Representatives Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and Michael McNulty (D-NY) have sent a "Dear Colleague" letter warning members of Congress not to sign the Republican discharge petition that would bring the Shuler immigration enforcement bill to the House floor for a vote. The letter lays out the case against E-Verify being mandated right now. Of course, states seem to be rushing in to require employers to use the system. But the letter at least serves as a warning that E-Verify is not the uncomplicated solutions its proponents like to claim.

Download mcnulty_rangel_32708.pdf

This time it's via an Executive Order from Governor Donald Carcieri. The order mandates that all new state employees be checked in E-Verify and that all business contracting with the state (as well as their subcontractors) use E-Verify. The order also mandates that the Rhode Island State Police enter in to a 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Download rhode_island_immigration_exec_order_0801.pdf

Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of business sounds off in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

NILC has been one of the leading critics of the no-match rule.

Economists discuss a new study showing HB 1804, one of the nation's toughest anti-immigration laws could cost Oklahomans $3 billion per year. The employer sanctions law includes one of the nation's only state harboring laws and bars on government contractors doing business with government agencies.

Download hb_1804_study.pdf

The Nevada Attorney General was asked to opine on whether a new rule allowing the Tax Commission to impose fines on employers with business licenses that hire illegally present workers was legal. The answer is no and here's why, according to the opinion:

IRCA preempts state laws imposing civil or criminal sanctions, but does not preempt "licensing or similar laws." The "administrative fine" imposed by AB. 383 is a "civil sanction" which is both expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law. It is not a licensing or "fitness to do business" law because the Tax Commission has no other authority to act against an employer's business license for immigration-related matters.

Therefore, it is an attempt to impose an additional state sanction on certain businesses that violate the federal law, which is expressly preempted. AB. 383 also conflicts with the comprehensive federal scheme, which already sets maximum monetary sanctions for violations of IRCA.

Hat tip to Peter Ashman in Arizona for sending this. Here's the file.Download Nevada2008_MARCH_NV_AG.pdf

Republicans introduced legislation this week that would bar companies that hire illegal immigrants from receiving state contracts.

South Carolina's anti-immigration forces are attacking an employer sanctions bill for not being tough enough.

A few weeks back I reported that the Suffolk County, New York county commission was considering a bill requiring employers doing business with the county to prove the legal status of their workers. The commission's Consumer Protection Committee voted to table the bill this week.

The Indianapolis Star reports on the news and gives analysis regarding why it went down.

Massachusetts Republican Senator Bruce Tarr has introduced a bill that would require state agencies to use E-Verify and set up a 24 hour hotline to report suspected violations of immigration law.

The measure was modeled after the Arizona law.

I'm not sure how this is remotely constitutional. But Mississippi just passed something similar. The courts will no doubt have to sort this out if it passes and the state decides to enforce.

This case is vitally important because RICO has become an important tool being used by anti-immigrant groups to target employers and this is the first Circuit Court decision I'm aware of addressing the question. The plaintiff in the case was Canyon County, Idaho and the defendants included Syngenta Seeds, Sorrento Lactalis, Swift Beef Company, Harris Moran Seed, and Albert Pacheco. No word yet on whether the county intends to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

The bill is expected to come up on the House and Senate floor within the next few days after heated hearings.

This was one of the chief concerns for employers wanting to follow the no-match rule. The relevant quote from a news release issued today:

An employer that receives an SSA no-match letter and terminates employees without attempting to resolve the mismatches, or who treats employees differently or otherwise acts with the purpose or intent to discriminate based upon national origin or other prohibited characteristics, may be found by OSC to have engaged in unlawful discrimination. However, if an employer follows all of the safe harbor procedures outlined in DHS’s no-match rule but cannot determine that an employee is authorized to work in the United States, and therefore terminates that employee, and if that employer applied the same procedures to all employees referenced in the no-match letter(s) uniformly and without the purpose or intent to discriminate on the basis of actual or perceived citizenship status or national origin, then OSC will not find reasonable cause to believe that the employer has violated section 1324b’s anti-discrimination provision, and that employer will not be subject to suit by the United States under that provision.

