Mandating e

19-Feb-2018 18:32

While the number of undocumented workers fell dramatically in the years following the mandate, the number of opportunities that were made available for legal residents didn't materialize at nearly the same rate, said researchers Magnus Lofstrom and Sarah Bohn, who conducted the study for the San Francisco-based think tank.

Lofstrum and Bohn examined E-Verify's impact on Arizona's workforce between 20 and found that the state's undocumented population declined by about 92,000 people, or about 17%, as workers left the state to look for jobs.

Arizona, long considered ground zero in the fight against undocumented immigration, was the first state to mandate that all employers use E-Verify beginning in 2008.

Several other states have started requiring the use of the verification system in some manner since then, including Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina.

Decreasing their economic well-being will have depressive effects that ripple through the state’s entire economy. Mandatory E-Verify proposals often protect employers at the expense of immigrant employees.

Some bills provide significant safe harbors for employer conduct but heap penalties – even criminal ones – onto unauthorized workers for merely asking for work.

Up-front technological and training costs put a strain on companies at a particularly difficult economic moment. On the back end, the penalties for businesses that are found to have improperly used (and abused) the system can be severe.

Lofstrum and Bohn also found that the mandatory use of E-Verify did very little to improve employment opportunities for the workers who were authorized to work in the state.

In fact, the employment rate for low-skilled working-age men authorized to work in Arizona was estimated to have fallen from about 70% to 66% between 20, according to the researchers' analysis of the U. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Population Survey.

Here are some examples, raised with Congress in 2013 by the National Immigration Law Center: “A U. citizen born in Florida was hired for a good-paying telecommunications position in October 2010. The worker went to her local SSA office twice to try and resolve the situation, but despite SSA telling her that her information had been updated, the employer told her that she was still not confirmed.

After hire, she was run through E-Verify and received a TNC. She ultimately received an FNC [Final Non-Confirmation] and was fired.

Up-front technological and training costs put a strain on companies at a particularly difficult economic moment. On the back end, the penalties for businesses that are found to have improperly used (and abused) the system can be severe.Lofstrum and Bohn also found that the mandatory use of E-Verify did very little to improve employment opportunities for the workers who were authorized to work in the state.In fact, the employment rate for low-skilled working-age men authorized to work in Arizona was estimated to have fallen from about 70% to 66% between 20, according to the researchers' analysis of the U. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Population Survey.Here are some examples, raised with Congress in 2013 by the National Immigration Law Center: “A U. citizen born in Florida was hired for a good-paying telecommunications position in October 2010. The worker went to her local SSA office twice to try and resolve the situation, but despite SSA telling her that her information had been updated, the employer told her that she was still not confirmed.After hire, she was run through E-Verify and received a TNC. She ultimately received an FNC [Final Non-Confirmation] and was fired.After her termination, she has gone to great lengths to try and correct this error, but has been unable to do so….” “A U. citizen applied for a position with a temporary agency in California, only to be turned away because E-Verify was unable to confirm her work authorization.