on projects funded directly by or assisted in whole or part by state funds or federal stimulus dollars" are legally authorized to work in the United States. According to an official at the state's Department of Human Resources, public contractors are encouraged, but not required to use E-Verify to meet this requirement.[34]
On July 14, 2013, Idaho joined the E-verify RIDE program, which allows employers to view State ID and driver's license photos during the verification process.[67]
Illinois
[edit]As a rule, E-Verify is not required in Illinois. Illinois is also the only state that has tried to block the use of E-Verify by private employers.
Section 12(a) of the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act prohibited Illinois employers from using E-verify to verify the work authorization of their employees.[68] The United States Department of Homeland Security sued to prevent the law from taking effect as scheduled on January 1, 2008.[69] On March 12, 2009, agreeing with the federal government, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois ruled that Illinois' law is invalid under the Supremacy Clause to the U.S. Constitution because it conflicts with the federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). The case was United States v. Illinois, (No. 07-3261, C.D. Ill., 2009).[70]
Under the new law,[71] which amends the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, Illinois employers are required to sign a sworn attestation either upon initial enrollment in E-Verify, or by January 31, 2010, if they are already enrolled in the program. The attestation form affirms that the employer has received the requisite E-Verify training materials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), and that all employees with access to the company's E-Verify account have completed mandatory online E-Verify tutorials. It further states that the employer has posted the required legal notices regarding its enrollment in E-Verify and certain non-discrimination procedures. The employer must retain the signed original attestation and proof of its employees' E-Verify training.[citation needed]
Indiana
[edit]On July 1, 2011, Indiana enacted S.B. 590.[72] Among other things, the law requires state agencies and political subdivisions to use E-Verify to determine work authorization status of all employees hired after June 30, 2011. The requirement to use E-Verify also applies to public contractors. The law does not contain any enforcement provisions or any auditing process to determine employer compliance.[34]
Louisiana
[edit]On August 15, 2011, two pieces of E-Verify legislation were approved in Louisiana. The first bill, H.B. 342, requires all state and local contractors who seek to do business with Louisiana to use E-Verify. The second bill, H.B. 646, encourages all private businesses to verify the legal status of their new hires by providing employers a safe harbor against sanctions if they use E-Verify or another method for determining worker eligibility.[73][74]
Minnesota
[edit]On January 7, 2008, then-Governor Tim Pawlenty signed Executive Order 08-01, requiring use of E-Verify for the state's executive branch employees and for some public contracts. Gov. Mark Dayton allowed the order to lapse in April 2011.[75] A new E-Verify provision requires use of E-Verify only for some public contracts. It requires state contracts for services in excess of $50,000 to require certification from vendors and subcontractors that they have implemented or are in the process of implementing the E-Verify program for all newly hired employees who will perform work under the contract. It exempts contracts entered into by the State Board of Investment.[76]
Mississippi
[edit]The Mississippi Employment Protection Act requires all Mississippi employers to use E-Verify with new hires.[77][78] Mississippi employers with 250 or more employees must comply with the law as of July 1, 2008.[78] The law goes into effect for employers with 100 to 249 employees as of July 1, 2009.[78] Employers with 30 to 99 employees must comply by July 1, 2010.[78] The law is effective for employers with fewer than 30 employees on July 1, 2011.[78] As of June 2011, a total of 4,336 employers representing more than 9,000 worksites in Mississippi were using E-Verify.[79]
Enforcement of the law, and its effectiveness, remains a significant problem. An official at the Mississippi Attorney General's office explained to the Center for Immigration Studies that his office is tasked with investigating complaints that the public may file about potential violations of the law. However, when asked how often such complaints are filed, he responded, "Rarely." This is consistent with information from a two-day immigration hearing held at the state capital in 2010. Then, a different spokesperson for the Attorney General's office explained that the office had received no formal complaints. A state representative told the Center for Immigration Studies that because the state law grants authority over E-Verify regulation to multiple state agencies, no agency has taken the lead and enforcement has been nominal.[29]
As of August 2012 Mississippi was the first state to use USCIS's RIDE program as part of its E-Verify efforts (Florida and Idaho have also since joined). On June 13, 2011, in an effort to improve E-Verify's accuracy in Mississippi, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) launched the "Records and Information from DMVs for E-Verify" (RIDE) program in the state. The RIDE program compares driver's licenses or other government-issued ID cards against data held by the state's motor vehicle agency.[80]
Missouri
[edit]On July 7, 2008, Missouri's E-Verify bill (H.R. 1549) was signed into law.[81] It became effective on January 1, 2009. The law prohibits businesses from knowingly employing, hiring, or continuing to employ an illegal immigrant to perform work within the state of Missouri. The E-Verify portion of the law does not apply to all businesses, but those businesses that do use E-Verify are provided an affirmative defense that the business has not violated the provisions of the law that prohibit the employment of illegal immigrant. All public employers are required to "actively participate" in E-Verify.[29]
Nebraska
[edit]On April 8, 2009, Nebraska's L.B. 403 was signed into law.[82] The law requires use of E-Verify by state agencies (and political subdivisions) and by public contractors starting October 1, 2009. Every contract between a public employer and public contractor must contain a provision requiring the public contractor to use E-Verify for new employees physically performing services within Nebraska. The requirement does not apply to public contracts made prior to the operative date of this act. According to state surveys, use of E-Verify appears to be low.[29]
North Carolina
[edit]The North Carolina governor signed H.B. 36 into law on June 23, 2011. All counties and municipalities were required to begin using E-Verify by October 1, 2011. The law also requires private businesses to use E-Verify for new employees, but exempts any "seasonal temporary employee who is employed for 90 or fewer days during a 12-consecutive-month period". Employers with 500 or more employees must be using E-Verify by October 1, 2012; employers with 100 to 499 employees must be using E-Verify by January 1, 2013; and employers with 25 to 99 employees must be using E-Verify by July 1, 2013.[83][84][85] The law does not include a random audit process for determining employer compliance.[29]
Oklahoma
[edit]The "Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007" (H.B. 1804) was signed into law on May 9, 2007.[86] Among other things, the law requires public contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify (or a third-party program with an equal or higher degree of reliability, should one appear). After July 1, 2008, public employers were prohibited from entering into contracts for the physical performance of services within Oklahoma unless the contractor (and any subcontractor) uses E-Verify to verify the work authorization of all new employees. If an independent contractor, contracting for the physical performance of services in Oklahoma, fails to provide to the contracting entity documentation to verify the independent contractor's employment authorization, the contracting entity is required to withhold state income tax at the top marginal income tax rate as provided under state law.[29]
Pennsylvania
[edit]On July 5, 2012, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed "Public Works Employment Verification Act" (S.B. 637). It requires some public works contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify to determine employment eligibility of all new hires. In order to ensure compliance, employers are subject to complaint-based and random audits. The act takes effect January 1, 2013. Under the act, "public work" means "construction, reconstruction, demolition, alteration, and/or repair work other than maintenance work, done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of the funds of a public body" where the estimated cost of the total project is in excess of $25,000 but does not include work performed under a "rehabilitation or manpower training program."[87]
The legislation was approved by both houses of the state legislature and aims to ensure that all construction jobs funded by taxpayers employ only documented workers by checking employees' information against government records.[88]
Rhode Island
[edit]In March 2008, Governor Carcieri issued an executive order requiring executive agencies to use E-Verify; and for all persons and businesses, including grantees, contractors and their subcontractors and vendors to use E-Verify.[89]
On January 5, 2011, less than 24 hours after his swearing-in, Gov. Lincoln Chafee rescinded Executive Order 08-01, calling it "an agent of divisiveness, incivility, and distrust among the state's citizens."[90] In defending his move, Gov. Chafee incorrectly claimed on at least two occasions that Rhode Island was one of only six states with an E-Verify mandate.[91]
South Carolina
[edit]The "South Carolina Illegal Immigration Reform Act" (H. 4400) was signed into law on June 4, 2008, and amended on June 27, 2011, (S. 20).[92][93][94] The law requires all employers to use E-Verify. The original version of the law gave employers the option of confirming the eligibility of new employees through either E-Verify or by checking the validity of driver's licenses and other identification cards. The 2011 amendment made E-Verify the exclusive method for confirming employment eligibility. South Carolina is said to have one of the nation's most effective E-Verify laws in that the state uses an audit process to ensure businesses are in compliance with the law.[29]
South Carolina conducted approximately 6,000 audits of businesses under the 2008 version of the law. During the first year – July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, when the law applied to businesses with 100 or more employees (a total of 2,300 employers) — South Carolina conducted approximately 1,900 audits. The second year, when the law applied to every employer, the state conducted audits of approximately 4,200 businesses.[29]
Every public employer must register and participate in "federal work authorization program to verify the employment authorization of all new employees." See SC Code Section 8-14-20(A). Public employer must also require public contractors and subcontractors to agree to use e-verify or "to employ only workers who" possess or qualify to obtain a SC drivers license or identification card. See SC Code Section 8-14-20(B). The latter requirement applies as follows: "(1) on and after 1 January 2009, with respect to contractors, subcontractors, or sub-subcontractors of five hundred or more employees; (2) on and after 1 July 2009, with respect to contractors, subcontractors, or sub-subcontractors of one hundred or more employees but less than five hundred employees; and (3) on and after 1 January 2010, with respect to all other contractors, subcontractors, or sub-subcontractors." See SC Code Section 8-14-20(D).