Kentucky House Judiciary Committee Chair Kathy Stein has blocked attempts to push through sanctions legislation in the Bluegrass State.

Several weeks ago, DHS announced that they were increasing civil penalties for IRCA violations. The actual increases go in to effect March 27th.

A carpenters' union in New Jersey has sued a homebuilder for employing a "scheme" to reduce costs by hiring unauthorized employees. The union alleges that the company used non-union workers employed by a subcontractor and that those workers were not legally working. The union is seeking back wages and legal fees.

No surprise here despite a push by the business community and civil rights advocates to get the governor to stop the measure.

I'll have more information on the new law soon.

Unlike other states where employer sanctions rules have passed easily, lawmakers in Indiana have not reached agreement. A bill that has passed both houses of the state's legislature will likely fail since the legislative session ends in just four days.

The Revenue Committee of the Nebraska Legislature has approved a bill by a 5 to 2 margin that denies tax incentives to businesses found to knowingly hire unlawfully present immigrants. Employers seeking such incentives would have to certify compliance under the proposal.

25 of 34 Senators are co-sponsoring employer sanctions legislation in Alabama, virtually assuring the bill will pass in the upper chamber in that state.

One of the bills being considered is an Arizona-style business license revocation plan.

South Carolina's Senate and House are working out compromise language for bills that have passed each chamber. A final version could be on the Governor's desk next week.

Nearly two years ago, 1200 employees of IFCO were arrested in a nationwide enforcement action. Now, ICE is going after executives at the company:

Glenn T. Suddaby, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, and Julie L. Myers, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced today that a grand jury has returned a six-count felony indictment against five current managers of the Pallet Management Division of IFCO Systems North America ("IFCO"). The six-count felony indictment charges the defendants with engaging in a Conspiracy to Harbor Illegal Aliens, to Encourage and Induce Illegal Aliens, and to Transport Illegal Aliens.

"Under our national worksite enforcement strategy, ICE is bringing to justice corporate managers who harbor illegal aliens for their workforce in order to gain an unfair business advantage over their competition," said Julie L. Myers, Assistant Secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "Today's indictments are the result of significant work by ICE and the United States Attorney's Office, and represent a substantial step forward in this major national worksite enforcement investigation."

Charged in the indictment were the current Vice President - New Market Development, two New Market Development Managers, a foreman, and the company's Human Resources Manager.

Iowa's House Labor Committee passed a bill requiring all employees in the state to present an Iowa-issued identification within 10 days of beginning employment. HSB 717 would subject employers to five year jail terms and fines of up to $7,500 if they fail to verify.

The New York Times questions whether the states will pass many immigration bills despite the fact that so many have been introduced. Given the passage of two major immigration bills just this week alone, I'd have to say the answer is yes.

Just days after Utah passed its employer sanctions law, Mississippi now becomes the latest state to go down the path of independently enforcing immigration law. Governor Haley Barbour still needs to sign the bill, but indications are that he will do so.

The Mississippi Employment Protection Act requires ALL employers in the state to use E-Verify. The statute separately requires contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify, though this seems redundant given the overall requirement that every employer use the system.

Employers who terminate US citizen or permanent resident employees while continuing to employ unauthorized immigrants shall be liable for unlawful discrimination. Use of E-Verify shall be a safe harbor for employers from liability under this provision.

Third party employers must document to companies to whom they send workers that the employer is registered in E-Verify.

All government agencies as well as private employers with more than 250 employees must be using E-Verify by July 1, 2008. Companies with 100 to 250 employees must use E-Verify by July 1, 2009. Companies with 30 to 100 employees must use the system by July 1, 2010. All other employers must use it by July 1, 2011.

Violating employers are subject to the cancellation of contracts with the state and a bar on contracting with the state for three years. Employers are also subject to the revocation of a business license for up to three years.

