Worker Verification Plan Provokes Intense Debate

It sounds simple enough: Every time a business hires someone, the employer first dials a toll-free telephone number to verify the immigration status of the new worker.

Just like the process that occurs at the cash register when a customer hands over a credit card, a central computer would instantly relay back a thumbs up or down.

Computer verification of immigration status is being described by proponents as a virtually foolproof method of determining who can legally work in the United States, offering far more reliability than the easily forged work-authorization documents now reviewed by employers. Endorsed by Republican leaders in Congress, the idea is contained in legislation pending in both the House and Senate.

But as the two houses prepare to cast final votes in coming weeks on their immigration reform measures, the verification plan is provoking bitter debate and blurring party lines on Capitol Hill.

The roster of opponents includes small-business owners concerned about the hassle of phoning Uncle Sam every time they hire someone and civil libertarians who fear that a government database might be misused. House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) has expressed concern about the GOP proposal, while President Clinton is supporting it in concept but urging a go-slow approach.

The conflicting views are captured in slogans offered by different Republican members of Congress to describe the hotline.

Rep. Elton Gallegly of Simi Valley calls it “1-800-END FRAUD,” arguing that the verification system is so essential to immigration reform that any legislation adopted by Congress will be largely toothless without it.

“If we can verify a $2 charge at K mart, surely we can find out whether someone is legally able to work or not,” Gallegly said.

One of Gallegly’s GOP colleagues, Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio, has dubbed the hotline “1-800-BIG BROTHER.”

“I think it’s an undue expansion of federal powers,” said Chabot, a freshman who has joined with Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) in attempting to kill the plan. “It’s inappropriate to require every employer to get the federal government’s approval to hire someone.”

The Clinton administration has already launched pilot projects in California to test the approach. But many bugs must be worked out, administration officials have said, and launching a system too quickly might cause more problems than it solves.

“We are in a test mode, and we truly don’t know what we’ll find,” said Bob Bach, the top policy analyst at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. “This is a complicated undertaking.”

In a demonstration of the system at INS headquarters last week, an operator typed into a computer the name and number of a fictitious worker: “Scarlett O’Hara,” registration number 072735827. Within seconds, the screen flashed back “EMP AUTHD,” indicating that the worker was legal. In another hypothetical test case, “Dom Perignon’s” records did not match, sending the INS operator to another computer screen to track down the trouble.

If a mandatory national verification system is implemented before the glitches can be eliminated, many qualified workers could experience the same sinking feeling they get when a credit card purchase is improperly rejected--and the same inconvenience in straightening out the situation. And if safeguards are not in place, employers could be tempted to use the system for improper purposes.

Since 1986, it has been against the law for employers to hire illegal immigrants. But because fraudulent documents are so prevalent, the law has been largely ineffective. Employers who hire illegal immigrants can claim that they were duped by documents that appeared authentic. The government has difficulty determining which companies are knowingly breaking the law.

The proposed telephone hotline is aimed at ending the problem of forged documents by tapping directly into government records.

Proponents say the change is not all that drastic. Job applicants are already required to submit their names and Social Security numbers to prospective employers. Telephone verification would simply determine with more certainty whether the names and numbers match, they say. It would be required for all job seekers.

A somewhat different procedure would be employed with noncitizens who are legally entitled to work in the United States but who do not have Social Security numbers. In those cases, the telephone check would be routed to an INS database to match the names with immigrant-registration numbers.

Some businesses, however, fear that they are in for serious problems if the federal government gets that involved in the hiring process.

“We see it as yet another mandate on the backs of employers,” said Nelson Litterst, who is lobbying against the bill for the National Federation of Independent Business. “Name me one simple phone call you can make to any government number. Try calling the INS right now.

“This might seem simple, but once it is implemented and added to everything else a small business owner has to do, it takes up a significant portion of the day,” he said.

Civil libertarians, meanwhile, fear that the telephone system might be the first step toward creation of a national identification card, a possibility that they have long resisted as an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Some opponents of the concept fear that the registry might be used at some point for more than verification of employment eligibility. The network, once established, might be used for tracking down deadbeat parents, keeping up with immunizations or advancing other seemingly worthy causes.