SC Code Section 41-8-20 requires that "(A) All private employers in South Carolina shall be imputed a South Carolina employment license, which permits a private employer to employ a person in this State. A private employer may not employ a person unless the private employer's South Carolina employment license and any other applicable licenses as defined in Section 41-8-10 are in effect and are not suspended or revoked. A private employer's employment license shall remain in effect provided the private employer complies with the provisions of this chapter. (B) All private employers who are required by federal law to complete and maintain federal employment eligibility verification forms or documents must register and participate in the E-Verify federal work authorization program, or its successor, to verify the work authorization of every new employee within three business days after employing a new employee. A private employer who does not comply with the requirements of this subsection violates the private employer's licenses. (C) The South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce shall provide private employers with technical advice and electronic access to the E-Verify federal work authorization program's website for the sole purpose of registering and participating in the program. (D) Private employers shall employ provisionally a new employee until the new employee's work authorization has been verified pursuant to this section. A private employer shall submit a new employee's name and information for verification even if the new employee's employment is terminated less than three business days after becoming employed. If a new employee's work authorization is not verified by the federal work authorization program, a private employer must not employ, continue to employ, or reemploy the new employee. (E) To assist private employers in understanding the requirements of this chapter, the director shall send written notice of the requirements of this section to all South Carolina employers, and shall publish the information contained in the notice on its website. Nothing in this section shall create a legal requirement that any private employer receive actual notice of the requirements of this chapter through written notice from the director, nor create any legal defense for failure to receive notice. (F) If a private employer is a contractor, the private employer shall maintain the contact phone numbers of all subcontractors and sub-subcontractors performing services for the private employer. The private employer shall provide the contact phone numbers or a contact phone number, as applicable, to the director pursuant to an audit or investigation within seventy-two hours of the director's request. HISTORY: 2008 Act No. 280, Section 19, eff June 4, 2008; 2011 Act No. 69, Section 9, eff January 1, 2012."[95]
Tennessee
[edit]The Tennessee Lawful Employment Act (HB 1378) was signed into law by Governor Bill Haslam in June 2011. Effective January 1, 2017, private employers with 50 or more employees under the same FEIN are required to use the federal E-Verify employment verification process. This applies to employees working in or outside the state of Tennessee. Private employers with fewer than 50 employees may choose to use E-Verify for newly hired employees or request and maintain documents under the TLEA’s list of authorized identity and employment eligibility documents. The TLEA covers "non-employees" as well, while not employed directly, are paid directly by the employer for labor or services. Companies in Tennessee are required to request and maintain copies of certain identity and work authorization documents for non-employees, unless an exception applies (i.e. workers are employed by a separate company).[96] Effective January 1, 2023, the Tennessee Lawful Employment Act was amended to reduce the minimum number of employees from 50 to 35. Under the new amendment, private employers with less than 35 employees may still choose to enroll in E-Verify or request and maintain documents under the TLEA's list of authorized identity and employment eligibility documents.[97]
Texas
[edit]In December 2014, Governor Rick Perry issued Executive Order RP 80, which requires all state agencies to verify employment eligibility of all current and future employees through the E-Verify system. It also requires that state contractors use E-Verify for all persons employed to perform duties within Texas, and for sub-contractors as well.[98]
Utah
[edit]The "Private Employer Verification Act" (S.B. 251) was signed into law on March 31, 2010.[99] It requires all private employers who employ more than 15 or more employees as of July 1, 2010, to use a "status verification system" to verify the employment eligibility of new employees, though it does not mandate use of E-Verify. As an alternative to E-Verify, businesses can use any other federal program the state deems equivalent to E-Verify, including "the Social Security Number Verification Service or similar online verification process implemented by the United States Social Security Administration." (Note: However, the E-Verify is considered to be more reliable than the mere verification through a Social Security Administration database that the social security number, name of employee, and date of birth all match.[100]) The law exempts employers of aliens on H-2A (temporary agricultural) and H-2B (temporary, non-agricultural) visas. An official at the Social Security Administration told the Center for Immigration Studies that the program is not sufficient for determining immigration status.[29]
Virginia
[edit]On April 11, 2010, Virginia's H.B. 737 was signed into law.[101] In early 2011, Gov. Robert McDonnell announced that he would push up the deadline by 18 months to June 1, 2011.[102] The state's E-Verify policy requires both state agencies and businesses contracting with Virginia to use E-Verify, the result of two pieces of legislation. On March 25, 2011, an E-Verify bill aimed at public contractors was signed into law: H.B. 1859.[103] Effective December 1, 2013, employers with more than an average of 50 employees for the previous 12 months entering into a work or service contract in excess of $50,000 with any state agency must register and participate in E-Verify. Failure to comply with the law results in the employer being debarred from contracting with any state agency for a period up to one year. Such debarment ends upon the employer's registration and participation in E-Verify.[34]
Criticism
[edit]As of May 2023, the U.S. government reports that E-Verify has been used in 48,042,413 cases, resulting in 738,507 mismatches. Only 0.011% of all cases were mismatches that were contested but not eventually confirmed.[104] Pro-immigration critics cite 52,280 initial mismatches in the first 34,853,666 cases as of 2017 as an unacceptably high rate (0.15%).[105] Since then, fewer than 5,000 additional erroneous mismatches were identified among 13 million more cases,[106] an error rate of 0.04%.
In 2012, "the overall accuracy of E-Verify for employment-authorized workers, as measured by the FNC (Final Nonconfirmations) accuracy rate, was approximately 94 percent.".[107] However, the margin of error, currently around 8%, is decreasing, as many of the errors came from changing last names after marriage or not informing the government of changes in citizenship status.[108] As of 2018, 98.88% of E-Verify applicants were approved to work.[109]
Chris Calabrese of the American Civil Liberties Union opposes E-Verify, citing concerns that it could expand into an onerous national ID system: "Employers are not police officers, except in this one context where we suddenly want them to be law enforcement agents who are going to police their workforce."[110] Federal law already requires employers to collect identification showing an employee is eligible to work, and to file an I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification form.[111]
The American Farm Bureau Federation opposes E-Verify and stated in July 2011 that it "could have a significant, negative impact on U.S. farm production, not only threatening the livelihoods of many farmers and ranchers in labor-intensive agriculture but jeopardizing as well the health of the rural economy, where agriculture plays an important role."[112]
Reason magazine reported in May 2023 of the disapproval of E-Verify by some Republican Congressmen such as Thomas Massie. Massie opposes E-Verify on the grounds that he believes that the bill could be used as a form of invasion of privacy against all American citizens as opposed to its supposed use to mainly target immigrants, akin to a "Patriot Act 2.0." Massie was quoted saying over a tweet, "National E-verify bill contains vague references to two pilot programs of non-photographic technology you must use to prove your identity to DHS in order to get a job. What is it? Fingerprints? DNA? Retina? Why not just say it in the bill? Is E-Verify actually Patriot Act 2.0?"[113]
In August 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said that it is "reckless" for an employer to rely on E-Verify to determine whether a person is legally allowed to work in the U.S.[114]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "Introduction to E-Verify".
