Vilifying E-Verify—The ACLU`s Campaign To Break The Only Unbroken Part Of Our “Broken Immigration System”

September 23, 2008

The federal

program is a free, easy to use on-line
system that provides US employers with a way to verify
the employment eligibility of all new hires. It has the
potential to end the illicit

jobs magnet, making it the

America`s best hope
for solving the problem of
illegal immigration.

E-Verify is also popular. More than
70 thousand employers
already use the voluntary program
, and another
thousand are signing up every week. [Statement
for the Record: E-Verify

E-Verify is
quick and easy to use. Participating employers simply go
online and compare the information new hires have
entered on their I-9 forms with hundreds of millions of
records in federal databases.
"Results are returned within seconds."
Program Highlights

E-Verify is
accurate and unobtrusive. Nearly one hundred percent
(99.5%) of new hires who are not illegal aliens are
verified instantly.

E-Verify is
fair. A new hire whose
employment eligibility
cannot be instantly verified
is given ample opportunity to demonstrate eligibility.

E-Verify is effective. Among those
new hires receiving a tentative non-confirmation, only
half of those who even bother to contest that result are
ultimately found to be authorized to work in the United States.

In other words, E-Verify is a

At long last, after decades of
watching the federal government pursue immigration
policies indifferent at best to the well-being and
democratic will of the voters, there is one program in
all of our broken immigration system—one free, fast,
easy, popular, accurate, unobtrusive, fair, and
effective program—working to bring immigration policy
into line with the wishes of the American people.

But Americans better take heart
while the taking`s good. The program`s continued
existence is anything but assured. The biggest effort so
far by the current Congress to fix our broken
immigration system has been—an
effort to kill the E-Verify program
, the one part of
the immigration system that manifestly isn`t broken.

Hard to believe?
Not when one considers the influence in

of some of the program`s enemies.

There is, needless to say, the
Chamber of Commerce,
which, as a spokesperson for
the DHS put it, "has made its position abundantly clear on E-Verify and their desire to
support businesses that want to hire illegal
Administration`s Latest Critic: The Chamber of Commerce
Jake Bernstein,,
August 13, 2008

But it is the American Civil
Liberties Union [ACLU] that has established itself as
the leading menace to E-Verify, which it describes as
"poison, not
medicine for our immigration ills."
Rebukes House for Passing Problematic E-Verify System

What interest, one might ask, could

, which likes to bill itself as a

civil rights organization
, possibly have in
torpedoing a program that helps employers ensure they
are complying with federal law?

Since civil rights, as opposed to,
say, natural rights, are legal rights granted by the
civil authority, one would think a
"civil rights"
organization would be working to expand E-Verify and the
lawfulness it ensures—not working to sabotage it,

as the ACLU is

It indeed says something about the
enormous fraud
that the ACLU has become—about the credulity, or worse,
of the people who fund it—that this
"civil liberties
is embarked on a campaign to kill a
program meant to prevent employers from illegally using

developed countries
to undercut the wages of
American workers; a campaign, in other words, that helps
rich exploit the poor.

If this characterization seems
hyperbolic, just read the ACLU`s own position statement
on immigration policy to see how radically out of step
the organization`s extremist position is with the
American people on this issue:

Ohio ACLU Immigrant Rights
—What`s Happening

The problem today is our broken
immigration system…the ACLU opposes any policies that
include the following:

  • mandatory

    and/or deportation of anyone that an
    immigration officer thinks is an undocumented person

(In other words, the ACLU supports
the continuation of the practice, for example, of
issuing "deferred
at the nation`s

international airports
to persons immigration
inspectors believe are not authorized to enter the United States.
These deferred inspections are
requests to return
at a later date
. They are so routinely ignored that
they are

known by immigration enforcement personnel
"run letters".
In those extremely rare instances when a foreign
national actually shows up for the hearing as requested,
it is a remarked-upon event 
for inspectors.)

(In other words, the ACLU supports
carving immigration law out of all the body of federal
law and declaring it alone as somehow exempt from
enforcement by the vast majority of the civil
authority`s law enforcement personnel.)

