<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:pingback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/pingback/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>TALX Blog - I-9</title>
    <link>http://blog.talx.com/</link>
    <description>subtitle</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>TALX</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:53:47 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>newtelligence dasBlog 2.2.8279.16125</generator>
    <managingEditor>webservices@talx.com</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>webservices@talx.com</webMaster>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://blog.talx.com/Trackback.aspx?guid=a8546b58-182a-4112-befc-975d06e567a9</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://blog.talx.com/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://blog.talx.com/PermaLink,guid,a8546b58-182a-4112-befc-975d06e567a9.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Dave Fowler</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://blog.talx.com/CommentView,guid,a8546b58-182a-4112-befc-975d06e567a9.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://blog.talx.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=a8546b58-182a-4112-befc-975d06e567a9</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
Well, it's been a while since the last posting and many things have happened and continue
to happen. Based on conversations with DHS and others in the industry, here are
a few things to take into consideration regarding the FAR rule.
</p>
        <ul>
          <li>
Due to the number of comments and suggestions USCIS has received since issuing th <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=534bbd181e09d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&amp;vgnextchannel=534bbd181e09d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD">E-Verify
Supplemental Guide For Federal Contractors</a> on September 8, 2009, USCIS will be
issuing an updated version in the near future. 
</li>
          <li>
USCIS also issued an updated <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=534bbd181e09d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&amp;vgnextchannel=534bbd181e09d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD">E-Verify
User Manual For Federal Contractors</a> on September 8, 2009. It is anticipated that
an updated version of this document will also be issued to correct errors such as
missing sections and poor wording. 
</li>
          <li>
USCIS announced this week on the E-Verify website that the Photo Matching Tool, designed
to help prevent document fraud, will be made available to E-Verify Designated
Agents (soon to be referred to as E-Verify Service Providers) by the end of the year.
The tool is already available to employers using the E-Verify website. Designated
Agents will likely have between 6 and 9 months to update their electronic I-9 services
to use the new E-Verify web service interface including the Photo Matching Tool. 
</li>
          <li>
There are two groups of existing employees that can be considered exempt
from E-Verify for purposes of complying with the FAR rule. However, if you must
treat all employees in a group the same to avoid potential discrimination. If you
submit one employee with an HSPD-12 background check, then you must submit all employees
in the group. These groups include: 
<ul><li>
Employees with an active confidential, secret, or top secret security clearance 
</li><li>
Employees with credentials issued as a result of an HSPD-12 (Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 12) background check.</li></ul></li>
          <li>
Any existing employee who has already been submitted to E-Verify may not be submitted
again unless they have been rehired since last being submitted to E-Verify. If you
have used E-Verify for any existing employees you should generate the User Audit Report
from the E-Verify website. This gives you an Excel file of the employees already verified
by E-Verify so you can avoid submitting them more than once. 
</li>
          <li>
Be careful when deciding to verify all existing employees or only those assigned to
a FAR contract. Once you make this decision you can't change it. 
</li>
          <li>
Employers have the ability to consider the legal entity that signed the contract as
the contractor and bound by the FAR rule. <strong><em>NOTE: Consult your legal counsel
to determine if certain subidiaries and affiliates are part of the legal contracting
entity.</em></strong></li>
          <li>
Finally, based on feedback from many employers, industry organizations, and off-the-record
discussions with DHS the best practice for verifying existing employees is to submit
ALL existing employees to E-Verify by creating a new I-9 for each existing employee.
For many employers verifying all existing employees is the lesser of two evils. <strong><em>NOTE:
You must retain the employee's original I-9.</em></strong> Here are some reasons why
verifying all existing employees is being considered the best practice. 
<ul><li>
This is a one-time event. If you decide to only verify employees working on a FAR
contract, then you have an ongoing, never ending obligation to continue to verify
existing employees transferred to an existing FAR contract or assigned to a new
FAR contract. 
</li><li>
Once you are finished you will only need to verify all new hires. 
</li><li>
You have one process used uniformly across the entire organization. 
</li><li>
You will have to complete new I-9s for at least some of your employees. This is because
an I-9 must comply with E-Verify. Since a new I-9 was issued April 3, 2009 that
now includes 4 citizenship options in Section 1 and no longer allows expired documents
to be used to complete Section 2, all of your existing I-9s will not comply with
E-Verify. By completing new I-9s for all existing employees you avoid having to manually
audit your I-9s to determine which ones comply with E-Verify and which ones don't.
For those that don't comply, you will have to complete a new I-9 anyway. Since most
of your existing employees were probably hired prior to April 3, 2009, you will have
to complete new I-9s for most of your employee anyway.</li></ul></li>
        </ul>
        <p>
In closing, compliance with the FAR rule is causing employers to really consider
moving to an electronic I-9 with E-Verify. This will reduce the hassle, eliminate
errors with real-time error checking, promote your <font color="#008000"><strong>GREEN</strong></font> initiatives,
automatically receive notifications for employees with expiring work authorizations
(reverifications), reduce liability by automatically purging old I-9s for terminated
employees once the I-9s have satisfied Federal retention requirements, and provide
enhanced compliance reporting.
