Thread: Congress Pushes Obama-backed National Biometric ID for Americans

Thursday, 26 March 2015

Congress Pushes Obama-backed National Biometric ID for Americans

Written by Alex Newman



After largely failing to prod state governments into developing a national identification system known as “REAL ID,” Republican lawmakers in Congress are once again pushing an Obama-backed scheme that would force every American to have a national ID card containing sensitive biometric data. The controversial plan, embedded in an immigration-enforcement bill, has been in the works for years, but has consistently been met with stiff opposition from liberty-minded grassroots organizations and activists. While the plan has failed in previous Congresses thanks to a groundswell of opposition, critics of the measure say that without prompt action, the unconstitutional scheme could soon become a reality.

The legislation, officially dubbed the "Legal Workforce Act" (H.R. 1147), is ostensibly aimed at preventing illegal immigrants from obtaining jobs in the United States. Among the most troubling elements highlighted by critics, though, is that the bill would purport to mandate a national ID card for every American as a condition of working. It would also force every employer in America to purchase and use so-called “E-Verify technology” to check with Washington, D.C., as to whether potential employees have government permission to work. Finally, it would create a massive federal database containing sensitive data on virtually every person in the country — a database that could easily be expanded to include even more information.

While establishment lawmakers on both sides of the aisle seem fond of the measure, critics are sounding the alarm about the bill and its implications for liberty. In an e-mail to supporters urging them to help crush the unconstitutional legislation, for example, former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), in his capacity as chairman of Campaign for Liberty, warned that the national ID scheme would be a nightmare.

Among other concerns, the two-time GOP presidential contender noted that it would allow federal bureaucrats to include biometric information — potentially including fingerprints, retinal scans, and more — that could and likely would be eventually used as a tracking device. It would also make it illegal for anyone to work in the United States without obtaining the national ID.

“Every time any citizen applies for a job, the government would know — and you can bet its only a matter of time until 'ID scans' will be required to make even routine purchases, as well,” Dr. Paul warned, adding that “statists in both parties have been fighting to ram their radical national ID-database scheme into law” for years. “In fact, this scheme was a key portion of the infamous so-called 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform' bills both parties have tried to ram through.” Now, Paul said, the statists believe they have found a way to impose their national ID: Drop the amnesty provisions and focus on immigration “security.”

According to Dr. Paul, a constitutionalist who served in Congress for more than 20 years, the term “security” is being used as “nothing more than a buzzword meant to trick Americans from all over the country into thinking that Congress is finally going to seal our southern border.” In reality, though, it means something much different. “The 'security' members of both parties in the U.S. House want doesn't target any U.S. border,” Paul added. “Instead, it's meant to create an all-out police state within them.”

Paul also warned that the national database required for the ID regime could easily expand to include information on gun ownership, medical records, political affiliation, and “virtually anything else at the stroke of a President's pen.” In fact, the stakes are so high, he said, that this type of battle is often decisive in “whether a country remains free or continues sliding toward tyranny.” Existing abuses such as lawless NSA spying, IRS harassment, and more offer further evidence that the feds cannot be trusted with such Orwellian tools to track, monitor, and ultimately control Americans.

Despite the dangers, the legislation has already been passed out of the House Judiciary Committee, getting a vote just three days after it was introduced — and the markup took place before the text of the bill was even available online. “The speed with which this bill was rushed through Committee means the House leadership is very serious about passing this bill into law as soon as possible,” warned Paul, urging Americans to fight back immediately to prevent the bill from passing. He also warned about potential “bipartisan compromises” that could be even worse than the original.

The legislation was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who has a dismal 54 percent in the Freedom Index, a tool provided by this magazine that scores lawmakers' votes based on adherence to the U.S. Constitution they all swore to uphold. The controversial bill already has dozens of co-sponsors in the House, too. It is being publicly touted by Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who claimed it would bring the “nation’s employment eligibility system into the 21st century,” as well as chief sponsor Smith.

“The Legal Workforce Act turns off the jobs magnet that attracts so many illegal immigrants to the United States,” Rep. Smith said in a statement promoting the measure, ignoring the fact that amnesty and the porous borders have been crucial in encouraging illegal immigration. “The bill expands the E-Verify system and applies it to all U.S. employers. Equally important, the American people support E-Verify,” Smith argued, citing polls showing that Americans overwhelmingly support stronger laws to stop businesses from hiring illegal immigrants. “This bill is a common-sense approach that will reduce illegal immigration and save jobs for legal workers. It deserves the support of everyone who wants to put the interests of American workers first.”

The bill also has the support of several major lobbying powerhouses — including some, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that are infamous for their support of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. Other organizations backing the bill include immigration enforcement-focused Numbers USA, the National Restaurant Association, the National Association of Homebuilders, and several others. However, in the past, similar national-ID schemes have met with major opposition from groups including Downsize DC, the Rutherford Institute, the American Policy Center, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation, Conservative Republican Women, and many more.

In a letter to lawmakers about the same legislation in the 112th Congress (2011-2012), that broad coalition of organizations blasted the bill as an affront to freedom and the Constitution. Among other concerns, they said it “violates individual civil liberties such as the right to work and free speech; mandates a costly job-killing regulatory burden that cripples small business; requires employers to become enforcement agents of the federal government; and encourages identify theft of law-abiding citizens.” The bill should never have even left committee, according to opponents.

“It is anathema to limited government, the right to privacy, free enterprise and prosperity,” the coalition said in the letter to members of Congress. “It violates the philosophy of the Constitution and intent of the Framers by subordinating the liberty of citizens to the administrative convenience of government. And the Founding Fathers would have rebelled against such a staggering Federal intrusion into every workplace in the nation and our personal civil liberties."

As The New American reported as far back as 2010, the same plot to impose a national ID on America has been pushed before by some of the leading Big Government-mongers in Congress. The “bipartisan” amnesty-national ID legislation pushed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and backed by Obama in 2010 eventually failed due to a massive uprising against legalizing illegal immigrants. Back then, though, promoters of the biometric national ID scheme were boasting about their machinations.

“Our plan has four pillars: requiring biometric Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; fulfilling and strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement; creating a process for admitting temporary workers; and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here,” wrote Graham and

Schumer in a joint op-ed promoting their legislation. “We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card.” At the time, Obama called the proposal “a promising, bipartisan framework which can and should be the basis for moving forward.”

