NOTE: Due to a misunderstanding on my part, there’s problems with my initial conclusion, see updates below body of post.
I have an op-ed I’m hoping will get published in some of the local papers soon dealing with immigration and one of the issues I touch on is the movement to make E-Verify mandatory for all employers in America. Since it is still being considered, I won’t publish any of it here, but I want to expand on the E-Verify point.
Even as anti-immigration activists seek to make E-Verify mandatory at the national level, they are pushing hard to get states to mandate it in the meantime. Simply put, this is a horrible idea.
I could point to a lot of different reasons why:
- Violates free market views on contracts
- Goes against moral principle of freedom of movement
- Jim Harper’s points about the dangers of unintended consequences and mission creep
But I want to focus on one in particular. False positives.
For those unfamiliar, a false positive is when a test finds a person positive for something when they should be negative. You hear it a lot with regards to medical tests, like AIDS for example.
Since the E-Verify system is essentially a check to see whether you have the condition of being here illegally, it means it too is subject to false positives.
After pulling some numbers for Maryland and doing a Bayesian inference I found the following:
Using the most generous numbers I could for E-Verify supporters, 6.3% 6.1% of positives in Maryland would be false positives, equating to 354,916 343,649 people.
However, as I said, that’s being generous. I also ran a more realistic version of the numbers, using the changes listed below:
- My source for Maryland population was the U.S. Census Bureau. Their figure is 5,633,597. According to Help Save Maryland the number of illegals in the state is 250,000. In my generous calculation I treated this as a subset of the total state population. However, realistically, illegals are unlikely to be part of Census numbers so I have added them to the population number for a total of 5,883,597.
- For my generous calculations I was operating using a standard of 99.9% test accuracy for finding illegals as illegals. For my realistic one I downgraded to the 99.5% accuracy cited by the Center for Immigration Studies (still pretty generous in my opinion).
- In the first calculation I relied upon the .3% false positive rate cited by E-Verify supporters. As Jim Harper has noted, a number this low is suspect considering E-Verify’s previous track record, so I moved it up to 1%, still short of his 1.24%
So, running the numbers using these adjusted figures, the rate of false positives increases from 6.3% to 18.6%, or 1,094,349 people incorrectly being denied work (1,047,849 if you apply the percentage to the unadjusted population number).
When the stakes are as serious as they are with E-Verify, an error rate that impacts so many people is inexcusable. Maryland has no business mandating E-Verify and I encourage everyone to reach out to your state representatives and let them know that.
UPDATE 1:
As my good friend Tim Andrews has pointed out, I really should include the calculations.
First version:
.999(.044)/[.999(.044)+.003(.956)]=.939
1-.939=.061=6.1%
Second version:
.995(.042)/[.995(.042)+.01(.958)]=.814
1-.814=.816=18.6%
The .999/.995 refers to the accuracy of the test in identifying illegals as illegals.
The .044/.042 refers to the percentage of illegal immigrants in the Maryland population.
The .003/.01 refers to the percentage of false positives.
The .956/.958 refers to the percentage of persons in Maryland that are not illegal immigrants.
Hope that clears up any confusion.
UPDATE 2:
It has been pointed out to me by a friend far better at statistics than I that I mis-applied the result of the Bayesian inference and that it should have been applied to the number of total positives and over-sized the total sample by using a portion of the population to approximate the working portion (his recommendation was half). So here are my corrected calculations and results (all data say the same except the general population number has been halved and the illegal immigrant population is 84% of its previous total; this was derived by applying national demographic info from Pew’s Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States report to state numbers.)
.999(.075)/[.999(.075)+.003(.925)]=.96
1-.96=.04=4% of all positives being false positives
.995(.069)/.995(.069)+.01(.931)]=.881
1-.881=.116=11.9% of all positives being false positives
If we accept the 5.8% rate of positives cited by the DHS is accurate (I’m skeptical the system won’t turn up more positives, especially false ones, as more strain is put upon it), that still comes out to 6534 Marylanders being unjustly denied employment because of E-Verify under the most generous model and 20,891 under my realistic model (18,951 if you use the realistic percentage but the generous population number).
Obviously this isn’t as strong a point as I initially thought I had, but I think even 6534 people improperly denied employment because of E-Verify is too many – and when you consider that there’s no reason to think things would be as ideal as that forecast, the problem becomes even more pressing.
Follow on Twitter
Add on Facebook
E-mail Me
Without having the requisite data on how the state acquires and maintains its records, your numbers are largely meaningless. Even something as broad and imprecise as Bayesian inference requires evidence and/or observations in order to function.
So, what is data-set from which you derived evidence or made observations?
Also:
It doesn’t violate free market views on contracts unless you posit that those views include entering into illegal contracts or contracts for illegal purposes.
It does nor violate this supposed moral principle of freedom of movement because no such principle can require that a person be granted access to a particular place, only that they can not be restricted from leaving one.
And those unintended consequences are the same as those of making anything illegal and enforcing that law. Criminals are criminals and will try to continue to commit crimes.
