Talk:E-Verify
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the E-Verify article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Dead link
editDuring several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
If E-Verify Were Mandatory for All Employers, It Could Essentially Halt Illegal Immigration
editThe article contains no hint as to the real potential of E-Verify. If made mandatory for all employers, E-Verify could essentially -- and compassionately -- halt illegal immigration by giving the signal that the era of wink-and-a-nod was over. Removing the employment magnet would be a simple, humane way of fomenting self-deportation for many illegal immigrants. E-Verify is cheap, very highly accurate, and one of the very few tools available to efficiently combat massive illegal immigration. The article should note these things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
well, if there are credible sources that state that, find them and add a link. 13:14 26 Decebmer 2009 isprawl
The key point is that Congress went to sll the trouble to set up this system but then never really implemented it by simply passing a federal law to mandate its usage!! I added a short note to this effect to the introduction but expect it to be deleted quickly!🙁 JdelaF (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Dead link
editDuring several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
Can someone explain this line please
edit"The program has also been called inaccurate, though the error rate, currently around 8 percent, is decreasing, as many of the errors came from changing last names after marriage, or not informing the government they were now citizens."
Isn't the government the very entity that naturalizes aliens. So how the government not be aware of this fact? Heliumballoon (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC).
One part of the article says the error rate is .5%. Another part says it's 8%. "Error rate" is not defined nor its consequences. The DHS addresses this here: http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/2008/05/debunking-e-verify-error-rate.html
MULTIPLE ARTICLES!
editWhat in the world is this article about: E-verify --68.49.229.110 (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
i have merged relevant information from the other article (namely state laws related to e-verify) and have recommended that page for deletion Isprawl (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Article Needs Arguments For/Against E-Verify
editA list of unbiased pros and cons should be added to give a better sense over the enforcement mechanism. Isprawl (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Section on H-1B Visa
editNot quite sure why this is included. There could be substantially less in this section.
I think the general point of the section is to show that making e-verify mandatory to receive STEM extensions prevents a significant number of otherwise qualified Foreign Nationals (FNs) from receiving the extension simply because their prospective employer does not participate in the E-Verify program. At this point, I don't see how this is any more than a possibility and does not represent a serious, well-documented problem. In my 2-3 years in commercial immigration dealing with H-1Bs/TNs/L-1s/etc., I have yet to come across this issue. If we are going to say this is a recognized problem, then there should be citations supporting this proposition. Otherwise, we should merely note it is a possibility, which is discouraged under the weasel words policy. 199.107.16.122 (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do not cite a Month without also citing the Year
editIf you are going to write, such and such article came out in April -- then at the very minimum you should provide the year. Here is the specific example in the section entitled Criticism where this occurred:
- The American Farm Bureau Foundation opposes E-Verify and stated in July that...
JULY OF WHAT YEAR -- and no, I do not want to have to follow an often broken link merely to find the year which the author of this sentence failed to include. This is exactly the kind of dotting the i's and crossing the t's that separates a well edited encyclopedia entry from an amateurish one. Thanks. --Frumiousfalafel (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on E-Verify. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100717121633/http://www.pe.com:80/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_sverify14.24cb0dd.html to http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_sverify14.24cb0dd.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on E-Verify. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100302231944/http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/programs/gc_1199120920203.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/programs/gc_1199120920203.shtm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090809081924/https://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/programs/gc_1185221678150.shtm to https://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/programs/gc_1185221678150.shtm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on E-Verify. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.smartbusinesspractices.com/legal_everifyfaq.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201010647/http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/searchableinstruments/2011rs/bills/hb56.htm to http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/searchableinstruments/2011rs/bills/hb56.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110918173026/http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2005_06/fulltext/sb529.htm to http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2005_06/fulltext/sb529.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
"Partisan rhetoric"
editI made the following edits to E-Verify:
in the LEDE, I added "Reception to the E-Verify program has been mixed. Criticism includes arguments that only a small percentage of employers participate in E-Verify,[1] while other research shows that E-Verify harms the labor market outcomes of undocumented immigrants and improves the labor market outcomes of Mexican legal immigrants and U.S.-born Hispanics, but has no impact on labor market outcomes for non-Hispanic white Americans.[2] A 2016 study suggests that E-Verify reduces the number of undocumented immigrants in states that have mandated use of E-Verify for all employers, and further notes that the program may deter illegal immigration to the US in general.[3]"
The citations are from a Chigago Trib article (new citation), and other citations are from 2 peer-reviewed papers that were already listed as references (I merely changed the reference style to allow for easier citation).
User Snooganssnoogans deleted the sentence from the Trib and wrote, "let's not contrast partisan rhetoric with actual research". However, same user did not specify what "partisan rhetoric" specifically was at issue, and did not cite any authority on E-Verify who thinks the citation involved are somehow partisan. How is pointing out that a small percentage of US employers use E-Verify "partisan"? I revert to my edits. If Snooganssnoogans wants to provide credible sources to back assertions of "partisan rhetoric", by all means do so. ZeppoShemp (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Tatiana Sanchez (Jan 23, 2018) E-Verify doesn't prevent many companies from hiring undocumented workers, ChicagoTribune.com, accessed 10 May 2018
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Orrenius2015was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Orrenius2016was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
outdated map
editthe map showing e-verify requirements in each state is outdated. for example, the article says florida passed universal e-verify in may 2023. 2600:1006:B140:91E8:D0B8:B24:A0D1:C842 (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)