- ^ Orrenius, Pia; Zavodny, Madeline; Greer, Sarah (January 2020). "Who Signs up for E-Verify? Insights from DHS Enrollment Records". Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Working Papers. 2020 (2002). doi:10.24149/wp2002.
- ^ "E-Verify Program, US Immigration, I-9, Employer Sanctions". Shusterman Law. November 6, 2013. Retrieved March 17, 2021.[permanent dead link]
- ^ "Resolving a tentative nonverify". February 6, 2011. Archived from the original on August 5, 2012. Retrieved June 6, 2010.
- ^ "Fact Sheet: E-Verify". immigrationforum. August 14, 2018. Archived from the original on February 3, 2019. Retrieved February 5, 2022.
- ^ a b Orrenius, Pia M.; Zavodny, Madeline (April 1, 2015). "The impact of E-Verify mandates on labor market outcomes". Southern Economic Journal. 81 (4): 947–959. doi:10.1002/soej.12023. ISSN 2325-8012.
- ^ a b Orrenius, Pia M.; Zavodny, Madeline (December 1, 2016). "Do state work eligibility verification laws reduce unauthorized immigration?". IZA Journal of Migration. 5 (1): 5. doi:10.1186/s40176-016-0053-3. hdl:10419/149452. ISSN 2193-9039.
- ^ Taylor, John (October 22, 1997). "IBP Participates in Immigration Pilot Program". Omaha World-Herald. p. 22.
- ^ "https://www.newspapers.com/image/1226503140/ Barrett seeks INS program]". The Wausa Gazette (Wausa, Nebraska). December 10, 1998. p. 2.
- ^ a b "U.S. Department of Homeland Security Fact Sheet". Archived from the original on March 20, 2008. Retrieved November 2, 2007.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) - ^ Pearson, Rita (October 21, 1997). "IBP gets access to federal data". The Dispatch. p. 1.
- ^ "INS to start citizenship verification". Gannett News Service. The Californian (Salinas Valley, California). September 18, 1997. p. 4B.
- ^ Bunis, Dena (September 22, 1997). "Immigration program is nation's model". Boca Raton News. Knight-Ridder Newspapers. p. 7A.
- ^ "ICE Releases Guidance on Evaluating Electronic I-9 Systems". LawLogix Group, Inc. John Fay. October 18, 2012. Retrieved November 12, 2012.
- ^ "Can E-Verify "Self-Assessment" Help an Employer?". The National Law Review. LawLogxGroup, Inc. August 2, 2012. Retrieved October 22, 2012.
- ^ "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Companion to Form I-9". April 12, 2010. Archived from the original on May 6, 2010. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
- ^ Franklin, Stephen (September 25, 2007). "Fighting the flood of phony IDs". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved November 2, 2007.
- ^ Casey, Winter (August 10, 2007). "Administration announces border, immigration initiatives". National Journal's Technology Daily. Archived from the original on December 17, 2007. Retrieved November 2, 2007.
- ^ a b Bier, David (May 29, 2019). "E-Verify Let 12 million Illegal Hires Happen Since 2006–80% of Attempts". Cato Institute. Retrieved June 5, 2019.
- ^ "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Statement for the Record: E-Verify". May 20, 2008. Archived from the original on December 17, 2008. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
- ^ "SSA fails to E-Verify 19 percent of new hires, IG says". January 11, 2010. Archived from the original on March 17, 2010. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
- ^ "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services E-Verify Fact Sheet". December 18, 2009. Archived from the original on December 26, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2009.
- ^ "Questions and Answers: Extension of Optional Practical Training Program for Qualified Students". April 25, 2012. Archived from the original on November 24, 2013. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
- ^ Jon Feere, "An Overview of E-Verify Policies at the State Level," July 2012, Center for Immigration Studies. Available at: http://cis.org/e-verify-at-the-state-level
- ^ Kephart, Janice. (May 26, 2011) Arizona Catches a Break from the Supreme Court | Center for Immigration Studies. Cis.org. Retrieved on October 18, 2011.
- ^ "History and Milestones". www.e-verify.gov. Retrieved March 27, 2023.
- ^ "Alabama Immigration Law: E-Verify Now Required". Reuters. June 10, 2011.
- ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on December 1, 2011. Retrieved November 10, 2011.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ a b c d e f g h i j Jon Feere, "An Overview of E-Verify Policies on the State Level," Center for Immigration Studies, July 2012. Available at: http://cis.org/e-verify-at-the-state-level
- ^ Mears, Bill (May 25, 2011). "High court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses". CNN. Retrieved May 26, 2011.
- ^ a b McCombs, Brady (December 11, 2008). "State's employer sanctions law goes mostly unused". Arizona Daily Star.
- ^ "Page Redirection". www.azleg.gov. Archived from the original on September 23, 2012. Retrieved August 24, 2012.
- ^ "Format Document". Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved March 27, 2023.
- ^ a b c d e Jon Feere, "An Overview of E-Verify Policies at the State Level," Center for Immigration Studies, July 2012. Available at: http://cis.org/e-verify-at-the-state-level
- ^ "Enrolled" (PDF). leginfo.ca.gov. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- ^ a b Feere, Jon. (October 14, 2011) California Limits E-Verify, Supports Illegal Hiring Practices | Center for Immigration Studies. Cis.org. Retrieved on October 18, 2011.
- ^ E-Verify Legislation Guide. Clientconnexions.com. Retrieved on October 18, 2011.
- ^ Temecula Municipal Code (Temecula, California). Qcode.us. Retrieved on October 18, 2011.
- ^ "Temecula mandates E-Verify use | Inland News | PE.com | Southern California News | News for Inland Southern California". www.pe.com. Archived from the original on July 17, 2010.
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 27, 2011. Retrieved February 3, 2011.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ Avants, Maggie. (January 4, 2011) Murrieta's E-Verify Ordinance Makes National Headlines – Murrieta, CA Patch Archived July 15, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Murrieta.patch.com. Retrieved on October 18, 2011.
- ^ Lovett, Ian (January 4, 2011). "Patch of California Cracks Down on Illegal Immigration". The New York Times.
- ^ Riverside, California | City of Arts & Innovation | City Jobs. Cityjobs.riversideca.gov. Retrieved on October 18, 2011.
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 3, 2010. Retrieved February 3, 2011.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 4, 2010. Retrieved February 3, 2011.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ City of Lake Elsinore : Business License Archived December 17, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. Lake-elsinore.org. Retrieved on October 18, 2011.
- ^ Lake Elsinore, California. Codepublishing.com. Retrieved on October 18, 2011.
- ^ WILDOMAR: Council adopts limited E-Verify policy Archived August 30, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. Nctimes.com (August 11, 2010). Retrieved on October 18, 2011.
- ^ City of Lancaster : Business Licensing Archived January 7, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Cityoflancasterca.org. Retrieved on October 18, 2011.
- ^ City could use E-Verify for immigration status – Daily Pilot. Articles.dailypilot.com (August 14, 2010). Retrieved on October 18, 2011.
- ^ Tom Davidson. Santamariatimes.com (August 13, 2010). Retrieved on October 18, 2011.
