Plans for immigration ‘fixes’ show deep divisions in House

House lawmakers heard competing proposals designed to ferret out the number of illegal workers in the labor market in a year when even modest attempts at immigration reform appear to be a difficult task.

One year after a broad attempt to address the more than 12 million illegal immigrants crumbled, a movement is afoot to prod businesses to verify the legal status of employees. Yet bipartisan factions in the House are split on the way to do this.

{mosads}At issue is whether to pass legislation that requires businesses to check Social Security numbers for all workers against a federal database, or simply mandate that new hires meet this standard.

The discrepancy between competing workplace verification proposals was on full display Tuesday, as a House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee heard two ideas for changing the role of the nation’s electronic verification system, also known as E-Verify.

Currently, employers are not obligated to use it, but can voluntarily check their workers’ status with the federal government. Employers are required by law to check identification at the workplace, but often times these documents are fraudulent.

A bill by Rep. Health Shuler (D-N.C.) would mandate that the E-Verify pilot program currently in use by some 61,000 employers be uniformly adopted by the estimated 7.4 million employers across the country.

A nationwide E-Verify mandate would result in approximately 63 million new employment queries a year, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

And while Shuler and Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who is also pushing for nationwide E-Verify, admit that the system isn’t perfect, they both say it’s the best system in place to ensure that employers are hiring only legal workers.

But already a competing and wholly different employment verification proposal is emerging from another bipartisan group in the House.

Social Security Subcommittee ranking member Sam Johnson (R-Texas) and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) have introduced legislation to require only newly hired employees to be subject to verification. They called their bill superior to Shuler’s proposal. Giffords said that Arizona’s experience using E-Verify has been less than stellar.

Many businesses in her state are finding E-Verify “complicated, unreliable and burdensome,” Giffords said. “From our experience in Arizona we know what isn’t working.”

The Johnson-Giffords New Employee Verification, or NEVA, Act, would check only new and non-citizen hires against the “new hire reporting” database put in place by states 12 years ago to track down so-called deadbeat dads, and would not rely on the Social Security Administration (SSA) or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), they said.

Johnson and Giffords found a warm reception from Social Security subcommittee Chairman Michael McNulty (D-N.Y.) who homed in on how E-Verify is leaning heavily on what he said was already an overburdened SSA.

“We believe this new system could eradicate virtually all unauthorized employment, thereby eliminating a huge incentive for illegal immigration,” said Susan Meisinger, president and chief executive officer of the Society for Human Resource Management, in voicing support for the Johnson-Giffords measure.

McNulty questioned Shuler and Calvert on E-Verify’s impact on SSA, and reminded them of the average wait time — well over a year — for a Social Security disability claim to be processed in their districts.

“Imposing a substantial new immigration-related workload on SSA would potentially swamp the agency and threaten its ability to serve our constituents who rely on Social Security and SSI for basic income,” McNulty said. “For this reason, proposals for mandatory verification that do not realistically address the workload placed on SSA’s shoulders should not be enacted.”

Under questioning from fellow Blue Dog Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) about the cost of the bill, Shuler at first appealed to the political ramifications of failing again to address immigration reform.

“The most important thing is: What’s the value of securing America?” Shuler asked rhetorically.

As Doggett persisted, Shuler came forward with the Congressional Budget Office price tag of his bill; $23 billion over 10 years. The NEVA Act has yet to be scored, Giffords said.

Despite their differences in approaches — which aides described as deep on Tuesday — lawmakers on both sides followed their testimony with statements indicating that some kind of common ground could be found.

“I think Ken Calvert and I are able to work together to try and improve the system,” Johnson said.