• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Texas A&M Forest Service
  • Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostics Laboratory
  • Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service
  • Texas A&M AgriLife Research
  • Texas A&M College of Agrculture and Life Sciences
Ellison Chair in International Floriculture
Ellison Chair in International FloricultureTeaching, Research, Extension and Service
  • Menu
  • #1593 (no title)
  • Benefits of Plants and Greenscapes
  • Plants, Nature, and Health Initiative
  • Marketing & Economics
  • Water Resources
  • Sustainability
  • Executive Academy for Growth & Leadership (EAGL)

Immigration Policy and Its Possible Effects on U.S. Agriculture

June 8, 2012 by Charlie

Source:  http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June12/Features/ImmigrationPolicy.htm

Changes being considered would affect the market for hired farm labor.

Photo: Farmworkers in field

Policymakers are considering changes to U.S. immigration law that would affect the market for hired farm labor—including mandatory use of an Internet-based employment eligibility verification system and an expanded program for temporary nonimmigrant foreign-born farmworkers.

Labor is an important input to U.S. agriculture—accounting for about 17 percent of the sector’s variable production expenses and roughly 40 percent of such expenses for farms specializing in fruit, vegetables, or nursery products.

ERS analysis quantifies the possible effects of a decrease in the supply of unauthorized labor in all sectors of the U.S. economy—including agriculture—and an increase in the number of temporary nonimmigrant foreign-born farmworkers.

 

This article is drawn from . . .
The Potential Impact of Changes in Immigration Policy on U.S. Agriculture and the Market for Hired Farm Labor: A Simulation Analysis, by Steven Zahniser, Tom Hertz, Peter Dixon, and Maureen Rimmer, ERR-135, USDA, Economic Research Service, May 2012.

The 112th Congress is considering a variety of proposed changes to U.S. immigration law as it relates to foreign-born farmworkers. Some of these proposals would create additional opportunities for persons from other countries to work legally in U.S. agriculture, while others would use different methods to enforce existing U.S. immigration restrictions.

Any of these proposals, if enacted, is likely to have a substantial impact on U.S. agriculture and the market for hired farm labor. Labor is a major input for many agricultural sectors, and persons not authorized to work legally in the United States constitute a large share of the farmworkers employed by U.S. agriculture.

A recent ERS study considers two possible changes in the supply of foreign-born farmworkers: (1) a 156,000-person increase in the number of temporary nonimmigrant foreign-born farmworkers, such as those admitted under the current H-2A Temporary Agricultural Program, and (2) a 5.8-million-person reduction in the number of unauthorized workers in all sectors of the economy, including agriculture. The study quantifies the possible effects of these hypothetical scenarios on agricultural output and exports, the agricultural and nonagricultural job markets, and the economy as a whole.

Farm Labor’s Importance to U.S. Agriculture

During 2006-10, hired farm labor accounted for 17 percent of variable production expenses in U.S. agriculture and even higher proportions of such expenses in more labor-intensive sectors, such as vegetables (35 percent), nursery products (46 percent), and fruit (48 percent) (fig. 1). The farm labor situation is complicated, however, by the fact that many U.S. farmworkers lack the immigration status needed to work legally in this country. Analysis conducted by Daniel Carroll, Annie Georges, and Russell Saltz using the U.S. Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey indicates that over the past 15 years, about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico. Similar survey-based information on immigration status is not available for workers in livestock and dairy production.

Chart: Hired labor accounts for a large share of production costs for some crops

What Has Been Introduced in the 112th Congress?

Several bills related to immigration and farmworkers were introduced in the 112th Congress, two of which are discussed here. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011 (S. 1258) incorporates many elements of the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act (AgJOBS), a decade-old proposal crafted by worker advocates and agricultural employers that was last introduced as a stand-alone bill in 2009. Several of its provisions make changes to the Federal Government’s H-2A Temporary Agricultural Program that might increase the program’s attractiveness to prospective employers. The H-2A program, as described by the U.S. Department of Labor, “establishes a means by which agricultural employers who anticipate a shortage of domestic workers can bring in nonimmigrant foreign workers to the U.S. to perform agricultural labor or services of a temporary or seasonal nature.” In fiscal year 2011, a total of 68,088 positions in the program were certified. Use of the H-2A program has decreased in recent years, and the number of certifications now corresponds with roughly one-tenth of hired farm laborers, according to USDA’s Farm Labor Survey.

