These cases have been particularly problematical for surety claims reps and counsel. We have seen cases where the same individual is claiming lost wages (i.e., less than mandated prevailing rate) for a period of employment – and there is evidence that he has a pi or workers comp claim where he has sworn he could not work at all for the same period. In addition, rather than having no SS#, we find he has multiple ones.
Richard J. Flanagan, Esq.
Flanagan & Associates, PLLC
220 Fifth Avenue
Suite 1702
New York, New York 10001
212 213-1800
Our firm, Smith & Laquercia, LLP, was involved in both the Sanango and Balbuena cases and initially raised the issue of illegal alien wage claims. As defense counsel in Sanango, we made the initial threshhold motion regarding the loss of earnings claim of Sanango and we pursued this issue independently in Balbuena. As far as we know by a reported decision, no other firm had attempted this and we are presently appellate counsel in the only other case cited on the issue of illegal wage claims in Sanango, Majlinger.
Therefore, this message is sent to correct any misapprehension created by the headline printed in today’s Journal that the court gave anything away or created any new right to illegal aliens. Indeed, the effect of Sanango and Balbuena cases is just the opposite. Where judges in New York prohibited inquiry into a plaintiff’s residency and work permit during discovery, now under those two cases everything about the legality of the work status of a plaintiff is up for grabs. The ability to work in New York legally is not only relevant but material to the defense of personal actions or any action where there is a claim for loss of earnings by an alien.
Although it is axiomatic that a person could always successfully prove that he/she would have earned income in his/her domicile outside of New York, these two New York cases prohibit proof and therefore recovery for lost income based upon the earnings of the illegally employed alien. Said another way, although the plaintiff had a job paying salary at a standard American wage, if it was illegal under IRCA for him/her to be hired and, therefore, to be employed, he/she cannot recover the future lost wages based on illegal employment. The court essentially found that there is no damage for the commission of an illegal act, here, illegal employment.
And rather than be lauded for permitting a recovery for a much smaller recovery based upon the undocumented alien’s wages in his/her domicile, Sanango and Balbuena may very well be the first time federal immigration law, IRCA, and a U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting it, were applied to a state tort action seeking damages for lost wages.
These cases should be precedent in any jurisdiction where defense counsel are faced with a claim by an undocumented alien for lost wages. Although employment here is a magnet for immigration as is demonstrated in the opnion of the Judiciary Committe’s report set forth below, the cases will impact both pending and future litigation where lost earnings is a factor. Rather than opening the door to an increase in exposure for defendants (and their insurers), these cases make real practical sense and reduce a defendant’s exposure even if a plaintiff is successful in a personal injury lawsuit and recovers compensatory damages for conscious pain and suffering. If IRCA was applied in New York State in Sanango and Balbuena because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, it stands to reason that the principles embodied in them will carry far beyond the boundaries of the State of New York so long as defense counsel discovers and can prove the plaintiff is an illegal alien.
Moreover, the cases should change the way defense counsel practice law because they implicitly permit as relevant discovery into the status of the plaintiff if there is a loss of earnings claim for damages.
These cases prove that although an illegal alien is treated as a person under the constitution, and can sue for damages, that there are some limits to the amount of compensation recoverable. And is this any wonder when the very minutes of the Judiciary Committee explain why people immigrate to the United States?
Congress’ stated policy reason for the enacting IRCA are illuminating:
Employment is the magnet that attracts aliens here illegally or, in the case of nonimmigrants, leads them to accept employment in violation of their status.
. . .
While there is no doubt that many who enter illegally do so for the best of motives – to seek a better life for themselves and their families – immigration must proceed in a legal, orderly and regulated fashion. As a sovereign nation, we must secure our borders.
In fact, the Committee is worried that failure to control our borders could lead to increasing resentment against the continued admission of lawful immigrants and refugees.
. . .
