[jandrewrogers]

In the US, there is no reliable way to verify employment eligibility. What systems do exist tend to produce many false positives and false negatives. Furthermore, you are required to accept documents the demonstrate employment eligibility at face value, even if they are likely to be fraudulent.

In industries that famously have many illegal employees, the companies have cover because the employees always have fraudulent documents. And since the company is required to accept those documents and not discriminate, the company can't be held liable for hiring them even though they are illegal.

Underlying this situation is that it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to issue mandatory ids to citizens that could be used to reliably determine employment eligibility.

[JumpCrisscross]

> you are required to accept documents the demonstrate employment eligibility at face value, even if they are likely to be fraudulent

Genuine question: source?

> mandatory ids to citizens that could be used to reliably determine employment eligibility

Yes, state-issued IDs, the infallible line keeping underage drinkers out of bars.

[cj]

> Genuine question: source?

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-9...

I'm an employer, and this is the form that needs to be filled out when we hire someone.

Notice the 2nd page of eligible documentation. A "School ID" and "birth certificate" are adequate documentation for employment. Both can be easily forged and difficult to verify.

Also notice the bottom of the 2nd page: it allows (for a temporary period) a "receipt" of the document to be considered acceptable if it is "stolen" - meaning you don't even need to have the physical document at all.

And here's the kicker: This form does not need to be submitted to any government agency. (You literally just fill it out and put it in a filing cabinet)

[JumpCrisscross]

> A "School ID" and "birth certificate" are adequate documentation for employment

No, they're not. They're adequate to establish identity. (List B).

> form does not need to be submitted to any government agency. (You literally just fill it out and put it in a filing cabinet)

Correct. We're on the same page in respect of employers having no real requirement to verify work authorisation. This appears part of the policy choice that lets certain politicians rail against illegal immigration without threatening the economics they support.

[erikerikson]

Turning away potentially underage drinkers is encouraged (and not doing so badly punished) but denying someone legal allowable employment is subject to litigation.

"ANTI-DISCRIMINATION NOTICE: All employees can choose which acceptable documentation to present for Form I-9. Employers cannot ask employees for documentation to verify information in Section 1, or specify which acceptable documentation employees must present for Section 2 or Supplement B, Reverification and Rehire. Treating employees differently based on their citizenship, immigration status, or national origin may be illegal."[0]

[0] https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-9...

[jandrewrogers]

It is against Federal law to reject any reasonable documentation that satisfies the I-9 requirements. Historically, you can bootstrap your way to meeting those requirements with not much more than affidavits and basic forgery.

There are many people who are US citizens that due to history or circumstances have no reliable documentation of such with which to bootstrap an ID -- I have people with no foundational documents in my own family. The system is designed to enable these people to bootstrap their paperwork without a reliable root document, which is of course exploitable by people that are in the US illegally.

State-issued IDs do not contain sufficient information to ensure eligibility for employment under Federal law.

[Spooky23]

More like they can comply with their minimal legal obligation while accepting documentation that is readily identifiable as fraudulent.

People not motivated to seek shall not find.

[jandrewrogers]

The documents are fraudulent but valid. It violates Federal law for an employer to not accept these documents if offered.

People are motivated by not becoming Federal criminals.

[infinite8s]

I think you mean they are fraudulent but look valid.

[MetaWhirledPeas]

> In the US, there is no reliable way to verify employment eligibility.

Enact a law to punish the employers and that would change overnight.

[jandrewrogers]

There is already a Federal law that punishes employers who do not accept documents that satisfy the I-9 requirements. Illegal immigrants have documents that satisfy these requirements.

[hulitu]

> Illegal immigrants have documents that satisfy these requirements.

This reminds me of a Beavis and Butthead scene: "At the border. -Policeman: let them through. -Other policeman: Why ?. -Policeman: Mexicans know the capital of Texas, Americans don't"

[selimthegrim]

This is the 90s version of they follow the speed limit

[MetaWhirledPeas]

Perhaps I should have said enforce the law. Falsified documents should not divert blame from the employers.

[Brian_K_White]

How many times does everyone who knows have to explain that it is illegal NOT to accept the documents. The more the law is enforced, the more such documents must be accepted.

There are conflicting valid problems, different problems that are both valid, but the solution to one inhibits the solution to the other, and the law as it stands favors preventing discrimination as being the higher priority over preventing illegal employment.

I doubt either you or I knows if that is even a wrong priority, because I can't say which is the bigger problem. I'll say I don't begrudge any immigrants getting jobs, whether they are technically illegal or not. They are human and until they actually commit theft or violence I don't get off on making them suffer.

Regardless, the problem is not enforcing the law. The law says you must accept the documents. There is no "diverted blame". If you find the prospect of the wrong person getting a job so outrageous, the "blame" is on the government for making it easy to fabricate their documents. The various documents that the law says you must accept, should not be so easy to fake up, and there should probably be some office that accepts these documents and vets them instead of just telling employers to file them and never looking at them.