With the amnesty provision now out of the more recent bill — Obama is using executive decrees funded by the GOP Congress in a bid to provide amnesty anyway — analysts say the national ID plot stands a much greater chance of coming to fruition. In addition to being unconstitutional by virtue of the fact that the Constitution grants no power over identification systems to the federal government, history shows that national ID schemes are dangerous and very often abused by authorities. Considering the U.S. government's track record, Americans can be sure that, if the plot becomes law, the ID regime will be eventually be abused as well.

If solving the illegal immigration crisis is truly the goal, there is a much simpler solution. Rather than foisting an unconstitutional national ID scheme on Americans and building a massive database, Congress could stop funding Obama's amnesty decrees and ensure that the borders are secure. For that to happen, though, Americans who value liberty and the Constitution must get involved.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...-for-americans

5/31/13

http://www.alipac.us/f9/biometric-da...n-bill-279844/

Republican lawmakers in Congress are once again pushing an Obama-backed scheme that would force every American to have a national ID card containing sensitive biometric data...

Friday, 02 April 2010

Obama & Co. Want National Biometric ID

Written by Alex Newman


A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators is teaming up with the Obama administration to legalize illegal immigrants and require biometric national ID cards for every American worker, prompting a swift and bipartisan backlash across the nation.

The proposal would unconstitutionally force nearly all Americans to obtain the new “tamper proof” Social Security cards while purporting to require that all employers purchase new $800 ID scanners. It would also provide a “path to citizenship” for the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants currently living in America.

Led by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York, pro-amnesty and national ID legislators have already started the public relations campaign to build support for the “new and improved” version of “comprehensive immigration reform.” In a column published by the Washington Post entitled “The right way to mend immigration,” the two architects provided a superficial glimpse at their agenda. And though the piece is lacking in details, it reveals a dangerous agenda that Americans must oppose in order to maintain freedom.

“Our plan has four pillars: requiring biometric Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; fulfilling and strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement; creating a process for admitting temporary workers; and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here,” wrote Graham and Schumer. “We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card.”

The national ID cards would include a "unique biometric identifier," according to Graham and Schumer. Some of the likely candidates include finger prints, retinal scans, or even the layout of a person’s veins in the top of their hand.

Employers who refuse to "swipe the card" would face "stiff fines" and "prison sentences," the Senators noted. “Our blueprint also creates a rational system for admitting lower-skilled workers,” they added.

President Obama promptly signaled his approval and pledged to “act at the earliest possible opportunity.” The White House released a statement noting that the President would do everything in his power to push the issue, and Obama called the Schumer-Graham proposal “a promising, bipartisan framework which can and should be the basis for moving forward."

After the Democrats recent success in ramming through the wildly unpopular health care “reform,” analysts suggested the “momentum” from that victory could help Obama and the Democrats in their efforts to pass a variety of legislation - including immigration “reform.” And despite broad opposition by a majority of Americans, the agenda marches forward.

But the proposals are already meeting fierce resistance from legislators, citizens and non-profit groups. “This so-called comprehensive immigration reform really means amnesty for the 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants in America today,” explained Republican Representative Brian Bilbray of California, the chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus. “What part of the word 'illegal' doesn't the president understand?”

Congressman Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty sent out an e-mail to supporters vowing to battle the proposal as well, warning that it was a “statist’s dream” and that the immigration issue was being used as “cover” for an even bigger agenda.

“Instead of controlling the border and enforcing the rule of law, these statists want to control you,” explained the group’s president, John Tate. “Allowing our government to have this much ‘prying power’ in our lives will ultimately result in the TOTAL loss of freedom.”

Tate noted in the letter that this sort battle often determines whether a country will remain free or descend into tyranny. “You see, once ‘well-meaning’ government bureaucrats know exactly how we live our lives, it won’t be long until they try to run them,” added Tate. “In fact, it will only be a matter of time until they spend their workdays making sure you and I don’t go anywhere we ‘shouldn’t,’ buy anything we ‘shouldn’t,’ read anything we ‘shouldn’t,’ eat anything we ‘shouldn’t’ or smoke anything we ‘shouldn’t.’”

In the media, commentators have also blasted the proposal. “Graham's [Republican In Name Only] tactics will enable the President to turn illegal aliens into documented Democrats. And in the process, hand the Federal Government yet another way to monitor and control our lives,” explained Roger Hedgecock in a piece for Human Events. “Opposition to this tyranny will come from all parts of our divided political spectrum,” he predicted.

And indeed, even the liberal American Civil Liberties Union is gearing up to fight the “bipartisan” effort. “It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy,” said Chris Calabrese, the ACLU’s legislative counsel. “We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification.”

These amnesty and biometric national ID proposals are dangerous for a lot of reasons. And this battle is a crucial one. The Social Security cards will quickly go from being required to work — which is bad enough itself — to being needed for everything imaginable, from health care to everyday purchases. But the problem is not a lack of biometric ID cards for the serfs; it is the wide open Southern border and the unconstitutional incentives encouraging illegal immigration.

Legalizing the tens of millions of illegal immigrants will harm America on several fronts. Not only does it send a loud message that the rule of law means nothing (except if it furthers statist aims), it will also fundamentally alter the voting dynamics of America. The true solution to the illegal immigration crisis is to stop providing perks like welfare to law breakers, and to properly police the border and defend the states from invasion.

Citizens must unite to defeat this effort. If Obama and his allies like Senator Graham manage to force this monstrosity on the American people, the last remaining semblances of freedom will be in critical danger. Americans already said no to amnesty under former President George W. Bush. Why would adding an unconstitutional national ID scheme with biometric data make it any more desirable? This is not the “change” people voted for, and it must be opposed.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...l-biometric-id

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/ro...-workforce-act

Ron Paul Testimony on The Legal Workforce Act

POSTED BY Megan Stiles February 04, 2015

Please see Campaign for Liberty Chairman Ron Paul's statement before the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security of the Committee of the Judiciary. Dr. Paul specifically addresses the problems of implementing a mandatory E-Verify system.

Statement of the Honorable Ron Paul

Before the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security of the Committee of the Judiciary Hearing on

The Legal Workforce Act

February 4, 2015

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and the rest of the members of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. On behalf of Campaign for Liberty’s nearly three quarters of a million members, I am pleased to explain why, by creating a mandatory E-Verify system, the “Legal Workforce Act” threatens individual liberty and limited, constitutional government.