  • indefinitely
    detaining an undocumented person who cannot be
    returned to his/her home country of origin for
    political or other reasons

(As contributor

Juan Mann devastatingly reported
in 2002, the ACLU
wants to maintain the status quo in the very broken
asylum and refugee part of our broken immigration

  • removing
    constitutional due process protections and access to
    the courts for immigrants

(There is no effort or proposal
"removing constitutional due process protections and
access to the courts for immigrants"
. If the ACLU is
referring to illegal aliens in this bullet point, it
shouldn`t misleadingly characterize them as

(Of course, mandating use of the
E-Verify system doesn`t require employers to act as
any more than mandating that new employees
fill out a W-4 form requires employers to

act as IRS

The ACLU`s dishonest, baseless,
all-out attack on the E-Verify program reconfirms
something I learned about the ACLU first hand.

In October 2000,
an organization I founded to push for a realistic
immigration policy, erected a

at the foot of the

in New York City reading
"Immigration is
doubling US population in
our lifetimes."
It pictured two children and cited
the Census Bureau as its source.

The board

lasted just thirteen days
. According to an article
in the New York Times, the owner of the property
on which the billboard sat, the Port Authority of NY/NJ,
ordered the board removed after
“an authority
employee noticed it and told his superiors”
. [Billboard
Foes Yearn to Breathe Free Without Its Presence

Tara Bahrampour
October 22, 2000

It was the second time in a year
that ProjectUSA was the victim of such government abuse
of our First Amendment right of free speech.

One evening, when the ProjectUSA
auto-da-fé was burning hottest, I received a phone call
at home from Norm
, [Email
] then director of the
New York chapter of the
. The action taken by authorities against
ProjectUSA seemed a

"classic case" of a
violation of the constitutional right to free speech
said Mr. Siegel. He invited me to meet with a NYCLU
staff attorney to discuss the ACLU`s help in bringing a

I accepted the invitation. After
the meeting
I was told
that while the case certainly seemed
strong, the ACLU would have a hard time taking it
because “there is
a large and growing
immigrants` rights
faction within the organization.”

Indeed, ProjectUSA heard nothing
more from the ACLU after that initial meeting. Two
subsequent requests for help were ignored. Finally, when
I was quoted in a newspaper criticizing the ACLU for
refusing to help, ProjectUSA received a document by mail
from the
“tireless defenders of the First Amendment”

tersely informing us that, in the opinion of the ACLU,
ProjectUSA had no legal case.

Consequently, ProjectUSA was forced
bring suit alone
against the city and the Port

Just weeks before

foreign nationals
US immigration policies
would slam two hijacked
airplanes into the Port Authority`s

crown jewel
, the World Trade Center, an article
about the filing of the lawsuit appeared in the New
York Times
. In it

Donna Lieberman
, interim director of the New York
Civil Liberties Union, said that the organization had
not been
approached by me, but that it would consider supporting
the case.

"We believe very strongly that the city does not have the authority to
impose its viewpoint on the billboards,"
she said.[Immigration
Critic`s New Project: Billboard Lawsuit
, New York Times,  By Tara
Bahrampour, July 22, 2001]

Either Ms. Lieberman lied to the
New York Times
or the New York Times lied to
its readers.

From the same article:
of the city and the Port Authority said they did not
believe that the suit had merit."

The officials and the ACLU were
wrong. The suit did have merit. After being thus
rebuffed by the ACLU on the grounds we had no case, we

won a generous settlement from the Port Authority

The reader may judge for herself
what the ACLU`s real agenda is. But there is no
disputing the fact that those who buy the ACLU`s
defenders of the first amendment"

are being duped.

The ACLU is a public fraud. Its
opposition, and the very intensity of it, to E-Verify
tells us the program is a very good one.

E-Verify and the responsible
employers who are already voluntarily using it
deserve the enthusiastic support of all Americans.

A brand new project called
(full disclosure: I`m the project`s founder) is an
attempt to fight back against the ACLU by providing
Americans with a way to identify and

support those civic-minded employers
. Let`s hope it

[VDARE.COM note:

Oddly neither the U.S. Chamber of Commerce nor the
ACLU post email addresses, but you can contact them


Craig Nelsen (
him) is founder of

, a
project of