Four Republican House members are sponsoring a budget amendment that, in an effort to deter illegal immigration, imposes significant new burdens on Massachusetts businesses. The amendment requires all Massachusetts employers to use E-Verify, a computer system run by the Department of Homeland Security and intended to determine instantaneously whether employees are authorized to work in the U.S. Participating in the E-Verify system has always been voluntary for private employers and Congress has declined on several occasions to make it mandatory.
But in 2007, Arizona (where else?) passed an anti-immigration law that requires all employers to participate in E-Verify. It’s not clear, as a matter of federal law, that a state has the power to regulate immigration in this way. The issue is currently before the Supreme Court in a case challenging the Arizona law.
Business hates the Arizona law, so much so that the party challenging it is none other than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Other business groups have filed amicus briefs detailing the oppressive burdens with which E-Verify would saddle them.
First, there’s the issue of E-Verify’s inaccuracy. More than half of the workers reported by E-Verify as authorized to work are in fact not authorized. And errors occur in the other direction as well — citizens as well as immigrants who are authorized to work receive E-Verify reports to the contrary, requiring them and their employers to devote time and effort to cleaning up these mistakes.
And, the amicus brief continues,
Even when it operates without flaws, E-Verify exacts a financial toll on businesses, who must acquire, set up, and maintain computer systems, and train personnel in the program…Those burdens are particularly pronounced for small businesses, who may lack the means to adequately staff and maintain the program, and who may find themselves at risk of noncompliance and incurring the resulting substantial penalties.
There are over 141,961 small businesses in Massachusetts; these businesses employ nearly half of the state’s employees. And no business trade association — especially the National Federation of Independent Businesses — is reticent about combating government regulations. Imagine the reaction of business to any other proposal that would, like E-Verify, add to their workload, interfere with their business decisions and detract from their bottom line. And imagine the delight with which the Republicans would excoriate such a proposal.
But because it’s about immigration, this situation is a little awkward. For one thing, all the sponsors of the E-Verify amendment were endorsed for election in 2010 by the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
Maybe the amendment sponsors will conclude that it is more important not to burden business than it is to score points on immigration. Maybe the business groups will come out to oppose this amendment like they would any other effort at governmental regulation. So far, however, radio silence.
But that said, it’s a good idea. E-Verify is no more onerous than having to scrounge up a raised seal birth certificate for a new hire and a photo ID for non-drivers. It also has the advantage of making all employers comply with the same standard, instead of choosing one from Column A and two from column B on the current ‘dinner buffet list’ of ID options.
that new costs and time commitments and a 50 percent error rate in the program are not disincentives are free to join E-Verify any time they want to.
<
p>Also, the E-Verify program would not REPLACE the ‘dinner buffet list’ process you describe, it would be in ADDITION to it.
<
p>And employers who do business in more than one state would have to comply with differing requirements (and differing penalties for non-compliance) in each state, depending on whether the state has mandated E-Verify.
<
p>Other than that, what’s not to like?
<
p>