Undocumented aliens tend to come from countries with high population growth and few employment opportunities. The United States is not in a position to redress this imbalance by absorbing these workers into our economy and our population.
. . .
[T]he Committee is convinced that as long as job opportunities are available to undocumented aliens, the intense pressure to surreptitiously enter this country or to violate status once admitted as a nonimmigrant in order to obtain employment will continue.
****************************************
The Judiciary Committee’s report also reflected concern that non-skilled citizen minorities would be displaced from low skilled jobs by illegal aliens who will work for starvation wages. Philosophically, as a country of immigrants, many people will be put off by this development in the law, but it is obviously the public policy of the United States not to encourage illegal immigration and, in furtherance of that, limiting damages to the foreign undocumented alien’s domicile accomplishes that goal.
I can’t tell you how many times I have been shut down in a deposition when I inquired as to a plaintiff’s immigration status. Now defense counsel can insist on answers to the questions right then and there or obtain a ruling from the court requiring plaintiff to come back.
Joseph S. Wiener
Law Office of Vincent P. Crisci
Staff Counsel for Hanover Insurance Company
I read your comment (“and there is evidence that he has a pi or workers comp claim where he has sworn he could not work at all for the same period. In addition, rather than having no SS#, we find he has multiple ones.”) in the Insurance Journal, regarding “N.Y. Appeals Court Backs Illegal Aliens’ Right to Collect Lost Wages in Civil Actions” and just wanted to say thank you so much for simply telling the truth. Something that seems to have gone by the wayside in America.
I am not anti-immigrant but I am anti-unlawfulness.
Some of my friends are attorneys. A couple of them are immigration attorneys and they say exactly what you wrote here..
Again, thank you. If I lived in New York and I needed an attorney, your firm would be my first choice.
Office Location(s)
Richard J. Flanagan, Esq.
Flanagan & Associates, PLLC
As a claims examiner, I find the statement, “(A)n undocumented alien’s eligibility for an award of damages for lost earnings in a future tort case is unlikely to influence an immigrant’s decision to try to secure work in this country.” to really be a problem. There is a lot of insurance fraud going on, and a significant amount comes from undocumented workers. It is also amazing to us the # of claimants who are “unemployed” and have “no” social security numbers. We know that many of them are just working off the books, but since they can’t prove that, they don’t claim lost wages and a work disability. A ruling like this will make it more likely these people will claim lost wages, even at a lower rate, which will increase No Fault payments for lost wages. The state and insurance companies have worked hard to reduce No fault fraud, and this opens up a new venue for fraudulent payouts. After all, if a person is not injured in the first place, and they can collect lost wages while they build up their claim, there is definite incentive to try to collect. Further, this ruling could increase the dollar-value of the fraudulent BI cases, because in theory, this ruling will allow a greater number of people to prove the 90 days of lost work time that greatly raises their chances of a large settlement.
I speak to the larger issue of out-of-control illegal immigration in the context of a letter I use to prod news organizations to do better a better job.
The stakes are high in the coming debate on illegal immigration. An informed public will improve the odds of a good outcome. Anyone who can find Google and put quotation marks around two or three words can find the reports below. These offer rich insight on the impact of the President’s immigration policies on America’s families, communities, and governments:
1) The Center for Immigration Studies reports that 9/11 and an economic slowdown did not slow illegal immigration. From 2000 to 2004, 2 million more illegal aliens took residence in the U. S. bringing the total to ten million. (“Immigration enforcement grows weaker,” Washington Times, Nov. 25). A financial investigation by Bear Stearns Asset Management, however, puts the illegal alien count at 18-20 million (“20 Million Illegal Aliens?” Michelle Malkin, Jan. 3)
2) What is the impact of persistent high rates of illegal immigration on county budgets? A budget analyst for Santa Barbara County, now retired, gives an insider look. (“Immigration Moments That Changed a California Budget Analyst’s Mind,” Vdare.com, Dec. 16).
