United States: Illegal Immigration Worksite Enforcement: How To Safeguard Your Company In An Era Of Unprecedented Raids And Regulations

As most employers know, it has been illegal since the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act ("IRCA") in 1986 for U.S. employers to employ individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States and to fail to verify the employment eligibility of every new worker using a Form I-9. For many years, there was virtually no criminal enforcement aimed at employers. What little enforcement existed was accomplished administratively, through I-9 inspections and the issuance of fines. Even then, fines were generally limited in size and open to negotiation. Since its establishment in 2003 in the wake of 9/11, however, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") has employed more-aggressive methods of punishing violators, relying heavily on worksite raids that result in criminal charges, asset seizures, administrative arrests, and deportations.

To make the point, for example, on May 22, 2007, agents with ICE and the Social Security Administration ("SSA") raided a poultry plant in Butterfield, Missouri, arresting 100 suspected illegal immigrants. Likewise, in March 2007, ICE raided Michael Bianco, Inc., a military goods factory that was a party to government contracts. Three hundred sixty immigrants were taken into custody. Months after the raid, the president of the company agreed to pay a fine and serve up to 18 months in prison, pleading guilty to several charges, including hiring illegal aliens, helping to shield them from detection, failing to pay overtime, and fraudulently misleading the government. The company was fined $1.5 million.

In perhaps the most publicized worksite enforcement effort thus far, on May 12, 2008, ICE and other government agents raided Agriprocessors, Inc., the country's largest kosher meat processing plant and one of northern Iowa's largest employers. The government arrested 398 workers, most with fake documents. The founder, Brooklyn-based Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi Aaron Rubashkin, and his son have been charged criminally along with two human resources managers. In addition, the Iowa Division of Labor Services ordered the company to pay over $250,000 in back wages and proposed fines of almost $10 million against the company for violation of state wage and hour laws. Agriprocessors, Inc. filed for bankruptcy on November 5, 2008. In an interview with the online publication Portfolio.com, the elder Rabbi Rubashkin said, "it's a shanda, a shame . . . what happened in Postville." 1

Recent Enforcement: Highwater Mark or Just The Beginning?

In 2008, ICE's worksite enforcement raids resulted in 5,713 administrative and 1,101 criminal arrests. One hundred thirty five of the criminal charges were filed against employers and individuals in the supervisory chain or human resources. The agency obtained over $30 million in fines, restitution and civil judgments from the worksite enforcement efforts in the past year.

ICE maintains that employers are never targeted for raids randomly, and that all investigations are based on actual intelligence. ICE asserts that its primary focus is on employers who are "egregiously violating immigration laws, especially when those violations can affect our nation's security."2 Nevertheless, this heightened enforcement has ramifications for all employers. While most employers do not knowingly flout the law, critics note that ICE's intelligence sources can be very unreliable, as "tips" can come from disgruntled employees, bystanders with racial biases, and competing companies. Moreover, no industry is safe from investigation, although agriculture, food processing, landscaping, and temporary services employers have been the principal targets thus far. Indeed, in a delicious irony, as this article goes to press, news media nationwide are reporting that workers who cleaned the home of none other than the nation's top immigration official, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, were illegal immigrants. DHS immediately pointed the finger at the company that employed the workers, alleging that it did not do proper background checks of the workers and threatening fines of more than $22,000. The owner, however, noted that before he took any workers into the Chertoffs' home, he had to provide the Secret Service with the employees' passports or visas, work permits, and Social Security cards, and the Secret Service also failed to detect the undocumented workers. Mr. Chertoff is not the only immigration official caught with illegal workers at home: The Boston, Massachusetts-Area Port Director for U.S. Customs and Border Protection — the agency charged with keeping illegal aliens out of the country — was arrested last week for encouraging her cleaning lady, an illegal alien from Brazil, to stay in the country. She faces up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines if convicted.

Hand in hand with the increased raids, the government is using its regulatory powers to make it more difficult for employers to rely solely on eyeballing an employee's documents to establish employment eligibility. The government is slowly but surely forcing employers to police their own workforces by requiring reference to the government's own databases—reliable or not.

