U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–860 PDF 2012

DOCUMENT FRAUD IN EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION: HOW AN E-VERIFY REQUIREMENT CAN 

HELP 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 18, 2012 

Serial No. 112–105 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

RICHARD HERTLING, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 18, 2012 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement .................................................................................................. 2 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................................... 4 

WITNESSES 

Ronald Mortensen, Ph.D., U.S. Foreign Service Officer, Retired, Center for 

Immigration Studies 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 36 

Jennifer Andrushko, Ogden, UT 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 48 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 50 

Bert Lemkes, Co-Owner, Van Wingerden International, Inc. 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 54 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 57 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of Waldemar Rodriguez, Deputy Assistant Director, 

Transnational Crime and Public Safety Division, Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security, submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ................................... 7 

Material submitted by the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration Policy and Enforcement 

Prepared Statement of Barbara Jordan, Chair, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, March 30, 1995 .............................................................. 18 

Letter from the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), and 

the American Council on International Personnel ..................................... 27 

News Article titled ‘‘Rise In Child Identity Theft Prompts Push For 

Solutions’’ ....................................................................................................... 30 

News Releases by the National Restaurant Association, submitted by the 

Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 69 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of Emily Tulli, Policy Attorney, National Immigration 

Law Center ........................................................................................................... 75 

(1) 

DOCUMENT FRAUD IN EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION: HOW AN E-VERIFY REQUIREMENT CAN HELP 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:20 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton Gallegly 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, King, Gowdy, Lofgren, 

and Jackson Lee. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Andrea Loving, Counsel; Marian White, 

Clerk; and (Minority) Gary Merson, Counsel. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Call the Subcommittee to order. Today’s oversight 

hearing will examine the use of fraudulent documents by illegal 

immigrants who are seeking employment and how E-Verify can 

help to eliminate a problem that negatively affects millions of 

Americans and legal immigrants who are unemployed. 

However, before discussing my views on this issue, I want to explain why one of the witnesses initially invited to the hearing will 

not be testifying this morning. When my staff contacted ICE over 

2 weeks ago, we requested that an ICE official testify about the 

specific issue of how pervasive fraudulent documents are in the 

context of employment authorization. We asked that ICE provide 

an overview of the issue as well as relevant statistics and data. Unfortunately, the testimony ICE submitted was unresponsive to that 

request. Therefore, I disinvited ICE as a witness. I will leave to 

others to speculate as to why ICE’s testimony was unresponsive. 

Now I will move to the topic of today’s hearing. If one types the 

words ‘‘fake identification documents’’ into an Internet search engine, you will be inundated with web sites that specialize in producing fake IDs. You will even get results for You-Tube videos featuring step-by-step instructions on how to make fake IDs. 

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 put in place 

the weak standard of employment eligibility verification. It states 

that an identification document simply has to appear genuinely on 

its face. As a result of that low standard, the ID black market is 

no longer used overwhelmingly simply because of the underage 

teenagers who want to get fake ID for the purpose of maybe atVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:15 Jul 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\041812\73860.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
2 

tending a bar on Friday night, maybe sometimes on Saturday 

night. 

Now, fake IDs are a million dollar business that helps illegal immigrants secure jobs that should be reserved for Americans and 

legal residents. Today’s hearing highlights how pervasive the use 

of fraudulent IDs are in employment authorization and how EVerify can combat that use. E-Verify allows employers to check the 

work eligibility to new hires by running the employee’s Social Security number or alien identification number against Department of 

Homeland Security and Social Security records. 

Recent polling shows that 82 percent of likely voters support requiring employees or employers to use E-Verify, and Americans are 

right to support a program that makes it much more difficult to 

use fake identification to get a job. Under E-Verify the order to be 

confirmed as work authorized, the Social Security number, name, 

and date of birth must match the information on the file with the 

SSA and DHS. If there is no match, then an individual is not confirmed to be work eligible. 

Unfortunately, for most employers E-Verify is a voluntary program. As it currently operates, E-Verify is susceptible to identity 

theft. That is why H.R. 2885, the Legal Workforce Act, which Mr. 

Smith and I introduced, contains several measures that will help 

close the identity theft loophole and further prevent the use of 

fraudulent documents in the hiring process. 

I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today. I yield 

back my time and would yield to the gentlelady, the Ranking Member from California, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Identity theft is a significant and growing problem in the United States. The question 

before us is not whether to deal with the problem but how to deal 

with it. The Chairman proposes that we mandate the use of EVerify without otherwise reforming our immigration laws, but that 

will only make matters worse. Rather than prevent identity theft, 

an expansion of E-Verify without more will aggravate the problem 

while costing taxpayers billions, harming agriculture and other industries. 

It is important that we are mindful of how we got here. It might 

surprise some of you to hear this, but Congress played a significant 

role in actually creating this problem, and it is for us to learn from 

that history. 

In 1986, in an attempt to restrict illegal immigration, Congress 

enacted the new employment restrictions in IRCA and these provisions actually for the first time made it illegal to employ undocumented immigrants. It also created the need for workers to show 

employers identity and work authorization documents. 

Before IRCA, businesses were not required to check, and document fraud was not therefore a problem, but IRCA changed that, 

creating a new market for fake Social Security cards and other documents that could be used to complete the I-9 forms. As we now 

know, the biggest problem with IRCA was that it cracked down on 

unauthorized employment without ensuring that agriculture and 

other industries had access to authorized labor. Basically it created 

penalties to address a symptom of a broken immigration system, 

but it did nothing to actually fix the immigration problem itself. In 

3 

doing so, IRCA created a market for false documents and ensured 

that such a market would grow with the Nation’s economy. 

In 1996, Congress then doubled down with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Among other 

things, the bill created the basic pilot program now known as EVerify. The authors said it would prevent document fraud because 

unlike the I-9 system created by IRCA, E-Verify could not be fooled 

by fake Social Security numbers. But once again, this law did nothing to provide for the legal flow of workers needed by our economy. 

So employers and workers began to seek ways to obtain information that could fool E-Verify. Thus, rather than drive down document fraud, E-Verify created a new and much worse problem, identity theft, for the purpose of obtaining employment. 

The bill’s author said it would stop illegal immigration, but undocumented immigrants came in even larger numbers. And the 

problems associated with unauthorized employment only grew. As 

E-Verify use increased, so did identity theft. That is because EVerify cannot catch identity theft. In one DHS-commissioned study, 

54 percent of the undocumented workers run through the system 

were confirmed as work authorized by E-Verify. Those were the 

ones using other people’s identities. In Arizona, where E-Verify is 

mandated by State law, employers have helped to procure false 

identities for their unauthorized workers. 

This is the history that we have to contend with. Those who created E-Verify are now asking us to ignore that history and again 

trust that their enforcement-only solutions will work. Previous attempts to tighten the enforcement screws without fixing the system 

have led to more damaging results, but this time they promise 

things will be different. This time they say they have a bill that 

will stop identity theft, but we should all know better. 

Our system is fundamentally broken. For decades it has failed to 

provide legal pathways for American industries like agriculture to 

meet their labor needs. If we now tighten the enforcement screws 

yet again without fixing the system, we are just going to drive a 

new and more pernicious form of fraud. That is the lesson we must 

heed from history. 

The Chairman’s bill may also drive off the books employment 

and closure of American businesses. According to a 2010 GAO report, employers seeking to get around E-Verify are increasingly 

misclassifying workers as independent contractors and moving 

them off the books entirely. 

The Chairman’s bill does nothing to prevent such arrangements 

from accelerating, even though they lead to lower wages, fewer 

worker protections, and significant reductions in tax revenues. And 

let’s not forget that the CBO estimates that mandatory E-Verify 

would cost $17.3 billion in lost tax revenues over 10 years as employers and employees move to the underground economy. 