One of the bill’s proposed modifications to the H-2A program concerns the adverse effect wage rate (AEWR), a wage rate that is determined by the U.S. Department of Labor so as not to affect adversely the employment opportunities of U.S. citizens and legal residents who want to perform farm work. Employers must pay their H-2A workers the highest of the Federal or State minimum wage, the prevailing hourly or piece rate, the agreed-upon collective bargaining rate, or the AEWR. For 2012, the AEWRs range from $9.30 per hour (Arkansas) to $12.26 per hour (Hawaii) and average $10.40 per hour for the 50 States.

The current bill would freeze the AEWR for each State at its January 1, 2011, level. If Congress does not establish a new wage standard for the H-2A program within 3 years of the bill’s enactment, then the AEWR would rise by the average of the consumer price index during the previous 2 years but by no more than 4 percent on an annual basis.

Another proposed modification to the H-2A program would allow goat herders, sheep herders, and dairy workers to participate and eventually apply for permanent residency under certain conditions. Currently, the H-2A program is limited to temporary or seasonal workers, which largely excludes dairy, livestock, and nursery operations from participating.

A second bill introduced to the 112th Congress, the Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 2885), would require all employers, agricultural and nonagricultural, to use E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of new hires. E-Verify is an Internet-based system operated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security Administration. The system enables employers to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States using the information reported by employees on their Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

The Legal Workforce Act would give agricultural employers 36 months to comply with its E-Verify mandate. Currently, the Federal Government does not require all private-sector employers to confirm the eligibility of their employees using E-Verify, although several State governments do. Some farm groups have expressed concern that mandating E-Verify—without some sort of new or expanded program for foreign-born, agricultural workers who are not currently authorized to work in the United States—would adversely affect many agricultural employers.

Simulation Analysis of Immigration Policy and U.S. Agriculture

ERS has not attempted to estimate the exact effects of the two proposed bills mentioned in this article. Instead, ERS has used a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model to analyze the impact on the U.S. economy under two alternative scenarios in which the supply of foreign-born labor increases or decreases appreciably. A CGE model is a type of economic model that uses interrelated equations to represent an entire economy—agricultural and nonagricultural—and the interactions among its parts.

The model used in ERS’s study—the U.S. Applied General Equilibrium (USAGE) Model—differentiates the U.S. workforce into three categories according to immigration status:

  1. U.S. born;
  2. foreign-born, permanent resident: a person with the U.S. immigration status of permanent resident (including naturalized citizens) and thus legally authorized to work in the United States; and
  3. foreign-born, not a permanent resident: a person without the U.S. immigration status of permanent residency.

The majority of persons in this third category are not legally authorized to work in the United States. For this reason, the term “unauthorized” is sometimes used to refer to people in the third category, and the term “authorized” is sometimes used to refer to people in the first and second categories. The third category, however, also includes foreign-born persons with nonimmigrant visas, such as H-2A workers, who are legally authorized to work in the United States during a specified period but are not permanent residents of the United States.

With these categories in place, researchers used the model to generate longrun (15-year) economic projections for the United States under a base forecast and two alternative labor supply scenarios—one in which the number of temporary nonimmigrant, foreign-born farmworkers increases and one in which the number of unauthorized workers in all sectors of the economy decreases. The base forecast simulates how the economy would evolve under current laws and policies and serves as a benchmark for evaluating the two scenarios.

Like many CGE models, the USAGE model achieves a longrun equilibrium in which all labor and capital resources are nearly fully employed. Thus, the simulations reported here do not apply to the current economic environment, in which about 8.1 percent of the U.S. workforce is unemployed (as of April 2012). Instead, the model results describe hypothetical longrun scenarios in which the U.S. economy is much closer to full employment and has an unemployment rate of about 5 percent.

In the first scenario (increased farm labor supply), the number of temporary nonimmigrant foreign-born farmworkers is assumed to increase by about 30,000 in Year 1 of the simulation and 83,000 in Year 2. The growth rate for the number of such workers declines in subsequent years, with participation reaching 156,000 additional workers in Year 15. The additional workers are assumed to be available to all agricultural sectors, including those that have been traditionally excluded by the H-2A program, and no constraint similar to the AEWR is placed on their wages.