Below we discuss these regulatory changes. We also provide advice on how to respond if targeted for an I-9 audit or a raid. Finally, we look forward, discussing what changes we might expect after Barack Obama takes the helm.

Government Databases: Tools or Traps?

DHS's "Safe Harbor" Regulation & Social Security "No-Match" Letters

On August 15, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") issued its final rule related to Social Security no-match letters, called "Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive a No-Match Letter." The regulation expands the circumstances in which DHS can infer that an employer has constructive knowledge of an IRCA violation.

No-match letters are nothing new. For years, SSA has issued letters indicating that certain employees' names and corresponding Social Security numbers provided on Forms W-2 do not match SSA's records. In the past, though, SSA issued these letters merely to inform the employer and employee that the employee's benefits could not be properly allocated because of the incongruity. The DHS regulation, however, provides that an employer may be deemed to have constructive knowledge of the fact that a worker is unauthorized to work in the United States if the employer does not follow specific steps to verify the employee's status upon receipt of such a letter. If the employer follows all the steps, it may benefit from a "safe harbor" from prosecution. The last step in the process required to be eligible for the safe harbor is to terminate any employee who cannot resolve the discrepancy in roughly 90 days. (The specific steps that an employer must take to reach a "safe harbor" under the regulation are detailed in our Employment Law Commentary, Social Security No-Match Letters: Mass Firings or No Big Deal? (Homeland Security's New Regulation Enjoined for Now).

Shortly after the rule's promulgation, a number of labor groups filed a complaint in the Northern District of California to challenge its validity. The court granted a preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of the regulation until the matter was fully litigated. The court identified three problems with the regulation: (1) DHS had failed to supply a "reasoned analysis" to justify the change in how the agency treated no-match letters; (2) DHS had exceeded its authority by interpreting; and providing an exception to; the anti-discrimination provisions of IRCA; and (3) DHS had not conducted an analysis of the rule's impact on businesses, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

DHS responded by issuing a Supplemental Rule on October 23, 2008, which purports to solve the problems that the court found. In turn, on November 6, 2008, DHS moved to vacate the preliminary injunction and moved for summary judgment. The court will likely not decide the motions until February or March 2009. By then, under the Obama Administration, the government may modify its position on the regulation.

E-Verify

Distinct from no-match letters, but directly tied to the push to increase enforcement of workplace immigration law, the government recently expanded the reach of its E-Verify system, formerly known as Basic Pilot. E-Verify is a free, Internet-based system operated by DHS in cooperation with SSA and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). The program enables employers to determine electronically whether newly hired employees are eligible to work, by checking the information provided on the employees' I-9 against records contained in DHS and SSA databases. If the information matches, E-Verify sends a confirmation to the employer mere seconds after the initial query. If the information does not match, E-Verify issues a "Tentative Non-confirmation" ("TNC"). Those employees who receive a TNC are provided a chance to work with the SSA or USCIS to confirm their employment eligibility.

At its inception in 1997, Basic Pilot/E-Verify was offered as an entirely voluntary program. However, starting on January 15, 2009, federal contractors and subcontractors across the United States will be required to begin using E-Verify to determine the employment eligibility of their employees. 3 (For a closer look at exactly how this rule will affect your company, please refer to our e-alert Final E-Verify Rules for Government Contractors Issued, by Janie Schulman.)

Other employers still have the ability to enroll voluntarily in the E-Verify system. One benefit of participation is that employers may quickly verify whether their employees are eligible to work in the United States. As an additional benefit, DHS has stated that it will "exercise its prosecutorial discretion favorably for employers who use such programs."