At the same time, Chairman Smith’s bill does nothing to prevent 

economic damage to the industries that rely most on undocumented 

workers. After all the hearings we have had on this issue, this Congress, this Subcommittee should by now know that the Chairman’s 

bill would hurt American farmers. Mandatory E-Verify without reform of the immigration system would mean more American farms 

going under, a less secure America, and the offshoring of jobs, inVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:15 Jul 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\041812\73860.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
4 

cluding upstream and downstream American jobs supported by agriculture. 

Make no mistake about it, one-sided solutions such as the Chairman’s mandatory E-Verify proposal are a big part of how we got 

into this mess, and history tells us they will only make things 

worse. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. 

Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Immigration Nationality Act prohibits the hiring of individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States. And it 

requires employers to check the immigration status of an employee 

and make sure that the identification document submitted by the 

employee ‘‘reasonably appears on its face to be genuine.’’ 

That requirement was put in place by the Immigration Reform 

and Control Act of 1986. Unfortunately, the underground market 

for fraudulent identification documents grew extensively after the 

enactment of that bill. 

Fake documents, which can be obtained cheaply and are produced by the millions, have made a mockery of these identification 

requirements. 

Dishonest employees simply hand employers fake documents that 

‘‘reasonably appear to be genuine,’’ and an honest employer has no 

recourse other than to accept them. And many dishonest employers 

actually welcome employees who submit counterfeit identification 

documents so they can pay lower wages or otherwise exploit illegal 

immigrant employees. Sometimes these dishonest employers themselves actually obtain the documents for the illegal workers. 

In response, Senator Alan Simpson and I drafted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which 

contains a pilot program to provide employers with an accurate and 

easy way to determine employment eligibility. 

The basic pilot program, now known as E-Verify, is run by U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services in conjunction with the Social Security Administration. 

Through E-Verify, the Social Security numbers and alien identification numbers of new hires are checked against Social Security 

Administration and Department of Homeland Security databases in 

order to help employers determine who is eligible to work in the 

U.S. As this Subcommittee has heard in testimony many times, EVerify is free, quick, and easy to use. 

E-Verify can be vulnerable to identity theft. If an employee provides an employer with a stolen Social Security number and matching identification number, E-Verify will determine that the Social 

Security number is one that is work-eligible. 

USCIS has taken steps to help close the ID theft loophole. For 

instance, they have incorporated the photo matching tool. This allows an employer to view a picture of the employee from a green 

card, an employment authorization document or a passport to determine that the employee is, in fact, the person to whom this Social Security number or alien identification number was issued. 

5 

H.R. 2885, the ‘‘Legal Workforce Act,’’ a bipartisan bill that was 

approved by the Judiciary Committee last September, gives USCIS 

and Social Security Administration additional tools to help recognize and prevent identity theft. 

For instance, the bill requires DHS to allow individuals to ‘‘lock’’ 

their own Social Security number so that it cannot be used by impostors to verify work eligibility. It also requires USCIS to ‘‘lock’’ 

a Social Security number that shows a pattern of unusual multiple 

use. And it imposes significant criminal penalties on employers and 

employees who engage in or aid identity theft. 

In addition, H.R. 2885 requires individuals who have likely been 

victims of identity theft for work authorization purposes to be notified of that likelihood so they can then take steps to prevent further illegal use of their identity. 

As long as the IRCA standard whether an identification document ‘‘reasonably appears on its face to be genuine’’ is the only requirement for employers, illegal immigrants will be able to easily 

cheat the system and get U.S. jobs. 

With today’s technology, it makes no sense to use a paper-based, 

error-prone system when a successful web-based option is available. It is time to bring our I-9 system into the 21st century. American jobs and identities could easily be protected by simply requiring all employers to use E-Verify and by improving E-Verify to help 

close the identity theft loophole. 

Mr. Chairman, before I close, I want to add to your comments 

about my disappointment in the ICE witness not appearing today. 

That ICE witness was disinvited intentionally because the testimony was completely nonresponsive, and that was a disappointment because it was clear that the Administration or someone 

higher up in the Administration had censored the testimony which 

might well have been supportive of E-Verify. That is not the first 

time we have seen that on this Judiciary Committee, and in fact 

I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that the Administration 

has actually shown a pattern of behavior of either refusing to cooperate or refusing to give us, the representatives of the American 

people, information that we need to do our jobs. 

Last August, for example, we requested from ICE a list of individuals that the Administration had refused to detain, and we 

wanted to find out what other crimes these individuals had committed. We were told initially by ICE that the list existed and that 

they would give it to us. Suddenly we had a reversal of that. Again, 

someone else in the Administration must have censored their willingness to cooperate, and we had to subpoena the list, and finally 

we did obtain it. We have seen the same kind of refusal to cooperate, and frankly dishonesty, when it comes to Fast and Furious, 

when it comes to perhaps then Solicitor General Kagan’s participation in the debate in regard to the health care bill. 

So this is nothing new. But we are simply not going to allow an 

Administration witness to continue to testify when their testimony, 

in fact, has been nonresponsive. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. Unless, 

if we have time, I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from 

California. 

6 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just note—first, I would ask unanimous 

consent to put the ICE testimony into the record. 

Mr. SMITH. I don’t have any objection to that, but I am very 

happy that I said what I did about the testimony. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, if I could have another few seconds, I would like to also point out in regard to E-Verify that that 

is supported by 82 percent of the American people. If you look at 

a breakdown of supporters, it is supported by 72 percent of minorities and 71 or –2 percent of Democrats even. Everybody realizes 

that it is only right to hire individuals who are legally able to work 

in the United States and to make sure those jobs go to unemployed 

Americans, and those who oppose E-Verify are really perpetuating 

a system that leads to the high unemployment rates among minorities, and that is very regrettable. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. SMITH. I will be happy to yield. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And I ask unanimous consent for an additional 

minute be—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN. First, I just think it is important to say that if 

there is censorship here, it is of ICE by this Committee. I mean, 

they were willing to offer testimony that I think when people read 

it will obviously be responsive. And finally in terms of public support, all of the opinion polls show that 60 to 70 percent of the 

American people favor comprehensive immigration reform as well. 

Mr. SMITH. I will reclaim my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And the Committee has not yet adopted that. 

Mr. SMITH. I will reclaim my time because I want to make the 

point again not only is the witness being nonresponsive, the gentlewoman from California is being nonresponsive. That is not the subject of this day’s hearing. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I raised it only because you are listing public opinion. 

Mr. SMITH. I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Time has expired, and relating to the unanimous 

consent request, I am not going to object, but I do want to make 

a statement. When the gentlelady said that she would like to put 

the statement from ICE into the record under unanimous consent, 

I will not object. However, I want to make for the record clearly 

the statement that she is asking to be put into the record, in my 

opinion, does not reflect what the request of this Committee was, 

and it was a complete spin to satisfy someone in the Administration, and it does not represent the text of what this hearing was 

all about, and without objection, that incomplete complete document can be placed into the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

7 


73860A-1.eps
8 


73860A-2.eps
9 


73860A-3.eps
10 


73860A-4.eps
11 


73860A-5.eps
12 


73860A-6.eps
13 


73860A-7.eps
14 


73860A-8.eps
15 


73860A-9.eps
16 

Mr. GALLEGLY. At this time I have a unanimous consent request, 

and I don’t think it will be maybe as controversial, and if it is, I 

will respect anyone’s right to object, but I ask that we have unanimous consent to have the following documents made a part of the 

record of the hearing: The statement of the Honorable Barbara JorVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:15 Jul 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\041812\73860.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA

73860A-10.eps
17 

dan, a former Member of the House Judiciary Committee, who was 

the chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. In 1995 

she told this Subcommittee the current process of employment 

verification has not functioned as the law intended to deter the hiring of undocumented aliens. The system may be thwarted easily 

by—toward all—easily by fraud. Widespread counterfeiting of documents that can be used for verification of identity and employment 

authorizations has been reported since IRCA’s implementation. Unfortunately, this is still true today. 

