The Bush Administration has announced they will substantially increase fines for employers who violate employment eligibility laws. Here's the key announcement from the press release:

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey today announced higher civil fines against employers who violate federal immigration laws. The announcement was made in a joint briefing today with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff about newly enacted border security reforms put in place by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. Under the new rule, which was approved by Attorney General Mukasey and Secretary Chertoff, civil fines will increase by as much as $5,000. The new rule will take effect on March 27, 2008, and will be published in the Federal Register early next week.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, employers who violate employment eligibility requirements are subject to civil monetary penalties. Employers may be fined under the Act for knowingly employing unauthorized aliens or for other violations, including failure to comply with the requirements relating to employment eligibility verification forms, wrongful discrimination against job applicants or employees on the basis of nationality or citizenship, and immigration-related document fraud. For each of these violations, the employer has the right to a hearing before an administrative law judge in the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Under the new rule and applicable law, civil penalties for violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act are adjusted for inflation. Because these penalties were last adjusted in 1999, the average adjustment is approximately 25 percent.
Under the specific rounding mechanism of the law, the minimum penalty for knowing employment of an unauthorized alien increases by $100, from $275 to $375. Some of the higher civil penalties are increased by $1,000; for example, the maximum penalty for a first violation increases from $2,200 to $3,200. The biggest increase under the rounding mechanism raises the maximum civil penalty for multiple violations from the current $11,000 to $16,000. These penalties are assessed on a per-alien basis; thus, if an employer knowingly employed, or continued to employ, five unauthorized aliens, that could result in five fines.

With Republicans complaining it was watered down and Democrats contending it was strengthened, the "three-strikes" illegal-immigration bill advanced out of an Indiana House committee today.

The House Public Policy Committee made numerous changes to the bill, Senate Bill 335, from the version that passed last month in the state Senate.

Among other things, employers still could face the loss of their business license to operate in Indiana if they are found guilty of employing illegal aliens three times. The difference is, the amended bill shortens the violation period from three times in 10 years to three times in five.

Also, instead of violations being investigated and prosecuted by all 92 county prosecutors in local courts, illegal-alien-hiring cases instead would by heard by an administrative law judge at the state Department of Labor.

Anti-immigrant groups were hoping to use this case as a model to go after employers around the country. The civil action against Tyson was based on the Racketeering Influenced and Corruption Act and claimed that the company was knowingly hiring unauthorized immigrants to suppress wages for US workers. The judge held that the "plaintiffs failed to demonstrate Tyson was harboring or concealing illegal aliens" in plants in Tennessee, Alabama, Texas, Virginia and Missouri.

Utah U.S. Attorney Brett L. Tolman yesterday announced the unsealing of two indictments in Salt Lake City that charged UIS and its human resource director with harboring illegal aliens and encouraging or inducing workers to stay in the United States illegally.

The first indictment charged Universal Industrial Sales Inc. of Lindon with 10 counts of harboring illegal aliens, all of whom are or had been employees of the company, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that these individuals had come into and remained in the United States in violation of federal law. The indictment alleges the company concealed, harbored or shielded the workers from detection for commercial advantage.

The second indictment charged Alejandro "Alex" Urrutia-Garcia, 39, of Provo, Utah, with two counts of encouraging or inducing illegal aliens to remain in the United States unlawfully. Urrutia-Garcia, a naturalized U.S. citizen, is the human resources director at Universal Industrial Sales. He was arrested during the Feb. 7 law enforcement action at the company. If convicted, the maximum penalty for the charges in this indictment is 10 years in prison per count. Urrutia-Garcia made an initial appearance in federal court Thursday afternoon.

"These indictments show ICE's commitment to fully investigating companies and their hiring managers who attempt to disregard our laws," said ICE Assistant Secretary Julie L. Myers. "Employers who ignore their responsibilities and the law will be brought to justice."

WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that more than 52,000 employers have voluntarily signed up to participate in E-Verify, the nation’s employment authorization status verification program. The program has been growing by approximately 1,000 new employers each week since last October.

