Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The number is correct. E-verify won't work unless every US citizen and LPR submits a unique biometric identifier such as fingerprints, retinal scan, etc. Employers aren't the problem. They do what they can. E-verify misses 54% of unauthorized workers. And our insufficient border control and ICE deporting WAY too few illegal aliens is the problem. But Dems scream to "Abolish ICE!" Might as well give illegal alien murderers like Rivera a red carpet welcome into the USA to steal more jobs and kill more Americans.
You make up your own "facts."
Quote:
A report by the independent research firm Westat, which used a sample from a three month period in 2008, concluded that E-Verify was accurate 96 percent of the time. Since then, the Obama administration has taken steps further to improve E-Verify.
Exactly. And we now know that e-verify catches only 46% of illegal workers. Why such a huge failure rate? Because e-verify does not have a unique biometric identifier such as fingerprints, retinal scan, etc., from every US citizen, LPR, and authorized temporary non-citizen worker.
Again, you go with what you want to believe for some odd reason.
Quote:
To be clear, this means that only an estimated 3.3 percent of all workers screened by E-Verify were incorrectly told they were work authorized.
"As seen in Exhibit 2, approximately 3.3 percent of all E-Verify findings are for unauthorized workers incorrectly found employment authorized and 2.9 percent of all findings are for unauthorized workers correctly not found employment authorized. Thus, almost half of all unauthorized workers are correctly not found to be employment authorized (2.9/6.2) and just over half are found to be employment authorized (3.3/6.2). Consequently, the inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers is estimated to be approximately 54 percent with a plausible range of 37 percent to 64 percent. This finding is not surprising, given that since the inception of E-Verify it has been clear that many unauthorized workers obtain employment by committing identity fraud that cannot be detected by E-Verify"
A unique biometric identifier such as fingerprints, retinal scan, etc., would be required from every US citizen, LPR, and authorized temporary non-citizen worker to make e-verify work as well as it was intended to. E-verify has no such database, therefore it cannot accurately detect identity fraud/theft.
E-verify misidentifies 54% of illegal workers as eligible to work in the US. So how would employers be able to vet employees beyond e-verify authentication, which is highly ineffective?
A unique biometric identifier such as fingerprints, retinal scan, etc., would be required from every US citizen, LPR, and authorized temporary non-citizen worker to make e-verify work the way it was intended to. Since e-verify has no such database, what's the answer? Just don't hire anyone who looks Hispanic or has a Hispanic name to be safe?
Perhaps a course in understanding statistics would be of help for you.
Some people just will never get it. They would rather be willfully ignorant. One has to wonder what their dog in this fight is. After all, they go to extremes to defend illegal aliens to the point where they're putting their fingers in their ears and saying "I can't hear you!" In other words, they have very closed minds.
They also have never seen their neighborhoods and schools destroyed by illegal aliens. Their thinking goes like this --- "It isn't happening where I live so therefore anyone who says otherwise is making it up."
Oh hell. Even Fox News contributor Rivera said that they are focusing on the wrong thing. Immigration status vs. MURDER.
3.3% may well be half of the illegal aliens being employed. So 3.3% of all workers and 50% of illegal alien workers may well be the same numbers.
The killer here is that the US has always resisted a US identity card. And the right wing has taken a leadership role in this resistance. The point is that the US government should not have a detailed track on all the individual citizens.
But in fact that is what a good eVerify would be. A virtual ID card able to identify and track the employment and likely many other things of every citizen.
I would also note that any easily evaded eVerify would give the lie to it preventing the employment of illegal aliens.
If American of the same race kills someone, then race, nationality and immigration status isn't relevant and neither is demographic crime rates.
If an illegal alien kills someone an American of another race then legal status, race, and nationality are all relevant.
I believe that he was drawn to Mollie due to factors of her being white and exotic to him and enraged and unsympathetic when rejected because she was another ethnic and panicky from being an illegal when she threaten to call the police before he had actually violated the law. If the girl was a fellow Hispanic I don't believe he would've done this. And more importantly if the illegal wasn't here like he shouldn't have been it wouldn't have happened either.
Liberals don't ever want you to believe any of that can matter because the bottom line is their agenda is to replace and displace white America to begin with.
Oh hell. Even Fox News contributor Rivera said that they are focusing on the wrong thing. Immigration status vs. MURDER.
What do you mean even? Geraldo Rivera is basically a token on Fox and always shills for his fellow coethics and supports illegal immigration and is just anti-white and liberal leaning in general. This is the problem with mass immigration as it increases tribal advocacy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.