First step? The border

November 9, 2009 by admin  
Filed under Immigration

Cathy D. Christiansen asked:


Jerry Erickson

Published: July 1, 2009

The U.S. immigration system is “broken and needs fixing.” So confirms President Obama after meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders last Thursday. Although there is no consensus yet in terms of what a restructuring of the immigration system will include, the process has now begun in earnest to adopt a comprehensive plan. President Obama acknowledged that the broken immigration system is “one of the most critical issues” that our nation faces.

In his remarks following the meeting, President Obama said: “My administration is fully behind an effort to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I have asked my Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Janet Napolitano, to lead up a group that is going to be working with a leadership group from both the House and the Senate to start systematically working through these issues . . .”

One of the key issues that must be dealt with early in the immigration discussion concerns border security. At this point the American public is just not persuaded that the borders are secure. Until the borders are secured, it is unclear whether there are enough votes for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform.  Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) said “I think the votes in the Senate are a little dicey at the moment. I don’t think it can pass today.” Developing an intelligent plan that clearly articulates the steps to make the border more secure will go a long way in getting the necessary votes.

President Obama is clearly aware that the road ahead will be bumpy. In his statement he said: “We all know that comprehensive immigration reform is difficult. We know it’s a sensitive and politically volatile issue. One of the things that was said around the table is the American people still don’t have enough confidence that Congress and any administration is going to get serious about border security, and so they’re concerned that any immigration reform simply will be a short-term legalization of undocumented workers with no long-term solution with respect to future flows of illegal immigration.”

It seems that the president has hit the nail on the head. In order to come up with a meaningful immigration policy that will serve our nation long-term, the government must come up with a solution to secure the borders. Assuming this can be accomplished, then the many issues associated with immigration reform can be debated.

On the eve of last week’s bipartisan meeting with the president, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Senate’s main immigration subcommittee, offered that one of the ideas being considered is a requirement that all U.S. workers verify their identity through fingerprint or eye scan. As reported by The Washington Post, Schumer said that a national system to verify work authorization is necessary because Congress hasn’t cracked down hard enough on unscrupulous employers and illegal immigrants with fake documents. Schumer shows he gets the key issue when he says: “The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.” In a nutshell, that is the issue. Control the borders, and then fix the broken system.

There are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Schumer expects legislation to be enacted that will secure the nation’s borders and require those here illegally to register with the government and “submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status,” or face immediate deportation.

Done right, there is the opportunity to achieve some real long-lasting benefits here, not the least of which is the securing of our borders, having millions of non-tax paying people come out of the shadows and onto the tax rolls and developing a process to ensure that the work force is legitimate.

President Obama has conceded that “It’s going to require some heavy lifting; it’s going to require a victory of practicality and common sense and good policymaking over short term politics.” Here’s to the effort; let’s hope that all involved have the clarity and foresight to address the obvious first — securing our borders, and then the muscle to see through the remaining challenges.

 

The above information is provided for informational purposes only.  The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys.  An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.

 

 

 



Can Small Business Survive the Immigration Debate?

June 3, 2009 by admin  
Filed under National, State, Local

Neal Holladay asked:


Over the last 4 years leading up to the 2008 presidential election, the “immigration debate” has been increasing in volume almost exponentially. The attempts by congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform have failed despite fervent bipartisan efforts to address this very controversial yet important issue.

However, under tremendous political pressure, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced new efforts to enforce existing immigration laws and state and local governments are passing new legislation that goes far beyond existing federal legislation. These new developments are putting intense and unprecedented pressure on employers whose livelihood depends on immigrant labor.

DHS Intensifies Workplace Enforcement

Last August, The bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is the enforcement agency, of the DHS published a new mandate requiring employers receiving “No-Match” letters from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to audit their I-9 records to confirm Social Security Number mismatches or note any discrepancies, and report back to the agency. The new rule also requires the employer to terminate employees who have been unable to resolve SSN mismatches within 90 days of receipt of the letter.