3) How do President Bush and Congress keep cheap, illegal labor pouring over the border? Nonexistent enforcement of employer sanctions. The San Diego Union-Tribune provides stats and analysis. (“On the Payroll: Illegal Immigrants,” San Diego Union-Tribune, Nov. 7).
4) Would President Bush’s proposed “temporary” guest-workers return to Mexico? Yes, to bring their families. Quoting from “The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers,” Foreign Affairs magazine (November/December, 2001):
“In many countries, under many types of government, and across many time periods, experiences with guest worker programs have led to an overwhelming and simple consensus among those who have studied the issue: there is nothing more permanent than temporary workers.”
The “Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers” is a concise history of how a vast illegal workforce, paid wages far below U. S. standards, became an entrenched feature of American life.
5) What does surging illegal immigration mean for schools? A veteran Los Angeles teacher describes her classroom. (“Immigration and Schools, Part 2,” EducationNews.org) What is the impact on middle-class American families with children? (“Bad Schools, Immigration, And The Great Middle-Class Massacre,” Vdare.com, Sept. 28, 2003)
6) Are there security risks from heavy alien traffic? See Time Magazine’s “Bordering On Nukes? New accounts from al-Qaeda to attack the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction” (Nov. 14). Also, the San Francisco Chronicle’s “Unthinkable? An attack on an American city by terrorists armed with a small nuclear device is an even bet within a decade, some experts say” (Nov. 20).
“Who Left the Door Open?” Time Magazine’s Sept. 12 classic portrait of our chaotic southern border by two-time Pulitzer-Prize-winning duo Donald Barlett and James Steele, can still be found online.
The latest test of the President’s and Congress’ will to rein in illegal immigration was the intelligence reform bill. House Republicans passed provisions barring states from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. The Senate, with the President’s blessing, deleted those provisions. The House will reintroduce them early in this session. See “House to see new bill on immigration security” (Washington Times, December 9)
Sincerely,
Tom Shuford, retired teacher
PS to Editor: Most of the reports above are, in their own way, stunning. But perhaps the best short explanation of the immigration phenomenon is “On the payroll: illegal immigrants.” I’ve provided summary notes below:
THE IMPORTANCE OF A WORD: “KNOWINGLY”: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granted amnesty to more than 3 million undocumented immigrants already in the country. It also made it illegal to knowingly hire undocumented workers, establishing penalties that include fines of as much as $10,000 per worker and six months in prison for violators. But the operative word is knowingly. While job applicants must present identification proving their eligibility to work in the United States, employers are not required to verify its authenticity.”
Philip Martin, a University of California Davis expert on immigration and labor issues: “In 1986, we basically said that you are off the hook if you get documents, which can easily be forged. We didn’t quite say that, but it came close.”
SUBCONTRACTORS: LAYERED PROTECTION FOR EMPLOYERS: THE CLEANING INDUSTRY EXAMPLE: “The cleaning industry is rife with subcontractors who provide a layer of immunity for their clients. After immigration authorities found more than 250 contracted janitors working illegally in Wal-Mart stores last year, Wal-Mart officials denied knowledge of any wrongdoing, even though several of the company’s cleaning contractors had admitted to hiring undocumented workers in the past.”
99% DECLINE IN FINES IMPOSED ON EMPLOYERS FOR BREAKING IMMIGRATION LAWS SINCE 1992: “Nationwide, work-site enforcement has declined significantly since the early 1990s, according to Department of Homeland Security statistics. Fines imposed on employers for breaking the law dwindled from 1,063 orders in 1992 to only 13 in 2002. Work-site arrests, warnings issued to employers and cases completed also dropped off sharply during this time.”
TOOTHLESS EMPLOYER SANCTIONS: THE ONLY KIND CONGRESS WILL ACCEPT: “Some immigration experts say enforcement is weak because lawmakers find it more politically acceptable to reinforce the border than to crack down on businesses.”
Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California San Diego: “Congress was committed to passing a toothless employer sanctions law. It was the only way they could get it through. . . . There was a lot of pressure from business lobbies, from agribusiness, restaurants, hotels.”
IN RARE INSTANCES WHEN SANCTIONS ARE IMPOSED, POLITICIANS INTERVENE: “Over the years, politicians have intervened on behalf of a number of employers caught hiring undocumented immigrants. Some employers who have come under fire are generous political contributors, such as Wal-Mart, which has criminal and civil cases pending.”
PRESIDENT’S PRIORITIES ARE REFLECTED IN MISERLY BUDGET FOR ENFORCEMENT OF EMPLOYER SANCTIONS: “Last month, President Bush signed a Homeland Security budget for fiscal year 2005 that granted $74 million for additional Border Patrol technology, including $10 million for unmanned aerial drones. Only $5 million was granted to strengthen work-site enforcement, a fraction of the $23 million enhancement initially requested.”
PART OF THE SOLUTION: MANDATORY DOCUMENT VERIFICATION ON A FEDERAL DATABASE: “Congress did vote last year to extend a pilot Homeland Security program that allows employers to verify workers’ documents on a federal database at no cost. The program, used in California and five other states, is expected to be available nationwide beginning Dec. 1. But participation is strictly voluntary. This is perhaps why only 127 employers in San Diego County use it despite the fact that the program has existed in California since the late 1990s.”
These cases have been particularly problematical for surety claims reps and counsel. We have seen cases where the same individual is claiming lost wages (i.e., less than mandated prevailing rate) for a period of employment – and there is evidence that he has a pi or workers comp claim where he has sworn he could not work at all for the same period. In addition, rather than having no SS#, we find he has multiple ones.
Richard J. Flanagan, Esq.
Flanagan & Associates, PLLC
220 Fifth Avenue
Suite 1702
New York, New York 10001
212 213-1800
One question–do the business owners who are hiring these illegal aliens ever get prosecuted?
Would it be untoward for the insurance industry to develop endorsements that exclude any coverage if the claimant was illegally employed?
Let’s put the onus on the businesses that try to save a few bucks on the backs of this group.
Our firm, Smith & Laquercia, LLP, was involved in both the Sanango and Balbuena cases and initially raised the issue of illegal alien wage claims. As defense counsel in Sanango, we made the initial threshhold motion regarding the loss of earnings claim of Sanango and we pursued this issue independently in Balbuena. As far as we know by a reported decision, no other firm had attempted this and we are presently appellate counsel in the only other case cited on the issue of illegal wage claims in Sanango, Majlinger.
Therefore, this message is sent to correct any misapprehension created by the headline printed in today’s Journal that the court gave anything away or created any new right to illegal aliens. Indeed, the effect of Sanango and Balbuena cases is just the opposite. Where judges in New York prohibited inquiry into a plaintiff’s residency and work permit during discovery, now under those two cases everything about the legality of the work status of a plaintiff is up for grabs. The ability to work in New York legally is not only relevant but material to the defense of personal actions or any action where there is a claim for loss of earnings by an alien.
Although it is axiomatic that a person could always successfully prove that he/she would have earned income in his/her domicile outside of New York, these two New York cases prohibit proof and therefore recovery for lost income based upon the earnings of the illegally employed alien. Said another way, although the plaintiff had a job paying salary at a standard American wage, if it was illegal under IRCA for him/her to be hired and, therefore, to be employed, he/she cannot recover the future lost wages based on illegal employment. The court essentially found that there is no damage for the commission of an illegal act, here, illegal employment.
And rather than be lauded for permitting a recovery for a much smaller recovery based upon the undocumented alien’s wages in his/her domicile, Sanango and Balbuena may very well be the first time federal immigration law, IRCA, and a U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting it, were applied to a state tort action seeking damages for lost wages.
