South Dakota lawmakers reject mandatory E-Verify checks of worker citizenship, immigration status
wildpixel via Getty Images
The bill would have required some South Dakota employers to use a federal website to verify employees’ work eligibility.
This article was originally published by South Dakota Searchlight.
PIERRE — A bill that would have required some South Dakota employers to use a federal website to verify employees’ work eligibility failed in the state Senate on Wednesday, the second-to-last day of the annual legislative session.
E-Verify is a free website from the federal government that compares records from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Social Security Administration to the information on an employee’s I-9, an employment verification document that employers must file for all new employees, regardless of citizenship status.
In its final, amended form, House Bill 1209 would have required employers with more than 25 employees to check an employee’s documents with E-Verify within 10 days of their first day of work. The state’s Department of Labor requires employers to file new hire documents within 20 days.
Sen. Sue Peterson, R-Sioux Falls, said she contacted small-business owners in her district about the bill.
“They were already doing what they were required to do, and adding E-Verify to it didn’t add anything,” she said. “In fact, they were happy to do it as their patriotic duty.”
The bill said that if the state’s attorney general investigated a business and had reasonable cause to believe an employer committed a violation, the state could recover $2,000 in civil penalties per unauthorized or unverified employee.
Including E-Verify as another step in the hiring process could curb unauthorized immigration to the state, according to the bill’s supporters. But it also would put undue burdens on small-business owners, according to Sen. Randy Deibert, R-Spearfish.
“Yes, there’s a problem. Does this solve the problem? Absolutely not,” he said. “It increases my overhead, which means I’m charging each of you more for my services.”
The bill in its initial form succeeded in the House in February. Senators later amended it, as did a conference committee of members from each chamber.
The amended bill failed 15-18 on Wednesday in the Senate, and a subsequent attempt to revive the bill also failed.