Though immediate implementation of these new directives has been delayed in the district courts due to questions surrounding “safe harbor” provisions for employers, the ICE remains resilient.

According to Mary E. Previc, an attorney with the Keller and Heckman law firm in Washington D.C., The ICE is embarking on a “new campaign” of I-9 Inspections nationwide. Employers suspected of hiring undocumented workers are being issued a subpoena to produce an unprecedented amount of information including: entire payroll records, certified lists of employees and their employment records, and names of all I-9 preparers.

In addition to these new measures, DHS has increased civil penalties an average of 25%. Effective March 27th Minimum penalties for non-compliance start at $375 per infraction. If convicted of knowingly or intentionally hiring undocumented aliens, employers on their first offence can be fined up to $3,200 dollars per illegal worker. For repeated violations, as much as $16,000 per incident can be assessed along with a 10-year prison sentence.

States “Filling the Void” on Immigration Reform

Because of the federal government’s inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform, several states have recently passed legislation that requires employers to verity an employee’s work eligibility electronically, through a federally administered computer program called E-verify. In a landmark case, a federal judge upheld a new law in Arizona which not only makes electronic verification mandatory for all employers, it also gives the state the authority to revoke a company’s business license if found to have knowingly hired an illegal immigrant.

Under current federal law, employers are responsible for manually examining documents that prove both work eligibility and identity and documenting that information accurately on an I-9 form. However, participation in E-verify program is not mandatory. According to a recent report commissioned by the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, “the data base used for verification is still not sufficiently up to date to meet the requirement for accurate verification, especially for naturalized citizens.”

Despite of the inadequacy of this system, The judge’s decision in the Arizona case has now set a precedent which will significantly embolden other states to pass similar legislation. Bonnie Gibson, an attorney with Littler Global, a law firm based in Phoenix remarked that, “it is likely that up to half of the states will follow Arizona’s lead and will do it in this legislative session.”

Employers Find Themselves in a Difficult Position

Employers in industries such as construction, facilities management, and agriculture who depend greatly on the availability of the immigrant workforce find themselves “caught between a rock and a hard place”. Many small businesses just can’t afford to turn away immigrants, who are often the only ones able and willing to fill manual labor positions.

I participated in the E-verify program when I was a hiring manager in the Poultry industry. Despite paying prevailing wages, offering excellent benefits, and intensive recruiting efforts extending to a 60 mile radius, we would only seem to attract Mexican and Guatemalan immigrants. I found very few U.S citizens who were willing to work in poultry processing.

About 90% of the workers I hired and processed through the verification system received a “tentative non-confirmation” notification which states that the system was unable to verify their work authorization or their SSN. By law I had to hold their position for 10 days to allow them time to correct any discrepancy.

While most individuals receiving these letters never returned, about 15% appeared to have legitimate authorization but their name differed slightly on the “list A” and “list B” documents they presented.

I have seen several cases were an issuing authority such as SSA had juxtaposed Hispanic surnames which triggered the non-confirmation. In other cases I have seen eligible employees adversely affected by this program because their information had not been updated in the database.

To keep the plant from grinding to a halt I had to rely on two different temp agencies and bus workers participating in welfare-to-work programs in from a City 60 miles away.

As part of a large corporation, we participated in the E-Verify system out of “good faith” but the administrative burdens that resulted were excessive. If we had been an independent small business and were required by law to participate in the system in its present form, we would not have survived.

If more states continue to pass legislation requiring employers to participate in the federal E-verify program, a program which the government admits is inadequate, it will make it virtually impossible for small business in key sectors of the economy to survive. Tighter enforcement in the workplace will backfire unless it is counterbalanced by an increase in the supply of legal workers to meet the demand.

Since only the Federal government has the power to “increase” the supply, local governments, no matter how well-intentioned, could do irreparable harm to an economy that is already facing recession. On the other hand if all the Federal government does in response is make a belated attempt to enforce the existing failed immigration policies, I fear that many small businesses could face extinction.