The mandatory E-Verify system proposed in the bill requires almost all Americans to provide their prospective employers with their Social Security number, as well another form of identification, so the employer can verify that the applicant is a legal U.S. citizen. The second piece of identification must contain the individual's photograph and could include biometric identification information and potentially anything else the Secretary of Homeland Security decides needs to be on it. Americans could not legally obtain full-time work in the United States until their prospective employer received permission from the federal government to hire him or her.

The mandatory E-Verify system would have to require the federal government to store the collected information in a federally run database. While language in the bill says that it does not authorize creating a “National ID card,” giving individuals a choice of identifying documents to use in complying with the E-Verify mandate does not make these systems any less threatening to liberty. This is especially true with documents containing “biometric” information.

Border security is certainly a legitimate constitutional function of the federal government. However, immigration enforcement must be conducted in a manner that respects the government’s constitutional limitations and does not violate individual liberties. Mandatory E-Verify fails on both counts. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the authority to force Americans to seek permission from the federal government in order to obtain employment. More importantly, as I will detail below, a mandatory E-Verify system poses a danger to individual liberty.

Even if the fears of civil libertarians are unfounded, mandatory E-Verify will still place burdens on Americans because of the errors that will inevitably plague the system. Anyone who thinks the government is capable of operating a complex database system without error should recall what a wonderful job the federal government did creating and administering Healthcare.gov.

The inevitable mistakes in the E-Verify database will cause many Americans to be denied or lose job opportunities because the E-Verify system falsely labeled them as "ineligible" to work in America. In the best case scenario, these Americans will eventually be able to gain employment, after spending time and money challenging government computer inaccuracies, and will receive compensation from the government. In the worst case scenario, they will find themselves unemployable, having been labeled the equivalent of what George Orwell in 1984 called an “unperson.” Mandatory E-Verify will also impose additional compliance costs on American businesses at a time when they are struggling with ObamaCare and other regulations.

The mandatory E-Verify system is also an identity thief’s dream. Imagine being able to access the names, Social Security number, pictures, and biometric information of millions of Americans simply by hacking one government database. In recent years, there have been several cases of government databases being hacked by identity thieves, so it seems highly unlikely that the government will be able to protect the information stored in the mandatory E-Verify database from identity thieves.

Supporters of E-Verify claim that mandatory E-Verify will not threaten our liberty or our privacy because the system will only be used to confirm citizenship. However, not only does there not appear to be anything in the bill limiting the uses of the E-Verify database, but the Legal Workforce Act itself actually opens the door to use E-Verify for purposes unrelated to work verification by allowing the use of E-Verify to protect “critical infrastructure.”

There is no way this Congress can guarantee that a future Congress will not expand the uses of the mandatory E-Verify system. Remember, when the Social Security system was created, Americans were promised the card would only be used to help administer the Social Security program. Yet today, this Committee is considering making the Social Security number the very foundation of a massive new identification system.

Is it really so inconceivable that if this Congress passes mandatory E-Verify legislation, the day may come when Americans will not be not be able to board an airplane or exercise their Second Amendment rights until the E-Verify database has confirmed they have federal permission to do so? There is also nothing stopping a future Congress from linking the E-Verify system to other databases containing Americans’ health care, education, and other personal information.

The history of government officials using personal information to harass and punish citizens who oppose current government policies provides another reason to oppose mandatory E-Verify. An obvious example of the threat of giving government officials access to citizens’ personal information is the history of the USSR and other communist countries. However, one does not have to look overseas for examples of how politicians have used, or abused, information collected by government to harass their enemies or consolidate their power. Think of how unscrupulous politicians in both parties have used IRS information to harass and intimidate their political opponents. Or, imagine what uses a future Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, or Lois Lerner could make of the E-Verify database.

Mr. Chairman, mandatory E-Verify violates the Constitution. More importantly, requiring every American “show their papers” in order to obtain federal permission to hold a job is incompatible with a free society. Mandatory E-Verify will also deprive Americans of job opportunities through false positives while providing politicians and others with opportunities to use the information in the database to harass their political and other enemies. Furthermore, there is no way a future Congress can be restrained from increasing the uses of the E-Verify system or syncing it to other databases to complete a massive, universal data system that could seal the transformation of America into a total surveillance state.

For these reasons, I urge the committee to reject the “Legal Workforce Act” or other legislation containing mandatory E-Verify.

Typical of the congresses make up with Democrats and republicans. they just a few years ago passed, at the behest of Pres. Geo. Bush, the Patriot Act limiting American's civil rights. Now they seem to think that they must protect aliens civil rights, which in turn makes it even harder for Americans to compete in their own nation. Are we, Americans weary at all of that crap yet? I do not think so, Americans interested in Constitutional rights would have stormed Washington when the Patriot Act became law!! Americans would have stormed Washington defending the Constitution when the Dem. Tyranny Imposer (Obama) showed his true self which is a prescribed Constitutional duty of and for Americans to perform! That lack of performance to defend the Constitution only emboldens those in Washington to further destroy the Constitution! It will not end until we end it per the Constitution's directives!

If it was not actually happening to us it would make a wonderful, laughable cartoon strip!

I support an E-Verify system for employers, that simply verifies social security number and a photo ID like a driver's license. That's all we need. We do not need a REAL ID, or a Biometric ID, or any national ID of any kind. If the legislation opens that door, then I must regretfully oppose it. We need to be sure that it actually does this, and based on Ron Paul's testimony, it does not do this, but opens the door such that future Congresses could do it. This is an important difference from what Alex Newman is writing. Any future Congress can do anything, that's the case regardless of whether E-Verify passes now or not, so we need to investigate this further and be sure at least that this specific legislation does not open the door for DHS to require a national ID without additional legislation from Congress, and it appears that it does not.

visatalad, do you have thoughts or information on this? Thanks.

114th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 1147

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 27, 2015

Mr. Smith of Texas (for himself, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Marino, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Cook, and Mr. Smith of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make mandatory and permanent requirements relating to use of an electronic employment eligibility verification system, and for other purposes.

