Some Businesses Are Reluctant to Use E-Verify

The Fresno Bee reports that some employers, particularly within the agriculture industry, will not use E-Verify, the federal electronic employment verification system, to authenticate new hires’ legal work status. Relying on figures provided by the federal government, the paper states that “[o]ut of thousands of businesses in Fresno, for example, only 179 use the program… although those numbers don't account for businesses that contract with personnel companies using the program.” Businesses cite two main reasons for their non-participation in E-Verify: (1) administrative burden; and (2) a shortage of available legal workers.

Administrative Burden

Businesses unwilling to use E-Verify often point to the associated administrative burden. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which runs E-Verify, acknowledges that simply preparing to use E-Verify requires between a few days to several months, depending on a business’s size and processes. Human resources staff must devote time to enrolling in the program, and learning how to use it (via DHS manuals or online tutorials). Conducting the verification process and addressing issues that arise if E-Verify finds an individual ineligible to work requires time and resources.

However, the risks of noncompliance are significant. As previously reported here, the current administration’s approach to immigration enforcement centers upon employer audits. In April 2009, DHS issued a fact sheet, which revised its Worksite Enforcement Strategy to strengthen its focus on employer noncompliance. Two months later, 652 businesses received Notices of Inspections from Immigration and Customs Enforcement; at the end of the year, in December 2009, 1,000 faced audits, and the trend continues in 2010. From October 2009 to July 2010, businesses in Texas alone were fined over $600,000.

Also, although federal law makes E-Verify mandatory only for federal contractors, an increasing number of state and local governments have passed laws mandating the use of E-Verify. These laws typically apply only to public employers and contractors, but some states and municipalities require private employers to use E-Verify. In certain states and municipalities with proposed or actual immigration-related laws, use of E-Verify benefits employers because it provides a good faith defense to hiring violations.

The Legal Workforce

The lack of an available and willing legal workforce is another justification companies put forth for not using E-Verify. As an agricultural employer told The Fresno Bee, “[E-Verify] may work for Costco, but Costco doesn't have the problem I have,” i.e., a legal workforce shortage. The United Farm Workers of America, a large agricultural workers union, recently ran a campaign called “Take Our Jobs” that challenged individuals with legal U.S. work status to take illegal immigrants’ positions working in the fields. As noted by The Hill, only seven individuals accepted the challenge, the most notable being Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report,” who testified (in character) about his experience before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.

Farmers interviewed by The Fresno Bee stated their preference for a legal workforce, and some pending bills aim for this result. In October 2010, Senator Saxby Chambliss introduced a bill (S. 3912) that aims to provide a non-amnesty option for temporary agricultural workers and streamline the H-2A temporary worker program. The Menendez-Leahy comprehensive immigration reform bill seeks, among other things, to address shortcomings in existing worker programs that have led to undocumented migration.

Employers or individuals wanting to learn more about E-Verify can read Littler’s Insight, A Basic Guide to E-Verify and Related Immigration Compliance: Everything Federal Contractors and Others Need to Know to Comply with E-Verify Requirements, this blog’s E-Verify entries, or visit the DHS E-Verify page.

Obama Pushes for DREAM Act Vote Before Year's End

President Obama, along with Senator Robert Menendez (D–NJ) and Representatives Luis Gutierrez (D–IL) and Nydia Velazquez (D–NY), is pushing for a vote this year on the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act), The Wall Street Journal reports. The president has agreed to make calls to Republican lawmakers seeking support for the legislation.

Given the administration’s past lack of success in advancing immigration legislation, coupled with strong opposition from Republicans (some of whom oppose the path to citizenship the Act creates), many doubt whether this effort will gather enough votes to advance the bill. Supporters, however, believe that passage of the Act, compared to comprehensive reform, may be possible.

The DREAM Act (S. 729), which Senator Dick Durbin (D–IL) introduced in March 2009, has remained idle in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Prior Senate votes on bills onto which legislators hoped to attach the DREAM Act have failed. As previously reported here, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unsuccessfully attempted to attach the Act to a defense spending bill on September 21, 2010. One week later, Senators Menendez and Leahy (D–VT) incorporated the Act into their comprehensive immigration reform bill (S. 3932), which, like the DREAM Act, remains in committee.

Senator Hatch's Immigration Bill Focuses on Enforcement

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)On September 29, 2010, Senator Orrin Hatch (R–UT) introduced the “Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America’s Security Act” (S.3901) (pdf). The bill is the third notable piece of immigration legislation introduced last week, together with the comprehensive immigration reform bill introduced by Senators Menendez and Leahy, and Senator Chambliss’ HARVEST Act (relating to agricultural workers). Senator Hatch’s bill addresses numerous immigration enforcement topics, and notable provisions include:

  • Illegal aliens could only be paroled or granted deferred action on a case-by-case basis (for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit). Mass paroles and deferrals would be prohibited.
  • Any state, county, city, or township that is eligible to participate in the Secure Communities program or to cross-designate local law enforcement officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions under section 287(g) (pdf) and does not participate in such programs may not receive compensation for incarceration expenses of illegal aliens.
  • Individuals known or reasonably believed to be members of a known criminal organization regularly engaged in transnational criminal activity would be ineligible for visas.
  • Elimination of the Diversity Visa Program, unless Congress signs off on changes designed to combat fraud and eliminate abuse in the program.
  • Annual reporting by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on welfare benefits provided to states, and the portion thereof provided to illegal immigrants.
  • Limiting states’ expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) coverage to noncitizen children or noncitizen pregnant women.
  • Requiring the IRS to notify Social Security number holders if the agency suspects fraudulent use of their number for employment verification purposes.

Senators Menendez and Leahy Introduce Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill

On September 29, 2010, Senators Robert Menendez (D–NJ) and Patrick Leahy (D–VT) introduced “The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010” (S. 3932). According to Senator Menendez, the bill “addresses long-standing, wide-ranging flaws in the immigration system that have been priorities of groups on each side of the immigration reform debate.” The bill was introduced shortly before Congress adjourned for its mid-term election recess. As reported by The Hill, Senator Menendez defended his timing for introducing the bill by stating that it could lead to possible “lame-duck movement” on the legislation, and in the longer term it serves as an "invitation to bring Republican colleagues to discussion" on immigration reform.

S.3932 addresses six major immigration topics, highlights of which include:

  • Border Enforcement
    • Establishes border enforcement “triggers” that must be met before unauthorized immigrants can apply for permanent residency.
    • Requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to review assets and staffing needed for border security and enforcement, and funds improvements and hiring in accordance with this review.
    • Clarifies that the power to regulate immigration rests with the federal government, not states and local authorities, and that the latter have no “inherent authority” to enforce federal immigration laws (outside of 287(g) agreements).
  • Interior Enforcement
    • Requires DHS to track noncitizens’ departures to ensure they do not overstay their visas.
    • Expands penalties for passport, visa and immigration fraud.
    • Denies “visa waiver” privileges to countries whose citizens attempt to overstay visas.
  • Worksite Enforcement
    • Requires that all employers adopt an employment verification system within five years.
    • Creates a new fraud- and tamper-resistant Social Security card.
    • Requires workers to use fraud- and tamper-resistant documents to verify work authorization.
  • Reforming the Legal Immigration System
    • Creates the structure for a new nonimmigrant visa program (H‐2C) to address shortcomings in existing worker programs that have led to undocumented migration.
    • Expands labor protections in current H-2A, H-2B, H-1B and L-1 visa programs.
    • Incorporates the AgJOBS bill, which provides a path to permanent residency for farm workers and revises agricultural employer sponsorship requirements.
  • Legalization of Undocumented Individuals
    • Creates Lawful Prospective Immigrant (LPI) status for non-criminal undocumented immigrants living in the United States since September 30, 2010. LPI applicants must, among other requirements, submit biometric and biographical data, undergo security and law enforcement checks, and pay a fine.
    • Incorporates the DREAM Act, which creates a path to legal status for individuals brought illegally to the United States as children, provided they meet certain criteria and enroll in college or the U.S. military.
  • Immigration Integration and Other Reforms
    • Enhances programs and policies to help immigrants learn U.S. civics and the English language.
    • Provides humanitarian visas for Haitian children orphaned by the 2010 earthquake.
    • Requires the State Department to develop a strategy to reduce migration pressures.

Senate Approves Amendments to Make E-Verify, EB-5 Visa Programs Permanent

Yesterday, the Senate approved by voice vote an amendment (S. AMDT. 1371) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill (H.R. 2892) that would make the E-Verify program permanent. Currently a voluntary initiative, E-Verify is an Internet based system operated by DHS in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA) that allows employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of potential and current employees. The amendment – introduced by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) – requires that all government contractors who do work for the federal government use E-Verify to screen their potential hires. Following introduction of the amendment, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) criticized the E-Verify program, saying that it is a flawed system that “creates havoc for both employers and employees.” Continue reading about this development on Littler's Washington D.C. Employment Law Update blog.

Immigration Benefits for Same-Sex Partners Topic of Senate Hearing

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing regarding Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) proposal to allow U.S. citizens and legal immigrants to seek residency for their same-sex partners. As reported by The New York Times, Sen. Leahy has said that his initiative, contained in the Uniting American Families Act (S. 424), should be included in any comprehensive immigration legislation that Congress considers.

Currently, family unification provisions allow American citizens and legal residents to petition for residency for their spouses. Same-sex couples, however, cannot petition for partners; as a result, immigrant partners are at risk of deportation. The Uniting American Families Act would add the term “permanent partner” to immigration law provisions that refer to married couples and would legally define that term. Opponents of Sen. Leahy’s proposal argue that it would facilitate immigration fraud because it would be difficult for immigration officers to determine whether same-sex couples actually had an established relationship.