Quantcast

Comments about ‘Debating the costs of E-Verify’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Nov. 12 2013 11:50 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
techpubs
Sioux City, IA

Consider it this way.
1% error rate is great results when compared to the fact that the PPACA is forcing 5% of the people off of their individual health insurance policies. In fact if E-Verify was more widely used and enforced starting in 2000 we would most likely only have 2 million people here without proper documentation.

SLars
Provo, UT

Is there any other government agency that has an error rate less than 0.7-0.3 percent?

"$2.1 billion in government expenditures alone over the course of a decade."

210 million per year is a small price to pay to assure America's workforce fairness in the job market. We spend 113 billion a year to support business using illegal labor, and 4.2 billion in tax refunds to those here illegally claiming deductions they are not entitled to.

It's time business became honest with Americans.

Cato's use of a decade to make the number appear bigger shows their open border agenda. I doubt their numbers, it only takes 15 minutes at most to run a check, and there are fixes for people wrongly rejected, including keeping their job until it's resolved. E-verify was passed in the 1986 reform, but never enforced.

magyart
Gahanna, OH

E-verify doesn't result in increased costs for the HR dept. It replaces error prone, inefficient, paper I9 process. This should actually save money, for it's a free govt.service. It's easier and faster than the I9 process. Type a social security number into the system and the feds usually respond in less than 60 seconds.

It's working well in AZ and other states. It's working well for all federal contractors. The error rate is extremely low. Some of these errors are caused by the potential "new hires". Not everyone uses the same name on file with the social security admin. Some people get married and fail to notify the SSA of their new name.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments