The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
E-Verify Threatens Us All
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In addition to funding for a border wall and other border security measures, immigration hardliners are sure to push to include mandatory E-Verify in any immigration legislation considered by Congress. E-Verify is a (currently) voluntary program where businesses check job applicants’ Social Security numbers and other Information — potentially including “biometric” identifiers like fingerprints — against information stored in a federal database to determine if the job applicants are legally in the United States.

Imagine how much time would be diverted from serving consumers and growing the economy if every US business had to comply with E-Verify. Also, collecting the relevant information and operating the mandatory E-Verify system will prove costly to taxpayers.

Millions of Americans could be denied jobs because E-Verify mistakenly identifies them as illegal immigrants. These Americans would be forced to go through a costly and time-consuming process to force the government to correct its mistake. It is doubtful employers could afford to keep jobs open while potential hires went through this process.

A federal database with Social Security numbers and other identifying information is an identify thief’s dream. Given the federal government’s poor track record for protecting personal information, is there any doubt mandatory E-Verify would put millions of Americans at risk for identity theft?

Some supporters of E-Verify deny the program poses any threat to civil liberties, as it will only be used to verify citizenship or legal residency. They even claim a system forcing individuals to have their identities certified by the government is not a national ID system. These individuals are ignoring the history of government programs sold as only affecting a particular group or being used for a limited purpose being expanded beyond initial targets. For example, Americans were promised that only the wealthiest Americans would ever pay income taxes. And some of the PATRIOT Act’s worst provisions that we were told would only be used against terrorists are routinely used to investigate drug crimes.

E-Verify almost certainly will be used for purposes unrelated to immigration. One potential use of E-Verify is to limit the job prospects of anyone whose lifestyle displeases the government. This could include those accused of failing to pay their fair share in taxes, those who homeschool or do not vaccinate their children, or those who own firearms.

Unscrupulous government officials could use E-Verify against those who practice antiwar, anti-tax, anti-surveillance, and anti-Federal Reserve activism. Those who consider this unlikely should remember the long history of the IRS targeting the political enemies of those in power and the use of anti-terrorism laws to harass antiwar activists. They should also consider the current moves to outlaw certain types of “politically incorrect” speech, such as disputing the alleged “consensus” regarding climate change.

Claiming that mandatory E-Verify is necessary to stop illegal immigration does not make it constitutional. Furthermore, having to ask the federal government for permission before obtaining a job is a characteristic of authoritarian societies, not free ones. History shows that mandatory E-Verify’s use will expand beyond immigration enforcement and could be used as a tool of political repression. All those who value liberty should oppose mandatory E-Verify.

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration 
Hide 41 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Tulip says:

    Who’s “Us” white man?

    I don’t run a business that employs illegal immigrants.

    One potential use of E-Verify is to limit the job prospects of anyone whose lifestyle displeases the government. This could include those accused of failing to pay their fair share in taxes, those who homeschool or do not vaccinate their children, or those who own firearms.

    What section of the bill authorizes the government to do that?

    Couldn’t you just connect the above information with people’s driver’s licenses or non-driver ID’s, without e-verify?

    And e-verify already exists, the proposal would just involve making it mandatory.

  2. densa says:

    Don’t agree with Ron Paul on this one. I had a minor encounter with E-Verify, a program that checks to see if SS#s are valid. Social Security already has this number (although I agree it is abused by others using it as a form of national ID), and the IRS also already collects this info on employees. So, I don’t find the argument compelling that it would be a burden to employers or the top of the slippery slope of servitude. Checking to see if the SS numbers given to employers are real just doesn’t register on my liberty meter. I admit my meter isn’t as keen as some. But the time E-Verify found me, it corrected a number containing a transcription error, which benefited both employer and employee. It wasn’t exactly the gulag. I understand employers who use lots of illegal labor don’t want it. I hope RP isn’t carrying water for them.

  3. Federal law already requires employers to file I-9 forms on all employees.

    e-Verify simply makes sure the information presented on the I-9 is accurate.

    I also have great trouble believing that e-Verify wrongly identifies millions of Americans as illegal aliens. This could be fact-checked by looking at e-Verify records of businesses that employ it, such as CKE.

    The trouble with Ron Paul is that he is a religious fanatic. He worships liberty.

    Liberty isn’t always bad, but there are many problems for which the answer is [i]not[/i] liberty.

    Immigration is a very obvious example–complete liberty here would result in the destruction of America.

  4. George says:

    E-verify could only be required if the wages of an employee will be deducted from the employer’s revenue for tax purposes.

    From a libertarian perspective, it depends on if you think US citizenship is a kind of property right. A property right that includes living and working in the US. If it is a property right then like it or not that property right must be defined, using e-verify, and defended using police. Why have property registrations of deeds and mortgages? Property registries can be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes.

  5. Sorry, Ron, but your article is bullshit.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @anonymous
  6. Look Ron, you’re a good guy and we appreciate what you did when we were so brainwashed by Fox News et el we didn’t know any better than libertarianism.

    But your views are outmoded and fossilized now, and its time you retired with dignity from the arena of ideas. The right no longer needs the fig leaf of libertarianism in an age of nationalism.

    • Replies: @Giuseppe
  7. Giuseppe says:

    Ron is spot on, it’s a slippery slope. Paid trolls are out in force today. Features of E-Verify like biometrics are already being incorporated into what is being billed as the *enhanced drivers licence.” Congress would never dare pass legislation authorizing a national identity card, so your government has repackaged the idea and is slipping it past drowsy Americans. The national security state that tracks your vehicle’s license plate along freeways or at intersections, listens in on your mobile phone conversations and reads your email, bit by bit is assembling the the elements of a world-wide database with everything about you contained in a chip in your driver’s licence. All that remains is to surgically place the chip into your body or stamp a QR code on your forehead. In time advanced facial recognition and biometric capabilities will even make this obsolete, you will simply present your face to the officer, who will have immediate access to everything about you, including whether or not your driver’s license is current. Welcome to E-Verify, welcome to your dystopic future.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  8. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Gittelson

    Why do you even bother? Yours are among the most loutish, insubstantial comments posted on this website. I would ask you to refute any of Dr. Paul’s points, but you demonstrated early on that you’re incapable of coherent expression. Remember your contributions to the Ilana Mercer article of January 4?

    Steve Gittelson (#33): “Good job, Ilana. Keep speaking truth.”

    Steve Gittelson (#49): “I’ve never seen Ilana (Mercer) respond in Comments.”

    Steve Gittelson (#66): “I had no idea Ilana responded to commenters, not having previously read any of her columns.”

    Dishonest or demented, take your pick.

    Your comment here today adds nothing but vulgar cliche to the discussion. Please consider the need for sharing your thoughts before posting.

  9. @anonymous

    His comment is fine. It’s time for libertarians to go away.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  10. Giuseppe says:
    @Lemurmaniac

    The libertarian figleaf is all that now stands between your private parts and the NSA. Just try hiding your *nationalist* movement when the security state links your every move, your every key stroke to your retinal scan and digitzed DNA.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    , @Lemurmaniac
  11. If we shut down government computer systems because they may mess up, or have the wrong data, we will have to go back to paper (where the data was probably still wrong, but took longer to work with).

  12. @Giuseppe

    Great.

    We can oppose that while still supporting e-Verify.

    Liberty is not the solution to every problem.

    • Replies: @Giuseppe
    , @jtgw
  13. @Giuseppe

    Guiseppe, this and your #1o comment are very good arguments in favor of what Dr. Paul writes and talks about lots, not just regarding E-verify. Peak Stupidity posted just today about this conundrum in the balance or overlap between conservatism and liberty.

    I hope you don’t mind that I posted your #8 comment here (the one I’m replying to just now) as evidence on one side of the disagreement about E-verify, on Peak Stupidity. That came along with a pretty good “boots-on-the-ground” argument for the uselessness of worrying about the privacy of it by this point, in favor of solving the existential immigration-invasion problem first (2nd comment was off Zerohedge).

    I am not in agreement with Ron Paul on this particular issue, even though I completely understand his argument. I have tons of respect for this man, but, well the rest is in my post.

    I don’t agree that there are trolls on here, Guiseppe, under this particular post – this one is tough and I’ve seen good comments, here and on Zerohedge. Keep in mind that we are mostly on the same side here, as the other side wants to trash any means of controlling who lives in America. We’ve got to focus on the real domestic enemies, as that’s no guaranteed win.

  14. @Thorfinnsson

    It’s time for libertarians to go away.

    Quite the contrary. Per comment #10 above, once they go away, there is nothing more stopping you from being “gone away”.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  15. @Achmed E. Newman

    No.

    Most, maybe all of us in the alt right, oppose the surveillance state.

    Old-fashioned liberals oppose it as well (e.g. the ACLU).

    And now we even have traditional Republicans starting to wonder about it as a result of the deep state conspiracy against Trump.

    It’s offensive to still be libertarian, as libertarianism was simply an implicit vehicle for white interests. Now we have an explicit one.

    Ron Paul can be forgiven for sticking to libertarianism in light of his age, but younger men have no excuse.

  16. It’s offensive to still be libertarian, as libertarianism was simply an implicit vehicle for white interests. Now we have an explicit one.

    I don’t get that. You shouldn’t be libertarian anymore, because of what, now? You should read this post on libertarianism vs. conservativism, and what the adherents could, and should, learn from each other.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  17. Giuseppe says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Liberty is not the solution to every problem.

    For hundreds of years of Icelandic history, liberty was the solution to every problem.

    But, if in that happy new land you hope to build without liberty, you ever have anxiety about your moniker not sounding quite Nordic enough, I’m happy to help out with several with much stronger suggestions.

  18. @Achmed E. Newman

    I don’t get that.

    Obviously.

    You shouldn’t be libertarian anymore, because of what, now?

    Libertarianism is an ideological vehicle for implicit white interests.

    Or more specifically, white males with three digit IQs.

    We now have the alt-right to explicitly fight for our interests, which is more effective than libertarianism. It’s more effective since it is willing to use any strategy to advance our interests, not just expanding liberty.

    The only reason left to be a libertarian is if you are a religious fanatic who considers liberty to be a religious sacrament. Ron Paul falls into this camp as this absurd op-ed makes clear.

    You should read this post on libertarianism vs. conservativism, and what the adherents could, and should, learn from each other.

    Many small-l libertarian insights remain valid, including a number of points made in this piece.

    But this doesn’t mean liberty is the solution to every problem.

    Libertarians oppose things like protective tariffs, national parks, the space program, social insurance, etc. that it is perfectly reasonable and perhaps even desirable for the government to engage in.

    Giuseppe

    For hundreds of years of Icelandic history, liberty was the solution to every problem.

    Yes, let’s draw our inspiration from an isolated island society in the Medieval period with only a few thousand people.

    And in that time Iceland accomplished…what, exactly?

    • Replies: @Giuseppe
  19. Giuseppe says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    And in that time Iceland accomplished…what, exactly

    You mean besides being a beacon of liberty? Besides showing the world a functional judicial system without a state? A people that didn’t invade the world, invite the world? A people that to this day can study Beowulf in the Anglo-Saxon original?

    …hé þá fág gewát
    morþre gemearcod mandréam fléön·
    wésten warode. Þanon wóc fela
    geósceaftgásta·…

    And you have produced, what sagas?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  20. Tulip says:

    You either keep the barbarians out with a wall, and by eliminating the economic incentives for foreign invaders in the domestic economy, or citizen and barbarian will walk side-by-side in the street.

