|
|||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Immigration Law Stirs Controversy
Business groups are continuing to fight a new law in Arizona that holds employers liable for knowingly hiring illegal workers. Critics say it preempts federal law and forces companies to use a federal database that is error-prone and unreliable.
The public's clamor for action against illegal immigration has resulted in a number of municipal and state laws designed to fill what critics say is a vacuum caused by the federal government's inability to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. But Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law, which took effect on Jan. 1, is the strictest state-wide law yet -- and it's aimed squarely at employers. The law requires all employers in the state to sign up with the federal Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify program, an electronic verification system (formerly known as Basic Pilot) that matches job applicants' names and Social Security numbers against government databases. It also empowers the state's local district attorneys to investigate employers suspected of employing illegal immigrants. Those found to have knowingly hired illegal workers will have their state business licenses suspended for 10 days; a second offense will result in permanent revocation of their licenses. The law has drawn stiff opposition from the state's business community, with the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry joining a federal lawsuit that's been filed to block the law (although an earlier lawsuit was dismissed in a U.S. district court last December). The law's opponents say it illegally preempts the federal government's role in immigration enforcement, that it will result in discrimination against foreign-born workers and that E-Verify is too error-prone and unreliable in its current state. "I think we've all seen there are snags in the E-Verify system, and if you start requiring everyone to use it those problems will be exacerbated," says Dan Yager, senior vice president and general counsel of the HR Policy Association, a Washington-based lobbying group representing large employers that is working with organizations such as the Society for Human Resource Management to develop an alternative verification system. Many of the "no match" notices generated by E-Verify have turned out to be erroneous, he says. "The data errors, the rate of denials, the mismatches -- it's a big headache. Our members aren't against verification, but they do feel it should be done in a credible and efficient manner," Yager says. Indeed, last summer the state of Illinois passed a law banning employers from using E-Verify until the DHS and the Social Security Administration improve the accuracy of the databases relied upon by the system. However, the state recently agreed to delay enforcement of that law in the wake of a lawsuit filed by the DHS and amendments proposed in the state legislature. Glitches aside, E-Verify will also add to employers' burdens by forcing them to use an unfamiliar system, says Geoffrey Forney, an immigration attorney with Philadelphia-based Wolf Block. "Everyone is well-acquainted with I-9 forms at this point, but E-Verify is something completely different and it will be costly and time-consuming for HR to familiarize themselves with it," he says. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry has begun offering seminars teaching employers how to use E-Verify. Yager also says the new law is representative of a "patchwork" of state and local laws dealing with immigration that not only make things considerably harder for large companies, but are, in fact, a preemption of the federal government's role. "Immigration should not be a state or local concern, it is a federal matter," he says, adding that his organization has filed an amicus brief in the federal suit challenging the law. "We're keeping our fingers crossed that the courts will rule in the challenger's favor." But Forney, who assisted with a court challenge that succeeded in overturning an anti-illegal immigration ordinance in Hazleton, Pa., says the Arizona law is worded in such a manner that it doesn't violate federal law. "They were very careful in writing it," he says, adding that he doubts the federal courts will find the law unconstitutional.
January 7, 2008 Copyright 2008© LRP Publications |
||||||
Print
Email
Write to the Editor
Reprints
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
© Copyright 2010 LRP Publications. All rights reserved.
|
||||