http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2007/11/19/Illegal-Immigration-Ruling
"Should the Department of Homeland Security be able to use Social Security records to crack down on illegal hiring? The department issued a new rule allowing it to do so; labor unions filed suit. A preliminary injunction, issued by a judge in October, means D.H.S. is stymied for now. No trial date has been set."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/washington/08immig.html
"The expected regulations would give employers a fixed period, perhaps up to 90 days, to resolve any discrepancies between identity information provided by their workers and the records of the Social Security Administration. If workers’ documents cannot be verified, employers would be required to fire them or risk up to $10,000 in fines for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
Immigrant rights groups and labor unions, including the A.F.L.-C.I.O., predicted the rules would unleash discrimination against Hispanic workers. They said they were preparing legal challenges to try to stop them from taking effect."
I find this really interesting the the unions and the US Chamber of Commerce are on the same side on this one. It all seems straight-forward to me. If I am understanding this situation correctly, employers would be forced to fire employees if their records don’t check out.
Is anyone else surprised it didn’t work this way to begin with? In the current state, before this ruling, an employer must collect an acceptable form of of ID and collect their social security number. I’m very surprised that was the extent of their obligation...until now.
Portfolio’s analysis that this new ruling might tempt companies to pay workers off the books seems weak to me. My analysis is that this ruling closes a giant loophole in the system. Before, the employer only had to have the paperwork in good order to prove they collected the paperwork correctly. I would fight this if the employer is forced to manage the discrepancy during the 90 day window, other than confirming that the information was collected correctly. That burden should be on someone else besides the employer.
A recent example of how this plays: During the Florida debate we watched Rudy slam Romney because a contractor he used employed an illegal alien at his mansion. Romney came back and argued that he has to assume the company has done their diligence. It would be unrealistic and inappropriate for the consumer to have to check papers off all the employees of a contractor that you hired. Romney was correct and Rudy lost my vote that day.