1.Short title
This Act may be cited as the Legal Workforce

Act.2.Employment eligibility verification process
(a)In general

Section 274A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)) is amended to read as follows:(b)Employment eligibility verification process

(1)New hires, recruitment, and referral

The requirements referred to in paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of subsection (a) are, in the case of a person or other entity hiring, recruiting, or referring an individual for employment in the United States, the following:(A)Attestation after examination of documentation
(i)Attestation

During the verification period (as defined in subparagraph (E)), the person or entity shall attest, under penalty of perjury and on a form, including electronic and telephonic formats, designated or established by the Secretary by regulation not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, that it has verified that the individual is not an unauthorized alien by—(I)obtaining from the individual the individual’s social security account number and recording the number on the form (if the individual claims to have been issued such a number), and, if the individual does not attest to United States nationality under subparagraph (B), obtaining such identification or authorization number established by the Department of Homeland Security for the alien as the Secretary of Homeland Security may specify, and recording such number on the form; and(II)examining—(aa)a document relating to the individual presenting it described in clause (ii); or(bb)a document relating to the individual presenting it described in clause (iii) and a document relating to the individual presenting it described in clause (iv).(ii)Documents evidencing employment authorization and establishing identity

A document described in this subparagraph is an individual’s—(I)unexpired United States passport or passport card;(II)unexpired permanent resident card that contains a photograph;(III)unexpired employment authorization card that contains a photograph;(IV)in the case of a nonimmigrant alien authorized to work for a specific employer incident to status, a foreign passport with Form I–94 or Form I–94A, or other documentation as designated by the Secretary specifying the alien’s nonimmigrant status as long as the period of status has not yet expired and the proposed employment is not in conflict with any restrictions or limitations identified in the documentation;(V)passport from the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) or the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) with Form I–94 or Form I–94A, or other documentation as designated by the Secretary, indicating nonimmigrant admission under the Compact of Free Association Between the United States and the FSM or RMI; or(VI)other document designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, if the document—(aa)contains a photograph of the individual and biometric identification data from the individual and such other personal identifying information relating to the individual as the Secretary of Homeland Security finds, by regulation, sufficient for purposes of this clause;(bb)is evidence of authorization of employment in the United States; and(cc)contains security features to make it resistant to tampering, counterfeiting, and fraudulent use.(iii)Documents evidencing employment authorization

A document described in this subparagraph is an individual's social security account number card (other than such a card which specifies on the face that the issuance of the card does not authorize employment in the United States).(iv)Documents establishing identity of individual

A document described in this subparagraph is—(I)an individual's unexpired State issued driver’s license or identification card if it contains a photograph and information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color, and address;(II)an individual's unexpired U.S. military identification card;(III)an individual's unexpired Native American tribal identification document issued by a tribal entity recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; or(IV)in the case of an individual under 18 years of age, a parent or legal guardian’s attestation under penalty of law as to the identity and age of the individual.(v)Authority to prohibit use of certain documents

If the Secretary of Homeland Security finds, by regulation, that any document described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) as establishing employment authorization or identity does not reliably establish such authorization or identity or is being used fraudulently to an unacceptable degree, the Secretary may prohibit or place conditions on its use for purposes of this paragraph.(vi)Signature

Such attestation may be manifested by either a hand-written or electronic signature.(B)Individual attestation of employment authorization

During the verification period (as defined in subparagraph (E)), the individual shall attest, under penalty of perjury on the form designated or established for purposes of subparagraph (A), that the individual is a citizen or national of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or an alien who is authorized under this Act or by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be hired, recruited, or referred for such employment.

Such attestation may be manifested by either a hand-written or electronic signature. The individual shall also provide that individual’s social security account number (if the individual claims to have been issued such a number), and, if the individual does not attest to United States nationality under this subparagraph, such identification or authorization number established by the Department of Homeland Security for the alien as the Secretary may specify.(C)Retention of verification form and verification
(i)In general

After completion of such form in accordance with subparagraphs (A) and (B), the person or entity shall—(I)retain a paper, microfiche, microfilm, or electronic version of the form and make it available for inspection by officers of the Department of Homeland Security, the Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, or the Department of Labor during a period beginning on the date of the recruiting or referral of the individual, or, in the case of the hiring of an individual, the date on which the verification is completed, and ending—(aa)in the case of the recruiting or referral of an individual, 3 years after the date of the recruiting or referral; and(bb)in the case of the hiring of an individual, the later of 3 years after the date the verification is completed or one year after the date the individual’s employment is terminated; and(II)during the verification period (as defined in subparagraph (E)), make an inquiry, as provided in subsection (d), using the verification system to seek verification of the identity and employment eligibility of an individual.(ii)Confirmation
(I)Confirmation received

If the person or other entity receives an appropriate confirmation of an individual’s identity and work eligibility under the verification system within the time period specified, the person or entity shall record on the form an appropriate code that is provided under the system and that indicates a final confirmation of such identity and work eligibility of the individual.(II)Tentative nonconfirmation received

If the person or other entity receives a tentative nonconfirmation of an individual’s identity or work eligibility under the verification system within the time period specified, the person or entity shall so inform the individual for whom the verification is sought.

If the individual does not contest the nonconfirmation within the time period specified, the nonconfirmation shall be considered final. The person or entity shall then record on the form an appropriate code which has been provided under the system to indicate a final nonconfirmation. If the individual does contest the nonconfirmation, the individual shall utilize the process for secondary verification provided under subsection (d). The nonconfirmation will remain tentative until a final confirmation or nonconfirmation is provided by the verification system within the time period specified. In no case shall an employer terminate employment of an individual because of a failure of the individual to have identity and work eligibility confirmed under this section until a nonconfirmation becomes final. Nothing in this clause shall apply to a termination of employment for any reason other than because of such a failure. In no case shall an employer rescind the offer of employment to an individual because of a failure of the individual to have identity and work eligibility confirmed under this subsection until a nonconfirmation becomes final. Nothing in this subclause shall apply to a recission of the offer of employment for any reason other than because of such a failure.(III)Final confirmation or nonconfirmation received

If a final confirmation or nonconfirmation is provided by the verification system regarding an individual, the person or entity shall record on the form an appropriate code that is provided under the system and that indicates a confirmation or nonconfirmation of identity and work eligibility of the individual.(IV)Extension of time

If the person or other entity in good faith attempts to make an inquiry during the time period specified and the verification system has registered that not all inquiries were received during such time, the person or entity may make an inquiry in the first subsequent working day in which the verification system registers that it has received all inquiries. If the verification system cannot receive inquiries at all times during a day, the person or entity merely has to assert that the entity attempted to make the inquiry on that day for the previous sentence to apply to such an inquiry, and does not have to provide any additional proof concerning such inquiry.(V)Consequences of nonconfirmation
(aa)Termination or notification of continued employment