Also I would like to have added to the record a joint statement 

of the Society for Human Resource Management and the American 

Council on International Personnel indicating their support for the 

Legal Workforce Act and suggested changes to E-Verify program. 

And, third, a Huffington Post article entitled Rise in Child Identity Theft Prompts Push for Solutions, detailing Miss Andrushko’s 

case as well as other cases of misuse of Social Security numbers 

by illegal immigrants. 

Hearing no objection, those items will be placed into the record 

of the hearing. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

18 


73860B1-1.eps
19 


73860B1-2.eps
20 


73860B1-3.eps
21 


73860B1-4.eps
22 


73860B1-5.eps
23 


73860B1-6.eps
24 


73860B1-7.eps
25 


73860B1-8.eps
26 


73860B1-9.eps
27 


73860B2-1.eps
28 


73860B2-2.eps
29 


73860B2-3.eps
30 


73860B3-1.eps
31 


73860B3-2.eps
32 


73860B3-3.eps
33 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Today we have a very distinguished panel of witnesses. Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered 

into the record in its entirety. I ask that each of you make every 

effort to summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To 

help, we have the lights down there, and when the red light comes 

on, if you could wrap up your comments, and we will make sure 

that your testimony is made a part, the entire, in its entirety. 

Our first witness is Dr. Ronald Mortensen. Dr. Mortensen is a 

retired United States Foreign Service Officer. He has published, he 


73860B3-4.eps
34 

has been published by the Center for Immigration Studies and 

writes for examiner.com. He has researched and written extensively about employment-related child identity theft and was instrumental in the passage of Utah’s E-Verify requirement. Dr. 

Mortensen holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of 

Utah. 

Our second witness is Ms. Jennifer Andrushko. She has worked 

as a small business owner in Utah since 2009. Previously she 

worked as a kindergarten teacher from 2002 to 2006. Ms. 

Andrushko is the mother of a 5-year-old identity theft victim and 

is cosponsor of Defending Our Children’s Future. She received her 

Bachelor’s Degree from Weber State University in Ogden, Utah. 

Our third witness today is Dr. Bert Lemkes, Mr. Lemkes is general manager and co-owner of Van Wingerden International, a family-owned horticulture business in Mills River, North Carolina, 

which includes 37 acres of climate-controlled greenhouses. Prior to 

this, Mr. Lemkes worked in the various horticulture businesses 

around the world before emigrating to the United States in 1987. 

He became a U.S. citizen in 2001 and studied horticulture at the 

college of, the Horticulture College in Utrecht, Netherlands. 

With that, Mr. Mortensen, we will—Dr. Mortensen, we will start 

with you. 

TESTIMONY OF RONALD MORTENSEN, Ph.D., U.S. FOREIGN 

SERVICE OFFICER, RETIRED, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION 

STUDIES 

Mr. MORTENSEN. Thank you. The use of fraudulent documents 

for employment authorization all too often involves the Social Security numbers of children. Children’s numbers are especially valued 

because they can be used for years without detection. Unfortunately, during those years children can suffer serious harm. Thus, 

employment-related document fraud is not a victimless crime. 

People obtain children’s numbers for employment in a variety of 

ways. Parents use their children’s numbers, people steal children’s 

Social Security numbers and then sell them, and still others randomly make up numbers that end up belonging to children. Most 

often people just attach the child’s Social Security number to their 

own name rather than using the child’s full identity, which includes the full name, date of birth, and Social Security number. 

And this Social Security number only identity theft—or, this is 

Social Security number-only identity theft, and according to a Social Security official, quote, 98 percent of Social Security-related ID 

theft cases involve people who use their own names but invent or 

steal their numbers. So given the prevalence of Social Security 

number-only identity theft, a mandatory E-Verify requirement can 

serve as a strong child protection measure because E-Verify does 

match the name, date of birth, and Social Security number, which 

prevents an adult from using his own name with the child’s Social 

Security number for employment purposes. 

Now, it is important to note that when someone simply makes 

up a Social Security number and uses it with his own name, there 

is roughly a 50/50 chance that an adult already—that that number 

already belongs to someone else, either a child or an adult. However, even if the randomly generated number has not been issued, 

35 

the Social Security number—the Social Security doesn’t take it out 

of the database once it begins to be used. Therefore, at a future 

date, Social Security may assign that number to a newborn infant. 

In Utah, based on a 2005 investigation, it was estimated that 

20,000 Utah children under age 13 were the victims of employment-related identity fraud and as many as 50,000 children under 

age 18 may have had their Social Security numbers used for employment purposes. In addition, Utah’s Workforce Services identified 1,626 employers paying wages to the Social Security numbers 

of children under 13. 

Most parents didn’t even know that their children’s identities 

were being used unless they applied for public assistance and were 

notified at that time that the child’s number may have been compromised, and many of these children had their good names destroyed, some had their credit ruined, others had people obtaining 

medical services using their Social Security numbers, and still others had arrest records attached to their names, and some were 

even denied critically required Medicaid benefits. 

E-Verify is an important tool in the battle against employmentrelated child identity theft because it catches Social Security number employment identity theft, and if properly administered it will 

also prevent an adult from using a child’s birthdate to get it 

through the system even if he has the child’s total identity. 

Arizona’s experience seems to indicate that the use of E-Verify 

can make a contribution toward preventing employment-related 

identity theft. Following the enactment of Arizona’s strong E-Verify 

requirement in 2007, employment-related identity theft has declined by 36 percent. Identity theft cases still continue to be reported from thefts that occurred prior to the implementation of EVerify, and unfortunately not all employers are complying with the 

law, which leads to new cases, and also the numbers of Arizona 

children continue to be used in other States that do not mandate 

E-Verify. Therefore, a mandatory nationwide E-Verify program 

with strong employer sanctions would protect the futures of American children, both the born and the unborn. Ideally, employers 

would be allowed to use E-Verify to check the status of all current 

employees as well as new hires in order to identify individuals who 

are currently using children’s Social Security numbers. In addition, 

victims of employment-related identity theft should be allowed to 

sue employers for damages if employers fail to comply with the 

mandatory E-Verify requirement. 

In conclusion, the mandatory use of E-Verify is a child protection 

measure that can play a key role in defending our children’s future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mortensen follows:] 

36 

Prepared Statement of Ronald Mortensen, Ph.D., U.S. Foreign Service 

Officer, Retired, Center for Immigration Studies 


RM-2.eps
37 


RM-3.eps
38 


RM-4.eps
39 


RM-5.eps
40 


RM-6.eps
41 


RM-7.eps
42 


RM-8.eps
43 


RM-9.eps
44 


RM-10.eps
45 


RM-11.eps
46 


RM-12.eps
47 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Dr. Mortensen. 

Ms. Andrushko. Am I pronouncing that correctly? 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. Yes, Andrushko. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you. 


RM-13.eps
48 

TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER ANDRUSHKO, OGDEN, UT 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. Yes, thank you. Well, thanks for having me 

here. I am really honored to be here. As mentioned, I am the mother of a 5-year-old identity theft victim. His Social Security number 

has been used since before his birth by an illegal alien for employment purposes, and also I just found out 2 weeks ago that it has 

also been for financial purposes and also for medical care. 

The only reason that my husband and I became aware of this 

theft was quite by accident. In November of 2009 my husband 

found himself unemployed in a falling economy, and I had gone 

into the Department of Workforce Services in Utah to apply for 

some food stamp assistance and for Medicaid, as we did not have 

any health insurance at the time because of his unemployment, 

and during our interview to determine our eligibility, we were informed that wages were being reported to my then 3-year-old Social Security number since 2007. I can’t even describe to you in 5 

minutes or in any time adequately how disturbing that was to me 

to learn that my 3-year-old son’s identity was being used by someone else where we had done absolutely nothing that would compromise his identity. 