Jonolan,
As it was pretty much a back of the napkin calculation, I didn’t thoroughly research how the state collects and maintains its data. That being said, I either went by the generally available data or by numbers provided by proponents of E-Verify in order to give them ever benefit of the doubt.
For total population I relied upon the U.S. census numbers. For the population of illegal immigrants I looked to the number provided by Help Save Maryland, a group opposed to illegal immigration (who if anything is likely to highball the number). My basis for adding the illegal immigrant population number to the census number was this article from the Christian Science Monitor which suggested they seldom answer census surveys. For success rate I relied upon info from the Center for Immigration Studies, another anti-immigration organization. Finally, for false positive rates, I work in a legislative office and relied on the number individuals writing in support of E-Verify have been providing, which was the lowest number I’ve seen cited anywhere.
Obviously there are certain difficulties with relying on the accuracy of this data, however since it is all coming from either the government or E-Verify boosters the weaknesses in relying upon it should cut both ways.
As for the other points:
-I would argue it does violate the free market view on contracts since in a free market environment there would not be an artificial limitation on the supply of labor so illegality would not be an issue here. And even setting that aside, I would posit that free market beliefs on contracts do not necessitate legal actors or legal object, only that neither interferes with the individual rights of any others, which contracting for labor from illegal immigrants is consistent with.
-While freedom of movement obviously doesn’t give a person license to enter onto private property, I fail to see how it gives the government license to deny right of entry unless there is a clear, compelling, and necessary interest in doing so (i.e. not allowing the general population onto a secure military base). I would argue a broad-based denial such as through immigration law (particularly when it’s driven by a quota system) does not rise to that level.
-Finally, on the unintended consequences point, I was referring to more than just the incentive for more and more serious identity theft (what I presume you are referring to with the “criminals are criminals” point). One of the key issues is an increased incentives for employers to find ways to simply not consider Hispanic individuals and/or to simply hire even more people under the table.
All that being said, thanks for the comment, it’s nice to have some constructive debate every now and then.
If I understand your data-set correctly, it should be indicating far less chance of false-positives than you’re making it out to be. The bulk of actual errors would seem to be failures of the system detecting the criminals rather than falsely nonconfirming people.
Did you, perhaps, lump all errors in the same direction (false-positive) instead of account for both directions of error? Really, I’m just asking because the numbers don’t make sense.
As for the applicability and worthiness of applying strict -fundamentalist actually – free market principles to the hiring of illegal immigrants – I choose to merely agree to disagree. It’s an ideological divide and cannot be debated, only argued.
As for the freedom of movement – That is also an ideological divide but one that can be argued under the very terms you’ve set forth.
All nations have a necessary interest in maintaining and improving the chances for their own people to be employed. Immigrant labor hampers that.
All nations have a necessary interest in maintaining a common culture – or at least cultural foundation – in their lands. Allowing large influxes of immigrants into an already crowded nations hampers that, especially when there is a significant language barrier.
Of course the above are practical, empirical, and pragmatic problems. As such, they;re not ones that people who talk of “morals” are normally willing to listen to.
First of all, as a result of the comments, I went and checked over my math and found a small error in my initial calculation of the percentage of the illegal population (4.3% rather than 4.4%) so I’ve corrected the post accordingly.
If I understand Bayesian inferences correctly, you would multiply the test’s accuracy in identifying illegals as illegals by the percentage of illegals in the population and then divide that number by the same number plus the test’s false positive rate multiplied by the percentage of the population not illegal.
For my initial calculation I only used the .3% number I have seen cited, which according to the comments I have seen is only the number of persons who are known false positives, leaving 99.7% of the remaining positives as true positives. This excludes a number of positive results that, as Harper has noted, could well be people who receive a false positive and for one reason or another do not have it corrected.
The 1% used in the second calculation was a speculative number, keeping Harper’s point in mind but not going to the point he did of counting all positives as possible false positives.
If I understand it correctly, I would need to do another inference, checking for false negatives to determine the rate of such failures, so I’m not quite sure how I could have lumped them together. Can you explain what you mean a bit more?
As for the latter points, we can set obviously set aside the ideological questions. But for the others,
While a nation may have an interest in improving employment opportunity for citizens, it has a greater obligation to improve economic well-being. And as studies by both Cato and the Center for American Progress show, you do that by making it easier to emigrate and to work. Increased enforcement of immigration law however hurts average economic well-being.
With regards to culture, that strikes me as a bit of a red herring. Virtually all cultural markers (language, diet, dress, social mores, etc.) are in a constant state of evolution and flux. Looking back at the America of 1787, on most every cultural count the America of today is a drastically different place. What remains constant are first principles, and these have been damaged far more by the likes of FDR than immigration has ever altered them.
To resolve irregularities you stop of at your local Social Security office. If you are in this country illegally, that the last government agency you will venture near?