If the person or other entity has received a final nonconfirmation regarding an individual, the person or entity may terminate employment of the individual (or decline to recruit or refer the individual). If the person or entity does not terminate employment of the individual or proceeds to recruit or refer the individual, the person or entity shall notify the Secretary of Homeland Security of such fact through the verification system or in such other manner as the Secretary may specify.(bb)Failure to notify

If the person or entity fails to provide notice with respect to an individual as required under item (aa), the failure is deemed to constitute a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) with respect to that individual.(VI)Continued employment after final nonconfirmation

If the person or other entity continues to employ (or to recruit or refer) an individual after receiving final nonconfirmation, a rebuttable presumption is created that the person or entity has violated subsection (a)(1)(A).(D)Effective dates of new procedures
(i)Hiring

Except as provided in clause (iii), the provisions of this paragraph shall apply to a person or other entity hiring an individual for employment in the United States as follows:(I)With respect to employers having 10,000 or more employees in the United States on the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, on the date that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of such Act.(II)With respect to employers having 500 or more employees in the United States, but less than 10,000 employees in the United States, on the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, on the date that is 12 months after the date of the enactment of such Act.(III)With respect to employers having 20 or more employees in the United States, but less than 500 employees in the United States, on the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, on the date that is 18 months after the date of the enactment of such Act.(IV)With respect to employers having 1 or more employees in the United States, but less than 20 employees in the United States, on the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, on the date that is 24 months after the date of the enactment of such Act.(ii)Recruiting and referring

Except as provided in clause (iii), the provisions of this paragraph shall apply to a person or other entity recruiting or referring an individual for employment in the United States on the date that is 12 months after the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act.(iii)Agricultural labor or services
With respect to an employee performing agricultural labor or services, this paragraph shall not apply with respect to the verification of the employee until the date that is 36 months after the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term agricultural labor or services has the meaning given such term by the Secretary of Agriculture in regulations and includes agricultural labor as defined in section 3121(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, agriculture as defined in section 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(f)), the handling, planting, drying, packing, packaging, processing, freezing, or grading prior to delivery for storage of any agricultural or horticultural commodity in its unmanufactured state, all activities required for the preparation, processing or manufacturing of a product of agriculture (as such term is defined in such section 3(f)) for further distribution, and activities similar to all the foregoing as they relate to fish or shellfish in aquaculture facilities. An employee described in this clause shall not be counted for purposes of clause (i).(iv)Extensions

Upon request by an employer having 50 or fewer employees, the Secretary shall allow a one-time 6 month extension of the effective date set out in this subparagraph applicable to such employer. Such request shall be made to the Secretary and shall be made prior to such effective date.(v)Transition rule
Subject to paragraph (4), the following shall apply to a person or other entity hiring, recruiting, or referring an individual for employment in the United States until the effective date or dates applicable under clauses (i) through (iii):(I)This subsection, as in effect before the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act.

(II)Subtitle A of title IV of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note), as in effect before the effective date in section 7(c) of the Legal Workforce Act.(III)Any other provision of Federal law requiring the person or entity to participate in the E–Verify Program described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note), as in effect before the effective date in section 7(c) of the Legal Workforce Act, including Executive Order 13465 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note; relating to Government procurement).(E)Verification period defined
(i)In general

For purposes of this paragraph:(I)In the case of recruitment or referral, the term verification period means the period ending on the date recruiting or referring commences.(II)In the case of hiring, the term verification periodmeans the period beginning on the date on which an offer of employment is extended and ending on the date that is three business days after the date of hire, except as provided in clause (iii). The offer of employment may be conditioned in accordance with clause (ii).(ii)Job offer may be conditional

A person or other entity may offer a prospective employee an employment position that is conditioned on final verification of the identity and employment eligibility of the employee using the procedures established under this paragraph.(iii)Special rule
Notwithstanding clause (i)(II), in the case of an alien who is authorized for employment and who provides evidence from the Social Security Administration that the alien has applied for a social security account number, the verification period ends three business days after the alien receives the social security account number.(2)Reverification for individuals with limited work authorization
(A)In general

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person or entity shall make an inquiry, as provided in subsection (d), using the verification system to seek reverification of the identity and employment eligibility of all individuals with a limited period of work authorization employed by the person or entity during the three business days after the date on which the employee's work authorization expires as follows:(i)With respect to employers having 10,000 or more employees in the United States on the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, beginning on the date that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of such Act.(ii)With respect to employers having 500 or more employees in the United States, but less than 10,000 employees in the United States, on the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, beginning on the date that is 12 months after the date of the enactment of such Act.(iii)With respect to employers having 20 or more employees in the United States, but less than 500 employees in the United States, on the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, beginning on the date that is 18 months after the date of the enactment of such Act.(iv)With respect to employers having 1 or more employees in the United States, but less than 20 employees in the United States, on the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, beginning on the date that is 24 months after the date of the enactment of such Act.(B)Agricultural labor or services

With respect to an employee performing agricultural labor or services, or an employee recruited or referred by a farm labor contractor (as defined in section 3 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1801)), subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to the reverification of the employee until the date that is 36 months after the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term agricultural labor or services has the meaning given such term by the Secretary of Agriculture in regulations and includes agricultural labor as defined in section 3121(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, agriculture as defined in section 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(f)), the handling, planting, drying, packing, packaging, processing, freezing, or grading prior to delivery for storage of any agricultural or horticultural commodity in its unmanufactured state, all activities required for the preparation, processing, or manufacturing of a product of agriculture (as such term is defined in such section 3(f)) for further distribution, and activities similar to all the foregoing as they relate to fish or shellfish in aquaculture facilities. An employee described in this subparagraph shall not be counted for purposes of subparagraph (A).(C)Reverification

Paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall apply to reverifications pursuant to this paragraph on the same basis as it applies to verifications pursuant to paragraph (1), except that employers shall—(i)use a form designated or established by the Secretary by regulation for purposes of this paragraph; and(ii)retain a paper, microfiche, microfilm, or electronic version of the form and make it available for inspection by officers of the Department of Homeland Security, the Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, or the Department of Labor during the period beginning on the date the reverification commences and ending on the date that is the later of 3 years after the date of such reverification or 1 year after the date the individual’s employment is terminated.(3)Previously hired individuals
(A)On a mandatory basis for certain employees
(i)In general

Not later than the date that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, an employer shall make an inquiry, as provided in subsection (d), using the verification system to seek verification of the identity and employment eligibility of any individual described in clause (ii) employed by the employer whose employment eligibility has not been verified under the E–Verify Program described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324anote).(ii)Individuals described