In the second scenario (decreased unauthorized labor supply), the unauthorized workforce—agricultural and nonagricultural—is assumed to decrease by 2.1 million in absolute terms over the first 5 years of the scenario. Under this scenario in Year 5, the unauthorized workforce in the U.S. economy as a whole is 4.0 million people smaller than in the base forecast. Growth in the unauthorized workforce resumes thereafter but at a slower pace than in the base forecast. By Year 15, the projected size of the unauthorized workforce is 8.5 million, compared with 14.3 million in the base forecast, a difference of 5.8 million, or 40 percent.

Modeling Results

The results from the increased farm labor supply scenario conform to basic economic principles when the supply of one factor or input of production—such as labor, land, or machinery—becomes more plentiful. Greater availability of temporary nonimmigrant foreign-born farmworkers leads to their increased employment at lower wages. This, in turn, results in longrun increases in agricultural output and exports, above and beyond the growth projected by the base forecast. The increases in output and exports are generally larger in labor-intensive sectors such as fruit, tree nuts, vegetables, and nursery products. By Year 15 of the scenario, these four sectors experience a 1.1- to 2.0-percent increase in output and a 1.7- to 3.2-percent increase in exports, relative to the base forecast. Less labor-intensive sectors, such as grains, oilseeds, and livestock production, tend to have smaller increases, ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 percent for output and from 0.2 to 2.6 percent for exports.

Accompanying this additional growth in agricultural output and employment, however, would be a relative decrease of about 5.7 percent in the number of U.S.-born and other permanent residents employed as farmworkers and a 3.4-percent relative decrease in their wage rate. In the model, U.S.-born and foreign-born permanent resident workers are assumed to compete with foreign-born temporary nonimmigrant workers in the labor market. A 3.4-percent relative decrease in the wage rate does not mean that the wage rate is projected to fall by 3.4 percent over the 15-year period of the projection. Instead, it means that the wage rate in Year 15 is projected to be 3.4 percent lower in the increased farm labor supply scenario than in the base forecast.

The longrun results from the decreased unauthorized labor supply scenario show a reduction in the labor supply to agriculture with effects on agricultural output and exports that are opposite in sign from the increased farm labor supply scenario and larger in magnitude. Fruit, tree nuts, vegetables, and nursery production are again among the most affected sectors but with longrun relative declines of 2.0 to 5.4 percent in output and 2.5 to 9.3 percent in exports. These effects tend to be smaller in other, less labor-intensive, parts of agriculture—a 1.6- to 4.9-percent decrease in output and a 0.3- to 7.4-percent decrease in exports.

Changes in labor supply affect output, exports, employment, and earnings in the long run

Variable

Scenarios

Increased farm
labor supply

Decreased unauthorized labor supply

Assumed impact on labor supply

+ 156,000 temporary nonimmigrant, foreign-born farmworkers

– 5.8 million unauthorized
workers, farm and nonfarm

Percent change

Percent change

Fruit, tree nuts, vegetables, nurseries
Output

+ 1.1 to 2.0

–2.0 to –5.4

Exports

+ 1.7 to 3.2

–2.5 to –9.3

Other agricultural sectors    
Output

+ 0.1 to 1.5

–1.6 to –4.9

Exports

+ 0.2 to 2.6

–0.3 to –7.4

 

Percent change

Percent change

Employment in agriculture

+ 1.7

–3.4 to –5.5

U.S.-born & foreign-born, permanent resident

– 5.7

+2.4 to 4.0

Foreign-born, not a permanent resident

+ 32.4

–34.1 to –38.8

Earnings per job in agriculture

– 4.4

+ 3.9 to 9.9

U.S.-born & foreign-born, permanent resident

– 3.4

+ 3.3 to 7.5

Foreign-born, not a permanent resident

– 10.0

+ 13.6 to 39.8

 