These cases should be precedent in any jurisdiction where defense counsel are faced with a claim by an undocumented alien for lost wages. Although employment here is a magnet for immigration as is demonstrated in the opnion of the Judiciary Committe’s report set forth below, the cases will impact both pending and future litigation where lost earnings is a factor. Rather than opening the door to an increase in exposure for defendants (and their insurers), these cases make real practical sense and reduce a defendant’s exposure even if a plaintiff is successful in a personal injury lawsuit and recovers compensatory damages for conscious pain and suffering. If IRCA was applied in New York State in Sanango and Balbuena because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, it stands to reason that the principles embodied in them will carry far beyond the boundaries of the State of New York so long as defense counsel discovers and can prove the plaintiff is an illegal alien.
Moreover, the cases should change the way defense counsel practice law because they implicitly permit as relevant discovery into the status of the plaintiff if there is a loss of earnings claim for damages.
These cases prove that although an illegal alien is treated as a person under the constitution, and can sue for damages, that there are some limits to the amount of compensation recoverable. And is this any wonder when the very minutes of the Judiciary Committee explain why people immigrate to the United States?
Congress’ stated policy reason for the enacting IRCA are illuminating:
Employment is the magnet that attracts aliens here illegally or, in the case of nonimmigrants, leads them to accept employment in violation of their status.
. . .
While there is no doubt that many who enter illegally do so for the best of motives – to seek a better life for themselves and their families – immigration must proceed in a legal, orderly and regulated fashion. As a sovereign nation, we must secure our borders.
In fact, the Committee is worried that failure to control our borders could lead to increasing resentment against the continued admission of lawful immigrants and refugees.
. . .
Undocumented aliens tend to come from countries with high population growth and few employment opportunities. The United States is not in a position to redress this imbalance by absorbing these workers into our economy and our population.
. . .
[T]he Committee is convinced that as long as job opportunities are available to undocumented aliens, the intense pressure to surreptitiously enter this country or to violate status once admitted as a nonimmigrant in order to obtain employment will continue.
****************************************
The Judiciary Committee’s report also reflected concern that non-skilled citizen minorities would be displaced from low skilled jobs by illegal aliens who will work for starvation wages. Philosophically, as a country of immigrants, many people will be put off by this development in the law, but it is obviously the public policy of the United States not to encourage illegal immigration and, in furtherance of that, limiting damages to the foreign undocumented alien’s domicile accomplishes that goal.
Defendants now have a new arrow in their quiver.
Well Done Mr. LaQuercia!
I can’t tell you how many times I have been shut down in a deposition when I inquired as to a plaintiff’s immigration status. Now defense counsel can insist on answers to the questions right then and there or obtain a ruling from the court requiring plaintiff to come back.
Joseph S. Wiener
Law Office of Vincent P. Crisci
Staff Counsel for Hanover Insurance Company
Dear Mr. Flanagan, Esq,
I read your comment (“and there is evidence that he has a pi or workers comp claim where he has sworn he could not work at all for the same period. In addition, rather than having no SS#, we find he has multiple ones.”) in the Insurance Journal, regarding “N.Y. Appeals Court Backs Illegal Aliens’ Right to Collect Lost Wages in Civil Actions” and just wanted to say thank you so much for simply telling the truth. Something that seems to have gone by the wayside in America.
I am not anti-immigrant but I am anti-unlawfulness.
Some of my friends are attorneys. A couple of them are immigration attorneys and they say exactly what you wrote here..
Again, thank you. If I lived in New York and I needed an attorney, your firm would be my first choice.
Office Location(s)
Richard J. Flanagan, Esq.