The bill contains a shocking provision that is unique in the country and which will no doubt trigger a court challenge. It reads as follows:

(c) (i) It shall be a felony for any person to accept or perform employment for compensation knowing or in reckless disregard that the person is an unauthorized alien with respect to employment during the period which the unauthorized employment occurred. Upon conviction, a violator shall be subject to imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years, a fine of not less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) nor more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), or both.”

The bill would allow the state to prosecute and imprison any unauthorized immigrant found to be working, something that appears to go way beyond a state's authority with respect to regulating immigration.

An Arizona House committee has approved several key changes to the state's employer sanctions law including, according to the Arizona Republic,

• A stipulation that penalties apply only to the business location where an illegal worker was hired; if a business has multiple locations, the other sites would not be affected.

• A requirement that complaints be filed on a form created by the state attorney general. The form could not require the Social Security number of the complainant (something that is required on forms currently used by county attorneys). It also would allow anonymous complaints.

• A clarification that the law applies only to workers hired as of Jan. 1. This clause created widespread confusion soon after Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the bill into law. Pearce had conflicting interpretations, and many lawmakers said they did not intend it to apply to the existing workforce.

• A voluntary "employer-compliance program" which would offer another level of protection from prosecution for employers who can prove their workers are authorized to work by checking them against the Social Security Number Verification Service.

• Penalties for employers who hire workers "under the table," paying them only in cash to avoid compliance with other employment laws.

Employers praised the changes which are aimed at focusing enforcement on the worst immigration law abusers and also at ensuring that enforcement is carried out responsibly.

Representative Randy Terrill, the Oklahoma GOP legislator who introduced the state's tough new immigration law, is planning further legislation. One measure would add a forfeiture provision to the state harboring law that would allow Oklahoma officials to seize the assets of companies prosecuted under the law. ICE has seized millions in assets in federal harboring cases.

New Jersey is considering legislation that would bar employers of unauthorized immigrants from having access to state contracts.

American Immigration Lawyers Association president Kathleen Campbell Walker has issued a letter opposing the Shuler SAVE bill and other immigration enforcement bills that fail to provide access to employers to legal workers and which would not protect American citizens who are falsely identified as being unlawful in electronic databases.

The Cato Institute, a well-known libertarian think tank, has issued a report expressing serious concerns with the E-Verify system that many states are now requiring be used by employers and which will eventually be required of all employers nationally. Cato expressed concern about the reliability of the system and the adverse impact that will be felt by US citizens, particularly naturalized citizens, who are identified mistakenly as unauthorized immigrants. The report also believes E-Verify will encourage identity theft as workers attempt to avoid no match hits by pretending to be someone else. The report also expressed deep concern over the need to create a national ID system as part of implementing E-Verify, something that would be extremely expensive and has privacy implications.

The Utah Legislature has sent SB 81, an immigration bill, to the Governor who is expected to sign it in to law. The bill will do the following:

1. Sheriffs in Utah will need to determine the citizenship status of persons charged with felonies and will notify DHS of people whose legal status cannot be verified;

2. Unauthorized immigrants may not get liquor licenses.

3. Limits the production of identification documents to government agencies and such documents may only be issed to US citizens, nationals, or green card holders. Exception is made for people in nonimmigrant status, asylees, refugees, TPS holders and pending adjustment applicants. These applicants can only get identification documents valid only for the duration of time the person is authorized to be in the US. University IDs are not included in the new law.

4. Government agencies must verify their employees through E-Verify.

5. Businesses that contract with government agencies must begin using E-Verify by July 1, 2009.

6. Government agencies shall verify the legal status of recipients of public benefits

7. The Utah Attorney General is directed to negotiate a state-level 287(g) agreement between the state's law enforcement officials and DHS for enforcing immigration laws

8. Under Utah law, transporting or harboring unauthorized immigrants for commercial advantage is a felony (exception for humanitarian assistance

Congressmen Sam Johnson (R-TX), Ron Lewis (R-KY), Kevin Brady (R-TX) and Paul Ryan (R-WI) have introduced the New Employee Verification Act which would scrap the current I-9 system in favor of an all electronic verification approach and also establish a voluntary priviate-public partnership to deal with identity theft.

April 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
September 2012
December 2012
April 2014