- ^ "Council declares Costa Mesa a 'Rule of Law City'". The Orange County Register. Archived from the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved February 3, 2011.
- ^ "Calif. City Takes Stand Against Illegal Immigration as Ariz. Boycott Battle Rages". Fox News. May 20, 2010.
- ^ "L.A. Now". Los Angeles Times.
- ^ "Archived copy". www.colorado.gov. Archived from the original on August 5, 2012.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ "Suspend" (PDF). www.flgov.com. 2011. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- ^ "Sunshine (State) Surprise – Florida's New E-Verify Requirement". The National Law Review. Greenberg Traurig, LLP. January 10, 2011. Retrieved July 1, 2012.
- ^ "E-Verify on the fritz likely due to Florida going live on the RIDE Program". JD Supra.
- ^ Ceballos, Ana (June 30, 2020). "DeSantis (quietly) signs requirement for electronic verification of immigration status". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved July 14, 2020.
- ^ Caina Calvan, Bobby (July 1, 2020). "Without fanfare, Florida governor signs E-Verify legislation". Associated Press. Retrieved July 14, 2020.
- ^ "Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Strongest Anti-Illegal Immigration Legislation in the Country to Combat Biden's Border Crisis". Retrieved May 28, 2023.
- ^ "Sb529.HTML". Archived from the original on September 18, 2011. Retrieved September 29, 2011.
- ^ Pickel, Mary Lou (March 19, 2008). "Ga. employers use system to deter illegal workers". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
- ^ a b "Hb87.HTML". Archived from the original on April 26, 2012. Retrieved August 24, 2012.
- ^ Jon Feere, "An Overview of E-Verify Policies at the State Level," Center for Immigration Studies, July 2012. Available at: http://cis.org/e-verify-at-the-state-level; See also, http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/iteam/I-Team-Illegal-Workers-20120213-pm-pk
- ^ "Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter – The State of Idaho". idaho.gov. Archived from the original on September 10, 2012. Retrieved August 28, 2012.
- ^ "Idaho Joins E-Verify RIDE Program". alipac.us.
- ^ Marks, Alexandra (July 7, 2008). "With E-Verify, too many errors to expand its use?". Christian Science Monitor.
- ^ "Notice for Illinois Employers about E-Verify". United States Department of Homeland Security. October 6, 2008. Archived from the original on March 2, 2010.
- ^ "E-Verify again an eligibility verification option for Illinois employers". August 16, 2009. Archived from the original on July 8, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2009.
- ^ "New Illinois E-Verify Law Takes Effect on January 1, 2010: Special Illinois Procedures Required". Retrieved July 7, 2012.
- ^ "Enrolled Act, Senate Bill 0590". in.gov.
- ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on January 25, 2013. Retrieved August 28, 2012.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ "Louisiana Passes E-Verify Bills Covering State Contractors and Private Employers". Numbers USA. July 8, 2011.
- ^ Sasha Aslanian (August 19, 2011). "Budget deal brings E-Verify back, but with a twist". publicradio.org.
- ^ "File not found – Minnesota House of Representatives". state.mn.us. Archived from the original on August 30, 2012. Retrieved August 28, 2012.
- ^ "Mississippi Requires Use of E-Verify by Employers". Business & Legal Reports, Inc. March 25, 2008.
- ^ a b c d e "Mississippi Employment Protection Act (Senate Bill 2988)". Mississippi Senate. 2008.
- ^ "USCIS and Mississippi Implement New E-Verify Tool to Combat Fraud Fact Sheet". USCIS. Archived from the original on September 15, 2012. Retrieved August 24, 2012.
- ^ "USCIS and Mississippi Implement New E-Verify Tool to Combat Fraud". USCIS. Archived from the original on August 21, 2012. Retrieved August 24, 2012.
- ^ "Corel Office Document" (PDF). Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- ^ "LB403" (PDF). nebraskalegislature.gov. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- ^ "House bill" (PDF). www.ncleg.net. 2011. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- ^ "Phase-In Mandatory E-Verify Law Passes in North Carolina". The National Law Review. Jennifer G. Parser. July 11, 2011. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
- ^ "North Carolina to Join Ranks of States Requiring Employers to Enroll in E-Verify". The National Law Review. Poyner Spruill LLP. January 29, 2012. Retrieved April 7, 2012.
- ^ "Microsoft Word - 637D3054.RTF" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 14, 2012. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- ^ "Bill". www.legis.state.pa.us. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- ^ "New Law Mandates E-Verify for Public Construction Projects in Pennsylvania". The National Law Review. Greenberg Traurig, LLP. July 21, 2012. Retrieved July 22, 2012.
- ^ http://www.riaclu.org/documents/Carcieri_Executive_Order_immigration.pdf [permanent dead link]; "State of Rhode Island Division of Purchase – E-Verify Information". Archived from the original on January 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2009.
- ^ http://www.governor.ri.gov/documents/executiveorders/2011/Executive_Order_11-02.pdf Archived May 14, 2012, at the Wayback Machine; "Chafee says marriage equality, rescinding E-Verify important to economic growth". Archived from the original on January 10, 2011. Retrieved January 4, 2011.
- ^ "Chafee says only six states use E-Verify". @politifact.
- ^ "2007-2008 Bill 4400: Illegal aliens". South Carolina Legislature Online. January 9, 2008. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- ^ Jackson, Vince (January 25, 2009). "E-Verify system works, Pickens County officials say". Archived from the original on February 7, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2009.
- ^ South Carolina Immigration Law Faces Legal Challenge. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved on October 18, 2011.
- ^ Feller, Rachel (May 2009). "Preempting State E-Verify Regulations: A Case Study of Arizona's Improper Legislation in the Field of 'Immigration-Related Employment Practices'". Washington Law Review. 84 (2): 289–316. CORE output ID 267980047 Gale A226634338 ProQuest 213149142.
- ^ "Employment Verification". TN.gov. February 1, 2021. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- ^ "Employment Verification". tn.gov. State of Tennessee. Retrieved September 6, 2023.
- ^ "Office of the Governor Rick Perry – Executive Order RP 80- Relating to state agencies using the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify System". Retrieved March 27, 2023.
- ^ S.B. 251 Substitute Bill Documents – 2010 General Session. Le.utah.gov. Retrieved on October 18, 2011.
- ^ "Social Security Verification vs. E-Verify". Archived from the original on August 31, 2018. Retrieved August 31, 2018.
- ^ "Bill Tracking - 2010 session > Legislation". lis.virginia.gov.
- ^ "Virginia to advance date for E-Verify to 1 June". The Washington Times.
- ^ "§ 2.2-4308.2. Registration and use of federal employment eligibility verification program required; debarment". law.lis.virginia.gov.
- ^ "E-Verify Performances". E-Verify.gov. Retrieved May 19, 2023.
- ^ "Error Rates in E-Verify". August 14, 2018.
- ^ "E-Verify Performances". March 14, 2024.
- ^ "EVALUATION OF THE ACCURACY OF E-VERIFY FINDINGS" (PDF). www.uscis.gov. 2012. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- ^ "Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation" (PDF). Westat for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2012. Retrieved September 3, 2025.
- ^ Tatiana Sanchez (Jan 23, 2018) E-Verify doesn't prevent many companies from hiring undocumented workers, ChicagoTribune.com. Archived from the original on February 21, 2019. Retrieved May 10, 2018.
- ^ The Problem with E-Verify. Reason Magazine (February 12, 2013).
- ^ "I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification". uscis.gov. April 2, 2025.
- ^ E-Verify. American Farm Bureau Federation web site. Retrieved on December 2, 2021.
- ^ Harrigan, Fiona (May 9, 2023). "Thomas Massie says national E-Verify would be bad for American workers. He's right". Reason.com. Retrieved May 21, 2023.
- ^ Rose, Andy (August 27, 2025). "E-Verify was supposed to make it easy for companies to follow immigration law. Now even the feds say it can’t be trusted". CNN.