America suffering from the illegal immigrant occupation
When President Obama assures the American people that he is going to secure the borders. What does that really mean to him and his progeny’s of Liberal-Socialist-Marxist extremists, who have his ear? It certainly doesn’t mean the original fences, initiated by Rep.Duncan Hunter. Not only is the fence far from the design originally conceived by this California lawmaker, but it doesn’t fit the specifications of The Secure Fence Act (Pub.L. 109-367) was enacted October 26, 2006. Now we have a single barrier, not the double layered fence that should have been enacted, with the open space reserved between the fences for rapid movement of policing the border. Even the Canadian border remains easy access to criminal and terrorists, and not forgetting Canadians who would prefer to illegally live in the US. There are hundreds of fire roads that are easily accessible, for anybody to cross the border with bombing material. Many places have just a phone for individuals to voluntarily explain their presence to the US border agents? Our country is open to attack and because our politicians refuse to acknowledge that citizens are in peril, it is sheer luck that a small nuclear devise hasn’t already been smuggled into a congested cities.
Neither previous or post governing parties have used the laws to place National Guard forces on the border, because loss of trade from our corrupt Southern neighborers who have impeded any sense of real security. Of late Mexican Senate wants President Felipe Calderon to send a message to the U.S. asking that plans to continue to protect its border against illegal immigration be dropped. If it wasn’t for public opinion and the rapt attention of thousands of blogger sentinels, Obama’s minions would have slowly forced upon us another negative immigration reform. Sure America needs the ultimate top scientific and technological labor, but we certainly need to rid this country of manual and low skilled workforce and illegal national families living off the US taxpayer. Sure many pay some taxes, but the majority only pay what they are confronted by every day, like items they buy and a gas taxes. That’s a sick joke when Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and a whole bunch of disguised ultra left liberals say that giving AMNESTY, will draw them out the shadows?
No way are they going to pay Federal or State taxes, when they can get free government entitlements. They are already hoping their children can sponge their way into Universities and colleges, when our own legal kids have to pay their way. Illegal immigrants learn the welfare system and how to get free emergency care in our hospitals. When you have no papers or identification our soft politicians cater to them over their own people. We like fools, ignore our seniors and our own desperate poor are hounded by debt collectors when the bills become due? They come across the border knowing our entitlement system will look after the whole family, including pregnant females who soak this country taxpayer by getting instant citizenship, instant low income housing and a host of other “Freebies” that our own people get turned away. The businesses that hire them, should pay every penny they stick the US taxpayers with? They have even expert knowledge of the tax system, so they can get IRS refunds for non-existent children in their country of origin. Billions of dollars that should go towards rebuilding our infrastructure, our health insurance corrupt health care system , our–OWN–children’s education.
This is–WHY–E-Verify must be fully funded, permanent and using the money to make the program a keystone of immigration enforcement. With the technology we have inherited today, we can mandate its use and hire the top computer engineers to perfect its ability, to deport every illegal immigrant in America. Not the 12 million facade that we have brain washed with, but the–REAL–number of somewhere between 20 and 30 unauthorized foreigners bleeding our nation dry. E-Verify in its second generation performance, could be used to drivers license irregularities, vehicle registrations, insurance fraud, along with house mortgages , health care and much more. Congressman Kenny Marchant (TX-24) authored a new bill H.R. 4586 the Mortgage E-Verify Act. My bill will potentially save millions by cutting down on fraudulent claims from illegal immigrants and protect taxpayers from subsidizing the restructuring or renegotiation mortgages of illegal immigrants. Then every local police department should be funded to train its police in the 287 (G) program, with instruction to arrest and hand over to ICE. Then ICE should not be blocked by a wimpy Janet Napolitano, who has ordered the agents to slowly desist on immigration raids. Perhaps the inception of the “TEA PARTY” movement has an agenda to stop this absolute travesty of our immigration enforcement?
Hopefully their growing populace are not compromised by either the Republicans and Democrats in there haste to be recognized as a force against corrupt government. NO MORE AMNESTIES, MAKE E-VERIFY PERMANENT , FULLY FUND 287 (G) FOR LOCAL POLICE AND RESUME EXPANDED ICE RAIDS. Learn more at NUMBERSUSA dot com, JudicialWatch dot org and Americanpatrol dot com Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and asked for your Senator or Congressman. In addition bombard your State Representatives to enforce state laws. Just look to the State of California, that has been labeled a–SANCTUARY STATE–because its run by a horde of Democrats who are really liberals under their skin, that have pandered to the illegal alien occupation. Now the state is dead–BROKE–with not enough money to pay its bills. Yet still they are catering to the millions of illegal aliens imported from South of its border and many illegal families, that have packed up and left other less sympathetic states, where welfare entitlements are more strictly enforced. Arizona is following the leader, with Texas as other border states suffering under this ever increasing Overpopulation of the illegal immigrant variety.
While the calculations are a bit over my head without research, I see E-verify as a step back for multiple reasons. Even if one claims this system is 99% accurate, which it isn’t, it allows for many people to be denied employment wrongly. We need to work on legal immigration so that illegal immigration isn’t as much as a problem, which is too large as it stands and unenforceable. I don’t know as much as I should on E-verify but it largely seems like another unnecessary costly regulation.
[...] on the Problem with E-Verify 25 02 2010 Several weeks ago I did some statistical analysis of the E-Verify system and the impact a mandate of its use in Maryland would [...]