2/27/08 6:45 AM
Bush Administration Outlines Plans for Stepping Up Immigration Enforcement
By Bill Leonard
The Bush administration has announced plans to stiffen and revise its worksite
enforcement rules to catch and punish employers that knowingly hire undocumented
immigrants.
U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff held a joint press briefing on Feb. 22, 2008, to announce several new
initiatives to step up the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Chertoff told
reporters that the failure of Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform
had forced the administration to act.
“Congress didn’t give us comprehensive immigration reform, so we are
going to do what we can with the tools that we have, and frankly we have made
progress in doing quite a bit,” Chertoff said.
However, Chertoff added, more needed to be done to combat illegal immigration,
and both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice planned
to crack down further on employers that flout the law and willingly hire illegal
immigrants. He announced that federal fines against employers violating federal
immigration laws would increase by nearly 25 percent in March 2008.
The change in the fines will include a maximum civil penalty of $16,000 for multiple
violations—or an increase of $5,000.
Chertoff also stated that his department would soon release a revised set of rules
for employers that receive employee “no-match” letters from the Social
Security Administration. The DHS released a new set of no-match regulations in
August 2007. However, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a temporary injunction
blocking the rules from taking effect after several labor groups joined with the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and filed suit to enjoin the rules.
In issuing the injunction, Judge Charles Breyer stated that the DHS had failed
to follow proper procedures as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
According to the RFA, federal agencies must examine the economic impact that new
or revised regulations could have on smaller-sized businesses. While refusing
to admit that they made any errors in crafting the final no-match rules, DHS officials
did agree to conduct the RFA analysis. Breyer then delayed a final hearing on
a permanent injunction against the no-match rules until March 24, 2008.
“We are very close to publishing our new no-match rule, which we think will
address the issues raised by the court as a consequence of an ACLU lawsuit last
year,” Chertoff said. “And we are looking forward to getting this
issue resolved in the very near future.”
Another element of the stepped-up worksite enforcement, according to Chertoff,
will be a new regulation that would require all federal contractors to participate
in the federal government’s electronic employment verification system—E-Verify.
“Now, the federal government needs to lead by example, and in the coming
weeks we are going to issue a proposed rule requiring federal contractors to use
E-Verify,” Chertoff said. “This will significantly expand the use
of E-Verify, and continue to build capabilities that will help people comply with
the law and make it harder to violate.”
Chertoff claimed that approximately 1,800 employers were enrolling every week
to use the E-Verify program. He said that the growing interest in the verification
program proved that U.S. employers were eager to comply with immigration laws
and that the E-Verify program was working well.
“Employers are saying they want to get on board with this,” he said.
“We have more than 53,000 employers now using E-Verify, which is more than
double what we had in fiscal year 2007. And more than 1.7 million new hires have
been queried this fiscal year under the system.”
However a group of employer and human resource-related groups have strongly opposed
the E-Verify program, claiming that the current verification system is inefficient
and error-prone. According to statistics offered by the Human Resource Initiative
for a Legal Workforce, E-Verify relies heavily on the Social Security Administration’s
database, which has a 4.1 percent error rate.
“When you look at the entire U.S. labor force, then that error rate could
potentially affect the employment verification for 6 million U.S. citizens and
legal residents,” said Mike Aitken, director of government affairs for the
Society for Human Resource Management, which is a member of the HR Initiative.
“Rather than forcing states to take the lead, it's time for Congress to
create a national employment verification system that is reliable, efficient and
secure.”
Arizona recently enacted a law that requires all employers operating in the state
to use the E-Verify system. Colorado, Georgia and Minnesota also require some
employers to use the system. Several other states, such as Kansas and Indiana,
have similar proposals pending in their state legislatures. But Illinois passed
legislation in 2007 forbidding employers to use E-Verify until its accuracy could
be improved.
A patchwork of state laws will ultimately prove very problematic and burdensome
to employers that operate in multiple states, Aitken said.
To address this issue directly, the HR Initiative is joining with several members
of Congress to endorse the introduction of the New Employee Verification Act.
The intent of the legislation is to establish a new, state-of-the-art electronic
employment verification system that is “adequately funded and vigorously
enforced.”
Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Social
Security, is the chief sponsor of the legislation and is set to introduce the
measure on Feb. 28, 2008. Other co-sponsors for the bill include Reps. Kevin Brady,
R-Texas, and Paul Ryan, R-Wis.