As Immigration Audits Increase, Some Employers Pay a High Price

[alp227]

David Cox was at his desk in September 2009, when his receptionist announced an unexpected visitor, a special agent from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE. Mr. Cox is chief executive of L. E. Cooke Company, a fourth-generation, family-owned nursery in Visalia, Calif., that grows deciduous trees and shrubs. The agent handed Mr. Cox a letter and informed him he had three days to produce I-9 employment-eligibility forms for all current employees. Mr. Cox said the agent was “pleasant and nonthreatening,” but he noticed she carried a gun.

L. E. Cook was one of 1,444 businesses to receive an introduction to ICE’s stepped-up worksite enforcement program in 2009 — almost three times the number audited in 2008. Last year, 2,196 businesses were audited. An ICE representative said the agency did not categorize audits by business type and that the law applied across industries.

“Any company is at risk at any given time,” said Leon Versfeld, an immigration lawyer in Kansas City, Mo. In one prominent case, American Apparel, the clothing manufacturer, was forced to terminate 1,800 undocumented workers after a 2009 audit. Chipotle Mexican Grill, the restaurant chain, has let go hundreds of workers since its audit began last year.

While the administration of George W. Bush focused on headline-making raids that resulted in arrests of immigrant workers, the Obama administration has gone after employers with ICE’s I-9 audits on the theory that employers who hire unauthorized workers create the demand that drives most illegal immigration.

In addition, the Social Security Administration has resumed sending “no-match” letters after a three-year hiatus. The letters, which alert employers that information on an employee’s W-2 form does not match information on file with the Social Security Administration, had been halted in 2007. The main purpose is ostensibly to ensure that employee Social Security accounts are credited properly, but the letters can also be used by ICE to show that an employer had reason to believe an employee might not have documentation.

full: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/business/smallbusiness/how-a-small-business-can-survive-an-immigration-audit.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[dkf]

1. 14 million unemployed Americans...

That is a lot of people.

[Confusious]

2. Good

Employers should know there are consequences for hiring illegals and screwing over their fellow Americans.

Dare I say, employers of illegals and outsourcers are traitors?

[Igel]

3. Is it possible to accidentally be a traitor?

Most of the time knowledge is required.

So with this. If you read the OP, you'll find that the paperwork was in order. They had on file suitable documentation showing that the employees were legally able to work. The paperwork was fraudulent, forged, stolen. It may be that the employer knew that the paperwork was fraudulent but showing that is a tall order.

Congress was to have a verification system in place over a decade ago. They couldn't. Even now with E-Verify people say it's unfair. What's unfair is saying, "You can only hire those authorized to work; we're aware there is no way you can know who is authorized to work, and we approve." With E-Verify at least it *can* be fair, although it can be an administrative lurch for some small businesses to play catch up with their employees.

What's not fair in the articles is that while these employers were forced to dismiss the workers the government decided that even though the workers were here illegally and had submitted false paperwork to their employer and possibly to the government with intent to deceive, they weren't going to deport them. Instead, the workers picked up their experience and went to work for competitors. There's a finite chance that the competitors might be audited, but a very small one. In other words, the system penalizes the innocent and rewards the guilty.

When you find a worker here illegally who's committed fraud, it's their country of citizen or indefinite jail time until their country of citizenship can be identified and agrees to transport them home.

[Vattel]

4. Immigrants who illegally cross borders to make a living

need jobs too. I just don't see why I should care more about an American citizen getting a job than a citizen of, say, Mexico getting a job. And the latter is apt to be the harder worker.

[Confusious]

6. Therein is the reason Americans vote for the other guy.

You don't even care about your fellow countrymen. What about their families? their children?

"apt to be the harder worker."

Harder? or just cheaper? do you have personal experience?

I see distaste for the blue collar worker. Maybe we should give your job away.

Seriously, with folks like you, it's a wonder we win any election.

[Vattel]

7. Lol. Don't worry, the Democratic Party doesn't give a shit

about poor immigrants. Obama is to the right of Bush on border enforcement and immigration reform. I do care about American citizens. I also care about the citizens of other nations. I have nothing against "the blue collar worker." Don't you have any experience of how hard immigrants work compared to the average native?

[DeSwiss]

8. +1000

:thumbsup:

[Confusious]

9. I do. I know a couple

They work just as hard as my blue collar father did, who was an American citizen BTW.

The one you called lazy.

I have no problem with them. they followed the rules and came here legally.

Illegal immigrants destroyed the meat packing industry, which people used to be able to make a living working at.

we have to be able to control immigrantion so that things like that don't happen.

Otherwise we'll all be little serfs to the rich. Which you seem to want.

As the saying goes, you can't help others if you can't help yourself. If there is no middle class, there's no one to care about other countries. Will the poor care?
will the rich?

[Vattel]

12. Illegal immigration threatens the existence of the middle class?

Going for the big lie, huh?

[Politicalboi]

5. This worked so good in

Georgia. I'm all for legal immigration, but who's going to pick the produce? I think the unemployed should get a crack at it if they feel they can do the job, and they should still get part of their benefits. This is seasonal work so if you don't lose your benefits you would be more prone to try it. That's not a job anyone can do.

[w4rma]

10. Obama does good here. (nt)

[tammywammy]

11. I support this 100%

When I worked at the car dealership we had a notebook that was always up to date with I-9s.