Positive aspects aside, critics argue that the system is critically flawed and should not be used by employers voluntarily. They contend: (1) the E-Verify databases are inaccurate, resulting in incorrect employment eligibility determinations (see the discussion about Secretary Chertoff and the Secret Service background checks, above); (2) workers' privacy might be compromised because the databases do not meet government and industry standards for information protection; and (3) while it is a "free" program, a number of employers have found participation to be "extremely costly" and "disruptive." Some argue that wide-ranging implementation of E-Verify will result in an overwhelming DHS and SSA backlog. Even more disconcerting, there is a fear among labor rights groups that expanded use of E-Verify will result in substantial employer abuse, for example, the use of an E-Verify Temporary Non-Confirmation as a pretext for refusing to employ individuals, in a discriminatory manner. 4

The most compelling reason why an employer should think twice before electing to participate in E-Verify is the fact that, to participate, employers must sign the "E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding." Seemingly innocuous in its title, the memorandum functions as a binding contract between employers and the government, under which employers must agree to: (1) "become familiar with and comply with the E-Verify Manual"; (2) "initiate E-Verify verification procedures within 3 Employer business days after each employee has been hired"; and (3) "allow the Department of Homeland Security and SSA, or their authorized agents or designees, to make periodic visits to the Employer." In short, an employer that chooses to participate in the E-Verify program must open itself to greater governmental scrutiny and oversight than mandated by law.

E-Verify on the State Level

While immigration has traditionally been an issue of federal law, some states have decided to take matters into their own hands. A number of states (including Arizona, Mississippi, Colorado,5 Georgia, Minnesota, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Utah) have taken steps to make E-Verify mandatory for certain types of employers. Arizona and Mississippi have gone so far as to require all employers in those states to use E-Verify.

Some states, by contrast, have moved in the opposite direction. Illinois, for one, has passed a law that bars employers from using E-Verify at all. And on June 4, 2008, a federal judge in Oklahoma granted a preliminary injunction of Oklahoma's mandatory E‑Verify law on the grounds that it was likely preempted by federal immigration law.

Advice to Employers

Given the current state of the law, the ongoing challenges to E-Verify's validity, and the differing state approaches to E-Verify, any employer would be confused as to its legal obligations. Such confusion is measurably augmented when faced with the potential of I-9 audits or, worse yet, raids by ICE agents.

Should You Participate in E-Verify?

The advantages and disadvantages of participating in E-Verify have been noted above. And, in fact, the decision to participate may already have been made for you, depending upon the state in which your business is located or your federal contractor status. In light of the transition of governmental power that will be occurring over the next few months, it may be worth waiting to see how the new Administration chooses to deal with both the issue of E-Verify and the issue of unauthorized workers in general.

How to Handle an I-9 Audit

To avoid a stress-filled, last-minute scramble to prepare your company for an audit, make sure to have a policy already in place for how your company will handle a visit from ICE agents. In part, this entails designating a point person that will serve as the primary employer-ICE liaison. A place for the review of I-9s should also be established beforehand, preferably a location that is separate and closed off from the rest of the work force. And of primary importance, make sure that ICE has provided adequate notice of its intent to audit your company. By law, if ICE does not have a warrant to enter the premises and search for documents, then it must provide an employer with three days' notice prior to an inspection. However, ICE may conduct an inspection without notice if the employer consents. Under no circumstances should consent to a waiver of the three-day notice requirement be given. This three-day window is critical to ensuring that your documentation and practices are in compliance with federal law and will give you the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and prepare for the audit.

How to Handle an ICE Raid

When an ICE raid occurs, your first action must be to call your attorney and seek advice, if possible. Again, a point person should take control of the situation immediately and confirm the identity of the primary ICE agent and determine the scope of the agency's search. The scope should be ascertainable from an inspection of the warrant, the required document for an ICE raid. In examining the warrant, ensure that it has been signed by the court and is being executed within the permissible timeframe, and that only documents within the scope of the warrant are seized or examined.

Once the legitimacy of ICE's presence is established, you should then make arrangements to copy responsive computer files on hard drives for ICE agents—rather than simply turning over your computers—so that it is possible for business activity to continue after the raid without disruption. It is appropriate to assign representatives to accompany each individual ICE agent in his/her inspection of the business premises. As in the case of an I-9 audit, it should be made clear to the employees that they are not required to speak with ICE agents.