Flanagan & Associates, PLLC
New York, New York
220 5th Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10005
Telephone: 212-213-1800
Fax: 212-213-1794
As a claims examiner, I find the statement, “(A)n undocumented alien’s eligibility for an award of damages for lost earnings in a future tort case is unlikely to influence an immigrant’s decision to try to secure work in this country.” to really be a problem. There is a lot of insurance fraud going on, and a significant amount comes from undocumented workers. It is also amazing to us the # of claimants who are “unemployed” and have “no” social security numbers. We know that many of them are just working off the books, but since they can’t prove that, they don’t claim lost wages and a work disability. A ruling like this will make it more likely these people will claim lost wages, even at a lower rate, which will increase No Fault payments for lost wages. The state and insurance companies have worked hard to reduce No fault fraud, and this opens up a new venue for fraudulent payouts. After all, if a person is not injured in the first place, and they can collect lost wages while they build up their claim, there is definite incentive to try to collect. Further, this ruling could increase the dollar-value of the fraudulent BI cases, because in theory, this ruling will allow a greater number of people to prove the 90 days of lost work time that greatly raises their chances of a large settlement.
I speak to the larger issue of out-of-control illegal immigration in the context of a letter I use to prod news organizations to do better a better job.
Tom Shuford, retired teacher
Lenoir, NC
THIS JUST IN ON THE COSTS OF INCOMPETENT LEADERSHIP IN WASHINGTON:
“Illegal immigrants inundate hospitals” (Trenton Times, Jan. 9)
http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1105261605299220.xml
Dear Editor:
The stakes are high in the coming debate on illegal immigration. An informed public will improve the odds of a good outcome. Anyone who can find Google and put quotation marks around two or three words can find the reports below. These offer rich insight on the impact of the President’s immigration policies on America’s families, communities, and governments:
1) The Center for Immigration Studies reports that 9/11 and an economic slowdown did not slow illegal immigration. From 2000 to 2004, 2 million more illegal aliens took residence in the U. S. bringing the total to ten million. (“Immigration enforcement grows weaker,” Washington Times, Nov. 25). A financial investigation by Bear Stearns Asset Management, however, puts the illegal alien count at 18-20 million (“20 Million Illegal Aliens?” Michelle Malkin, Jan. 3)
2) What is the impact of persistent high rates of illegal immigration on county budgets? A budget analyst for Santa Barbara County, now retired, gives an insider look. (“Immigration Moments That Changed a California Budget Analyst’s Mind,” Vdare.com, Dec. 16).
3) How do President Bush and Congress keep cheap, illegal labor pouring over the border? Nonexistent enforcement of employer sanctions. The San Diego Union-Tribune provides stats and analysis. (“On the Payroll: Illegal Immigrants,” San Diego Union-Tribune, Nov. 7).
4) Would President Bush’s proposed “temporary” guest-workers return to Mexico? Yes, to bring their families. Quoting from “The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers,” Foreign Affairs magazine (November/December, 2001):
“In many countries, under many types of government, and across many time periods, experiences with guest worker programs have led to an overwhelming and simple consensus among those who have studied the issue: there is nothing more permanent than temporary workers.”
The “Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers” is a concise history of how a vast illegal workforce, paid wages far below U. S. standards, became an entrenched feature of American life.
5) What does surging illegal immigration mean for schools? A veteran Los Angeles teacher describes her classroom. (“Immigration and Schools, Part 2,” EducationNews.org) What is the impact on middle-class American families with children? (“Bad Schools, Immigration, And The Great Middle-Class Massacre,” Vdare.com, Sept. 28, 2003)
6) Are there security risks from heavy alien traffic? See Time Magazine’s “Bordering On Nukes? New accounts from al-Qaeda to attack the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction” (Nov. 14). Also, the San Francisco Chronicle’s “Unthinkable? An attack on an American city by terrorists armed with a small nuclear device is an even bet within a decade, some experts say” (Nov. 20).
“Who Left the Door Open?” Time Magazine’s Sept. 12 classic portrait of our chaotic southern border by two-time Pulitzer-Prize-winning duo Donald Barlett and James Steele, can still be found online.