Percent change

Nonfarm employment of U.S.-born and other permanent residents

Negligible effects on
nonfarm economy

 
Lower paying occupations

+2.2 to 3.2

Higher paying occupations*

–0.5 to –0.7

Nonfarm earnings per job of U.S.-born and other permanent residents

Lower paying occupations

+1.7 to 4.5

Higher paying occupations*

–0.2 to –0.6

GNP, less payments to people without permanent residency status

–0.9 to –1.1

*Annual income of $20,000 or more.
A negligible effect is an increase or decrease of less than 0.05 percent.
Results are estimates of percent difference in the outcome between the base forecast and the alternative scenario in Year 15 of the policy period.
GNP=Gross National Product.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

As part of the decreased unauthorized labor supply scenario, the number of unauthorized workers employed as farmworkers falls by between 34.1 and 38.8 percent, depending on modeling assumptions, relative to the base forecast for Year 15. At the same time, the number of farmworkers who are either U.S.-born or foreign-born, permanent residents increases by about 2.4 to 4.0 percent in the long run, compared with the base forecast, and their wage rate increases by 3.3 to 7.5 percent. However, the increased farm employment of U.S.-born and other permanent resident workers is not sufficient to offset the decrease in unauthorized farmworkers. As a result, the total number of farmworkers decreases by 3.4 to 5.5 percent.

Some observers question whether a reduction in the number of unauthorized workers would benefit or harm U.S.-born and other permanent resident workers. Model results suggest that wages would rise (relative to the base forecast) in some lower paying occupations where unauthorized workers are common, decrease slightly in many higher paying occupations, and decrease on average.

Several factors account for the slight decrease in earnings. First, the decrease in the supply of unauthorized labor leads to a longrun relative decrease in production, not just in agriculture but in all sectors of the economy. This, in turn, reduces incomes to many complementary factors of production, including U.S.-born and foreign-born, permanent resident workers in higher paying occupations. Second, with the departure of so many unauthorized workers, the occupational distribution of U.S.-born and other permanent resident workers necessarily shifts in the direction of more hired farm work and other lower paying occupations, such as food service, child care, and housekeeping, and away from higher paying occupations (a much larger category). The effect of this compositional change is to reduce the average real wage for U.S.-born and foreign-born, permanent resident workers in all sectors of the economy, even as real wages in many lower paying occupations rise.

In the long term, overall gross national product accruing to U.S.-born and foreign-born, permanent residents would fall by about 1 percent, compared with the base forecast. This result indicates that the negative economic effects generated by the departure of a significant portion of the labor force outweigh the positive effects on the wages of U.S.-born workers and other permanent residents employed in lower paying occupations. This conclusion, however, might be different in a model that reproduced current levels of unemployment, rather than describing a longrun equilibrium in which the economy is much closer to full employment.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: immigration reform, labor

CA Vineyard Tried to Hire Americans, But It Was a Total Failure, A “Social Experiment Gone Awry”

November 27, 2011 by Charlie

Excellent commentary related to the immigration problem agriculture faces:

“With a nearly 12 percent unemployment rate in California, you’d imagine most job openings would have applicants lined up around the block, but one local man says he had a difficult time keeping almost any workers on the job.John Salisbury owns Salisbury Vineyards in Avila Valley and Paso Robles. He needed 32 grape pickers fast for the harvest season in late September and put the call out for anyone to apply, even if they didn’t have any experience, advertising on his website and on the radio.”The idea is to be able to pick them in that one day and get them while they’re perfect, but if you have to wait two or three more days, you’ve maybe missed a peak time,” he said.

Workers had to be able to lift 35 pounds, keep up with crews and provide all necessary documentation.Salisbury now calls his experience a social experiment gone awry. It was ill-fated from the beginning; Salisbury started with 40 applicants, but only seven actually finished the job.”
Read more here.

HT:  CARPE DIEM: CA Vineyard Tried to Hire Americans, But It Was a Total Failure, A “Social Experiment Gone Awry”.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: immigration reform

"If you're not informed, it's your own fault."

November 3, 2010 by Charlie

ANLA and SAF have done a yeoman’s job of keeping green industry firms informed of what is happening in Washington in terms of the effects of mid-term elections and the critical regulatory and legislative issues facing nursery/floral businesses today. Be sure to check out the Washington Impact section (click here) of the ANLA Knowledge Center and the latest SAF analysis of the effects of mid-term elections on your business (click here). As the saying goes, what you don’t know, can hurt you.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: climate change, energy, health care, immigration reform, leadership, legislation, sustainability, trends

Role of Immigrants in U.S. Labor Market

July 24, 2010 by Charlie

People born in other countries are a growing presence in the U.S. labor force. In 2009, more than 1 in 7 people in the U.S. labor force were born elsewhere; 15 years earlier, only 1 in 10 was foreign born. About 40 percent of the foreign-born labor force in 2009 was from Mexico and Central America, and more than 25 percent was from Asia.