</p>
        <p>
          <strong>
            <em>NOTE: For TALX clients already using The Work Number employment verification
service from TALX, we already have the data we need for I-9 compliance reporting.</em>
          </strong>
        </p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://blog.talx.com/aggbug.ashx?id=a8546b58-182a-4112-befc-975d06e567a9" />
        <br />
        <hr />
This weblog is sponsored by <a href="http://www.talx.com">TALX</a>. 
</body>
      <title>E-Verify Information for Federal Contractors</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.talx.com/PermaLink,guid,a8546b58-182a-4112-befc-975d06e567a9.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://blog.talx.com/2009/10/07/EVerifyInformationForFederalContractors.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:53:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
Well, it's been a while since the last posting and many things have happened and continue
to happen. Based on conversations with DHS and others in the industry,&amp;nbsp;here are
a few things to take into consideration regarding the FAR rule.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
Due to the number of comments and suggestions USCIS has received since issuing th &lt;a href="http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=534bbd181e09d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&amp;amp;vgnextchannel=534bbd181e09d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD"&gt;E-Verify
Supplemental Guide For Federal Contractors&lt;/a&gt; on September 8, 2009, USCIS will be
issuing an updated version in the near future. 
&lt;li&gt;
USCIS also issued an updated &lt;a href="http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=534bbd181e09d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&amp;amp;vgnextchannel=534bbd181e09d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD"&gt;E-Verify
User Manual For Federal Contractors&lt;/a&gt; on September 8, 2009. It is anticipated that
an updated version of this document will also be issued to correct errors such as
missing sections and poor wording. 
&lt;li&gt;
USCIS announced this week on the E-Verify website that the Photo Matching Tool, designed
to help prevent document fraud,&amp;nbsp;will be made available to E-Verify Designated
Agents (soon to be referred to as E-Verify Service Providers) by the end of the year.
The tool is already available to employers using the E-Verify website. Designated
Agents will likely have between 6 and 9 months to update their electronic I-9 services
to use the new E-Verify web service interface including the Photo Matching Tool. 
&lt;li&gt;
There are two&amp;nbsp;groups of existing&amp;nbsp;employees that can&amp;nbsp;be considered exempt
from E-Verify for purposes of complying with the FAR rule. However,&amp;nbsp;if you must
treat all employees in a group the same to avoid potential discrimination. If you
submit one employee with an HSPD-12 background check, then you must submit all employees
in the group.&amp;nbsp;These groups include: 
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
Employees with an active confidential, secret, or top secret security clearance 
&lt;li&gt;
Employees with credentials issued as a result of an HSPD-12 (Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 12) background check.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
Any existing employee who has already been submitted to E-Verify may not be submitted
again unless they have been rehired since last being submitted to E-Verify. If you
have used E-Verify for any existing employees you should generate the User Audit Report
from the E-Verify website. This gives you an Excel file of the employees already verified
by E-Verify so you can avoid submitting them more than once. 
&lt;li&gt;
Be careful when deciding to verify all existing employees or only those assigned to
a FAR contract. Once you make this decision you can't change it. 
&lt;li&gt;
Employers have the ability to consider the legal entity that signed the contract as
the contractor and bound by the FAR rule. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;NOTE: Consult your legal counsel
to determine if certain subidiaries and affiliates are part of the legal contracting
entity.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; 
&lt;li&gt;
Finally, based on feedback from many employers, industry&amp;nbsp;organizations, and off-the-record
discussions with DHS the best practice for verifying existing employees is to submit
ALL existing employees to E-Verify by creating a&amp;nbsp;new I-9 for each existing employee.
For many employers verifying all existing employees&amp;nbsp;is the lesser of two evils. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;NOTE:
You must retain the employee's original I-9.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Here are some reasons why
verifying all existing employees is being considered the best practice. 
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
This is a one-time event. If you decide to only verify employees working on a FAR
contract, then you have an ongoing, never ending&amp;nbsp;obligation to continue to verify
existing employees transferred to an existing&amp;nbsp;FAR contract or assigned to a new
FAR contract. 
&lt;li&gt;
Once you are finished&amp;nbsp;you will only need to verify all new hires. 
&lt;li&gt;
You have one process&amp;nbsp;used uniformly across the entire organization. 
&lt;li&gt;
You will have to complete new I-9s for at least some of your employees. This is because
an&amp;nbsp;I-9 must comply with E-Verify. Since a new I-9 was issued April 3, 2009 that
now includes 4 citizenship options in Section 1 and no longer allows expired documents
to be used to complete Section 2, all&amp;nbsp;of your existing I-9s will not comply with
E-Verify. By completing new I-9s for all existing employees you avoid having to manually
audit your I-9s to determine which ones comply with E-Verify and which ones don't.
For those that don't comply, you will have to complete a new I-9 anyway. Since most
of your existing employees were probably hired prior to April 3, 2009, you will have
to complete new I-9s for most of your employee anyway.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
In closing, compliance with the FAR rule is causing employers to really&amp;nbsp;consider
moving to an electronic I-9 with E-Verify. This will reduce the hassle, eliminate
errors with real-time&amp;nbsp;error checking, promote your &lt;font color=#008000&gt;&lt;strong&gt;GREEN&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/font&gt; initiatives,
automatically receive notifications for employees with expiring work authorizations
(reverifications), reduce liability by automatically purging old I-9s for terminated
employees once the I-9s have satisfied Federal retention requirements, and provide
enhanced compliance reporting.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;NOTE: For TALX clients already using The Work Number employment verification
service from TALX, we&amp;nbsp;already have the data we need for I-9 compliance reporting.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://blog.talx.com/aggbug.ashx?id=a8546b58-182a-4112-befc-975d06e567a9" /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
This weblog is sponsored by &lt;a href="http://www.talx.com"&gt;TALX&lt;/a&gt;. </description>
      <comments>http://blog.talx.com/CommentView,guid,a8546b58-182a-4112-befc-975d06e567a9.aspx</comments>
      <category>I-9</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://blog.talx.com/Trackback.aspx?guid=b91e14d3-f2f3-409b-82bc-971e8362d539</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://blog.talx.com/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://blog.talx.com/PermaLink,guid,b91e14d3-f2f3-409b-82bc-971e8362d539.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Dave Fowler</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://blog.talx.com/CommentView,guid,b91e14d3-f2f3-409b-82bc-971e8362d539.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://blog.talx.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=b91e14d3-f2f3-409b-82bc-971e8362d539</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
          <strong>Well, my speculation was way off!</strong> This one surprised me and, I'm
sure, many others.
</p>
        <p>
The Administration has decided to move forward with the FAR rule requiring federal
contractors to use E-Verify. In a press release dated July 8, 2009 the Department
of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that "After a careful review,
the Administration will push ahead with full implementation of the rule, which will
apply to federal solicitations and contract awards Government-wide starting on September
8, 2009." <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1247063976814.shtm">Click
here</a> for the full press release. I interpret the term <strong><em>full implementation</em></strong> to
indicate that the rule will be implemented as it currently stands, which includes
a verification requirement for existing employees. No mention was made in the press
release of the lawsuit filed against the rule by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
others.
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://blog.talx.com/aggbug.ashx?id=b91e14d3-f2f3-409b-82bc-971e8362d539" />
        <br />
        <hr />
This weblog is sponsored by <a href="http://www.talx.com">TALX</a>. 
</body>
      <title>Speculation on a New Federal Contractor Rule</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.talx.com/PermaLink,guid,b91e14d3-f2f3-409b-82bc-971e8362d539.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://blog.talx.com/2009/07/09/SpeculationOnANewFederalContractorRule.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:08:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Well, my speculation was way off!&lt;/strong&gt; This one surprised me and, I'm
sure, many others.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The Administration has decided to move forward with the FAR rule requiring federal
contractors to use E-Verify. In a press release dated&amp;nbsp;July 8, 2009&amp;nbsp;the Department
of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that "After a careful review,
the Administration will push ahead with full implementation of the rule, which will
apply to federal solicitations and contract awards Government-wide starting on September
8, 2009." &lt;a href="http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1247063976814.shtm"&gt;Click
here&lt;/a&gt; for the full press release. I interpret the term &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;full implementation&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to
indicate that the rule will be implemented as it currently stands, which includes
a verification requirement for existing employees. No mention was made in the press
release of the lawsuit filed against the rule by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
others.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://blog.talx.com/aggbug.ashx?id=b91e14d3-f2f3-409b-82bc-971e8362d539" /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
This weblog is sponsored by &lt;a href="http://www.talx.com"&gt;TALX&lt;/a&gt;. </description>
      <comments>http://blog.talx.com/CommentView,guid,b91e14d3-f2f3-409b-82bc-971e8362d539.aspx</comments>
      <category>HR &amp; Payroll</category>
      <category>I-9</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://blog.talx.com/Trackback.aspx?guid=9ea57432-9b16-48b8-98ed-7ca6a1e4fe87</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://blog.talx.com/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://blog.talx.com/PermaLink,guid,9ea57432-9b16-48b8-98ed-7ca6a1e4fe87.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Dave Fowler</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://blog.talx.com/CommentView,guid,9ea57432-9b16-48b8-98ed-7ca6a1e4fe87.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://blog.talx.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=9ea57432-9b16-48b8-98ed-7ca6a1e4fe87</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
The direction provided in the instructions for the <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=31b3ab0a43b5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&amp;vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD">Form
I-9</a>, the <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/m-274.pdf">Handbook
for Employers (M-274)</a>, and the E-Verify User Manual for the employment date in
Section 2 could provide more specific. Consequently, there are different interpretations used
by entities such as employers, E-Verify Designated Agents, electronic I-9 service
providers, ICE, USCIS, and OFCCP. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone used the same definition!
</p>
        <p>
I propose that the rule for the employment date in Section 2 should be the following:
</p>
        <p>
          <strong>The employment date in Section 2 may be the current date (the date Section
2 is signed) or a prior date, but it cannot be a future date.</strong>
        </p>
        <p>
Here is the rational for this definition.
</p>
        <ol>
          <li>
The language in the cerfication statement in Section 2 says 'that the employee
began employment on (month/day/year)<u>                  </u>' 
Words have meaning and this language says began rather than will begin. Therefore,
the language indicates that the date should be the current date or a prior date and
not a future date. 
</li>
          <li>
Since the signatory is attesting that the information in Section 2 is accurate, using
a future date requires the signatory to attest to an event that has not yet occurred.
Since there is no way to guarantee the employee will actually start work on a
future date, it does not make sense to attest to a future event by entering a future
date in Section 2. 
</li>
          <li>
            <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/e-verify">E-Verify</a> will not accept an employment date
that is in the future. Since E-Verify, the government's free system that employers
can use to verify a new hire is authorized to work in the U.S., does not accept a
future date, it makes sense to not enter a future date in Section 2 of the Form I-9. 
</li>
          <li>
There are basically two reasons for entering a prior date in Section 2 of the
Form I-9. 
<ol><li>
The employer has three work days do complete Section 2 of the Form I-9 for a new hire.
Therefore, the employment date could be prior to the Section 2 signature date. 
</li><li>
If the employer identifies that an employee is missing a Form I-9, the employer
should complete a Form I-9 as soon as possible. In this situation, the employment
date in Section 2 will be more than three days prior to the Section 2 signature date.</li></ol></li>
        </ol>
        <p>
One other point, there is really no relationship between the Section 1 and the Section
2 signature dates. However, the Section 1 signature date must be the same or prior
to the Section 2 signature date. The employee should complete Section 1 before or
at the same time the employer completes Section 2.
</p>
        <p>
By the way, the employment date in Section 2 <strong>MUST</strong> be completed when
the employer signs Section 2. The Form I-9 instructions state that employers must
record in Section 2 the date employment begins. Some employers, especially in
the staffing industry, leave the employment date blank and when the employee is placed
in a position the employment date is entered. This is not compliant and is a very
dangerous practice that would likely be considered to be a substantial violation
in the event of an ICE audit. Substantial violations have a high likelyhood of resulting
in penalties against the employer. This practice also results in the employment date
in Section 2 being a future date since the date would be after the Section 2 signature
date.
</p>
        <p>
If you use the rule proposed above you should have compliant employment
dates in Section 2 of your Forms I-9.
</p>
        <p>
Good luck!
</p>
        <p>
Dave Fowler
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://blog.talx.com/aggbug.ashx?id=9ea57432-9b16-48b8-98ed-7ca6a1e4fe87" />
        <br />
        <hr />
This weblog is sponsored by <a href="http://www.talx.com">TALX</a>. 
</body>
      <title>Clarifying the Employment Date in Section 2 of the Form I-9</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.talx.com/PermaLink,guid,9ea57432-9b16-48b8-98ed-7ca6a1e4fe87.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://blog.talx.com/2009/06/05/ClarifyingTheEmploymentDateInSection2OfTheFormI9.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:52:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
The direction provided in the instructions for the &lt;a href="http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=31b3ab0a43b5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&amp;amp;vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD"&gt;Form
I-9&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href="http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/m-274.pdf"&gt;Handbook
for Employers (M-274)&lt;/a&gt;, and the E-Verify User Manual for the employment date in
Section 2&amp;nbsp;could provide more specific. Consequently, there are different interpretations&amp;nbsp;used
by entities such as&amp;nbsp;employers, E-Verify Designated Agents, electronic I-9 service
providers, ICE, USCIS, and OFCCP. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone used the same definition!
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I propose that the rule for the employment date in Section 2 should be the following:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;The employment date in Section 2 may be the current date (the date Section
2 is signed) or a prior date, but it cannot be a future date.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Here is the rational for this definition.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
The language in&amp;nbsp;the cerfication statement in Section 2 says 'that the employee
began employment on (month/day/year)&lt;u&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;/u&gt;'&amp;nbsp;
Words have meaning and this language says began rather than will begin. Therefore,
the language indicates that the date should be the current date or a prior date and
not a future date. 
&lt;li&gt;
Since the signatory is attesting that the information in Section 2 is accurate, using
a future date requires the signatory to attest to an event that has not yet occurred.
Since there is no way to guarantee the employee will actually start work on&amp;nbsp;a
future date, it does not make sense to attest to a future event by entering a future
date in Section 2. 
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.dhs.gov/e-verify"&gt;E-Verify&lt;/a&gt; will not accept an employment date
that is in the future. Since E-Verify, the government's free system that employers
can use to verify a new hire is authorized to work in the U.S., does not accept a
future date, it makes sense to not enter a future date in Section 2 of the Form I-9. 
&lt;li&gt;
There are basically two reasons for entering a&amp;nbsp;prior date in Section 2 of the
Form I-9. 
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
The employer has three work days do complete Section 2 of the Form I-9 for a new hire.
Therefore, the employment date could be prior to the Section 2 signature date. 