Through my own research over the next 2 weeks, I was able to 

ascertain that the employment had started in 2001 when my son 

was born in 2006. The help that a family gets in the case of a Social Security number theft of a child is little to nonexistent currently. In 21⁄2 years I have heard nothing, absolutely nothing from 

my local police department. It was through my own aggressive, assertive calling of my State and local Senators and Representatives 

which put me in contact with one of the chief deputies in the Utah 

Attorney General’s office who then gave my information to a prosecutor, Rich Hamp, in that office, that we were able to actually do 

something. 

Two-and-a-half years later the individual has been apprehended, 

booked into a county jail, is in a county jail in Utah in the Park 

City area, and she had an ICE hold on her, which was lifted, and 

then she was released on bail. She was also picked up a week later, 

the same thing happened, out on bail. 

Because of the prevalence of child identity theft and the devastating effects that it can have on a family and a child, I have cofounded an organization, as mentioned, called Defending Our Children’s Future, to raise awareness and to push for protection that 

will not leave our children being the ones holding the bag of this 

problem. 

As I have gone out and spoken to groups and as I have met other 

victims, they all ask me the same question, how can we find out 

if our child is a victim of Social Security number theft? My answer, 

unfortunately, has to be you can’t unless you are receiving government aid or in the case of our family you need to apply for government aid or, as in the case of a family in Davis County, Utah, the 

IRS comes after you and says you are making a false tax return, 

your child is earning income that you have not reported, so they 

can’t possibly be your daughter, and so you cannot claim them on 

your tax return as a dependent. 

Another question they ask, how can I prevent this? And I say 

you can’t. Well, what can we do to encourage businesses or the govVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:15 Jul 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\041812\73860.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
49 

ernment to verify that the people who they are hiring are not using 

my child’s number for employment? And I mention some tools, one 

of them being E-Verify. E-Verify, with checking the date of birth, 

would not allow an adult to use a child’s-issued Social Security 

number to work. 

I am also asked the question how on earth was your son issued 

a number that had been in use since 2001 for employment, and I 

have asked Social Security Administration that same question, I 

have asked for an investigation. They absolutely refuse to investigate, and they say they claim they have no record of it. 

The Vockler family in Utah is in the same situation that we are 

in. Their daughter in 2009, they applied to the same thing we did, 

and their 1-year-old daughter had wages reported for several years 

before her birth also, so this is a huge problem, and we need to 

close these loopholes that are not catching this identity theft. It is 

not fair for our children to fall prey to this crime regardless of good 

intentions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Andrushko follows:] 

50 

Prepared Statement of Jennifer Andrushko, Ogden, UT 


JA-2.eps
51 


JA-3.eps
52 


JA-4.eps
53 


JA-5.eps
54 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Ms. Andrushko. 

Mr. Lemkes. 

TESTIMONY OF BERT LEMKES, CO-OWNER, 

VAN WINGERDEN INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Mr. LEMKES. Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren, 

Members and guests, my name is Bert Lemkes. I am honored to 

be here. I am co-owner of Van Wingerden International. We own 


JA-6.eps
55 

and operate 37 acres of greenhouses in Mills River, North Carolina, 

and we employ over 350 people in the peak season. 

The subject of this hearing is E-Verify and identity fraud. We 

voluntarily switched to E-Verify about 2 years ago after we were 

exposed to a rumor that our business employed too many people 

that speak little English. We have found that E-Verify confirms the 

real problem with our current outdated and failed immigration 

laws. When asked how does E-Verify work for you, my answer is 

those that are willing to do the work fail the system, but many of 

those that pass the system fail to do the work. 

The jobs of our American employees, which includes growers, supervisors, merchandisers, managers, are at stake when we cannot 

find the production labor that we need. Around 70 percent of the 

labor force in agriculture is estimated to be unauthorized. These 

are honest, hard working, and loyal folks who have come here only 

seeking work and better pay. This is not about low wages. Our 

starting pay is way above the minimum wage, includes benefits 

with all the payroll withholdings going to the government. This is 

also not about taking jobs from American workers. Even in the economic downturn, with high unemployment, it is very tough to find 

those willing to thrive at these jobs. 

I, too, am an immigrant. I came to the U.S. for opportunity because of my work. I know how long and costly the process is to legally get a visa and eventually become a U.S. citizen. Our current 

labor force in agriculture has no way to follow this route. Practically speaking, there is no line for them to get in to get a resident 

visa, and the temporary program known as H-2A is a failed bureaucracy on a good day. The majority of our labor force came for 

one reason only, work, not to emigrate permanently, not to use our 

Social Security or welfare systems, not to cause problems. Just to 

work. 

If agriculture cannot find the labor to do the often back-breaking, 

repetitive, and sweaty work, many American jobs in the production 

chain will be lost. Economic activity will leave this country. Agriculture needs a legal workforce with a visa system that is market 

driven, flexible to deal with crop cycles and weather, and portable 

to allow the workforce to choose and move among farm employers. 

This will sustain a normal competitive labor market, rewarding 

employers that take care of their workers. 

Government’s role should be smart and limited because too much 

bureaucracy kills all good intentions. For too long the political solutions on immigration have failed us and led to unintended and 

even irreversible consequences. Employers and employees are being 

held hostage by the failure of our government to address immigration reform. The danger now is that stand-alone E-Verify will shift 

the risk from identity fraud to more identity theft. A recent independent report I reviewed found that E-Verify clears borrowed or 

stolen documents with good numbers over 50 percent of the time. 

We urge you, America’s leaders, to pass an agriculture worker 

visa program before strong anti-immigrant emotions and enforcement-only laws take control with dramatic and devastating results 

for our agriculture sector and everyone that depends on it. We will 

export jobs and we will import more food. 

56 

In closing, I would like to make these most important points: 

First, the agriculture industry is willing to embrace and improve 

the E-Verify system but only if it is combined with a modern and 

viable agriculture worker program that ensures a legal labor force 

now and in the future. To put this in an agriculture picture, they 

are the cart and the horse. The cart can’t move without the horse, 

and they need to be in the right sequence. 

We need a solution that ensures timely access to legal workers. 

It must also facilitate the work authorization of current and experienced workers who may lack proper immigration status. These 

workers are most of the experienced talent pool in America’s farms, 

and it is unthinkable that they could somehow be replaced. 

Finally, we need to protect our country and its borders, and that 

includes sustaining our food and agriculture production inside 

those borders. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lemkes follows:] 

57 


Lemkes-1.eps
58 


Lemkes-2.eps
59 


Lemkes-3.eps
60 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Lemkes. Mr. Lemkes, you just 

stated a study done by Westat; is that correct? 

Mr. LEMKES. That is correct. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. One of the things that you didn’t refer to and perhaps you are not aware that the Westat report states that this was 


Lemkes-4.eps
61 

an estimate and that Westat did not identify one single instance 

in which an illegal immigrant was not detected by E-Verify. Are 

you aware of that? 

Mr. LEMKES. I know that they are estimates. A lot of studies are 

based on—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Yeah, but are you aware that they didn’t have 

one example? Does that not bring into question maybe the validity 

and the accuracy of—I mean, we can all estimate. I estimate that 

95 percent of the people working in agriculture is, are illegal. Now 

maybe that is not totally accurate, but in some areas I know it to 

be. So would you yield that an estimate is not always the best way 

to give a valid number? 

Mr. LEMKES. Can I react to that one? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Sure. 

Mr. LEMKES. We experienced about a year ago whereby we got 

a call from the Charlotte ICE or DHS office if we employed a certain person. We checked. We didn’t answer right away, we checked 

and, yes, that person was employed by us, was a new employee, so 

we ran him through the E-Verify system. We called back, and the 

officer on the other side said well, we just arrested him, he is an 

illegal immigrant. He passed our E-Verify system. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, but he was caught in the system. 

Mr. LEMKES. He was caught afterwards, not employed for us 

anymore, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And are you still currently using E-Verify? 

Mr. LEMKES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I would like to thank you for that. Would you say 

that the issue is—you have approximately 350 employees? 

Mr. LEMKES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And for the record, it is clear that we don’t know 

exactly the number, but it is 14, 15 million, 16, people unemployed 

in the United States today, obviously not all capable of working in 

agriculture, but would you say it is virtually impossible to find 350 

out of 14 million that could do the job? Or would be willing to do 

the job? 

Mr. LEMKES. Our experience over the past couple weeks, as an 

example, when we have peak shipping for a holiday like Easter, it 

is very difficult to find people that are willing and able to thrive 

in these jobs. Everybody can do the work, but—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. But they are not willing to, no matter how hungry they get, maybe because of extensions of unemployment benefits? 

Mr. LEMKES. By noon they look at the clock, and that afternoon 

they leave, and they don’t come back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, let me—in closing, Mr. Lemkes, could you 

tell me, do you believe in the E-Verify bill that we have before Congress today, did a clear exemption for agriculture, that would solve 

all the problems of agriculture as it relates to employees? 

Mr. LEMKES. No, I think we need an agriculture work visa. Agriculture does not—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, let’s talk about that for a second. If EVerify was exempted for agriculture and E-Verify went on all the 

other trades, if someone was illegally in the country, they couldn’t 

go to work hanging drywall or working in a hotel or any number 

62 

of other things, they couldn’t leave agriculture. That wouldn’t be a 

benefit to you? 

Mr. LEMKES. No, because agriculture does not want to do anything that is illegal. We would like to get this resolved. We would 

like to take the fear out of the business side as well as the employee side. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. I thank you for using E-Verify. 

Ms. Andrushko, your child, I hear these stories. If it is any consolation, you are not the only person in the country, unfortunately, 

that is facing these. 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. I know. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And I am sure with your group and good work, 

that is an indication of that. The woman that stole your son’s 

theft—stole his identification, she was apprehended. 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. Yes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And she was booked? 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. Yes, twice. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And you say she was released? 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. She was booked and released on bail twice in 

1 week. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. On two—— 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. She has five counts, she has five counts of felonies, she has two counts of forgery, three counts of identity theft 

just for the employment aspect of it. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And how long has she been out and not in custody? 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. Her first arrest was on Wednesday, March 14th 

of 2012, and her second arrest with a different facility for ICE purposes, which she was also released from—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So she is not even—— 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO [continuing]. Was a week later. So she is not in 

custody. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. They don’t even have an immigration hold on 

her? 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. No, I don’t believe so. But I am not sure. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I see that my time has expired, and with that I 

will yield to the gentlelady from California, the Ranking Member. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I read the testimony 

with some interest, and I just want to note that we contacted the 

Federal Trade Commission after we took a look at Mr. Mortensen’s 

testimony. And here is what the FTC told us, that the data in his 

report comes from self-reported consumer complaints, not actual 

data pertaining to criminal conduct. They told us there was no 

study, there had been no survey, and the FTC made it clear to us 

that this data is not scientific and that from this data one cannot 

determine whether identity fraud has gone up, down or sideways. 

In any event, the data upon which Mr. Mortensen’s testimony relies shows that employment-related identity fraud complaints from 

Arizona have been declining, but I think it is worth noting that 

that same decline in terms of the self-reporting data is present in 

States that do not have mandatory E-Verify, including California, 

Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, and on and on. 

I also think it is important to note the difference between document fraud and identity fraud. Before the hearing I asked my staff 

63 

to speak with the Social Security Administration so that we could 

better understand the issue, and what they, the Social Security Administration, told us is that there is a clear difference between the 

two. When an undocumented immigrant uses a fake Social Security 

number to get through the I-9 process, it may or may not be that 

the number belongs to another worker. But even if the number 

does belong to someone else, SSA says it segregates any earnings 

made by someone whose name does not match the name officially 

associated with that number, and those earnings and any tax liabilities that may arise are not attributed to the rightful owner of 

the number. Those earnings are placed in a suspense file, and it 

is worth noting that almost a trillion dollars in earnings have been 

placed in that suspense file since 1938. 

Now, the situation is much worse if the unauthorized worker engages in identity theft to evade E-Verify by using a matching name 

and Social Security number. Then you have the kind of problems 

that Ms. Andrushko identified, and which is a terrible problem. I 

am going to take your testimony, which is very meaningful, and 

talk to Members of the Ways and Means Committee about what 

can be done further with victims because you shouldn’t be left on 

your own as you described. 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like to talk, Mr. Lemkes, I would like to 

ask you a couple questions because this is, I think, the sixth hearing we have had in Congress about E-Verify. And we have heard 

over and over again from the agricultural sector that if we do mandatory E-Verify without reform to the immigration laws, it is going 

to destroy agriculture and the industries that rely on ag. 

You have indicated that the H-2A program is a mess, and we 

have heard that from others. Do you think it is possible or impossible to replace the current undocumented workforce with millions 

of new temporary workers? And do you believe that, assuming you 

could get those millions of people actually interviewed in consulates 

abroad in a timely fashion, that they would have the skill set that 

is present among the current ag workforce? 

Mr. LEMKES. The skills that our labor force has it gained over 

years, and it will take an equal amount of time to retrain another 

workforce. It is not a highly educated requirement, but it is skill 

sets that just do not simply transplant from one person to another 

person. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We had a Republican witness, Paul Wenger, from 

the California Farm Bureau, who testified at a prior hearing, saying that mandatory E-Verify without reform of the immigration 

system would be a disaster. He pointed out in addition to the skill 

set that is necessary that there is something that is very interesting which is an improving economy in Mexico but a drastically 

declining birthrate in Mexico. His view is that you would never 

really be able to recruit another 1.2 million farm workers in Mexico 

to replace the people who have been here in some cases for decades. Do you have a viewpoint on that? 

Mr. LEMKES. I don’t. I hope that we will be able to continue our 

agriculture in this country and that we will be able to secure the 

labor that we have right now as well as the future. 

64 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time has expired, but your agricultural sector 

is very dependent, if I am hearing you correctly, on manual labor. 

You can’t mechanize what you are doing; is that correct? 

Mr. LEMKES. We mechanize a lot. We have automatic transplanters, we have spacing machines, but there is still a lot of hand 

labor, and to illustrate what could happen with the food side, already a lot of our supply cuttings come from Guatemala, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Kenya. So very labor intensive stock production 

has already moved offshore. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Iowa, 

Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first turn to Ms. 

Andrushko and ask if Lidia Aguirre, if her, when she applied for 

a job on your son’s Social Security number, if that employer had 

used E-Verify, what would have happened? 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. If they had used E-Verify, it is my understanding that they would have received a notice that the number 

had not been issued yet. 

In which case there wouldn’t have been a confirmation that the 

applicant was eligible to work in the United States? 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. Correct. Yes. 

Mr. KING. In which case you might have found out about this 

sooner perhaps? 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. Yes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. And I appreciate all your testimony. I just 

listen to some of the remarks here, and I start to think about what 

would happen if everybody woke up tomorrow morning in a legal 

residence; if they went to bed tonight in the country that they were 

legal to live in, what would happen. 

Well, one thing that would happen, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency, it would receiver at least one link in every distribution chain of illegal drugs in America. It would dramatically 

change the crime scene in the United States. It would put Mr. 

Lemkes perhaps at a disadvantage, but he is using E-Verify, so I 

am going to suggest that it wouldn’t be particularly dramatic in 

your company, but it might be dramatic in a number of other companies. 

I don’t believe that the land in America would grow up to weeds. 

I think at some point we would turn it into the kind of operations 

that could operate without illegal labor. 

And I recall listening to testimony in the last Farm Bill we did 

in 2007 down in Stockton, California. We had a witness that came 

in and said they had 900-some employees, they worked really close 

to the border, I believe it was New Mexico, and they raised onions 

and peppers and high intensity labor crops like that. And I, asked 

why did you build that farm there? It was desert and you set up 

irrigation systems. Well, it is because we get labor to come right 

across the border. Well, they had a business that was predicated 

on illegal labor. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. KING. No, if I have enough time, I will yield. No, I wouldn’t 

yield then. 