Today CBO released an update to its November 2005 report on the role of immigrants in the U.S. labor market. That earlier report included data through 2004; this update, the first of several on various aspects of immigration, incorporates data through 2009 from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Surveys. The update includes various tables showing statistics on the number of foreign-born workers, the countries from which they have come, their educational attainment, the types of jobs they hold, and their earnings.

The Role of Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market: An Update

View more presentations from Congressional Budget Office.

Some highlights include:

  • People born in other countries represent a substantial and growing segment of the U.S. labor force—that is, people with a job or looking for one. In 2009, 24 million members of the labor force were foreign born, up from 21 million in 2004. However, the growth of the foreign-born labor force was much slower between 2004 and 2009 than between 1994 and 2004.
  • In 2009, over half of the foreign-born workers from Mexico and Central America did not have a high school diploma or GED credential, as compared with just 6 percent of native-born workers. Yet nearly half of the foreign-born workers from places other than Mexico and Central America had at least a bachelor’s degree, as compared with 35 percent of native-born workers.
  • Over time, participants in the U.S. labor force from Mexico and Central America have become more educated. In 2009, they had completed an average of 9.8 years of schooling—up from 9.5 years in 2004; 55 percent lacked a high school diploma or GED credential—down from 59 percent in 2004; and among 16- to 24-year-olds, 50 percent were not in school and were not high school graduates—down from 60 percent in 2004. Nevertheless, those born in Mexico and Central America constitute an increasingly large share of the least educated portions of the labor force.
  • To a considerable extent, educational attainment determines the role of foreign-born workers in the labor market. In 2009, 70 percent of workers born in Mexico and Central America were employed in occupations that have minimal educational requirements, such as construction laborer and dishwasher; only 23 percent of native-born workers held such jobs.
  • Foreign-born workers who came to the United States from places other than Mexico and Central America were employed in a much broader range of occupations. Nevertheless, they were more than twice as likely as native-born workers to be in fields such as computer and mathematical sciences, which generally require at least a college education. Their average weekly earnings were similar to those of native-born men and women.
  • On average, the weekly earnings of men from Mexico and Central America who worked full time were just over half those of native-born men; women from Mexico and Central America earned about three-fifths of the average weekly earnings of native-born women.

This report was prepared by Nabeel Alsalam of CBO’s Health and Human Resources Division.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: immigration reform, labor

ANLA Legislative Update

March 31, 2010 by Charlie

The recent signing of health care reform legislation has brought a renewed national focus on events here in Washington, DC. With a shift in Congress’ attention, ANLA’s government relations team looks to several key issues, and threats, for our industry. Click here to view video updates on immigration reform, health care reform legislation, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program and the National Tree Planting Program.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: costs, health care, immigration reform, legislation

The Effect of Immigration on Productivity

March 8, 2010 by Charlie

Immigration during the 1990s and the 2000s significantly increased the presence of foreign-born workers in the United States, but the increase was very unequal across states. In The Effect of Immigration on Productivity: Evidence from US States (NBER Working Paper No. 15507), NBER Research Associate Giovanni Peri analyzes state-by-state data to determine the impact of immigration on a variety of labor market outcomes, including employment, average hours worked, and average skill intensity, and on productivity and income per worker.

Peri reports a number of distinct findings. First, immigrants do not crowd-out employment of (or hours worked by) natives; they add to total employment and reduce the share of highly educated workers, because of their larger share of islow-skilled relative to native workers. Second, immigrants increase total factor productivity. These productivity gains may arise because of the more efficient allocation of skills to tasks, as immigrants are allocated to manual-intensive jobs, promoting competition and pushing natives to perform communication-intensive tasks more efficiently. Indeed, a measure of task-specialization of native workers induced by immigrants explains half to two thirds of the positive effect on productivity.