External links
[edit]- E-Verify Official Website
- DHS E-Verify web page
- EPIC Spotlight on Surveillance article Electronic Privacy Information Center. An article describing defects, problems, and dangers of the E-Verify system and its use.
- The Problem with E-Verify The American Civil Liberties Union explains the many pitfalls associated with E-Verify.
- How E-Verify Works and How it Benefits American Employers and Workers: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 27 February 2013
E-Verify
View on GrokipediaHistory
Origins as Basic Pilot Program
The Basic Pilot Program, the precursor to E-Verify, was established under Division C of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 30, 1996.[11] IIRIRA mandated the creation of three pilot programs to test enhancements to the employment eligibility verification process under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, with the Basic Pilot focusing on electronic confirmation of work authorization by cross-checking employee data against records from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).[3][12] Unlike the other pilots, which involved telephone verification or paper-based systems, the Basic Pilot emphasized internet-based access to federal databases for real-time checks, aiming to reduce paperwork while maintaining employer compliance with anti-discrimination laws.[2] Implementation began in November 1997, initially available on a voluntary basis to employers in five states: California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas.[3][12] The INS, in partnership with the SSA, managed the program's rollout, limiting participation to large employers initially to assess system reliability and accuracy rates, which early tests showed exceeding 90% for SSA matches but with higher discrepancies for INS data due to database limitations.[3] Participation remained optional and geographically restricted, with no federal mandate for adoption, reflecting congressional intent to evaluate feasibility before broader expansion.[2] By design, the pilot was temporary, scheduled for sunset after four years unless extended, to allow for empirical review of its effectiveness in curbing unauthorized employment without imposing undue burdens on businesses.[13]Expansion to Nationwide E-Verify
Efforts to expand E-Verify to a nationwide mandate have persisted since the program's inception as the voluntary Basic Pilot in 1996, driven primarily by concerns over unauthorized employment and immigration enforcement.[3] Proponents, including members of Congress and enforcement advocates, argue that mandatory use would deter illegal immigration by ensuring employers verify all new hires' eligibility, with proposals often tied to broader immigration reform packages.[12] However, these initiatives have repeatedly stalled due to opposition from business groups citing implementation costs, potential disruptions to hiring, and system error rates affecting U.S. citizens.[14] The first significant federal push for nationwide E-Verify came in 2006 as part of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S. 2611), which proposed phasing in mandatory participation for all employers but failed to pass amid partisan disputes.[12] Subsequent attempts included the 2007 STRIVE Act (H.R. 1645), which aimed to mandate E-Verify for larger employers initially, expanding over time, but it did not advance beyond committee.[15] In 2013, the House passed the Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 1772), a bipartisan measure to require E-Verify for all hires and prohibit states from issuing driver's licenses to unauthorized workers, yet it lacked Senate support and expired.[16] During the Trump administration, executive actions in 2017 and 2019 encouraged voluntary adoption and targeted federal contractors, but stopped short of a full mandate due to legal and congressional hurdles.[17] Recent proposals include the Mandatory E-Verify Act of 2024 (S. 4529), introduced to permanently establish and require E-Verify use by all employers, and the Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act (S. 1151) in 2025, focusing on employer accountability for verification failures.[18] [19] As of October 2025, no federal law mandates nationwide E-Verify, leaving it voluntary except for federal contractors and certain state requirements, with ongoing state-level expansions in over a dozen jurisdictions signaling incremental pressure for uniformity.[20] [21] Critics, including immigrant advocacy groups, highlight E-Verify's error rates—estimated at 0.7% to 1.1% for tentative nonconfirmations, disproportionately affecting naturalized citizens and those with name discrepancies—and argue that mandates could exacerbate labor shortages without addressing root causes like visa backlogs.[22] [14] Proponents counter with evidence from mandatory states like Arizona, where post-2007 implementation correlated with reduced unauthorized workforce shares from 8% to about 5% by 2010, per Census data analyses, suggesting causal efficacy in curbing job magnet effects despite implementation challenges.[12] Federal cost estimates for full rollout, as analyzed in 2016, projected $100-200 million annually for USCIS operations, offset potentially by reduced unauthorized employment costs exceeding $10 billion yearly in lost taxes and services.[17] Despite these debates, legislative inertia persists, with 2025 bills facing uncertain prospects amid divided Congress and economic recovery priorities.[20]Modernization Efforts and Technological Upgrades
In April 2018, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) launched a comprehensive modernization of the E-Verify system, transitioning to a new database architecture that enhanced data integrity, compliance monitoring, and overall system performance.[23] This upgrade addressed longstanding limitations in the original infrastructure by improving user interface responsiveness, reducing processing errors through automated validation checks, and accelerating case resolution times, with initial reports indicating faster query handling against Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security databases.[24] Subsequent enhancements in June 2018 further refined the modernized platform, incorporating user feedback to streamline case creation workflows and minimize manual data entry discrepancies, which had previously contributed to tentative nonconfirmations in up to 1-2% of cases due to input errors.[25] By November 2018, additional features like expanded photo-matching capabilities were integrated for select employers, allowing biometric verification against DHS records to combat identity fraud, though full rollout was phased to ensure system stability.[26] Technological upgrades continued into the 2020s, with 2024 introducing E-Verify+ as a pilot program designed for hybrid work environments, enabling digital Form I-9 submissions, remote document verification via secure portals, and enhanced fraud detection algorithms that flag inconsistencies in real-time using machine learning-based pattern recognition.[27] These changes aimed to reduce paperwork burdens—estimated at millions of manual I-9 forms annually—while improving accuracy to below 0.5% false positives in eligibility checks, as validated in pilot testing across participating employers.[28] In 2025, updates to citizenship status selections and knowledge tests aligned the system with revised statutory definitions, further bolstering compliance amid evolving immigration policies.[29]Operations
Verification Process and User Requirements
The E-Verify verification process commences after an employer has completed Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, for a newly hired employee. Employers enrolled in the system must create a case within three business days of the employee's hire date by entering specific information from Section 1 of Form I-9 into the E-Verify online portal, including the employee's name, date of birth, Social Security number (if provided), citizenship status, and document details from Section 2.[30][31] The system then electronically compares this data against records maintained by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for Social Security number validation and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for immigration status confirmation.[32][33] Upon submission, E-Verify generates one of several possible results: employment authorized, indicating a match and eligibility confirmation; tentative nonconfirmation (TNC), signaling a mismatch requiring employee resolution; case in continuance, for situations like insufficient DHS records; or final nonconfirmation after unresolved TNC, leading to ineligibility determination. A common cause of DHS tentative nonconfirmations (mismatches) for U.S. citizens using passports is name formatting differences. The Form I-9 includes separate fields for first name, middle initial, and last name, while U.S. passports combine first and middle names in a single "Given Names" field. Entering a middle initial (e.g., "J" for "Joe") on the I-9 can fail to match the combined format in DHS/passport records, leading to a mismatch. This is often resolved by the employer correcting the I-9 data or the employee contesting and providing passport documentation via myE-Verify or DHS support. A Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) occurs when E-Verify cannot confirm the employee's employment eligibility after: the employee contacts DHS or visits an SSA field office during the mismatch referral process but records still do not match; the employee fails to contact DHS and/or visit SSA within 8 federal government working days after contesting the TNC; or the employee does not inform the employer of their decision to contest by the end of the 10th federal government working day after the TNC issuance. For TNCs, employers must notify the employee in writing on the same day of receipt using the Further Action Notice, provide referral information, and allow the employee up to 10 federal government working days to decide whether to contest. If contested, the employee has 8 federal government working days to contact the appropriate agency (SSA and/or DHS) to resolve the mismatch. Employers may not take adverse actions against the employee during the TNC process until it results in a Final Nonconfirmation. Upon receiving a Final Nonconfirmation, employers must close the case in E-Verify. The employer may terminate employment based on the FNC with no civil or criminal liability as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Article II, Section A, paragraph 13. If the employer chooses to continue employment, they must notify DHS via case closure and are subject to a rebuttable presumption of knowingly employing an unauthorized worker, potentially leading to penalties. Employees receiving an FNC must be provided a copy of the Final Nonconfirmation Notice. If believing the FNC was issued in error, they can contact the E-Verify Employee Hotline at 888-897-7781 (TTY: 877-875-6028) or email [email protected] for further review or to correct records. In some cases, review can update to Employment Authorized. Employees also have rights to report employer misuse or discrimination to the hotline or the Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel. Additional features include photo matching for DHS-issued documents, where employers compare the employee's photo tool image against the physical document to detect potential fraud.[30] E-Verify participation requires mandatory enrollment for designated federal contractors or employers in states with mandates, but is voluntary otherwise, with users agreeing to electronic terms outlining responsibilities such as prohibiting pre-employment screening, ensuring timely verifications, and maintaining recordkeeping for at least three years post-hire or one year post-termination, whichever is longer.[34][31] Enrollment involves submitting company details including legal name, Employer Identification Number (EIN), physical and mailing addresses, hiring site locations, employee count, and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, followed by designation of a corporate signatory and program administrator.[35][36] Designated users, such as program administrators and general users, must complete mandatory online tutorial and tutorial evaluation before accessing the system to create or manage cases.[37] Employers are prohibited from using E-Verify to verify existing employees unless required by law, and must handle all cases impartially regardless of perceived citizenship status.[31] Technical prerequisites for users include compatible web browsers (e.g., recent versions of Chrome, Firefox, or Edge), internet access, and adherence to data security protocols, as the system operates solely online without offline capabilities.[34] E-Verify employer agents, who verify on behalf of multiple clients, must enroll separately and maintain distinct responsibilities for each client while following the same process and rules.[38] Noncompliance with these requirements can result in program suspension or termination by DHS.[39]Eligibility for Foreign Employers
E-Verify is primarily available to employers located in the United States. According to USCIS, only companies located in the United States are allowed to enroll in E-Verify. Foreign companies generally cannot enroll directly unless they establish a U.S. presence, such as through a subsidiary, branch office, or U.S.-based agent (e.g., a prime contractor acting for subcontractors). This restriction aligns with the program's purpose of verifying employment eligibility for work in the United States under federal immigration law.[40]Data Sources and Accuracy Mechanisms
E-Verify primarily draws data from two federal databases: the Social Security Administration (SSA) database, which verifies Social Security numbers (SSNs), names, and dates of birth; and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) records, including those maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which confirm immigration status and work authorization for non-citizens.[30][32] When an employer submits Form I-9 data via E-Verify, the system first queries SSA records to match the employee's SSN, name, and birth date against SSA's Numident file; a mismatch triggers a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC), prompting the employee to resolve the issue with SSA.[41] For citizenship or immigration status, the query accesses DHS databases to validate documents like Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) or visas against issuance records.[33] Accuracy mechanisms include automated cross-referencing with real-time federal records, which typically yields results in 3-5 seconds, and secondary tools like the DHS photo matching tool introduced in 2010 to visually compare employee photos against DHS-held images for certain non-citizen cases, reducing reliance on document numbers alone.[42] TNCs allow employees to contest mismatches by visiting SSA or DHS field offices or using self-resolution options like myE-Verify's Self Check portal, where individuals can pre-verify their records to preempt employer queries.[43] System-wide, USCIS has implemented data quality filters, such as flagging common name variations (e.g., due to cultural naming conventions or clerical errors in SSA records), and ongoing database synchronization between SSA and DHS to minimize discrepancies from outdated or inconsistent entries.[44] Despite these features, accuracy has historically been challenged by data entry errors, identity mismatches from name inconsistencies (e.g., hyphenated or foreign names not standardized in SSA files), and vulnerabilities to fraud like SSN misuse, with a 2012 USCIS evaluation identifying persistent false negatives where unauthorized workers were erroneously confirmed.[44] Error rates have declined significantly, from approximately 1.9% in 2006 to under 0.2% by 2019, driven by algorithmic refinements and expanded photo verification, though a 2021 DHS Office of Inspector General audit highlighted ongoing issues in manual photo reviews and EAD validation, leading to incorrect final nonconfirmations in some cases.[45][46] A 2010 GAO report noted that while E-Verify's confirmation accuracy for authorized workers reached 99.3%, it still authorized about 54% of unauthorized cases tested in pilots, underscoring limitations in detecting sophisticated identity theft without biometric enhancements.[47] Recent modernizations, including 2024 updates to query interfaces and error-handling prompts, aim to further reduce user-induced inaccuracies, but federal assessments indicate that full reliability requires addressing upstream data quality in source agencies.[48]System Availability and Technical Challenges
E-Verify is designed for continuous online access, enabling employers to submit verification cases at any time without geographic restrictions, provided they have internet connectivity and proper enrollment. However, the system has experienced periodic unavailability, most notably during the federal government shutdown from October 1 to October 9, 2025, when operations ceased due to lapsed appropriations and statutory authority, preventing case creation, management of tentative nonconfirmations, and other functions. Upon resumption on October 9, 2025, USCIS reported some lingering system issues, including processing delays, though core functionality was restored.[49] Technical challenges have included partial outages affecting case creation, such as those reported on October 20, 2025, which resulted in system timeouts and extended processing times for users.[50] Similar disruptions occurred earlier in March 2025, involving technical failures in verifying cases with specific documents like Form I-551 or I-766, impacting submissions from March 23 to 26.[51] These incidents highlight vulnerabilities tied to system infrastructure, high-volume usage, and dependencies on external databases like Social Security Administration records, which can amplify delays during peak periods or integration failures.[42] No public metrics on overall uptime or reliability benchmarks are routinely disclosed by USCIS, though outage periods do not count against employer compliance timelines for case submissions.[52] Employers have reported challenges with real-time access during these events, necessitating manual workarounds like documenting downtime reasons in the system upon restoration, as E-Verify requires cases within three business days of hire but excuses delays attributable to unavailability.[53] Funding dependencies exacerbate risks, as seen in the 2025 shutdown, where even partial appropriations failed to sustain full operations initially.[54] Modernization efforts aim to address scalability, but persistent issues underscore the system's susceptibility to governmental and technical interruptions rather than inherent design flaws alone.[27]Legal Mandates
Federal Requirements for Employers
Participation in E-Verify is voluntary for most private employers under federal law, with no nationwide mandate requiring its use for verifying employment eligibility.[1] Mandatory participation applies to all executive branch federal agencies, which must enroll and use the system to confirm the work authorization of every newly hired employee.[1] Federal contractors and their covered subcontractors face compulsory requirements when awarded contracts containing the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause at 52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification, implemented pursuant to Executive Order 12989 (as amended by Executive Order 13465 in 2008).[55] [56] This clause obligates contractors to employ E-Verify for all individuals assigned to perform work under the contract, encompassing both new hires and existing employees directly performing substantial duties or indirectly performing duties with access to federal government information or resources.[57] [55] Enrolled federal contractors must initiate E-Verify cases no later than the third federal working day after completing the employee's Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and adhere to all program rules outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), including prohibitions on pre-employment screening or selective verification that could imply discrimination.[57] For existing employees assigned to covered contracts, verification must occur promptly following contract award, with enrollment in E-Verify required within 30 calendar days if not previously enrolled.[57] Exemptions apply to certain employees, such as those holding active U.S. government security clearances (confidential, secret, or top secret) obtained after a federal background investigation for a covered position, or individuals hired before November 6, 2009, who have been continuously employed and verified via other means.[57] [58] Failure to comply with these federal mandates can trigger contract-specific remedies, such as termination, withholding of payments, or corrective action plans, and may lead to broader consequences including suspension, debarment from future federal contracting, or referral to the Department of Homeland Security for further enforcement.[55] [58] Federal agencies oversee compliance through contract audits and reporting, though a 2023 Government Accountability Office report noted gaps in systematic monitoring of contractor adherence.[59]State-Level Adoption and Enforcement Variations