“What some are calling a ‘national computer registry’ is just a euphemism for a national ID card,” Armey said last year in a speech to the Cato Institute, which opposes the concept. “And any system in which Americans would be forced to possess such a card, for any reason, is an abomination and wholly at odds with the American tradition of individual freedom.”

Backers of the concept, who see illegal immigration as a critical concern, insist that a system can be developed that protects against abuses while preventing illegal immigrants from getting jobs.

Nonetheless, huge logistics hurdles must be overcome.

The Social Security Administration, which would administer the main database, has estimated that 20% of legal workers might be turned down by the system when it is first implemented. That’s largely because many women change their last names upon marriage without notifying the government.

And if William Jefferson Clinton were to list his first name as Bill on a job application, the government computer might spit back a rejection as well, officials acknowledge.

Over time, that 20% error rate would fall to around 5%, officials estimate.

While the Social Security database is considered largely accurate, the INS computer registry is far less reliable, although the INS has begun revamping its data.

To gain some real-world experience, the INS has begun a pilot project involving 230 employers in and around Santa Ana, all of whom signed up voluntarily. In the program, computer checks are performed only for job applicants who identify themselves as noncitizens with work permits. Such applicants represent only a small percentage of the total work force.

INS officials say they have learned important lessons from the pilot program. The agency intends to expand the test later this year to include roughly 1,000 employers across the country, with special emphasis on industries with a history of hiring illegal immigrants, such as construction and food service.

The INS test program has not been trouble-free. Many applicants initially rejected by the computer are found to be eligible for employment when officials undertake a follow-up check using INS documents. But the records search generally takes about two days to complete.

If the records check also indicates that an applicant is not eligible for employment, the job-seeker’s only recourse is to appear at an INS office to try to resolve the situation.

So far, of approximately 3,000 verifications in the California trial program, only six people have showed up at INS offices for the third step. Of those six, five were legal workers whose records had not yet been entered in INS computers.

Even with that relatively low error rate, INS officials are not yet claiming success in light of the limited population they have been checking. Eventually, the INS hopes to set up a test program in which employers would check the status of all new hires, citizens or not.

One big problem facing verification proponents is that there is no easy way to merge the databases maintained by the INS, which keeps track of most noncitizens, and the Social Security Administration, which oversees U.S. citizens in the work force.

Before verification is implemented on a large scale, INS safeguards must be developed to ensure that employers do not tap into the data inappropriately. The agency has already contracted with the Los Alamos National Laboratory to strengthen its computer security.

“There are many technical problems with establishing a good verification system and there are many things to protect against--such as discrimination or the unauthorized release of this data,” said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), who backs the White House pilot-project approach.

“We’re never going to get a hand on immigration without a verification system. But before I vote for one, I had better be sure we’ve done it right,” he said.

The Senate immigration reform bill, introduced by Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.), acknowledges that a perfect system is not yet available. But it would direct the INS and the Social Security Administration to set up a verification system more quickly than they believe is feasible.

The pending House bill, which embraces an even more ambitious verification effort, initially called for a nationwide program. When significant opposition developed, the proposal was scaled back to a pilot project involving all employers in five of the seven states with the largest rates of illegal immigration. California, lawmakers say, almost certainly would be among them.

Although the pilot project in the House bill would last three years and die unless Congress votes to continue it, opponents argue that it would involve tens of millions of people and would be difficult to stop after the initial effort.

With 65 million Americans starting new jobs every year, critics say that the new hotline probably would break down under the strain of being subjected to so many inquiries.

Under the House legislation, those initially rejected by the computers--perhaps as many as 1 million applicants per year in California alone--would have 10 days to visit a Social Security office and fix their status. The employer would be required to hold the job open until the matter was resolved.

Allen Kay, an aide to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chief sponsor of the House bill, argues that the potential problems associated with the verification system are overblown.

Kay offers a personal example. Shortly after he and his wife were married, the Internal Revenue Service returned their tax form because his wife’s married name and Social Security number did not match. The couple drove to a nearby Social Security field office and filled out a change-of-name form, a process that he said took 15 minutes and has prevented any further foul-ups.

“This is not going to catch 100% of the illegal immigrants,” Kay said of verification. “A system that would do that would be oppressive. This system will be, say, 90% effective, and it will not be a big hassle in people’s lives.”

* RENEWAL TIME: Deadline nears for legal immigrants to renew green cards. B1