&lt;li&gt;
If the employer identifies that an employee is missing a Form&amp;nbsp;I-9, the employer
should complete a Form I-9 as soon as possible. In this situation, the employment
date in Section 2 will be more than three days prior to the Section 2 signature date.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
One other point, there is really no relationship between the Section 1 and the Section
2 signature dates. However, the Section 1 signature date must be the same or prior
to the Section 2 signature date. The employee should complete Section 1 before or
at the same time the employer completes Section 2.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
By the way, the employment date in Section 2 &lt;strong&gt;MUST&lt;/strong&gt; be completed when
the employer signs Section 2. The Form I-9 instructions state that employers must
record in Section 2 the date employment begins.&amp;nbsp;Some employers, especially in
the staffing industry, leave the employment date blank and when the employee is placed
in a position the employment date is entered. This is not compliant and is a very
dangerous practice that would likely&amp;nbsp;be considered to be&amp;nbsp;a substantial violation
in the event of an ICE audit. Substantial violations have a high likelyhood of resulting
in penalties against the employer. This practice also results in the employment date
in Section 2 being a future date since the date would be after the Section 2 signature
date.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
If you use the rule proposed above&amp;nbsp;you should&amp;nbsp;have compliant employment
dates in Section 2 of your Forms I-9.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Good luck!
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Dave Fowler
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://blog.talx.com/aggbug.ashx?id=9ea57432-9b16-48b8-98ed-7ca6a1e4fe87" /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
This weblog is sponsored by &lt;a href="http://www.talx.com"&gt;TALX&lt;/a&gt;. </description>
      <comments>http://blog.talx.com/CommentView,guid,9ea57432-9b16-48b8-98ed-7ca6a1e4fe87.aspx</comments>
      <category>I-9</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://blog.talx.com/Trackback.aspx?guid=b4f705a3-722e-420a-849a-816989087e05</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://blog.talx.com/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://blog.talx.com/PermaLink,guid,b4f705a3-722e-420a-849a-816989087e05.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://blog.talx.com/CommentView,guid,b4f705a3-722e-420a-849a-816989087e05.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://blog.talx.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=b4f705a3-722e-420a-849a-816989087e05</wfw:commentRss>
      <title>Maybe It's Just Me...</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.talx.com/PermaLink,guid,b4f705a3-722e-420a-849a-816989087e05.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://blog.talx.com/2009/06/03/MaybeItsJustMe.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:39:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;but I wish we were being smarter.&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Why
lend money to someone with no income, no job, and no assets? Isn't that how we got
into the current economic situation?&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Who
signs the largest contract&amp;nbsp;ever had without reading it? Isn't this what the Congress
did with the bailout?&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Who
would make largest purchase&amp;nbsp;ever and not&amp;nbsp;track&amp;nbsp;the money went and what
was received? Isn't this what the government is doing with the TARP funds?&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Isn't
it just common sense to only use stimulus money to&amp;nbsp;hire legal workers?&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Why
increase pork barrel spending and drive up the deficit&amp;nbsp;in&amp;nbsp;tough economic?
That's not how we handle our family budgets, is it?&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Why
don't we put politics aside and do what’s right for the country? Aren't we allowing
people to use the economic downturn for personal and political gain?&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Why
don't those in power&amp;nbsp;take responsibility and be accountable&amp;nbsp;rather than
blame others?&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Do
smart people really&amp;nbsp;raise taxes and increase spending when cash is tight? Shouldn't
we&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt; stop ineffective spending and only invest to&amp;nbsp;increase
revenues and reduce costs?&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;What
happened to using plain&amp;nbsp;common sense?&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;
L&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;et's use what we already have to solve the problems
we face. For example:&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=disc&gt;
&lt;li class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;E-Verify works. Let’s use it and improve it. E-Verify
gets negative press&amp;nbsp;because IT WORKS. If the government can punish an employer
for hiring an illegal worker, then the government has an obligation to provide&amp;nbsp;a
way for employers to verify that a worker is legal. As with any software product,
there are specific situations that need to be fixed. However, as a software product
E-Verify:&lt;/font&gt; 
&lt;ul style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=circle&gt;
&lt;li class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; tab-stops: list 1.0in"&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;96% – works perfectly&lt;/font&gt; 
&lt;li class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; tab-stops: list 1.0in"&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;3.5% – detects invalid users&lt;/font&gt; 
&lt;li class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; tab-stops: list 1.0in"&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;0.5% – results in data correction that benefits the
employee&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; tab-stops: list 1.0in"&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=disc&gt;
&lt;li class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;The administration is starting discussions on immigration
reform next week.&amp;nbsp;Here are some ideas for resolving the bickering over immigration
reform:&lt;/font&gt; 
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;ul style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=circle&gt;
&lt;li class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; tab-stops: list 1.0in"&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Allow illegal immigrants who are already here to stay,
unless they are a criminal. It is not feasible to force these individuals to leave
the country.&lt;/font&gt; 
&lt;li class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; tab-stops: list 1.0in"&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Require illegal immigrants to register with the government.
Give them 1 year to do so. If someone does not register, they are arrested, jailed,
and deported when caught.&lt;/font&gt; 
&lt;li class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; tab-stops: list 1.0in"&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Illegal immigrants can never vote, hold public office,
or be appointed to a position where they can&amp;nbsp;change our laws. This would eliminate
the politics from the process since both major political parties consider illegal
immigrants to be new voters.&lt;/font&gt; 
&lt;li class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; tab-stops: list 1.0in"&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Secure the borders to stop the flow of illegal immigrants
and human smuggling&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Don’t
restrict capitalism by unfairly and unnecessarily burdening employers. Be patient
and let the system work. &lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;The current economic climate
will pass. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Do things that encourage employers
and employees and be true to our core values.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Focus
on the big, important, and urgent things first. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Demonstrate
a smart approach to the world.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Experts
estimate that it would cost $10 billion to solve the world’s clean water problem.
Allocate $10 billion of the stimulus money to solve this problem. This will help restore
our standing in the world community.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"&gt;&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;America’s
first priority is to protect our freedom and the freedom of others. Freedom built
our country and it will continue to do so if we let it.&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /&gt;
&lt;o:p&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;&amp;nbsp;Again, maybe it's just me...&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/o:p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;
&lt;o:p&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/o:p&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;
&lt;o:p&gt;
&lt;font face=Arial color=#000000&gt;Dave Fowler&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/o:p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;
&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://blog.talx.com/aggbug.ashx?id=b4f705a3-722e-420a-849a-816989087e05" /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
This weblog is sponsored by &lt;a href="http://www.talx.com"&gt;TALX&lt;/a&gt;. </description>
      <comments>http://blog.talx.com/CommentView,guid,b4f705a3-722e-420a-849a-816989087e05.aspx</comments>
      <category>I-9</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://blog.talx.com/Trackback.aspx?guid=123cbea4-070c-4446-b4f7-4d7cf4ddc972</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://blog.talx.com/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://blog.talx.com/PermaLink,guid,123cbea4-070c-4446-b4f7-4d7cf4ddc972.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Dave Fowler</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://blog.talx.com/CommentView,guid,123cbea4-070c-4446-b4f7-4d7cf4ddc972.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://blog.talx.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=123cbea4-070c-4446-b4f7-4d7cf4ddc972</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
July 9, 2009 - <strong>Well, my speculation was way off!</strong> This one surprised
me and, I'm sure, many others.
</p>
        <p>
The Administration has decided to move forward with the FAR rule requiring federal
contractors to use E-Verify. In a press release dated July 8, 2009 the Department
of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that "After a careful review,
the Administration will push ahead with full implementation of the rule, which will
apply to federal solicitations and contract awards Government-wide starting on September
8, 2009." <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1247063976814.shtm">Click
here</a> for the full press release. I interpret the term <strong><em>full implementation</em></strong> to
indicate that the rule will be implemented as it currently stands, which includes
the a verification requirement for existing employees. No mention was made in the
press release of the lawsuit filed against the rule by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and others.
</p>
        <p>
Based on what is happening in the administration and with other interested parties
such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, here is a hypothetical timeline that has a chance
of happening.
</p>
        <p>
June 1, 2009 - U.S. Chamber of Commerce releases a statement that the FAR rule for
federal contractors is going to be delayed again (this is the 5th time) until September
8, 2009.
</p>
        <p>
June 1, 2009 - Center for Immigration Studies releases a statement that President
Obama will begin meeting with Congress on June 8, 2009 regarding immigration reform. <strong>Update
from Aaron Blake of The Hill (see article below): </strong>The White House had planned
the meeting for June 8 originally and rescheduled it for June 17. It is being rescheduled
for next week, according to a White House official. "The meeting will happen soon
and a new date is being set," the official said. The meeting is set to include a small
number of senators and members of Congress and is acting as a kickoff for the administration’s
efforts on immigration.
</p>
        <p>
June 2009 - DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announces that there will be changes to
the FAR rule that will resolve the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
others.
</p>
        <p>
July 8, 2009 - On or before this date a new FAR rule removing the requirement to submit
existing employees to E-Verify and possibly other technical changes will be published
in the Federal Register with a 60 day comment period.
</p>
        <p>
September 8, 2009 - the FAR rule will take effect and federal contractors with covered
federal contracts will be required to submit all new hires to E-Verify.
</p>
        <p>
This is just speculation, but, who knows, it could happen. Stay tuned.
</p>
        <p>
Updated 6/26/09: Rahm Emanuel says votes not there for immigration reform (BACKGROUND
ON MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO DISCUSS IMMIGRATION REFORM) - <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/06/rahm_emanuel_says_votes_not_th.html">http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/06/rahm_emanuel_says_votes_not_th.html</a>.
(6/25/09)
</p>
        <p>
Updated 6/25/09: United States: Immigration Alert: USCIS Announces Further Delays
In E-Verify Implementation, Article by Mintz Levin Immigration Practice Group - <a href="http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=81810">http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=81810</a>.