As of 2025, E-Verify remains voluntary at the federal level for most private employers, but 23 states mandate its use for specific categories of employers, ranging from all private sector entities to public contractors only.[5] Nine states require E-Verify for all employers, including private ones: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah.[60] Eleven states limit mandates to most public employers or contractors, such as Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.[61] The remaining states either encourage voluntary participation or impose no requirements, leading to uneven national coverage.[62] Enforcement mechanisms vary significantly by state, with penalties designed to deter non-compliance but differing in severity and application. In states with broad mandates like Alabama, non-compliant employers face business license suspension for up to 60 days on first offense, escalating to permanent revocation for repeat violations.[63] Georgia imposes civil fines up to $1,000 per violation for failing to verify, plus potential misdemeanor charges.[64] Arizona enforces through random audits and requires attestation of compliance, with penalties including fines up to $10,000 and criminal sanctions for knowing hires of unauthorized workers.[61] Some states enhance enforcement through public disclosure or contract restrictions. For instance, Florida mandates E-Verify for state contractors and publicizes lists of non-compliant employers, barring them from future bids.[65] Tennessee applies similar restrictions, prohibiting non-compliant firms from state contracts while imposing daily fines up to $500 for failure to provide compliance evidence within 45 days of a request.[66] In contrast, states with limited mandates, like those requiring only public sector use, often rely on self-certification with lighter penalties, such as administrative fees in Idaho or Indiana, reflecting less aggressive oversight of private employment.[67] These variations result in disparate compliance rates, with comprehensive mandates correlating to higher adoption but also increased administrative burdens on employers.[20]| Category | States | Key Enforcement Features |
|---|---|---|
| All Employers | Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah | License suspensions, fines up to $10,000, audits, criminal penalties[68] |
| Public/Contractors Only | Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia | Contract bans, public lists, fines $500–$1,000, self-attestation[61] |
| Voluntary/No Mandate | Remaining 27 states | No state penalties; federal guidelines apply minimally[5] |
Florida
Florida has implemented mandatory E-Verify usage through Florida Statutes §448.095. For public agency contracting (effective January 1, 2021):- Public agencies must require contractors and subcontractors to register with and use E-Verify to verify the work authorization status of all new employees.
- Contracts may not be entered unless parties use E-Verify.
- If a contractor hires a subcontractor, the subcontractor must provide an affidavit to the contractor affirming that it does not employ, contract with, or subcontract with unauthorized aliens. The contractor must retain this affidavit for the contract duration.
- Private employers with 25 or more employees must register with and use E-Verify for all newly hired employees.
- Non-compliance can result in fines, and the state maintains enforcement mechanisms including potential debarment for public contractors.
Ohio
The E-Verify Workforce Integrity Act, also known as Ohio House Bill 246 (HB 246), is a 2025 Ohio law requiring certain construction employers to use the federal E-Verify system to verify employees' legal authorization to work in the United States. Signed by Governor Mike DeWine on December 19, 2025, and effective March 19, 2026 (with some sources noting March 20), the Act mandates participation for contractors, subcontractors, and labor brokers on nonresidential construction projects. Nonresidential construction includes the construction or renovation of any building, highway, bridge, utility, or related infrastructure. The law explicitly exempts residential construction, including single-family homes, multi-family residential buildings, manufactured homes, mobile homes, industrialized units, and agricultural structures. Employers must enroll in E-Verify, create cases for new hires (and potentially for reverification under federal rules), retain records for three years from hire or one year post-termination (whichever later), and terminate employees receiving final nonconfirmation. Violations, such as knowingly employing unauthorized workers, can result in penalties including permanent revocation of business licenses. The Act supplements but does not replace federal Form I-9 requirements, which apply to all employers. Prior to this law, Ohio did not mandate E-Verify except where required by federal law or specific contracts. For residential home improvement or repair work at private homes, no state-mandated work authorization verification forms (beyond federal I-9 for the contractor's employees) are required of contractors or homeowners. For official text, see Ohio HB 246. Additional details: WTOL, JD Supra.[69][70][71]Effectiveness and Empirical Impact
Reduction in Unauthorized Employment
Mandatory implementation of E-Verify has demonstrated reductions in unauthorized employment, particularly in states with universal requirements for all employers. In Arizona, the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act mandated E-Verify use starting in 2008, leading to an estimated 11 percentage point drop in employment rates among likely unauthorized men by 2009, according to analysis of Current Population Survey data by economists Sarah Bohn and Magnus Lofstrom. This effect was concentrated among less-skilled workers, with the unauthorized immigrant population declining by approximately 14% overall, or about 58,000 individuals, between 2007 and 2009, partly due to reduced job opportunities shifting some into informal self-employment. Similar patterns emerged in other mandatory states. A 2012 study in the American Economic Review examined E-Verify mandates in Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina, finding that universal mandates curtailed the employment probability of likely unauthorized immigrants by 4-8 percentage points for men and 1-2 points for women, based on regression discontinuity designs using American Community Survey data from 2000-2011. The Dallas Federal Reserve's analysis corroborated this, showing E-Verify mandates reduced average hourly earnings for likely unauthorized Mexican male immigrants while increasing labor force attachment in some sectors, indicating displacement rather than full deterrence but overall net reduction in formal unauthorized hiring.[72] Department of Homeland Security evaluations affirm the program's role in curbing unauthorized work when participation is compulsory, noting in a 2010 assessment that E-Verify identifies mismatches for about 0.7-1% of queries, prompting nonconfirmation for unauthorized cases and thereby diminishing incentives for illegal labor market entry. However, voluntary federal participation limits broader impact, with mandatory state laws showing stronger causal links to employment declines via workplace enforcement, as evidenced by a 2016 IZA Journal study linking E-Verify adoption to fewer less-educated Mexican and Central American immigrants in the prime-age workforce. These findings, drawn from peer-reviewed econometric models, underscore that enforcement intensity drives reductions, though evasion via identity fraud persists in roughly 50% of detected unauthorized cases per DHS data.[73][6]Broader Economic and Demographic Effects
Implementation of E-Verify mandates has been associated with reduced employment rates among likely unauthorized immigrants, with studies estimating declines of 3 to 5 percentage points in employment probabilities in states adopting universal requirements.[72] [74] This effect is particularly pronounced for less-educated male immigrants from Mexico and Central America, where mandates correlate with an 8 percent drop in hourly earnings.[75] Such reductions stem from heightened barriers to formal employment, prompting shifts toward informal work or out-migration, though evidence indicates mixed impacts on overall labor force participation rates.[76] For native-born workers, particularly low-skilled non-Hispanic men, E-Verify adoption links to modest employment gains, approximately 2 percentage points higher in mandating states, potentially due to diminished competition from unauthorized labor in entry-level sectors.[77] Wage effects remain inconsistent across studies; while some observe no broad elevation for natives, sector-specific analyses suggest upward pressure on low-wage jobs by curbing unauthorized supply, as evidenced in construction and service industries post-mandate.[78] However, agriculture faces exacerbated labor shortages, with mandates correlating to persistent unfilled positions and higher reliance on seasonal exemptions, underscoring uneven sectoral disruptions.[79] [80] Demographically, E-Verify laws deter unauthorized inflows, reducing the prime-age immigrant population from high-sending regions by targeting employment access, with effects intensifying one year post-implementation in states like Arizona and Georgia.[6] [81] This leads to slower growth in unauthorized resident shares, estimated at 1-2 percent annual declines in affected areas, altering local workforce compositions toward higher proportions of authorized workers.[78] Broader causal chains include reduced family migration chains, as primary earners face verification hurdles, though long-term demographic shifts depend on enforcement stringency and complementary border policies.[77] Empirical evaluations, including those from the Department of Homeland Security, confirm these patterns dilute unauthorized labor pools without proportionally increasing overall unemployment among citizens.[73]Benefits