“We began with a small number of pilot employers in five states testing the viability of such a program,” said USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez. “Today, more than 52,000 employers across the nation are participating in E-Verify. This program is proving to be a key component in promoting the integrity of the employment verification process of our workforce. E-Verify is a valuable tool, and we congratulate the thousands of employers who are making a positive impact on our nation’s security.”

Judge Wake has upheld Arizona's employer sanctions law which allows the state to revoke business licenses and requires employers to use E-Verify. In his decision, he writes that Arizona complied with the Immigration Reform and Control Act by imposing sanctions by "licensing and similar laws" as permitted in IRCA and by referring to federal law in defining an "unauthorized alien" and determining whether an individual in lawful status (unlike other states which often have more restrictive definitions).

The plaintiffs argued that a business license could not be revoked without federal proceedings against the employer. But ht judge rejected the argument stating that this interpretation would reduce the express authorization of state "licensing and similar laws" almost to nothing.

The decision will likely embolden legislatures looking at business license laws. But legislators should be cautious here. IRCA specifically included language that arguably permits the Arizona license law. Many states have been passing rules that go much further than Arizona.

For Immediate Release – February 1, 2008

Local Business Groups Join Challenge to Constitutionality of Oklahoma Immigration Law

OKLAHOMA CITY—The State Chamber of Oklahoma, Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, Tulsa Metro Chamber, Oklahoma Restaurant Association, and Oklahoma Hotel and Lodging Association joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in filing a lawsuit today in the Western District of Oklahoma seeking to enjoin Oklahoma’s immigration law from interfering with federal law that comprehensively regulates the employment of unauthorized workers.

The organizations are participating in this lawsuit to advocate for and protect the interests of their members. “The State Chamber’s mission is to protect the jobs of Oklahoma citizens,” said Richard P. Rush, president and CEO of The State Chamber of Oklahoma. “To accomplish our mission we must protect Oklahoma’s business community from state laws and regulations which make them less competitive than those in other states and around the world.”

The Oklahoma law requires employers doing business with the state to use the “Basic Pilot Program,” the federal government’s voluntary, experimental program for verifying work eligibility. The new law also penalizes businesses that do not verify the work authorization status of individual independent contractors, and allows discharged employees to file discrimination claims against their employers if they can show that the employer knew or “should have known” other employees were unauthorized. A federal court in Pennsylvania ruled last July that similar state and local regulation of unauthorized workers interferes with Congressional objectives and is unconstitutional.

“As a non-profit business that hires employees, we see first-hand the challenges this law brings to the companies we represent,” said Roy Williams, president of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber. “If we follow the new state law, we violate federal law. That is a predicament no Oklahoma company should face.”

The organizations noted that their participation in this lawsuit does not equate to support for illegal immigration. “The Tulsa region is outpacing the rest of the nation in job growth,” said Mike Neal, president and CEO of the Tulsa Metro Chamber. “Oklahoma’s HB 1804 requires our businesses to police immigration issues through an erroneous system, reduces the pool of legal workers and harms the ability of Oklahoma businesses to grow.”

The organizations explained that the lawsuit focuses on those provisions of HB 1804 which impose unreasonable burdens on Oklahoma businesses and puts them at a disadvantage compared to competitors in other states, and that HB 1804 puts businesses in the impossible position of having to comply with conflicting federal and state laws. “The hospitality industry is the largest private sector employer in the State of Oklahoma,” said Jim Hopper, president and CEO of the Oklahoma Restaurant Association and the Oklahoma Hotel and Lodging Association. “It is our associations’ responsibility to protect the ability of our members to meet the growing demand for meals and hospitality services. Our members comply with existing federal immigration law. Oklahoma’s immigration statute is confusing and in conflict with federal law,” Hopper said.

Each of the organizations agree that immigration is clearly a national problem in need of a national solution. “Piecemeal efforts to regulate the employment of unauthorized workers are unconstitutional and preempted by federal law,” said Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center which represents the U.S. Chamber in Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. Henry, et al. “Oklahoma’s immigration law is one of several – including the ordinance struck down in Hazleton, Pennsylvania – that we have challenged. The Constitution plainly prohibits state and local governments from undermining well-established federal law regulating the employment of immigrants in the United States.”