An individual described in this clause is any of the following:(I)An employee of any unit of a Federal, State, or local government.(II)An employee who requires a Federal security clearance working in a Federal, State or local government building, a military base, a nuclear energy site, a weapons site, or an airport or other facility that requires workers to carry a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC).(III)An employee assigned to perform work in the United States under a Federal contract, except that this subclause—(aa)is not applicable to individuals who have a clearance under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD 12 clearance), are administrative or overhead personnel, or are working solely on contracts that provide Commercial Off The Shelf goods or services as set forth by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, unless they are subject to verification under subclause (II); and(bb)only applies to contracts over the simple acquisition threshold as defined in section 2.101 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.(B)On a mandatory basis for multiple users of same social security account number

In the case of an employer who is required by this subsection to use the verification system described in subsection (d), or has elected voluntarily to use such system, the employer shall make inquiries to the system in accordance with the following:(i)The Commissioner of Social Security shall notify annually employees (at the employee address listed on the Wage and Tax Statement) who submit a social security account number to which more than one employer reports income and for which there is a pattern of unusual multiple use. The notification letter shall identify the number of employers to which income is being reported as well as sufficient information notifying the employee of the process to contact the Social Security Administration Fraud Hotline if the employee believes the employee’s identity may have been stolen. The notice shall not share information protected as private, in order to avoid any recipient of the notice from being in the position to further commit or begin committing identity theft.(ii)If the person to whom the social security account number was issued by the Social Security Administration has been identified and confirmed by the Commissioner, and indicates that the social security account number was used without their knowledge, the Secretary and the Commissioner shall lock the social security account number for employment eligibility verification purposes and shall notify the employers of the individuals who wrongfully submitted the social security account number that the employee may not be work eligible.(iii)Each employer receiving such notification of an incorrect social security account number under clause (ii) shall use the verification system described in subsection (d) to check the work eligibility status of the applicable employee within 10 business days of receipt of the notification.(C)On a voluntary basis

Subject to paragraph (2), and subparagraphs (A) through (C) of this paragraph, beginning on the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, an employer may make an inquiry, as provided in subsection (d), using the verification system to seek verification of the identity and employment eligibility of any individual employed by the employer. If an employer chooses voluntarily to seek verification of any individual employed by the employer, the employer shall seek verification of all individuals employed at the same geographic location or, at the option of the employer, all individuals employed within the same job category, as the employee with respect to whom the employer seeks voluntarily to use the verification system. An employer’s decision about whether or not voluntarily to seek verification of its current workforce under this subparagraph may not be considered by any government agency in any proceeding, investigation, or review provided for in this Act.(D)Verification

Paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall apply to verifications pursuant to this paragraph on the same basis as it applies to verifications pursuant to paragraph (1), except that employers shall—(i)use a form designated or established by the Secretary by regulation for purposes of this paragraph; and(ii)retain a paper, microfiche, microfilm, or electronic version of the form and make it available for inspection by officers of the Department of Homeland Security, the Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, or the Department of Labor during the period beginning on the date the verification commences and ending on the date that is the later of 3 years after the date of such verification or 1 year after the date the individual’s employment is terminated.(4)Early compliance

(A)Former E–Verify required users, including Federal contractors
Notwithstanding the deadlines in paragraphs (1) and (2), beginning on the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, the Secretary is authorized to commence requiring employers required to participate in the E–Verify Program described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324anote), including employers required to participate in such program by reason of Federal acquisition laws (and regulations promulgated under those laws, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation), to commence compliance with the requirements of this subsection (and any additional requirements of such Federal acquisition laws and regulation) in lieu of any requirement to participate in the E–Verify Program.(B)Former E–Verify voluntary users and others desiring early compliance

Notwithstanding the deadlines in paragraphs (1) and (2), beginning on the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, the Secretary shall provide for the voluntary compliance with the requirements of this subsection by employers voluntarily electing to participate in the E–Verify Program described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) before such date, as well as by other employers seeking voluntary early compliance.(5)Copying of documentation permitted

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the person or entity may copy a document presented by an individual pursuant to this subsection and may retain the copy, but only (except as otherwise permitted under law) for the purpose of complying with the requirements of this subsection.(6)Limitation on use of forms

A form designated or established by the Secretary of Homeland Security under this subsection and any information contained in or appended to such form, may not be used for purposes other than for enforcement of this Act and any other provision of Federal criminal law.(7)Good faith compliance
(A)In general

Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a person or entity is considered to have complied with a requirement of this subsection notwithstanding a technical or procedural failure to meet such requirement if there was a good faith attempt to comply with the requirement.(B)Exception if failure to correct after notice

Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if—(i)the failure is not de minimus;(ii)the Secretary of Homeland Security has explained to the person or entity the basis for the failure and why it is not de minimus;(iii)the person or entity has been provided a period of not less than 30 calendar days (beginning after the date of the explanation) within which to correct the failure; and(iv)the person or entity has not corrected the failure voluntarily within such period.(C)Exception for pattern or practice violators
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a person or entity that has or is engaging in a pattern or practice of violations of subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2).(8)Single extension of deadlines upon certification

In a case in which the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified to the Congress that the employment eligibility verification system required under subsection (d) will not be fully operational by the date that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, each deadline established under this section for an employer to make an inquiry using such system shall be extended by 6 months. No other extension of such a deadline shall be made except as authorized under paragraph (1)(D)(iv).

(b)Date of hire
Section 274A(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following:(4)Definition of date of hire

As used in this section, the term date of hire means the date of actual commencement of employment for wages or other remuneration, unless otherwise specified..

3.Employment eligibility verification system
Section 274A(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(d)) is amended to read as follows:(d)Employment eligibility verification system
(1)In general
Patterned on the employment eligibility confirmation system established under section 404 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish and administer a verification system through which the Secretary (or a designee of the Secretary, which may be a nongovernmental entity)—(A)responds to inquiries made by persons at any time through a toll-free telephone line and other toll-free electronic media concerning an individual’s identity and whether the individual is authorized to be employed; and(B)maintains records of the inquiries that were made, of verifications provided (or not provided), and of the codes provided to inquirers as evidence of their compliance with their obligations under this section.