Enhancements to Workforce Integrity
E-Verify enhances workforce integrity by enabling employers to electronically confirm the employment eligibility of new hires against federal records, thereby reducing the incidence of unauthorized workers in the labor force and promoting a legally compliant employment environment.[82] The system cross-checks employee-provided information with data from the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, flagging discrepancies that require resolution, which discourages the hiring of individuals lacking proper authorization. This verification process supports the foundational principle that employment opportunities should be reserved for those legally entitled to work, minimizing distortions in labor markets caused by ineligible participation.[45] Empirical evidence from states implementing mandatory E-Verify demonstrates substantial reductions in unauthorized employment. A 2016 study analyzing U.S. Census data from 1990 to 2011 found that universal E-Verify mandates decrease the population of likely unauthorized immigrants—defined as less-educated, prime-age non-citizens from Mexico and Central America—by approximately 40% among recent arrivals (1-5 years in the U.S.) and over 50% among new arrivals (within the last year).[6] In Arizona, following the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act that mandated E-Verify effective January 1, 2008, the unauthorized immigrant workforce declined sharply, with an exodus of foreign-born workers in low-skill sectors, as evidenced by American Community Survey data showing reduced presence of such individuals post-mandate.[7] These effects are attributed to diminished job access, which lowers the economic pull of unauthorized migration and encourages diversion to non-mandating states or repatriation.[6] By curbing unauthorized employment, E-Verify bolsters integrity for legal workers, including citizens and authorized immigrants, by alleviating downward pressure on wages and job availability in competitive sectors. Research indicates that E-Verify mandates reduce hourly earnings among likely unauthorized Mexican male immigrants by about 8%, signaling constrained labor market participation rather than outright exclusion in all cases, yet overall contributing to a more orderly allocation of employment opportunities.[75] This aligns with the system's statutory purpose under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to deter unlawful work, fostering a workforce where eligibility is verifiable and fraud in identity documents is less viable due to database cross-referencing. Nationwide adoption could amplify these integrity gains, as partial implementation allows spillover effects to adjacent states without mandates.[6]Deterrence of Illegal Immigration and Fraud Prevention
E-Verify contributes to deterring illegal immigration by confirming employment eligibility and denying work authorization to unauthorized individuals, thereby reducing the economic incentives for unlawful entry and settlement. Empirical analyses indicate that mandatory E-Verify laws decrease the population of likely unauthorized immigrants, particularly recent arrivals from Mexico and Central America. For instance, states with universal E-Verify mandates experience nearly a 40% reduction in less-educated, prime-age non-U.S. citizen immigrants who arrived 1-5 years prior, and over a 50% drop in new arrivals within the last year.[6] In Arizona following its 2007 mandate, surveys of potential migrants at the Mexico border showed a decline in planned entries, with some unauthorized immigrants opting to leave the United States rather than relocate domestically.[6] Nationwide, E-Verify denied employment authorization to 849,914 unauthorized aliens between 2021 and 2024, including 241,983 in fiscal year 2024 alone, limiting job opportunities that sustain illegal presence.[83] The system's effectiveness in fraud prevention stems from cross-checking employee data against Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records, which identifies mismatches indicative of counterfeit documents or stolen identities. E-Verify detects 98% of employment-related identity theft cases, enabling employers to avoid hiring individuals using fraudulent credentials.[84] Since 2007, photo-matching functionality has compared images from DHS documents like Employment Authorization Documents against USCIS databases, further thwarting evasion attempts via borrowed or fabricated identities.[83] A 2013 enhancement allows locking of Social Security numbers flagged for fraudulent use, reducing repeat attempts.[83] These mechanisms address the prevalence of identity theft among unauthorized workers, where up to 70% may rely on such tactics to secure jobs, thereby preserving the integrity of the employment verification process.[83]Criticisms and Limitations
Error Rates and False Positives
E-Verify's overall accuracy rate exceeds 99 percent for confirming work-authorized individuals, with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) data indicating that erroneous tentative non-confirmations (TNCs)—which represent false positives for eligible workers—affect approximately 0.13 percent of all queries in fiscal year 2022, totaling around 54,000 cases out of 42.5 million submissions.[85] These errors primarily stem from discrepancies in Social Security Administration (SSA) or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) databases, such as clerical mismatches in names, birth dates, or Social Security numbers, rather than flaws in the E-Verify system itself.[86] For U.S. citizens, who comprise the majority of verifications (about 92 percent in recent years), SSA-related issues account for most false positives, often resolvable through simple corrections like updating records for name changes post-marriage.[45] False positive rates have declined over time due to system improvements and database enhancements; for instance, a 2017 analysis found 0.15 percent of searches (52,280 cases) resulted in erroneous TNCs, representing 13.6 percent of all TNCs issued that year, but subsequent USCIS updates reduced this further.[87] In the most recent 12-month period available as of 2025, over 98 percent of queries received immediate confirmations of eligibility, with the remainder involving TNCs that workers resolve by contacting SSA or DHS within eight federal workdays.[88] Authorized non-citizens experience even lower error rates, often below 0.1 percent, as their immigration records are more precisely cross-checked against DHS systems.[84] While some advocacy groups, such as the American Immigration Council, have cited older evaluations showing initial inaccuracy rates up to 4.1 percent in preliminary responses (from pre-2010 data), these figures overstate persistent errors, as over 90 percent of TNCs ultimately confirm eligibility upon resolution, and modern audits validate the program's robustness.[89] Independent assessments, including those by the Bipartisan Policy Center, attribute remaining false positives to upstream data quality issues in federal records rather than E-Verify's matching algorithms, recommending continued investment in SSA data accuracy to minimize disruptions for legitimate workers.[86] Employers report that these errors rarely lead to wrongful terminations when proper procedures are followed, though they can impose short-term administrative burdens.[90]Privacy Concerns and Potential for Discrimination
E-Verify requires employers to submit personally identifiable information (PII) from employees, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and immigration status details, to federal databases for verification against records from the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security.[91] This centralized collection of data raises privacy risks, as unauthorized access or breaches could lead to identity theft or misuse, despite implemented technical, operational, and physical security controls such as encryption, access restrictions, and regular audits.[92] [93] The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) maintains a Privacy Impact Assessment acknowledging these vulnerabilities, emphasizing accountability through user tracking but noting that failure to safeguard data can cause harm to individuals.[91] [94] No large-scale data breaches have been publicly reported as of 2025, but critics argue the system's scale amplifies inherent risks in government-held PII repositories.[95] Federal regulations prohibit employers from using E-Verify to discriminate based on citizenship status, national origin, or other protected characteristics, with the Department of Justice's Immigrant and Employee Rights Section actively investigating misuse, such as selective verification of non-citizens or pre-screening applicants.[96] [97] Potential for disparate impact arises from tentative nonconfirmation rates, which empirical evaluations indicate can be higher for foreign-born workers due to name mismatches, data entry errors, or discrepancies in records, though overall accuracy exceeds 99% for authorized workers.[44] [98] Studies in states with mandates, such as Arizona, show no significant increase in perceived employment discrimination among naturalized Hispanic citizens and even reduced perceptions among naturalized Mexicans, suggesting the system may alleviate biases by standardizing checks rather than exacerbating them.[99] However, isolated cases of wrongful terminations from false positives have prompted calls for better employee referral processes to resolve mismatches without undue burden.[100]- Key Protections Against Misuse: Employers must notify workers of tentative nonconfirmations and allow time for resolution; violations can result in fines up to $2,500 per instance under anti-discrimination laws.[96]
- Empirical Counterpoints: Program evaluations find E-Verify enables employers to hire legal immigrants more confidently, potentially reducing informal discrimination against accent or appearance-based suspicions.[84]