New Round of ICE Audits will Encompass 1,000 Companies

As reported by Politico.com, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recently notified 1,000 companies in 50 states that they will be subject to an immigration audit wherein ICE inspects employers’ hiring records, e.g., Form I-9s and supporting documents. This latest round of notices brings the tally to more than 2,300 audits to date in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 (October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011), compared to a total of 2,196 during FY 2010.

Audits have been a central theme of the Obama administration’s immigration enforcement strategy. Immigration officials’ focus has shifted to employer, versus employee, noncompliance, the rationale being that the volume of illegal immigration will decrease if employers stop hiring undocumented workers. To prevent such hiring, enforcement agencies use their ability to impose civil and criminal penalties on employers.

In a recent article appearing in Corporate Counsel, Littler Shareholder Ian Macdonald observes that ICE is targeting specific industries: those that traditionally hire a large volume of undocumented workers, e.g., agriculture, construction; and others whose employees are privy to sensitive government information. He recommends that employers vulnerable to ICE inspections avoid fines by taking proactive steps such as:

  • performing a self-audit;
  • streamlining the Form I-9 process;
  • implementing a record system allowing quick document production;
  • correcting any deficiencies; and
  • terminating undocumented workers.

Macdonald also notes that audits are less likely–and, in the event an audit occurs, punishment potentially less harsh–for companies with a record of government cooperation. For example, an employer’s enrollment in and use of the E-Verify program to authenticate individuals’ legal work status may be factored in by immigration enforcement officials during audits.

In the event of an audit, Macdonald recommends swift action using a three-phase approach:

  • Phase 1: Review I-9 and payroll records, Social Security “No Match” letters, and cure deficiencies within three days.
  • Phase 2: Build a rapport with ICE and cooperate with the agency.
  • Phase 3: If a penalty is imposed, have counsel evaluate fines and attempt to negotiate down excessive penalties.

Photo credit: Aggressive Entertainment

Alabama Enacts E-Verify Law

Alabama State FlagAlabama is now the most recent state to require all employers to enroll in and verify employment eligibility through E-Verify. This requirement goes into effect on April 1, 2012. The new law prohibits all Alabama employers, public and private, from knowingly employing unauthorized aliens. Additionally, the law prohibits state government entities from awarding contracts or providing grants or other incentives to employers that fail to enroll in and verify employment eligibility through E-Verify. This provision goes into effect on January 1, 2012. Violations of the law can result in significant penalties for employers. The new law also creates a state law cause of action for U.S. citizens and authorized aliens against employers that refuse to hire or that discharge them while knowingly or negligently employing unauthorized aliens. To learn more about the new law and its implications for employers, please continue reading Littler's ASAP Alabama Is Latest State to Enact E-Verify Requirement by Kelly Reese.

Bill Would Significantly Increase Employer Penalties for Hiring Illegal Workers

Rep. Sue Wilkins Myrick (R-NC) has reintroduced legislation that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to substantially increase employer penalties for violations. The 10k Run for the Border Act (H.R. 1698) would increase the fines for knowingly hiring or recruiting an undocumented worker, or continuing to employ an illegal alien when the employee’s legal status changes or becomes known.

Under the terms of this bill, an employer could be fined between $10,000 and $80,000 for each violation, an increase from the current $250-$2,000 penalty range. For an employer with a prior violation, the penalties would be increased to between $80,000 and $200,000, up from $2,000 to $5,000 per violation under current law. For a repeat offender, the fine skyrockets to a range of $120,000 to $1.6 million. The current fine for such a repeat offense is a minimum penalty of $3,000 and a maximum of $10,000.

If state or local law enforcement officials provide material assistance in investigating or prosecuting employers that are in violation of this law, they are entitled to 80 percent of the fines paid by those employers. It follows that such large financial incentives would increase enforcement.

The provisions of this amendment would take effect on the day of enactment. Prior versions of this bill have been introduced within the past six years, but have failed to advance.

Photo credit: Kameleon007

Identity Theft on the Rise as Employment Authorization Efforts Intensify

A recent report by Reuters highlights the possible correlation between the demand for pilfered identities and employers’ increased efforts to verify employees’ immigration status, e.g., by using E-Verify. Starting in 2009, federal immigration enforcement efforts have targeted employers rather than workers, and many businesses have been intensifying their efforts to ensure the legality of their workforce. The E-Verify program identifies mismatched names and Social Security numbers but is not designed to flag stolen identities. Accordingly, some undocumented workers have moved away from using their real name and an illegitimate Social Security number and, instead, are purchasing and using stolen names and their accompanying Social Security numbers.