(2)Initial response
The verification system shall provide confirmation or a tentative nonconfirmation of an individual’s identity and employment eligibility within 3 working days of the initial inquiry. If providing confirmation or tentative nonconfirmation, the verification system shall provide an appropriate code indicating such confirmation or such nonconfirmation.(3)Secondary confirmation process in case of tentative nonconfirmation

In cases of tentative nonconfirmation, the Secretary shall specify, in consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security, an available secondary verification process to confirm the validity of information provided and to provide a final confirmation or nonconfirmation not later than 10 working days after the date on which the notice of the tentative nonconfirmation is received by the employee. The Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner, may extend this deadline once on a case-by-case basis for a period of 10 working days, and if the time is extended, shall document such extension within the verification system. The Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner, shall notify the employee and employer of such extension. The Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner, shall create a standard process of such extension and notification and shall make a description of such process available to the public. When final confirmation or nonconfirmation is provided, the verification system shall provide an appropriate code indicating such confirmation or nonconfirmation.(4)Design and operation of system

The verification system shall be designed and operated—(A)to maximize its reliability and ease of use by persons and other entities consistent with insulating and protecting the privacy and security of the underlying information;(B)to respond to all inquiries made by such persons and entities on whether individuals are authorized to be employed and to register all times when such inquiries are not received;(C)with appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of personal information;(D)to have reasonable safeguards against the system’s resulting in unlawful discriminatory practices based on national origin or citizenship status, including—(i)the selective or unauthorized use of the system to verify eligibility; or(ii)the exclusion of certain individuals from consideration for employment as a result of a perceived likelihood that additional verification will be required, beyond what is required for most job applicants;(E)to maximize the prevention of identity theft use in the system; and(F)to limit the subjects of verification to the following individuals:(i)Individuals hired, referred, or recruited, in accordance with paragraph (1) or (4) of subsection (b).(ii)Employees and prospective employees, in accordance with paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subsection (b).(iii)Individuals seeking to confirm their own employment eligibility on a voluntary basis.(5)Responsibilities of Commissioner of Social Security

As part of the verification system, the Commissioner of Social Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security (and any designee of the Secretary selected to establish and administer the verification system), shall establish a reliable, secure method, which, within the time periods specified under paragraphs (2) and (3), compares the name and social security account number provided in an inquiry against such information maintained by the Commissioner in order to validate (or not validate) the information provided regarding an individual whose identity and employment eligibility must be confirmed, the correspondence of the name and number, and whether the individual has presented a social security account number that is not valid for employment. The Commissioner shall not disclose or release social security information (other than such confirmation or nonconfirmation) under the verification system except as provided for in this section or section 205(c)(2)(I) of the Social Security Act.(6)Responsibilities of Secretary of Homeland Security

As part of the verification system, the Secretary of Homeland Security (in consultation with any designee of the Secretary selected to establish and administer the verification system), shall establish a reliable, secure method, which, within the time periods specified under paragraphs (2) and (3), compares the name and alien identification or authorization number (or any other information as determined relevant by the Secretary) which are provided in an inquiry against such information maintained or accessed by the Secretary in order to validate (or not validate) the information provided, the correspondence of the name and number, whether the alien is authorized to be employed in the United States, or to the extent that the Secretary determines to be feasible and appropriate, whether the records available to the Secretary verify the identity or status of a national of the United States.(7)Updating information
The Commissioner of Social Security and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall update their information in a manner that promotes the maximum accuracy and shall provide a process for the prompt correction of erroneous information, including instances in which it is brought to their attention in the secondary verification process described in paragraph (3).(8)Limitation on use of the verification system and any related systems

(A)No national identification card
Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize, directly or indirectly, the issuance or use of national identification cards or the establishment of a national identification card.(B)Critical infrastructure

The Secretary may authorize or direct any person or entity responsible for granting access to, protecting, securing, operating, administering, or regulating part of the critical infrastructure (as defined in section 1016(e) of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e))) to use the verification system to the extent the Secretary determines that such use will assist in the protection of the critical infrastructure.(9)Remedies

If an individual alleges that the individual would not have been dismissed from a job but for an error of the verification mechanism, the individual may seek compensation only through the mechanism of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and injunctive relief to correct such error. No class action may be brought under this paragraph.
.

4.Recruitment, referral, and continuation of employment
(a)Additional changes to rules for recruitment, referral, and continuation of employment
Section 274A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)) is amended—(1)in paragraph (1)(A), by striking for a fee;(2)in paragraph (1), by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:(B)to hire, continue to employ, or to recruit or refer for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b).
; and

(3)in paragraph (2), by striking after hiring an alien for employment in accordance with paragraph (1), and inserting after complying with paragraph (1),.(b)Definition
Section 274A(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)), as amended by section 2(b) of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following:(5)Definition of recruit or refer

As used in this section, the term refer means the act of sending or directing a person who is in the United States or transmitting documentation or information to another, directly or indirectly, with the intent of obtaining employment in the United States for such person. Only persons or entities referring for remuneration (whether on a retainer or contingency basis) are included in the definition, except that union hiring halls that refer union members or nonunion individuals who pay union membership dues are included in the definition whether or not they receive remuneration, as are labor service entities or labor service agencies, whether public, private, for-profit, or nonprofit, that refer, dispatch, or otherwise facilitate the hiring of laborers for any period of time by a third party. As used in this section, the term recruit means the act of soliciting a person who is in the United States, directly or indirectly, and referring the person to another with the intent of obtaining employment for that person.

Only persons or entities referring for remuneration (whether on a retainer or contingency basis) are included in the definition, except that union hiring halls that refer union members or nonunion individuals who pay union membership dues are included in this definition whether or not they receive remuneration, as are labor service entities or labor service agencies, whether public, private, for-profit, or nonprofit that recruit, dispatch, or otherwise facilitate the hiring of laborers for any period of time by a third party.
.

(c)Effective date
The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, except that the amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act insofar as such amendments relate to continuation of employment.