    Barbarians, being barbarians, will pillage and commit mayhem, and the resulting crack down on domestic civil liberties to control terrorism and extremism will be much more draconian than e-verify and border security. See the Red Scare. I’m sure Sacco and Venzetti were innocent, notwithstanding the DNA results.

    • Agree: Steve Gittelson
  21. @Giuseppe

    You mean besides being a beacon of liberty? Besides showing the world a functional judicial system without a state? A people that didn’t invade the world, invite the world?

    Being a “beacon of liberty” is not an appropriate political objective–unless you worship liberty. There may be nothing wrong with being a beacon of liberty, but it’s not self-evident that being a beacon of liberty produces superior outcomes. In fact it almost certainly doesn’t, as it eliminates all strategies other than expanding liberty.

    A functional, stateless judicial system is only desirable if it produces outcomes superior to a state-run judicial system.

    Invading the world is a perfectly reasonable political goal if good results can be obtained at a reasonable cost.

    And shouldn’t someone who worships liberty, as you do, be in favor of inviting the world? After all, borders seem to violate your sacred non-aggression principle.

    A people that to this day can study Beowulf in the Anglo-Saxon original?

    And this has what exactly to do with your religion?

    The Academe Francaise, which is a statist institution that violates the non-aggression principle, maintains the standards of the French language. Thanks to the Academe Francaise, the French language is protected from pollution by foreign language and from “evolution” in its grammar and syntax. So future generations of Frenchmen will be able to read existing literature, and they owe it all the state rejecting your religious fanaticism.

    And you have produced, what sagas?

    I’m not a country. But I did invent the concept of wrongism. And you are a wrongist.

    Like all libertarians, you need to go away.

  22. @anonymous

    Your comment here today adds nothing but vulgar cliche to the discussion. Please consider the need for sharing your thoughts before posting.

    Thank you for noticing. My intent, in fact, was vulgar cliche. Everything Paul wrote is either irrelevant, or just otherwise useless, pointless, antiquated bullshit. Application of the cliche is simply emphasis. Deal with it.

    I do not crave your attention. It’s best you mind your own business, as I will mine, as I will express my opinion as I see fit, as I will comment in whatever mood strikes me.

  23. @Thorfinnsson

    It’s offensive to still be libertarian, as libertarianism was simply an implicit vehicle for white interests. Now we have an explicit one.

    There is the principle of libertarianism, to which I believe we can all feel comfort in adhering. There is the reality of the surveillance state which, at best implementation of libertarian principle, requires some correcting degree of well-regulated non-libertarian actions, simply to achieve some balance of liberty.

  24. @Giuseppe

    what if take over the NSA and use it to hunt down our political opponents instead?

  25. TheOldOne says:

    Libertarianism is a proper subset of liberalism. If one isn’t a liberal, then one isn’t a libertarian. QED.

  26. Libertarianism is a proper subset of liberalism. If one isn’t a liberal, then one isn’t a libertarian. QED.

    You have no idea what you’re talking about. None whatsoever.

  27. jtgw says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    LOL about the Academie. They incorporate changes all the time; they have no more power to stop language change than any authoritative dictionary committee in the English-speaking world.

  28. jtgw says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Can you still oppose it, though? Why are you so sure that your side will remain in power and that these tools will not later be used against you?

  29. I like Ron Paul but he’s wrong here. E-verify is pretty simple to use and isn’t much of burden on business. And the false negative rate is very low, with procedures in place to rectify situations where a citizen or legal resident doesn’t pass. It is grossly irresponsible to say that “millions of Americans could be denied jobs”, the system isn’t anywhere near that inaccurate. As for the dangers of a national id, between social security numbers and drivers licenses that water passed under the bridge long ago.

    The biggest opponents of E-verify are businesses that want to violate the law by hiring illegal immigrants. It’s as simple as that.

  30. TheOldOne says:

    Gittelson:

    So you’re a “right libertarian” or some such?

    Fuck off.

    • Troll: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson
  31. @TheOldOne

    Made ya mad, huh? Well, geezer, have some notion of what you’re talking about, and you won’t have to get angry.