A Javelin Strategy & Research report cited by Reuters found that, in 2010, 3.5% of the U.S. population were victims of identity theft, at a cost of $37 billion. For those whose identities have been stolen, the road to clearing one’s name is lengthy. Credit ratings are damaged when accounts are opened in a victim’s name and delinquencies accrue. Given that some businesses inquire into credit history when conducting pre-employment background checks, negative scores could impact a victim’s employability. Even if accounts are not opened and credit not damaged, there remains the issue of revenue agencies seeking unpaid taxes on wages “earned” by victims, i.e., wages attributed to them but in reality earned by individuals who unlawfully used their name and Social Security number.

UPDATE: What Arizona's Controversial Immigration Law Means for Employers

By Neil M. Alexander and Michael J. Lehet

Seal of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitIn our July 2010 ASAP Update, Littler discussed the federal district court decision temporarily enjoining enforcement of certain provisions of Arizona's controversial "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" ("SB 1070"). On April 11, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the district court ruling.

Like the district court decision, the Ninth Circuit opinion does not impact those provisions of SB 1070 that amend the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA). Consequently, LAWA will continue to provide an entrapment defense to employers charged with knowingly or intentionally hiring undocumented workers. LAWA will also continue to require that employers keep a record of each E-Verify verification. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit opinion does not affect the language of SB 1070 making it a Class 1 Misdemeanor for occupants of a motor vehicle stopped on a street, roadway, or highway, to hire and pick up, or attempt to hire and pick up, passengers for work at a different location, if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.

The opinion is the second Ninth Circuit decision to weigh in on Arizona's recent immigration debate. As explained in our September 2008 ASAP, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Legal Arizona Workers Act, the court previously sided with the district court and ruled that LAWA was constitutional. That decision is currently on review before the U.S. Supreme Court. A ruling from the high court is expected within the next several months.

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.

Immigration Bill Focusing on Temporary Agricultural Workers Introduced in Senate

United States CapitolSenator Saxby Chambliss (R–GA) has introduced S. 3912, “The Helping Agriculture Receive Verifiable Employees Securely & Temporarily Act of 2010” (“HARVEST Act”). The HARVEST Act aims to provide a non-amnesty option for temporary agricultural workers, streamline the H-2A temporary worker program, and discourage the hiring of undocumented workers. Additionally, according to Senator Chambliss, the bill would:

  • provide a mechanism for addressing the presence of undocumented workers on farms without providing a new path to citizenship;
  • ensure that U.S. nationals’ jobs are protected; 
  • require the U.S. Department of Labor to increase random audits and investigations of H-2A employers;
  • limit the duration of a foreign worker’s continuous stay in the United States without returning to his or her home country;
  • require H-2A employers to verify hired agricultural workers’ eligibility; and
  • ensure that the H-2A program works for agricultural employers with year-round operations.

Questions Raised About Immigration-Related Employer Audits

The Houston Chronicle is questioning the efficacy of immigration-related employer audits after obtaining documents concerning 430 “closed” audits conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Although the records revealed potentially egregious violations (e.g., 93% of one audited company’s workforce had “suspect” documents on file), the Chronicle contends that insufficient action was taken in these instances. Instead of levying fines against companies, initiating deportation proceedings against undocumented workers, or criminally charging noncompliant employers, the Chronicle alleges that ICE’s enforcement actions (in most cases, ordering the employer to dismiss the workers with suspect documents) were inadequate.

More often than not, according to the Chronicle’s analysis of received documents, no criminal or civil penalties will follow if an employer’s payroll is purged of undocumented employees. Although audits have become the current administration’s immigration enforcement strategy, and ICE has issued fines for noncompliance, the Chronicle’s report suggests that many of the larger fines resulted from actions taken (or commenced) during the previous administration.

In response to the analysis, Brett Dreyer, the head of ICE’s worksite enforcement unit, stated that ICE tries to identify and focus on employers who are “turning a blind eye” to workers’ legal status (as opposed to those who unintentionally accept fraudulent documents). 

Photo credit: dem10

ICE Has Fined Texas Businesses over $600K Since October

Since October 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has levied over $600,000 in fines against Texas businesses for immigration-related violations ranging from incomplete I-9 records to employment of illegal immigrants, reports the Houston Chronicle. The largest fine ($360,000) imposed on a single business stemmed from an investigation commenced by the Bush administration in 2008. The newspaper’s review of federal records revealed a focus on fining employers rather than arresting undocumented workers, reflecting the Obama administration’s new immigration enforcement strategy that focuses on employer culpability through audits.

Obama Administration's Immigration Enforcement Strategy: Audits

Binders and Magnifying GlassAudits, not raids, are the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s immigration enforcement strategy, reports the New York Times. In the past year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) audited over 2,900 business to determine whether illegal immigrants were employed, and, in 2010, it imposed $3 million in civil fines. While audits are less visually dramatic than raids, the effects on workers and businesses are not.

If an audit reveals that a business employs illegal workers, the employer must fire those employees or face criminal charges. For employers in migrant-driven industries, audits significantly and immediately deplete their workforces, making it difficult to conduct business. For dismissed employees, finding work in local or surrounding areas is difficult because potential employers fear being audited themselves.

Though ICE officials contend the audits’ targets are egregious labor and immigration law violators, some contend that the agency is missing its mark by going after employee-friendly businesses. Others, however, contend that the agency’s efforts are insufficient because employees found to be illegal immigrants are being fired instead of being arrested and deported.

What Arizona's Controversial Immigration Law Means for Employers

State Flag of ArizonaWith many in the nation watching, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" ("SB 1070") into law. The legislation represents Arizona's latest effort to combat illegal immigration and is now the centerpiece of a national political firestorm, including criticism from President Obama and numerous public interest groups. In addition, SB 1070 already is the subject of two federal lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. Lost among this debate, however, are those provisions of the law directed toward Arizona employers. To learn more about the law and its implications for employers, please continue reading Littler's ASAP What Arizona's Controversial Immigration Law Means for Employers by Neil M. Alexander and Michael J. Lehet.

Draft Immigration Proposal Calls for Biometric Employment Verification, Increased Penalties Against Labor Law Violators

A 26-page outline of a new proposed immigration overhaul bill would require all employers to use a newly-created Biometric Enrollment, Locally-stored Information, and Electronic Verification of Employment (BELIEVE) System as a means of verifying employee work authorization. Within 18 months of the proposed bill’s enactment, the Social Security Administration would be required to issue biometric social security cards, which within five years would serve as the only acceptable document employers could use for employment verification purposes. The proposal also calls for a 300 percent increase in monetary fines against employers that knowingly hire illegal workers, and enhanced civil and criminal penalties against employers that engage in egregious labor violations involving unauthorized workers. To learn more about the proposal and the potential implications for employers, please continue reading at Littler's D.C. Employment Law Update blog.

South Carolina Company Enters First IMAGE Agreement in State

Coastal Steel and Acoustics became the first company in South Carolina to sign an IMAGE agreement (Immigration and Customs Enforcement Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers), the agency announced. By signing the agreement, the company:

  • will receive agency-provided training and education on fraudulent document detection, as well as on proper hiring and anti-discrimination procedures;
  • can use E-Verify, the federal electronic employee verification system, and the Social Security Number Verification Service; and
  • can become “IMAGE certified” by following the Department of Homeland Security’s Best Employment Practices.

IMAGE was initiated in 2007 to combat unlawful employment and reduce vulnerabilities that help illegal immigrants gain employment in the United States.

Report Finds Strong Immigrant Contribution to GDP

The Fiscal Policy Institute announced that its new report (pdf) found that in the United States’ 25 largest metropolitan areas, immigrants both documented and undocumented contribute to the economy in very close proportion to their share of the population. Foreign-born workers comprise approximately 20% of the U.S. population, and the study found that they are responsible for an equal percentage of economic output.

The report estimated immigrant share of GDP in metropolitan areas based on wage and salary earnings plus proprietors' income. The geographic area studied accounts for more than half of the U.S.’s gross domestic product and two-thirds of all immigrants. The report found that areas with the largest increase in immigrant share of the labor force experienced the fastest economic growth.

Photo credit: Man-ucommons

Supreme Court Solicits Administration's Stance on Arizona Law Aimed at Companies that Hire Undocumented Workers

The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Solicitor General to submit a brief outlining the Obama administration’s stance on an Arizona law that punishes companies for hiring illegal immigrants, the Miami Herald reports. The justices will review this brief before deciding whether to hear a challenge to the law.

The law, enacted in 2006, allows private complaints to be filed against companies. Any company found to have “knowingly or intentionally” hired illegal immigrants can have its business license suspended or revoked.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with other corporate, labor and immigrant groups, is challenging the Arizona law, claiming that it interferes with Congress’s ability to set immigration policy. The Immigration Reform and Control Act explicitly preempts state action on immigration, except for regulations regarding business licensing. Although the Arizona law has yet to be executed, opponents argue that enforcement would violate federal law.

A Supreme Court ruling on the case could have a broad impact on immigration legislation: In the first three months of 2009, state and local governments introduced more than 1,000 immigration-related bills, 150 of which are specifically related to employment.

Support of E-Verify Program Grows, But Critics Remain

As reported in The Los Angeles Times, the E-Verify program recently received a few boosts, with the Obama administration announcing that it wants Congress to allocate an additional $12 million to the program in the next fiscal year (bringing its budget to $112 million) and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stating in a congressional hearing that E-Verify was "a cornerstone of workplace enforcement across the country." Almost 125,000 businesses are signed up for the E-Verify program. Some argue, though, that E-Verify will not solve the issue of illegal immigration and that expansion of the program would only push more undocumented workers underground. Others generally support E-Verify but criticize the program’s accuracy rate. The government reports that E-Verify has a 96% accuracy rate, and Napolitano has stated that the government plans to improve the accuracy of the databases.