65 

But if you establish a business on illegal labor and then come to 

the Congress and say make those people legal because it is an inconvenience to me with my operation, they won’t be raising the 

peppers and the rutabagas and the tomatoes we would be raising 

otherwise, I think we need to look back at this. 

Because the Federal Government hasn’t aggressively enforced 

their immigration law, we have allowed numbers of 10, 11, 12, 20 

or more million people to come here and stay here, and we turn a 

blind eye and we have an opportunity to enforce like they did with 

the theft of the Social Security number that you talked about, Ms. 

Andrushko. 

I mean, I envision a country that enforces the law whenever we 

encounter people that are breaking it. If we do that, people have 

an expectation then that the law will be enforced. When that happens, we will have reinforced the respect for the law and the rule 

of law. And, by the way, that is one of the reasons that many people come to the United States in the first place is because we have 

the rule of law. They don’t have to pay mordida. When you get 

pulled over for speeding or running a stop sign or whatever it is, 

you don’t have to get your cash out in order to move on. And when 

someone goes before a court, they are treated the same whether 

they are—whatever their status and social status is in life. And I 

think it is an important of this is the rule of law. 

But as I listened to Mr. Smith in his opening remarks, and he 

talked about the paper version of I-9. I remember that. I have been 

an employer for years. And I lived in fear that the Federal INS 

agents would come in and see if I had my records completely under 

control. They are still someplace in my archives, they are under 

control. 

But to move this to a modern version in 2012 where we can use 

an electronic base is a wise and prudent thing to do, and I would 

add to that and ask the question then of Mr. Mortensen, but isn’t 

the next generation of E-Verify, and you know that I want the IRS 

to be involved in this as well and provide that kind of incentive, 

but isn’t the next generation of E-Verify to take the problems that 

we have of identity theft and the value of those Social Security 

numbers that you testified about, and to take some of that away 

by either using it tied to a bio-identification or a picture ID, Mr. 

Mortensen? 

Mr. MORTENSEN. Yes, it is important to get beyond simply the 

fact of the paper documents and not really knowing the person who 

presents those documents, because as has been noted, if somebody, 

if I take—well, you are a little young maybe, but if I take your 

name and birth date and Social Security number, I can probably 

get through E-Verify, unless the employer questions why the age 

discrepancy maybe. But if we go to a biometric or with a photo ID 

system or some way they could pull up your photo and compare it 

to my photo, then E-Verify would throw that out. 

Mr. KING. I appreciate this response. And I would remark that 

in this room earlier this morning we had the video demonstration 

of how an individual walked in and was offered the ballot of our 

Attorney General, Eric Holder, without a picture ID as well. So I 

tie these two things together. 

I thank the Chairman and yield back will balance of my time. 

66 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank the gentleman. With that, I just have one 

clarification for the record. I was a little confused about one thing 

you said. You referenced a hearing in Stockton, California, and the 

reference to one of the witnesses you believed to be from New Mexico or somewhere. I assume you meant that that person testifying 

wasn’t from Stockton, California, but rather from another State, 

not close to Stockton, California. 

Mr. KING. For clarity, Mr. Chairman, I would emphasize that 

this individual was not a Californian and it may have been the 

only time she ever went to California, for all I know. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I just wanted to keep the record straight, Mr. 

King. 

With that, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking 

Member and just for the record indicate we are in markup on 

Homeland Security on cybersecurity legislation, and so I thank the 

Chairman for the indulgence. This is an important Committee, and 

I thank the witnesses very much. 

Let me just say to Ms. Andrushko, I hope I have a close pronunciation, I have been briefed on your testimony. 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. You did. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And just say that I am appalled and want to 

make sure I read your testimony very thoroughly, and separate 

and apart from where we are today in this hearing, I want to make 

sure that in fact the cybersecurity markup dealing with technology 

had a lot to do with how we are invading people’s privacy. But let 

me give you my commitment of concern and that we should be 

working on this whole question of identity theft. Thank you very 

much for your presence here today. 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I wanted to just for the record state what I 

have said for the record on many occasions, and that is when, O 

Lord, when are we going to have comprehensive immigration reform so that all of the persons who are raising these very vital concerns can be protected. Once we have the establishment of the four 

parameters of who is here, who is not here, parameters of entry, 

whether or not there is going to be temporary documentation to 

work in certain industries, whether we answer the American 

public’s question of I need a job, why are you letting others get a 

job. And we have an answer for that, a perfect answer. 

I might say that we have jobs that are being created. One of my 

constituents in the forgery industry, not forging, but dealing with 

metals and others, is having a job fair in Houston because they 

need jobs. So I think it is extremely important. 

I would take note, Mr. Chairman, you have the right to laugh, 

so does your staff, so does this lady that sits in the front row in 

our hearings all the time. But let me be very clear whether or not 

there was a pronunciation issue or not, this is not a funny issue. 

And I see that individual sitting all the time laughing in this hearing, and I guess I am the only one that is willing to make point 

of it. We welcome visitors or whoever the person is, but we certainly think that we are dealing with serious issues. 

But as I was saying, this is—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would the gentlelady yield for a second? 

67 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I apologize, but the issue is that we have all 

made maybe a little faux pas in making a statement about something, but I do not take forgery lightly. 

I would yield back. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I recognize that, and that is why I corrected 

myself for making that comment. And I am sure I will find myself 

on Rush Limbaugh, but since I have a backbone of steel, let me say 

to all of the right-wingers and Tea-Partiers, I don’t care. 

Let me proceed and go on at the comment I am trying to make. 

We have repeatedly had these kinds of hearings, and, frankly, we 

do this over and over again and accomplish nothing. This hearing 

is again about E-Verify. And what I was saying is that there are 

many jobs and many job fairs, and it shows that the American people have opportunities. When we talk about comprehensive immigration reform, what happens is that people are concerned about 

their jobs. 

So I want to ask you, Mr. Lemkes, is that the correct pronunciation of your name, let me just put this on the record. By my count 

this is our sixth hearing so far this Congress has had where EVerify was the main topic of discussion, and we debated the issue 

for days more when this Committee marked up the Chairman’s EVerify bill. The one theme that ran through all of these hearings 

and markups was that mandatory E-Verify without other reforms 

to our immigration law would destroy agriculture and other industries that rely on immigrant labor. There was a consensus on that 

on both sides of the aisle. Yet this Committee seemed not to be getting the hint. If it wants E-Verify, it is going to need to do something about this country’s labor needs. 

My question to you, can you please remind this Committee what 

mandatory E-Verify without providing a viable agricultural workforce would do to your business and those of other agricultural employers? And the gist of it is simply can we just hit you over the 

head with E-Verify, can we ignore that we need to work on identity 

theft, but just hit you over the head and have no other larger structure of comprehensive immigration reform? 

Mr. LEMKES. The issue is that E-Verify in itself is not the problem. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Or not the answer. 

Mr. LEMKES. And it is not the answer. In my statement I said 

it is the cart and the horse. We need E-Verify and we need an agriculture worker visa program. The fact that we voluntarily switched 

to E-Verify proves to us that the immigration system does not work 

too well. The laws are outdated. The changes in demographics in 

the U.S. are documented well. We try to get labor, but if people do 

not really want to thrive in the jobs that we have, I can just imagine the disaster it will be if it is mandatory for the whole Nation. 

In North Carolina we are going already in that direction, because 

we got an E-Verify law that is coming into effect. Now, there are 

some exemptions which create other complications. 

But agriculture is not against E-Verify. Agriculture is against EVerify without immigration reform, or specifically an agriculture 

worker visa. 

68 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think that is excellent. I yield back to the 

Chairman and just say the Restaurant Association members are 

here. I understand one of their issues is immigration. I am not sure 

if they have pulled back, but I know they have been advocates to 

the Ranking Member of comprehensive immigration reform. 

I just wanted to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that there are 

jobs out there. And let me apologize to the Committee’s record for 

rushing my pronunciation, but I don’t think I have anything to 

apologize for when we are talking about serious issues. 

I yield back to this Committee. Thank you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I just would like to briefly respond to the 

gentlelady’s reference to the National Restaurant Association. I 

have not heard anything about the specifics of comprehensive immigration reform, unless you are referring to their strong support 

and advocacy for E-Verify as their answer to comprehensive immigration reform. 

With that, I would yield to Mr. Gowdy. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have heard from them 

nationally and they support comprehensive immigration reform. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the Chairman yield? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would ask unanimous consent to put into the 

record the testimony of the association from the prior Congress in 

support of comprehensive immigration reform. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I would agree with that, and I would also ask 

unanimous consent that the current Congress, the representation 

of the National Restaurant Association as it relates to the current 

Congress be added to the record as well. 

With that, I would yield to Mr. Gowdy. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

69 


73860C-1.eps
70 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank the 

three witnesses who came today and actually were responsive to 

the Chairman’s questions. It is a shame, Mr. Chairman, that ICE 

was not willing to answer your legitimate questions. It is a shame, 

Mr. Chairman, that ICE was not willing in a timely fashion to comply with the legitimate subpoenas issued by Chairman Lamar 

Smith. 

Mr. Chairman, it has been a bad week with respect to the disconnect between certain government agencies and the people for 

whom they work. I guess at one level I should be encouraged that 

we actually had a congressional hearing where no government employees invoked their Fifth Amendment right against incrimination. But maybe I may have set the standard too high. 


73860C-2.eps
71 

If ICE were here, Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask them with 

respect to the testimony from Ms. Andrushko, she testified ICE let 

the illegal immigrant who was fraudulently using her son’s Social 

Security number go twice after being arrested. I think it is a very 

legitimate fair question to ask ICE why they did not detain an illegal immigrant who was arrested multiple times. That is a fair 

question, it is a legitimate question. Why ICE won’t come answer 

that question is beyond me. 

I also wanted to ask ICE, Mr. Chairman, if they agreed that the 

widespread use of fraudulent documents has undermined the effectiveness of the I-9 process. But I can’t ask them when they are not 

responsive to the Chairman’s questions and they are not here. 

I wanted to ask ICE what priority they give to breaking up 

fraudulent identity document rings. That is a legitimate question. 

It is a fair question. It is a question I suspect I am not the only 

one that would ask. But I can’t ask ICE that question when they 

haven’t been responsive to the Chairman’s questions and they are 

not seated at the witness table. 

Then, Mr. Chairman, I looked at the subpoena request that 

Chairman Lamar Smith sent that were not complied with in a 

timely fashion, and what Chairman Smith asked for is information 

on aliens arrested between two certain dates, about 3 years apart, 

so essentially 3 years worth of records on aliens about whom ICE 

was notified but did not take custody. It is not a complicated question, it is not an unfair question, it is not an irrelevant question, 

it is not an immaterial question, but it took a long time for ICE 

to answer it. 

So what I wanted to ask ICE this morning, but I can’t because 

they are not here because they wouldn’t answer your legitimate 

questions, I wanted to ask them whether or not the Administration 

advised them not to answer that subpoena. I wanted to ask them 

whether anyone in the Administration counseled them to drag their 

feet or otherwise not respond to a legitimate subpoena from the 

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. But I can’t ask them 

because they didn’t answer your questions and they were 

uninvited. 

The other thing I was hoping to ask them, had they come, Mr. 

Chairman, was Chairman Smith asked for information about aliens 

arrested again over that same 3-year time period. It is not even a 

different time period, it is the same 3-year time period, so they are 

not going to have to do any extra work. Three years worth of 

records about aliens that ICE was notified about but declined to 

put into removal proceedings, because I am asked all the time in 

South Carolina, they cannot fathom of someone being convicted of 

a crime that is here unlawfully and not removed. 

So I wanted to ask what took so long to comply with Chairman 

Smith’s subpoena. Did the Administration advise you to drag your 

feet? Did the Administration counsel you not to answer these questions because the answers would be unflattering to the Administration? 

So, again, I want to thank the three witnesses who actually were 

responsive to the Committee’s questions, and I thank the Chairman for his leadership on this issue. And until ICE will come and 

72 

answer what I think are pretty relevant, material, fair questions, 

that would be all I have for the day. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GOWDY. I would be delighted to. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I understand the gentleman’s frustration. I just 

would note for the record that ICE was perfectly willing to come 

and testify today. It was the Chairman who disinvited them. I understand he disagrees with the nature of their written testimony. 

I do not. But they were willing to come, and I think it is important 

to say that. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would the gentleman yield to me? 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir, of course. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes, I did disinvite them because they were nonresponsive. It wasn’t because I disagreed with what they had to 

say. I disagreed with the fact that they did not respond to the germane question that was asked as it related to the purpose of this 

hearing today. And I would further say that when they did contact 

us and talked a little bit about well, why we didn’t do it, we 

couldn’t understand how that portion was kind of redacted from 

their statement, but they would be willing to come forward and in 

my opinion come forward and be non-responsive to the questions 

that I believe that had Mr. Gowdy asked them they would have 

been as non-responsive to his questions as they were to their written statement that related to the purpose of this hearing to start 

with. 

So it wasn’t because I didn’t agree with their statement. I didn’t 

agree with the fact that they didn’t respond. 

So, with that, Mr. Gowdy’s time has expired due to my further 

discussion, and all time has expired. With that, I would like to 

thank our witnesses for being here today, particularly Ms. 

Andrushko. I can only begin to understand the frustration that this 

has put you through, and that obviously it is not over. 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. No. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And not over for a lot of other folks. That is really 

the purpose of the hearing today. I appreciate—— 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. Could I just say something? I know our time is 

up. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

Ms. ANDRUSHKO. There were a couple of issues that I would like 

to touch on that were brought up. Mr. Lemkes, thank you for trying to protect our children’s identities. First of all, thank you very 

much. 

I think a valid thing was brought up about jobs. My uncle owns 

a flower farm in California, southern California, and he does employ migrant workers who are authorized for work. So it is possible. Yes, it needs reform, but it is possible. 

On the citizen side of that, as an educator, I truly believe in determining the cause of a behavior in order to address the behavior 

issue. My son wants a farm. He wants a zoo when he grows up. 

I am sorry, I probably will get emotional talking about him because 

I just love him so much. But he has horrible, horrible seasonal allergies. By the end of the day, he can’t even see because his eyes 

are so swollen shut, being on prescription eye drops and things. He 

would absolutely love to come and work for somebody like Mr. 

73 

Lemkes, and I think other people would also. And the people who 

won’t I think we need to look at why they won’t and address that 

issue, because they would if they truly had a desire. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much. I thank all the witnesses. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses 

which we will forward to the witnesses to respond as promptly as 

possible in order that we make your responses as well as the questions part of the record of the hearing. 

Without objection, all Members have 5 legislative days to submit 

any additional materials for inclusion in the record. 

Again, I want to thank you all. I want to thank the Members for 

attending today. With that, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(75) 

1 Jahna Berry, ‘‘Most Arizona Employers Aren’t Using E-Verify,’’ The Arizona Republic, July 

28, 2010, www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/07/28/20100728arizona-employers-ignoring-everify.html. 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of Emily Tulli, Policy Attorney, 

National Immigration Law Center 

Since its inception in 1979, NILC has earned a national reputation as a leading 

expert on the intersection of immigration law and the employment rights of low-income immigrants. NILC’s extensive knowledge of the complex interplay between immigrants’ legal status and their rights under U.S. employment laws is an important 

resource for immigrant rights coalitions and community groups, as well as policymakers, attorneys, workers’ rights advocates, labor unions, government agencies, 

and the media. NILC has analyzed and advocated for improvements to the E-Verify 

program since it was first implemented in 1997 as the Basic Pilot program, and has 

extensive experience assisting advocates and attorneys in responding to problems 

with the program as it affects workers—immigrants and U.S.-born alike. NILC is 

a nonpartisan national legal advocacy organization that works to protect and promote the rights of low-income immigrants and their families. 

OVERVIEW

An E-Verify mandate will result in the increased use of false documents, employer 

misuse of the program, employers refusing to use the program, and will do nothing 

to fix our broken immigration system. Everyone agrees that document fraud is a 

problem. But mandating E-Verify is an ineffective reaction that does not provide a 

real solution. Like any immigration enforcement-only policy, the Legal Workforce 

Act and other mandatory E-Verify proposals do not alter the fundamental economic 

realities that encourage—and even necessitate— the employment of unauthorized 

workers and the attendant document fraud. With or without mandatory E-Verify, the 

eight million unauthorized workers currently in the U.S. will continue to seek work 

and employers will continue to hire unauthorized workers. 

Attempts to mandate E-Verify are not innovative. In fact, mandatory use of the 

program has been a part of every immigration reform bill since 2005, and NILC has 

worked on a bi-partisan basis to craft proposals that ensure due process and privacy 

protections for all workers. However, these efforts always paired E-Verify’s use with 

a path to legal status for unauthorized workers laboring in our economy. Instead 

of piling mandatory E-Verify on top of a dilapidated system, we need real immigration reform that provides employers with a steady workforce and unauthorized 

workers with a path to citizenship. 

WITH MANDATORY E-VERIFY, MANY EMPLOYERS REFUSE TO THE USE THE PROGRAM AND

THE USE OF FALSE DOCUMENTS INCREASES. 

Without a path to citizenship for unauthorized workers, an E-Verify mandate results in employer nonuse of the program. Arizona and Georgia, both states that require employers to use E-Verify, show us how employers behave. In Arizona, during 

the first fiscal year following the law’s passage, nearly half of all employers did not 

use E-Verify to check the work authorization of newly hired employees.1 Similarly, 

in Alabama most employers are not using E-Verify, despite a state mandate. Estimates vary, but between 79 and 96 percent of Alabama employers had not registered to use E-Verify when the state law went into effect, much less used the proVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:15 Jul 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\041812\73860.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
76 

2See Jay Reeves, ‘‘Most Alabama Firms Miss Immigration Goals,’’ The Associated Press, 

April 4, 2012 http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-most-ala-firms-miss-immigration-goal133758590.html. The percentage range cited was calculated by dividing the state number of AL 

registered companies (provided by USCIS equally 18,137) by the number of total companies 

doing business in the state as reported by the Alabama Department of Revenue (368,613) and 

the state Department of Industrial Relations (85,000). 3 Richard M. Stana, Report to the Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and 

Means, U.S. House of Representatives: Employment Verification, Federal Agencies Have Taken 

Steps to Improve E-Verify, But Significant Challenges Remain (Government Accountability Office, Dec.2010,GAO-11-146), www.gao.gov/new.items/d11146.pdf, p. 22. 4 Id. 

5Findings of the Web-Based E-Verify Program Evaluation (Westat, Dec. 2009), www.uscis.gov/ 

USCIS/E-Verify/E-Verify/Final%20E-Verify%20Report%2012-16-09l2.pdf, p. 157. 6 Id. at 157, 204. 7 Id. at 154, 199. 8 Employers receive a ‘‘tentative nonconfirmation’’ notice—or TNC—from either SSA or DHS 

when the agencies are unable to automatically confirm a worker’s employment eligibility. A 

‘‘tentative nonconfirmation’’ notice is not an indication of an immigration violation, and workers 

have the right to contest the finding with the appropriate agency. For the .08 percent erroneous 

TNC rate, see Westat, supra note 5, p. 117. 9 Id. 

10See Westat, supra note 5, p. 149. 11 Id. 

gram to verify new employee’s work authorization.2 Simply put, even when required 

by law to do so, many employers refuse to do so. 

Of the employers who do register with United States Customs and Immigration 

Services (USCIS), some coach unauthorized workers, allowing them to beat the system’s requirements, increasing the fraudulent use of documents. In Arizona, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reports that employers have learned that 

E-Verify’s photo matching tool accepts only two documents, permanent resident 

cards and employment authorization documents, which are heavily protected from 

tampering and counterfeiting.3 When some unscrupulous employers believe that an 

employee does not have valid work authorization, they ask the employee to provide 

other identity documents that will not trigger the photo matching tool. Senior ICE 

officials have said that this has increased the fraudulent use of documents which 

are not part of the photo matching tool.4 Without an overhaul of the current immigration system, mandatory E-Verify allows unscrupulous employers to continue to 

employ unauthorized workers while incentivizing the increased use of false documents. 

Arizona and Alabama are the canaries in the coalmine. With a national E-Verify 

mandate, we can expect widespread employer nonuse of the program and the increased use of false documents. 

WITH MANDATORY E-VERIFY, EMPLOYER MISUSE WILL INCREASE. 

As a largely voluntary program, there is already significant employer misuse of 

E-Verify. This misuse of E-Verify has a tangible impact on workers’ job stability and 

quality. For example, under the current regime, over 66 percent of employers took 

adverse actions against workers receiving a tentative nonconfirmation (TNC), despite program rules that direct prohibit them from doing so.5 Adverse actions include prohibiting workers from working; restricting such workers’ work assignments; and delaying job training for such workers.6

Workers are often kept in the dark by employers about TNCs issued by the program. Although required by law to do so, employers do not always notify workers 

of a TNC, depriving workers their ability to contest the TNC and keep their jobs. 

In fiscal year 2009, 42 percent of workers report that they were not informed by 

their employer of a TNC, resulting in the denial of their right to contest the finding.7 This is particularly troubling given the fact erroneous TNCs are issued for lawful workers and U.S. citizens. 

Using Westat’s statistical model, approximately 0 .8 percent of TNCs are issued 

in error.8 Although E-Verify’s use remains voluntary in most states, there were 16 

million E-Verify queries by employers in fiscal year 2010, resulting in 128,000 erroneous TNCs.9

Under a nationwide mandate, it is likely that employer misuse would grow and 

is not limited to TNC issues. At least 57 percent of employers using E-Verify violate 

the program’s rules by using it to prescreen workers.10 When workers are 

prescreened and not offered a job, it takes them at least three weeks to find other 

employment.11 Employer misuse likely will only increase in a mandatory system. 

Current E-Verify users are disproportionately large businesses and federal contractors, and most users that have enrolled in the system have chosen to do so on a 

77 

12See Westat, supra note 5, p. 237. 13 Jeffrey Passell and D’Vera Cohn, Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State 

Trends, 2010 (Pew Hispanic Center, Feb. 1, 2011), http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf, p. 

17. 

voluntary basis — all factors that make them more likely than a ‘‘typical’’ U.S. employer to approve of the system and use it successfully. Misuse of the program 

would almost certainly increase if all employers were required to use the system. 

In Arizona, the employers are less compliant with E-Verify procedures than E-Verify 

employers nationwide.12

Employer misuse of E-Verify is likely to grow with a national mandate, threatening to cause adverse action against even more work-authorized individuals and 

U.S. citizens who will receive erroneous TNCs. 

CONCLUSION

Without immigration reform, E-Verify does not provide an effective solution to the 

problems that arise alongside unauthorized employment. Mandatory E-Verify, 

through the Legal Workforce Act or other bills, does nothing to address the underlying economic realities that drive the employment of unauthorized workers, and 

serves to make matters worse. There are currently 8 million undocumented workers 

in the country, representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force.13 And while fraudulent use of documents is a serious problem, an E-Verify mandate fails to address 

employers’ or workers’ needs while actually incentivizing the use of false documents 

and misuse of the program. Lawmakers should learn from the states with E-Verify 

mandates and address the real issue. The immigration system is broken and needs 

a total overhaul, not misplaced solutions like mandatory E-Verify. 

Æ