    Nope, not a libertarian. Libertarian principles can sound good, sure. Some can work, most cannot.

    I like Plato’s model better, but it certainly isn’t perfect.

  32. @Thorfinnsson

    “It’s offensive to still be libertarian, as libertarianism was simply an implicit vehicle for white interests.”

    I’m a little younger than Ron Paul, and I’m not a libertarian, but I will become one just to offend you. You sound like some whining little SJW: “OMG, that’s SOOOOOOO OFFENSIIIIIVE”.

    Maybe you can explain how your right to be protected from offense supersedes the right of another man to choose whatever political philosophy he likes. Go be offended if it suits you, just don’t expect anyone else to bring you a jar of butthurt salve.

  33. @Thorfinnsson

    “I’m not a country. But I did invent the concept of wrongism. And you are a wrongist.”

    Since you invented “wrongism”, you might be able to tell me something: if someone is accused of “wrongism”, and they recant, are they now guilty of wrongwasm?

    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson
  34. @Twodees Partain

    Since you invented “wrongism”, you might be able to tell me something: if someone is accused of “wrongism”, and they recant, are they now guilty of wrongwasm?

    Wrongedism.

  35. Weaver1 says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Libertarianism didn’t serve white interests. It was largely a vehicle for manipulating whites, with some positives.

    If we’d pursued a larger middle class back then, or limited big business; we probably would have won. Libertarians wouldn’t let us. People were paranoid of “socialists”.

    Ron Unz’s proposal of a higher minimum wage was an excellent attack on the state. Libertarians hated it. “That sounds socialist.” Unz argued it’s better to pay workers more than to have the state redistribute wealth. And others noted how it would reduce business desire to import cheap labour if the minimum wage limited how far market wages could be hammered down.

    Libertarians still mumbled about “socialism”…

    Now things are so bad that more extreme, and risky, proposals are considered. Ideology is a disaster. Libertarianism wasn’t the only enemy, but it was an important enemy.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  36. @Weaver1

    “If we’d pursued a larger middle class back then, or limited big business; we probably would have won. Libertarians wouldn’t let us. People were paranoid of “socialists”.”

    So, the evil and powerful libertarians foiled your plans to “limit big business”. If you two had any idea what morons you appear to be with such ridiculous statements, you would probably STFU.

    Sorry for the interruption. You and Ms. Finnsdottir can go back to swapping spit and dry humping in the corner now.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  37. Svigor says:

    For hundreds of years of Icelandic history, liberty was the solution to every problem.

    But, if in that happy new land you hope to build without liberty, you ever have anxiety about your moniker not sounding quite Nordic enough, I’m happy to help out with several with much stronger suggestions.

    I like liberty. I like it a lot.

    I don’t like libertarians though. Libertardians. Most of them are spergs.

    Libertardians would sacrifice liberty on the altar of radical individualism, anti-nationalism, and open borders.

    Atomized individuals can’t defend borders, nations, peoples, or liberty.

    The other guy is right; time for libertardians to go away.

  38. Svigor says:

    Liberty isn’t always bad, but there are many problems for which the answer is not liberty.

    Immigration is a very obvious example–complete liberty here would result in the destruction of America.

    Hmm, not really. True liberty starts with preservation of liberty, which open borders destroy. Homogeneous states are the way to preserve liberty; those with the DNA or “cultural DNA,” if you really must stick your head in the sand, can preserve liberty, while those who can’t or won’t are walled out.

    It’s like not being so capitalist you sell the rope to hang you to communists.

  39. @Thorfinnsson

    Invading the world is a perfectly reasonable political goal if good results can be obtained at a reasonable cost.

    Tôjô would agree. Lindbergh would not.

    I guess the Lone Eagle wasn’t as American as the Razor. Nor as concerned with “white interests”, whether implicit or ex-.

  40. donut says:

    I’m sure e-verify will work out as well as the “no fly list” has .

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS