We were just notified by our I-9 channel partner, Form I-9, that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will be releasing the newest version of E-Verify on January 30, 2012 and that there will be new requirements in order to process requests through EmployeeScreenIQ’s system.

Please note that the new requirements will not affect those that use the electronic I-9 Form and then submit for E-Verify.

For those that submit E-Verify requests without the electronic I-9 Form,  you will see a few changes to the form and the data entry, but the overall resolution process will remain the same as it is now.  In general, DHS is now requiring that E-Verify requests indicate the specific List B and List C documents provided on the Form I-9 and, in cases where a Driver’s License is used in List B, E-Verify now requires the issuing authority, document number and expiration date to also be provided.

Again, the Form I-9 is unaffected, only the New E-Verify form is impacted by these changes.

Below are links to screenshots of the changes you will see on January 30, 2012.

The New E-Verify form will have some cosmetic changes.  To view an example, click here

You will enter the employee information as usual.  In cases where the employee has provided a List B and List C document for their Form I-9, you will select “List B and C Documents” in the drop down menu.  To view an example, click here

When the “List B and C Documents” option is selected, two (2) drop downs will appear, so that the user can specify exactly which List B and List C documents have been provided.  To view an example, click here

If the List B document is NOT a Driver’s LIcense, users only provide the List B document title.  We have provided an example where a US Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Card and a Social Security Card are provided on the Form I-9, so the user simply reflects that information in the New E-Verify form.  To view an example, click here

If the List B document is a Driver’s License, then the issuing authority, document number and expiration date fields are also required.  (The form will automatically display these fields.)  To view an example, click here

List C will only require a Document Title to be specified.  To view an example, click here

After clicking the Process E-Verify button, users will then be prompted to review data as usual, check the affirmation box regarding the completion of the Form I-9 and click the Continue E-Verify Process button.  To view an example, click here

After clicking the Continue E-Verify Process button, everything else will work as usual.   You will receive the same results you are already used to seeing during the E-Verify process.

To learn more about EmployeeScreenIQ’s I-9 services, please check out http://www.employeescreen.com/employmenti9.asp

We reported earlier this week that the state of California had banned the use of E-Verify for the state’s employers.  It has since been pointed out and confirmed that state has not banned the use of E-Verify, but instead banned anyone in the state (i.e. state, county, local governments) from mandating its’ use.

We apologize for the oversight on our behalf.

Author’s Note as of 10/20/2011: There has since been an update on this story which can be found at http://www.employeescreen.com/iqblog/update-on-new-e-verify-law-in-california/

This comes from TLNT’s John Hollon.

For better or for worse, California always seems to want to go its own way.

So it is with the controversial federal E-Verify system that “provides an automated link to federal databases to help employers determine employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security numbers.”

While states such as Arizona, Louisiana, and South Carolina are passing laws to mandate the use of E-Verify as a check against illegal immigration, California is going the other way.

According to the Los Angeles Times, ” (state) legislation signed into law … prohibits the state, cities and counties from mandating that private employers use E-Verify,” forcing cities and other local municipalities that have been working to comply with the E-Verify requirements to reverse course and undo what they have previously done in order to comply with state law.

Gripes about reliability of E-Verify system

And the reason for the E-Verify ban in California, at least publicly, is the gripe that many have had about it nationwide — the unreliability of the federal E-Vertify system. According to the newspaper:

The state ban (of E-Verify) received broad support, including the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Farm Bureau Federation, which questioned the accuracy of the databases used by the federal system.

Assemblyman Paul Fong (D-Sunnyvale), who introduced the bill, said he felt that mandatory E-Verify was an unnecessary burden on businesses.

“It was costly, time-consuming. It’s unfair for big businesses and definitely for small businesses,” he said. “Why make a flawed system mandatory?”

Fong said the system often misidentifies U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. One such worker is Jessica St. Pierre, 22, who said she was fired from her job at a telecommunications company because her name was not correctly entered into the E-Verify system. It took her four months to get another job.”

SHRM’s problems with E-Verify

The Society for Human Resource Management has lobbied for a national verification system, but has specifically criticized the reliability of E-Verify, outlining “problems with the system, including identity fraud — which poses substantial problems for employers who are held accountable for enforcing the law — mistakes in data accuracy and burdens on legal U.S. workers.”

In addition, “A SHRM survey showed that 92 percent of employers want to participate in an electronic verification program provided ‘the system is accurate, efficient and easy to use.’ ”

Despite the public pronouncements, California’s ban of E-Verify is less about the reliability of the federal system and more about a state (and a legislature) that is overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats making a political statement against imposing sanctions that might limit opportunities for illegal workers.

But no matter what the reason behind the E-Verify ban, California’s legislative actions will surely reignite the national debate about immigration, E-Verify, and the long-standing inability of the federal government to fairly and consistently enforce workplace immigration laws.

For more of the Los Angeles Times story, click here.

About the author: John Hollon is Vice President for Editorial of TLNT.com, and the former Editor of Workforce Management. He has written extensively about human resources and talent management, including here at TLNT. Contact him at john@tlnt.com, and follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/johnhollon

Employers beware.  The Iceman cometh. Last week the Obama administration announced that it would audit another 1,000 employers throughout the United States to determine if they are have illegal workers on their payrolls.

The Wall Street Journal reports that this wave of ICE audits now brings this fiscal year’s total to 2,388 (beginning Oct. 1) which has already eclipsed last year’s total of 2,196.

The Journal warns, “For employers, the audits can lead to both civil and criminal penalties. The possibilities range from fines and being barred from competing for government contracts to criminal charges of knowingly employing illegal workers, evading taxes and engaging in identity theft.”

See WSJ Article

The best way for an employer to stay in compliance with federal regulations is to be vigilant in their I-9 practices. Every employee must have an I-9 form on file.

Many employers are moving towards the use of the government’s E-Verify system or other third party systems which allow for the complete electronic automation of the I-9 process; preparing and signing the form, submitting the form to the Social Security Administration, and auto archiving.

Everyone get the image of Top Gun’s Iceman, Val Kilmer?

I love me some Chipotle, but evidently the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was not swayed by the chips and guac.  Perhaps there is a reason for that authentic Mexican taste. It is being reported that a large number of undocumented Chipotle employees in the state of Minnesota have been fired after an ICE audit.

How would you like to be in their human resources department today?  Not only do you have to replace those workers, but how many phone calls do you think they got from providers of the Electronic I-9 and E-Verify service?

Chipotle Faces Scrutiny Over Illegal Workers- CNN.com

A number of Chipotle employees across Minnesota were fired after an immigration audit targeted the restaurant chain for allegedly hiring undocumented workers, officials said.

“We are not disclosing a number of people displaced by this,” company spokesman Chris Arnold said Monday. “We did lose some restaurant employees in Minnesota following a document review by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”

The review took place last month and is likely reflective of a shift away from work-site crackdowns against employees — considered a hallmark practice under the Bush administration — and toward so-called “I-9 audits,” which instead focus on the hiring practices of their employers, according to analysts and a U.S. Immigration official who declined to be named.

The I-9 form is an employment eligibility document meant to determine a person’s ability to work legally in the United States.

“At the end of the day, the goal is to ensure that the companies have an authorized, legal workforce and also that employers are aware of their responsibility to ensure the people they hire are lawful,” the official said.

More

On July 22, 2010 the Department of Homeland Security published a final rule on the acceptance of electronic signatures and storage of the Form I-9.  The rule, scheduled to take effect August 23, 2010, allows employers to prepare, sign, scan and store the form electronically as long as certain criteria is met.  See below.

In this final rule, DHS makes minor modifications to 8 CFR 274a.2 to clarify certain provisions that:

• Employers must complete a Form I-9 within three business (not calendar) days;
• Employers may use paper, electronic systems, or a combination of paper and electronic systems;
• Employers may change electronic storage systems as long as the systems meet the performance requirements of the regulations;
• Employers need not retain audit trails of each time a Form
• I-9 is electronically viewed, but only when the Form I-9 is created,completed, updated, modified, altered, or corrected; and
• Employers may provide or transmit a confirmation of a Form I-9 transaction, but are not required to do so unless the employee requests a copy.

SHRM’s Allen Smith, J.D. writes that, “Several commenters on the interim final rule requested guidance on the storage of ancillary documents used to verify an employee’s identity and eligibility to work in the United States. DHS clarified that employers may, but are not required to, copy or make an electronic image of a document used to comply. It cautioned, though, that employers should apply consistent policies and procedures for all employees to avoid discrimination.

DHS noted that the Form I-9 and verification documentation may be stored in a separate Form I-9 file or as part of an employee’s other employment records. In addition, only the pages of the Form I-9 containing employer- and employee-entered data need be retained. Other pages of the current form are instructions for completing the Form I-9 and need not be retained.

DHS agreed with comments that suggested that it is unnecessary to require an audit trail to record every time a Form I-9 is simply viewed or accessed but not modified. When the Form I-9 is created or modified, though, a secure and permanent record must be created establishing the date of access, the identity of the individual who accessed the electronic record and the particular action taken.

In response to comments, DHS also amended the interim final rule to require an employer to provide or transmit a confirmation of the transaction only if an employee requests it. Several commenters had objected to the interim final rule’s requirement that a printed transaction record be given to the employee even absent a request.
One commenter noted that some companies process thousands of new employees annually; another noted that in the modern work environment many employees work off site. These commenters expressed concern that requiring paper receipts could be a significant burden to businesses. DHS officials did not think the requirement was unduly burdensome but amended the interim final rule in response to the comments.

If requested, a receipt when completing an electronic record should be provided within a reasonable period of time, but it need not be provided at the time of the transaction.

But DHS cautioned that providing the option of electronic preparation and storage does not alter the requirement that the employer physically examine any documentation provided by the employee in the presence of the employee prior to completing the Form I-9.”

Utah-based employers with 15 or more employees should take note that effective July 1, 2010 they must use a “status verification system” to verify the employment eligibility of new employees. Utah S.B. 251 makes mandatory the use of the government’s E-Verify portal which determines legal right to work status through the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security.

For more information on the Electronic Employment Eligibility process, please visit us at http://employeescreen.com/employmenti9.asp

There has been a lot of negative news about E-Verify since the program has been launched.  Most recently, we told you that the program designed to weed out illegal workers was in fact missing 50% of all illegal workers because it couldn’t detect identity fraud.

But before you give up on the program, I think it is important to weight both sides of the equation.  Check out DHS’ response.  In our experience with the Electronic Employment Eligibility process, we find that while at times flawed greatly improves an organization’s ability to hire legal workers and comply with federal guidelines.

Recently, some media reports have used statistics that appear to call into question the effectiveness and accuracy of E-Verify. I’d like to set record straight. A report by the independent research firm Westat, using a sample from a three month period in 2008, concluded that E-Verify was accurate 96 percent of the time. Since then, the Obama administration has taken significant steps to further improve E-Verify.

Read the report for yourself here.

What else did this report tell us about E-Verify?

• 93.8 percent of workers screened by E-Verify were authorized for employment—and the system instantly and accurately confirmed more than 99 percent of these eligible workers.
• The remaining 6.2 percent were not eligible for employment. Out of this estimated 6.2 percent, approximately half were told they are work authorized when they were not—just 3.3 percent of the overall population screened by E-Verify.

To be clear, this means that only an estimated 3.3 percent of all workers screened by E-Verify were incorrectly told they were work authorized.

Read More

It’s been fairly smooth sailing for the E-Verify, the government program that allows employers to check the legal right to work status of an employee in the United states, since it was made mandatory for federal contractors last year.  That is until now, where it is being reported that this system is failing to catch more than half of all illegal workers.  The technology is not the problem, nor are Social Security Administration’s or Department of Homeland Security’s databases.  The issue lies in its inability to detect identity fraud.  In other words, if the employee fills out their I-9 Form and presents documents that contain valid information (such as a social security, passport or drivers license number), the system simply can’t tell that they belong to someone else.

I suppose this is a better problem to have then the system regularly spitting our tentative non-confirmations for legal workers, but still something that will have to be addressed in some fashion.

Report: E-Verify Misses Half of Illegal Workers

By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer – Thu Feb 25, 3:09 am ET

WASHINGTON – The system Congress and the Obama administration want employers to use to help curb illegal immigration is failing to catch more than half the number of unauthorized workers it checks, a research company has found.

The online tool E-Verify, now used voluntarily by employers, wrongly clears illegal workers about 54 percent of the time, according to Westat, a research company that evaluated the system for theHomeland Security Department. E-Verify missed so many illegal workers mainly because it can’t detect identity fraud, Westat said.

“Clearly it means it’s not doing its No. 1 job well enough,” said Mark Rosenblum, a researcher at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank.

E-Verify allows employers to run a worker’s information againstHomeland Security and Social Security databases to check whether the person is permitted to work in the U.S. The Obama administration has made cracking down on employers who hire people here illegally a central part of its immigration enforcement policy, and there are expectations that some Republicans in Congress will try in coming weeks to make E-Verify mandatory.

E-Verify correctly identified legal workers 93 percent of the time, Westat said. However, previous studies have not quantified how many immigrants were fooling the E-Verify system. Much of the criticism of E-Verify has focused on whether U.S. citizens and legal immigrants with permission to work were falsely flagged as illegal workers.

More

I found the article,  Official: E-Verify changes in the works on NextGov.com and felt compelled to weigh in on the future of E-Verify.

Yes, the E-Verify program is set to expire at the end of this month if is not renewed. With the new Federal Contractor Rule finally in place, there is no chance of this happening. E-Verify will absolutely be extended.

What does the future hold for E-Verify? In my opinion, the contractor rule is a primer for future legislation which requires all U.S. employers to confirm workers’ employment eligibility status through E-Verify. But I don’t believe that E-Verify is ready to handle that type of capacity now or any time in the near future. Further, both the Social Security Administration and theDepartment of Homeland Security need to clean up their databases a bit more to be ready for “primetime”.

Are biometrics likely to be used in the future? Sure, eventually we might get there, but considering the time and cost involved, we are a long, long way off.

Conclusion:
Get used to E-Verify. It’s not going away. It’s going to expand and sooner, rather than later it will affect your organization if it hasn’t already.

Also, if you haven’t yet, check out our E-Verify podcast with Stu Lawrence from Form I-9.