If employees are detained or arrested by ICE agents under suspicion of illegal alienage, whether your company should provide legal representation to the employees should be made on a case-by-case basis. At no time during the raid should you or any of the company's representatives attempt to conceal information or obstruct ICE agents in their investigation. Provided that they have a warrant, interference with their investigation is a violation of the law.

Although a disruptive and unsettling event, an ICE raid, if dealt with properly, should not prevent your company from returning to business as usual within a matter of days. To achieve this goal, it is critically necessary to have a plan in place and communicate with your attorney effectively throughout the process.

The Obama Administration: Will There Be Change?

Within a week of his election, President-elect Obama received calls from advocacy groups and from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to impose an immediate moratorium on worksite enforcement raids as soon as he takes office. With immigrant voters gaining political clout, it is likely that the new Administration will make immigration issues a high priority, as promised.

The Obama-Biden Plan for immigration reform provides for meeting employer demand for workers by raising the cap on the number of legal immigrants, creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in otherwise good standing, and decreasing incentives to enter illegally "by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants." 6 Specifically, leaders expect Obama to raise the cap on the number of highly skilled worker H-1B visas.

By his own account, Obama will focus more on deterring and punishing employers of illegal immigrants than he will on arresting and deporting the illegal immigrants themselves. His selection of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security is telling, especially in light of Arizona's hard-fought battle to uphold its law mandating the use of E-Verify by all employers in the state. Moreover, in a National Public Radio debate on December 4, 2007, President-elect Obama said "if they are illegal, then they should not be able to work in this country. That is part of the principle of comprehensive reform, which we're going to crack down on employers who are hiring them and taking advantage of them. But I also want to give them a pathway, so that they can earn citizenship, earn a legal status, start learning English, pay a significant fine, and go to the back of the line." 7

Conclusion

Government agencies have been making a concerted push to enforce IRCA. The effect of this push is seen in raids which have been highly publicized, no doubt for their in terrorem effect. The push is also clear in the federal government's attempt to bootstrap SSA no-match letters into immigration enforcement tools.

While programs exist to facilitate worker authorization verification, like E-Verify, there are both pros and cons to participating. Many groups anticipate/hope that the Obama Administration will continue to focus on IRCA enforcement by holding employers accountable, rather than the workers themselves. For these reasons, it is critically important that you and your company remain aware of the dynamic state of immigration law, with an eye to the horizon and on a President-elect who based his campaign on the concept of "Change."

As the old adage goes, the best way to get out of a sticky situation is not to get into one in the first place. Knowledge and preparation are key to successfully protecting your company from the specter of I-9 audits and ICE raids. To that end, Morrison & Foerster attorneys are ready and willing to assist you in your efforts to navigate the uneven legal terrain that presently characterizes this nation's approach to illegal immigration worksite enforcement.

Footnotes

1. A Beef With the Rabbis, Conde Nast Portfolio.com (November 2008).

2. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Frequently Asked Questions About Worksite Enforcement, August 12, 2008.

3. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS Update: Federal Contractors Required to Use E-Verify System, November 13, 2008.

4. National Immigration Law Center, Not Ready for Prime Time and Not a Magic Bullet: New Executive Order and Proposed Rules Require Federal Contractors to Use Basic Pilot/E-Verify, July 2008.

5. For a detailed look at Colorado's use of E-Verify, please refer to our Employment Law Commentary by Steven Kaufmann and Stephanie Forbes: Colorado's New Employment Verification Laws – Vol. 18, No. 12, December 2006.

6. The Office of the President-elect, Agenda: Immigration, The Obama-Biden Plan (December 2, 2008).

7. NPR Radio, 2007 National Public Radio Presidential Debate for the Democratic candidates (December 4, 2007).

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Sign Up
Gain free access to lawyers expertise from more than 250 countries.
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Industry
Mondaq Newsalert
Select Topics
Select Regions
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions