Advertisement

May 23, 2013

Calls for Mandatory E-Verify Intensify with Two New Bills Introduced in Congress

As legislators continue to debate the outline of an expected compromise on comprehensive immigration reform, efforts to make E-Verify mandatory for employers across the nation recently led to the introduction of two new bills in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Introduced on February 4, 2013, and sponsored by Congressman Phil Gingrey (Republican – Georgia), House Representative Bill 478 seeks to amend the Illegal Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act enacted in 1996 by making the E-Verify program “permanent and mandatory.” A few days earlier, Senator Charles Grassley (Republican – Iowa) and ten colleagues sponsored Senate Bill 202 to “expand the use of E-Verify, to hold employers accountable, and for other purposes.” In introducing the measure, Senator Grassley asserted the urgency of mandatory worksite enforcement, stating: “My legislation would increase penalties on employers who continue to hire people unauthorized to work in the country. Employers would be required to check the status of current employees within 3 years, and would allow employers to run a check prior to offering a job, saving that employer valuable time and resources. Employers will also be required to re-check those workers whose authorization is about to expire, such as those who come to the United States on temporary visas. While everyone may not agree with every aspect of this bill, it serves as a starting point for a much-needed conversation about worksite enforcement. The President and many members in Congress are going to make it a priority to pass an immigration reform bill this year. We need to act. We need change. We need a better system in place for future generations.”

Critics of E-Verify point to the program’s approximate 1.5 percent error rate in verifying employment eligibility, which may affect as many as 1.5 million people. Although the final resolution of immigration reform remains to be seen, an expanded role for E-Verify, currently mandatory in the federal government and in certain states and localities only, appears to be inevitable.

©2013 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Nataliya Binshteyn focuses her practice on global business immigration matters. Her experience includes representing political asylum applicants in immigration proceedings before Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges. Nataliya has experience conducting client interviews, researching country conditions and applicable laws, and soliciting expert testimony as well as drafting affidavits and immigration documents for filing with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

703-903-7583

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.