Homeland Security Issues Fact Sheet on Worksite Enforcement Strategy

On April 30, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Fact Sheet discussing its revised Worksite Enforcement Strategy. The DHS enforcement strategy was revised at the direction of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano after she expressed concerns that enforcement efforts were targeted more at employees rather than employers abusing the law. Indeed, the Fact Sheet acknowledges that there were more than 6,000 arrests related to worksite enforcement in 2008, but only 135 employers were arrested.

The revised strategy "reflects a renewed Department-wide focus targeting criminal aliens and employers who cultivate illegal workplaces by . . . knowingly hiring illegal workers." Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is to focus its resources on the criminal prosecution of employers that knowingly hire illegal workers, but will continue to arrest and prosecute illegal workers found during the course of worksite enforcement actions. ICE will also use all available civil and administrative tools, including fines and debarment, to deter illegal employment.

The Fact Sheet indicates that ICE will look for evidence of mistreatment of workers in addition to evidence indicating criminal conduct such as trafficking, smuggling, harboring, visa fraud, identification document fraud, or money laundering. Before conducting a raid and arresting workers at the site of employment, ICE will obtain indictments, criminal arrest or search warrants, or a commitment from the US Attorney's office to prosecute the employer. The existing humanitarian guidelines governing ICE’s behavior in raids affecting 150 or more employees will now apply to worksite enforcement efforts impacting 25 or more illegal workers.

The revised enforcement strategy suggests that there will be increased criminal enforcement efforts and interagency cooperative investigations. It is likely that ICE will continue the growing trend of planting agents within the employer's workforce to gather evidence of criminal activity. Going forward, it is almost a certainty that enforcement efforts will begin with an audit of I-9 compliance, particularly for employers in industries with high percentages of illegal workers, as well as for employers engaged in infrastructure projects. A recent Congressional Research Service report (PDF) analyzing unauthorized employment in the U.S. listed the following industries as having significant (over 10%) employment of illegal workers: Food Manufacturing, Agriculture, Furniture Manufacturing, Construction, Textiles and Apparel, Food Services, Administrative and Support Services, and Accommodation. Employers in these industries should review their I-9 compliance and adopt best practices to avoid adverse consequences related to employment of unauthorized workers.

This entry was authored by David Whitlock.
 

Immigration Enforcement Shifts Focus to Employers

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has tapped a hot-button immigration issue by aiming enforcement efforts at employers. As reported in the Los Angeles Times, field guidelines for the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will shift focus away from workplace raids aimed at rounding up individual undocumented workers and, instead, will go after the employers themselves. An emphasis will be placed on arresting and prosecuting employers who knowingly employ undocumented workers.

This shift is in line with a declaration made by President Barack Obama during last year’s campaign in which he claimed that past enforcement policies had failed because they focused on the individual rather than the employer. Targeting employers is a strategic attempt to reduce the supply of jobs available to undocumented workers. But with an estimated 12 million people currently living in the United States illegally, the shift raises uncertainty as to whether there is a sufficient number of willing and qualified U.S. workers to fill positions vacated when employers begin purging their workforces.

The Department of Homeland Security has made it clear that it still plans to conduct worksite enforcement raids. Still, this fundamental shift in priorities raises serious additional concerns for employers who could find themselves facing criminal charges. Even though it is difficult to prove that an employer “knowingly” employed undocumented workers—which provides a potentially large loophole for employers—the threat alone may have a significant impact on the workplace.

This entry was authored by Chad Graham.
 

European Parliament Supports Penalties for Employing Illegal Workers

The European Parliament has voted in favor of legal sanctions against employers of illegal workers.  If formally agreed by EU member state ministers, the rules allowing for sanctions could become effective  in 2011.  The rules provide for administrative and financial penalties and, in the most egregious cases, criminal sanctions. Currently, only 19 of the 27 EU member states have criminal penalties available for such cases and the penalties differ widely from country to country. As many as eight million illegal workers are believed to be employed in Europe's hotels, farms, homes and other sectors.

Another Immigration Bill Increasing Employer Penalties is Introduced

A bill that would amend section 274A(e)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to substantially increase employer penalties for violations was introduced last week by Rep. Sue Wilkins Myrick (R-NC). The 10k Run for the Border Act (H.R. 588) would increase the fines for knowingly hiring or recruiting an undocumented worker, or continuing to employ an illegal alien when the employee’s legal status changes or becomes known. Continue reading entry on Littler's Washington DC Employment Law Update blog.