(6/24/09) 
</p>
        <p>
Updated 6/16/09: NumbersUSA says - <a href="http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/june-11-2009/dhs-gut-e-verify-executive-order-take-action-now.html">Obama
Administration and DHS to Gut E-Verify Executive Order</a>. (6/12/09)
</p>
        <p>
Updated 6/16/09: Frank Davies of the Mercury News Washington Bureau writes - <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12580174?nclick_check=1">Obama,
Congress flirt with tackling immigration reform</a>. (6/14/09)
</p>
        <p>
Updated 6/16/09: Aaron Blake of The Hill writes - <a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-puts-off-immigration-meeting-indefinitely-2009-06-12.html">White
House puts off immigration meeting again</a>.
</p>
        <!--date-->
        <p>
Dave Fowler
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://blog.talx.com/aggbug.ashx?id=123cbea4-070c-4446-b4f7-4d7cf4ddc972" />
        <br />
        <hr />
This weblog is sponsored by <a href="http://www.talx.com">TALX</a>. 
</body>
      <title>Speculation on a New Federal Contractor Rule</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.talx.com/PermaLink,guid,123cbea4-070c-4446-b4f7-4d7cf4ddc972.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://blog.talx.com/2009/06/02/SpeculationOnANewFederalContractorRule.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:40:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
July 9, 2009 - &lt;strong&gt;Well, my speculation was way off!&lt;/strong&gt; This one surprised
me and, I'm sure, many others.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The Administration has decided to move forward with the FAR rule requiring federal
contractors to use E-Verify. In a press release dated&amp;nbsp;July 8, 2009&amp;nbsp;the Department
of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that "After a careful review,
the Administration will push ahead with full implementation of the rule, which will
apply to federal solicitations and contract awards Government-wide starting on September
8, 2009." &lt;a href="http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1247063976814.shtm"&gt;Click
here&lt;/a&gt; for the full press release. I interpret the term &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;full implementation&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to
indicate that the rule will be implemented as it currently stands, which includes
the a verification requirement for existing employees. No mention was made in the
press release of the lawsuit filed against the rule by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and others.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Based on what is happening in the administration and with other interested parties
such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, here is a hypothetical timeline that has a chance
of happening.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
June 1, 2009 - U.S. Chamber of Commerce releases a statement that the FAR rule for
federal contractors is going to be delayed again (this is the 5th time) until September
8, 2009.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
June 1, 2009 - Center for Immigration Studies releases a statement that President
Obama will begin meeting with Congress on June 8, 2009 regarding immigration reform. &lt;strong&gt;Update
from Aaron Blake of The Hill (see article below): &lt;/strong&gt;The White House had planned
the meeting for June 8 originally and rescheduled it for June 17. It is being rescheduled
for next week, according to a White House official. "The meeting will happen soon
and a new date is being set," the official said. The meeting is set to include a small
number of senators and members of Congress and is acting as a kickoff for the administration’s
efforts on immigration.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
June 2009 - DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announces that there will be changes to
the FAR rule that will resolve the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
others.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
July 8, 2009 - On or before this date a new FAR rule removing the requirement to submit
existing employees to E-Verify and possibly other technical changes will be published
in the Federal Register with a&amp;nbsp;60 day comment period.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
September 8, 2009 - the FAR rule will take effect and federal contractors with covered
federal contracts will be required to submit all new hires to E-Verify.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
This is just speculation, but, who knows, it could happen. Stay tuned.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Updated 6/26/09: Rahm Emanuel says votes not there for immigration reform (BACKGROUND
ON MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO DISCUSS IMMIGRATION REFORM) - &lt;a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/06/rahm_emanuel_says_votes_not_th.html"&gt;http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/06/rahm_emanuel_says_votes_not_th.html&lt;/a&gt;.
(6/25/09)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Updated 6/25/09: United States: Immigration Alert: USCIS Announces Further Delays
In E-Verify Implementation, Article by Mintz Levin Immigration Practice Group - &lt;a href="http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=81810"&gt;http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=81810&lt;/a&gt;.
(6/24/09)&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Updated 6/16/09: NumbersUSA&amp;nbsp;says - &lt;a href="http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/june-11-2009/dhs-gut-e-verify-executive-order-take-action-now.html"&gt;Obama
Administration and DHS to Gut E-Verify Executive Order&lt;/a&gt;. (6/12/09)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Updated 6/16/09:&amp;nbsp;Frank Davies of the Mercury News Washington Bureau writes - &lt;a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12580174?nclick_check=1"&gt;Obama,
Congress flirt with tackling immigration reform&lt;/a&gt;. (6/14/09)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Updated 6/16/09: Aaron Blake of The Hill writes - &lt;a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-puts-off-immigration-meeting-indefinitely-2009-06-12.html"&gt;White
House puts off immigration meeting again&lt;/a&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;!--date--&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Dave Fowler
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://blog.talx.com/aggbug.ashx?id=123cbea4-070c-4446-b4f7-4d7cf4ddc972" /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
This weblog is sponsored by &lt;a href="http://www.talx.com"&gt;TALX&lt;/a&gt;. </description>
      <comments>http://blog.talx.com/CommentView,guid,123cbea4-070c-4446-b4f7-4d7cf4ddc972.aspx</comments>
      <category>I-9</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://blog.talx.com/Trackback.aspx?guid=e5c1c741-f979-4b28-8b58-856b7355bbb9</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://blog.talx.com/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://blog.talx.com/PermaLink,guid,e5c1c741-f979-4b28-8b58-856b7355bbb9.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://blog.talx.com/CommentView,guid,e5c1c741-f979-4b28-8b58-856b7355bbb9.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://blog.talx.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=e5c1c741-f979-4b28-8b58-856b7355bbb9</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
Welcome to the TALX blog focused on the Form I-9 and E-Verify. As you may know there
are many changes occurring with the I-9 and E-Verify in 2009. On April 3, 2009 the
new I-9 form went into effect. With this new form there are some big changes such
as: 
</p>
        <ul>
          <li>
The U.S. citizen and national citizenship statuses have been separated so there are
now four citizenship statuses instead of three. 
</li>
          <li>
Expired documents may not longer be used to complete the I-9. 
</li>
          <li>
E-Verify is updated to not accept expired documents. 
</li>
        </ul>
        <p>
It is important to note that to update or reverify an I-9 completed on a previous
Form I-9, you must complete a new I-9 using the new form. 
</p>
        <p>
The second major change scheduled to go into effect May 21, 2009 is the FAR rule that
requires Federal contractors with a covered Federal contract to use E-Verify for all
new hires and existing employees assigned to the contract. There is an option for
the Federal contractor to submit all existing employees hired after November 6, 1986
to E-Verify. This option is very useful for employers who a) cannot easily track which
employees work on covered Federal contracts and/or b) want to avoid employee tracking
altogether and simply verify all existing employees and be done. 
</p>
        <p>
Here are some links for more information and to be kept up to date on changes to the
Form I-9 and E-Verify. It is very handy to subscribe to the email notifications from
these sites. 
</p>
        <ul>
          <li>
            <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/e-verify">http://www.dhs.gov/e-verify</a> - This will
take you to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services site. Here you can sign
up for email updates, access documentation about E-Verify, and read the FAQs. 
</li>
          <li>
            <a href="http://www.cis.org">http://www.cis.org</a> – This will take you to the Center
for Immigration Studies site which covers immigration issues. You can sign up for
email updates and read blogs. 
</li>
          <li>
            <a href="http://www.google.com">http://www.google.com</a> – Sign up for email updates
at Google News. You can use E-Verify as your key word to be kept up on E-Verify news
and blogs. 
</li>
        </ul>
        <p>
Dave Fowler
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://blog.talx.com/aggbug.ashx?id=e5c1c741-f979-4b28-8b58-856b7355bbb9" />
        <br />
        <hr />
This weblog is sponsored by <a href="http://www.talx.com">TALX</a>. 
</body>
      <title>Thoughts on I-9 &amp; E-Verify</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.talx.com/PermaLink,guid,e5c1c741-f979-4b28-8b58-856b7355bbb9.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://blog.talx.com/2009/04/03/ThoughtsOnI9EVerify.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:12:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
Welcome to the TALX blog focused on the Form I-9 and E-Verify. As you may know there
are many changes occurring with the I-9 and E-Verify in 2009. On April 3, 2009 the
new I-9 form went into effect. With this new form there are some big changes such
as: 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
The U.S. citizen and national citizenship statuses have been separated so there are
now four citizenship statuses instead of three. 
&lt;li&gt;
Expired documents may not longer be used to complete the I-9. 
&lt;li&gt;
E-Verify is updated to not accept expired documents. 
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
It is important to note that to update or reverify an I-9 completed on a previous
Form I-9, you must complete a new I-9 using the new form. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The second major change scheduled to go into effect May 21, 2009 is the FAR rule that
requires Federal contractors with a covered Federal contract to use E-Verify for all
new hires and existing employees assigned to the contract. There is an option for
the Federal contractor to submit all existing employees hired after November 6, 1986
to E-Verify. This option is very useful for employers who a) cannot easily track which
employees work on covered Federal contracts and/or b) want to avoid employee tracking
altogether and simply verify all existing employees and be done. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Here are some links for more information and to be kept up to date on changes to the
Form I-9 and E-Verify. It is very handy to subscribe to the email notifications from
these sites. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.dhs.gov/e-verify"&gt;http://www.dhs.gov/e-verify&lt;/a&gt; - This will
take you to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services site. Here you can sign
up for email updates, access documentation about E-Verify, and read the FAQs. 
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.cis.org"&gt;http://www.cis.org&lt;/a&gt; – This will take you to the Center
for Immigration Studies site which covers immigration issues. You can sign up for
email updates and read blogs. 
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.google.com"&gt;http://www.google.com&lt;/a&gt; – Sign up for email updates
at Google News. You can use E-Verify as your key word to be kept up on E-Verify news
and blogs. 
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Dave Fowler
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://blog.talx.com/aggbug.ashx?id=e5c1c741-f979-4b28-8b58-856b7355bbb9" /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
This weblog is sponsored by &lt;a href="http://www.talx.com"&gt;TALX&lt;/a&gt;. </description>
      <comments>http://blog.talx.com/CommentView,guid,e5c1c741-f979-4b28-8b58-856b7355bbb9.aspx</comments>
      <category>I-9</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>