The latest test of the President’s and Congress’ will to rein in illegal immigration was the intelligence reform bill. House Republicans passed provisions barring states from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. The Senate, with the President’s blessing, deleted those provisions. The House will reintroduce them early in this session. See “House to see new bill on immigration security” (Washington Times, December 9)
Sincerely,
Tom Shuford, retired teacher
PS to Editor: Most of the reports above are, in their own way, stunning. But perhaps the best short explanation of the immigration phenomenon is “On the payroll: illegal immigrants.” I’ve provided summary notes below:
On the payroll: illegal immigrants [Notes & Link]
Enforcement is focused on border, not business
By Leslie Berestein
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
November 7, 2004
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20041107-9999-8n7jobs.html
THE IMPORTANCE OF A WORD: “KNOWINGLY”: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granted amnesty to more than 3 million undocumented immigrants already in the country. It also made it illegal to knowingly hire undocumented workers, establishing penalties that include fines of as much as $10,000 per worker and six months in prison for violators. But the operative word is knowingly. While job applicants must present identification proving their eligibility to work in the United States, employers are not required to verify its authenticity.”
Philip Martin, a University of California Davis expert on immigration and labor issues: “In 1986, we basically said that you are off the hook if you get documents, which can easily be forged. We didn’t quite say that, but it came close.”
SUBCONTRACTORS: LAYERED PROTECTION FOR EMPLOYERS: THE CLEANING INDUSTRY EXAMPLE: “The cleaning industry is rife with subcontractors who provide a layer of immunity for their clients. After immigration authorities found more than 250 contracted janitors working illegally in Wal-Mart stores last year, Wal-Mart officials denied knowledge of any wrongdoing, even though several of the company’s cleaning contractors had admitted to hiring undocumented workers in the past.”
99% DECLINE IN FINES IMPOSED ON EMPLOYERS FOR BREAKING IMMIGRATION LAWS SINCE 1992: “Nationwide, work-site enforcement has declined significantly since the early 1990s, according to Department of Homeland Security statistics. Fines imposed on employers for breaking the law dwindled from 1,063 orders in 1992 to only 13 in 2002. Work-site arrests, warnings issued to employers and cases completed also dropped off sharply during this time.”
TOOTHLESS EMPLOYER SANCTIONS: THE ONLY KIND CONGRESS WILL ACCEPT: “Some immigration experts say enforcement is weak because lawmakers find it more politically acceptable to reinforce the border than to crack down on businesses.”
Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California San Diego: “Congress was committed to passing a toothless employer sanctions law. It was the only way they could get it through. . . . There was a lot of pressure from business lobbies, from agribusiness, restaurants, hotels.”
IN RARE INSTANCES WHEN SANCTIONS ARE IMPOSED, POLITICIANS INTERVENE: “Over the years, politicians have intervened on behalf of a number of employers caught hiring undocumented immigrants. Some employers who have come under fire are generous political contributors, such as Wal-Mart, which has criminal and civil cases pending.”
PRESIDENT’S PRIORITIES ARE REFLECTED IN MISERLY BUDGET FOR ENFORCEMENT OF EMPLOYER SANCTIONS: “Last month, President Bush signed a Homeland Security budget for fiscal year 2005 that granted $74 million for additional Border Patrol technology, including $10 million for unmanned aerial drones. Only $5 million was granted to strengthen work-site enforcement, a fraction of the $23 million enhancement initially requested.”
PART OF THE SOLUTION: MANDATORY DOCUMENT VERIFICATION ON A FEDERAL DATABASE: “Congress did vote last year to extend a pilot Homeland Security program that allows employers to verify workers’ documents on a federal database at no cost. The program, used in California and five other states, is expected to be available nationwide beginning Dec. 1. But participation is strictly voluntary. This is perhaps why only 127 employers in San Diego County use it despite the fact that the program has existed in California since the late 1990s.”
* * *