5.Good faith defense
Section 274A(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:(3)Good faith defense
(A)Defense
An employer (or person or entity that hires, employs, recruits, or refers (as defined in subsection (h)(5)), or is otherwise obligated to comply with this section) who establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of subsection (b)—(i)shall not be liable to a job applicant, an employee, the Federal Government, or a State or local government, under Federal, State, or local criminal or civil law for any employment-related action taken with respect to a job applicant or employee in good-faith reliance on information provided through the system established under subsection (d); and(ii)has established compliance with its obligations under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) and subsection (b) absent a showing by the Secretary of Homeland Security, by clear and convincing evidence, that the employer had knowledge that an employee is an unauthorized alien.(B)Mitigation element

For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), if an employer proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer uses a reasonable, secure, and established technology to authenticate the identity of the new employee, that fact shall be taken into account for purposes of determining good faith use of the system established under subsection (d).(C)Failure to seek and obtain verification

Subject to the effective dates and other deadlines applicable under subsection (b), in the case of a person or entity in the United States that hires, or continues to employ, an individual, or recruits or refers an individual for employment, the following requirements apply:(i)Failure to seek verification
(I)In general

If the person or entity has not made an inquiry, under the mechanism established under subsection (d) and in accordance with the timeframes established under subsection (b), seeking verification of the identity and work eligibility of the individual, the defense under subparagraph (A) shall not be considered to apply with respect to any employment, except as provided in subclause (II).(II)Special rule for failure of verification mechanism

If such a person or entity in good faith attempts to make an inquiry in order to qualify for the defense under subparagraph (A) and the verification mechanism has registered that not all inquiries were responded to during the relevant time, the person or entity can make an inquiry until the end of the first subsequent working day in which the verification mechanism registers no nonresponses and qualify for such defense.(ii)Failure to obtain verification

If the person or entity has made the inquiry described in clause (i)(I) but has not received an appropriate verification of such identity and work eligibility under such mechanism within the time period specified under subsection (d)(2) after the time the verification inquiry was received, the defense under subparagraph (A) shall not be considered to apply with respect to any employment after the end of such time period.
.

6.Preemption and States’ Rights
Section 274A(h)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(2)) is amended to read as follows:(2)Preemption
(A)Single, national policy

The provisions of this section preempt any State or local law, ordinance, policy, or rule, including any criminal or civil fine or penalty structure, insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to the hiring, continued employment, or status verification for employment eligibility purposes, of unauthorized aliens.(B)State enforcement of Federal law
(i)Business licensing

A State, locality, municipality, or political subdivision may exercise its authority over business licensing and similar laws as a penalty for failure to use the verification system described in subsection (d) to verify employment eligibility when and as required under subsection (b).(ii)General rules
A State, at its own cost, may enforce the provisions of this section, but only insofar as such State follows the Federal regulations implementing this section, applies the Federal penalty structure set out in this section, and complies with all Federal rules and guidance concerning implementation of this section. Such State may collect any fines assessed under this section. An employer may not be subject to enforcement, including audit and investigation, by both a Federal agency and a State for the same violation under this section. Whichever entity, the Federal agency or the State, is first to initiate the enforcement action, has the right of first refusal to proceed with the enforcement action. The Secretary must provide copies of all guidance, training, and field instructions provided to Federal officials implementing the provisions of this section to each State.
.

7.Repeal
(a)In general
Subtitle A of title IV of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) is repealed.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1147/text

Originally Posted by Judy

I support an E-Verify system for employers, that simply verifies social security number and a photo ID like a driver's license. That's all we need.

visatalad, do you have thoughts or information on this? Thanks.

J, I was just getting ready to respond, when I saw your question.

IMO Ron Paul is part of the wicky-wacky-woo Libertarian contingent. Everybody who goes to work - or in many cases even applies for work - has to give their social security number. Employers use that number, when providing workers with a W-2 form for filing an income tax return. (I think that independent contractors receive a form 1099.)

We all - or at least those of us who are in the United States legally - include our social security number on our tax forms.

Using this number is just an instance of how we can communicate important information to people whom we do not and cannot know personally.

I agree with you re what we actually need now, but am not really against a biometric I.D. IMO it's just a newer technology.
*************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Originally Posted by vistalad

J, I was just getting ready to respond, when I saw your question.

IMO Ron Paul is part of the wicky-wacky-woo Libertarian contingent. Everybody who goes to work - or in many cases even applies for work - has to give their social security number. Employers use that number, when providing workers with a W-2 form for filing an income tax return. (I think that independent contractors receive a form 1099.)

We all - or at least those of us who are in the United States legally - include our social security number on our tax forms.

Using this number is just an instance of how we can communicate important information to people whom we do not and cannot know personally.

I agree with you re what we actually need now, but am not really against a biometric I.D. IMO it's just a newer technology.
*************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

I agree with you on Social Security number and card, that's essential anyway for employment to ensure benefits through SS when you retire. I have no problem with the photo ID either since most employers require it anyway and most Americans old enough to work have a driver's license or state ID.

I think this is the paragraph that could be problematic:

A document described in this subparagraph is—(I)an individual's unexpired State issued driver’s license or identification card if it contains a photograph and information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color, and address;(II)an individual's unexpired U.S. military identification card;(III)an individual's unexpired Native American tribal identification document issued by a tribal entity recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; or(IV)in the case of an individual under 18 years of age, a parent or legal guardian’s attestation under penalty of law as to the identity and age of the individual.(v)Authority to prohibit use of certain documents

If the Secretary of Homeland Security finds, by regulation, that any document described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) as establishing employment authorization or identity does not reliably establish such authorization or identity or is being used fraudulently to an unacceptable degree, the Secretary may prohibit or place conditions on its use for purposes of this paragraph.

The problem would be in states that issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens without a marker that indicates they're illegal aliens or states who don't require a US birth certificate to obtain a drivers license to begin with. This is what could pose a problem for citizens in those states. So states wanting to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens without a marker or even immigrants without an expiration date consistent with the expiration date of their documents would in fact make their drivers licenses unreliable for the purpose of E-Verify. I'm opposed to a national ID, not because of the ID itself, it's the idea behind Americans having to forfeit our own liberty and privacy as limited as it is now BECAUSE of illegal aliens.

What they should add to this bill is the following sentence:

"Any state that issues drivers licenses to illegal aliens would be ineligible for federal highway transportation funds."

That would nip all this state drivers licenses to illegal aliens crap in the bud, and for those few states who feel so strongly about licensing illegal aliens to drive on publicly funded highways who aren't supposed to be in the country let alone using our public thoroughfares could still do so, thus it wouldn't be an infringement of their States Rights, but they've not only cost Americans in their state their jobs which they obviously don't care about anyway or they wouldn't be issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens to drive to work at jobs they stole from Americans to begin with, but you know all those Blue States would cry like a baby if they lost federal highway funding over it.

Americans have the inherent right to be able to drive on a US or Federal Interstate Highway with the comfort of knowing there are no illegal aliens on these thoroughfares, at least none with drivers licenses issued by a treasonous state. What the states allow on their city, county and state roads I suppose is their business, but federal highways are our business, and we're the Americans who own them, and we're the Americans who control them.