Third, Peri finds that inflows of immigrants decrease capital intensity and the skill-bias of production technologies. The decrease in capital intensity comes from an increase in total factor productivity; the capital-to-labor ratio remains unchanged because investment rises coincident with the inflow of immigrants. The reduction in the skill-intensity of production occurs as immigrants influence the choice of production techniques toward those that more efficiently use less educated workers and are less capital intensive.

Finally, Peri finds that for less educated natives, higher immigration has very little effect on wages, while for highly educated natives, the wage effect of higher immigration is positive. In summary, he finds that a one percent increase in employment in a US state, attributable only to immigration, is associated with a 0.4 to 0.5 percent increase in income per worker in that state.

A central challenge in establishing a causal link between immigration and economic outcomes is the fact that immigrants may be disproportionately attracted to states with strong economic performance. Peri recognizes this problem, and uses information on state characteristics, such as the location of a state relative to the Mexican border, the number of ports of entry, as well as the existence of communities of immigrants there before 1960 to predict immigrant inflows. He then studies how these predicted inflows, rather than actual inflows, are related to labor market outcomes. He argues that the state characteristics that underlie his predictions are not likely to be associated with either labor market outcomes or productivity. He also controls for several other determinants of productivity that may vary with geography such as R and D spending, computer adoption, international competition in the form of exports, and sector composition.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: immigration reform, labor

New I-9 Form Available

April 7, 2009 by Charlie

US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced that the new I-9 employment eligibility verification form must be used as of April 3.

Click here to read the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) press release.

Click here to download the new I-9 form.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: immigration reform

Canada welcomes U.S. H-1B skilled workers

July 20, 2008 by Charlie

According to Tennessee immigration lawyer Greg Siskind, “While our Congress buries its head in the sand and refuses to update our antiquated skilled immigration system, our neighbors to the north are seeking to take advantage of the paralysis. This is just embarrassing.”

Alberta, Canada is now actively recruiting dissatisfied high-skilled H-1B workers in the U.S. (discouraged by sometimes waiting 7 or 8 years for a green card), by promising expedited “Permanent Residency in Canada.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: immigration reform, labor

Be prepared!

July 10, 2008 by Charlie

On Wednesday, at the educational sessions of the Southwest Growers Conference, Dr. Marco Palma gave an excellent presentation on “hiring a legal workforce” for nursery and greenhouse operators. Conference attendees were also presented with their very own copy of the newly revised Immigration and Labor Handbook that is hot off the press (click here).

As part of the discussion, it was was pointed out that increased I-9 and immigration compliance audits of businesses are expected. To prepare, ANLA has revised their employer audit guide (click here). ANLA also reports an increase in DOL wage and hour investigations targeting nursery employers using the H-2A agricultural guest worker program. Auditors are closely scrutinizing job descriptions and performance of non-agricultural work that can result in the loss of the agricultural overtime exemption.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: immigration reform, labor

No-Match Saga Continues

March 27, 2008 by Charlie

In August 2007, a long awaited “no-match letter” regulation from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement was released. It quickly was challenged in court and the rule was barred from taking effect by a federal district court. Yesterday, DHS released a proposed rule that makes very few actual changes to the previously released rule and instead attempts to address procedural questions raised by the court in its preliminary injunction.

The rule describes the obligations of employers when they receive no-match letters from the Social Security Administration or receive a letter regarding employment verification forms from the Department of Homeland Security. The rule also provides “safe harbors” employers can follow to avoid a finding the employer had constructive knowledge that the employee referred to in the letter was an alien not authorized to work in the US. Employers with knowledge that an immigrant worker is unauthorized to accept employment are liable for both civil and criminal penalties.

The rule finalized a proposed rule released on June 14, 2006. The Department of Homeland Security, ICE’s parent department, received nearly 5,000 comments on the rule from a variety of interested parties including employers, unions, lawyers and advocacy groups. According to DHS, the opinions were highly varied with both strong opposition and support being enunciated. DHS also held a meeting with business and trade associations to discuss the proposed rule.

Why did the court block the rule from taking effect?
The rule was challenged in court prior to it taking effect in September 2007 and a judge issued a preliminary injunction on three grounds:

(1) DHS failed to supply a reasoned analysis justifying what the court thought was a change in DHS’ position – that a no-match letter may be sufficient, by itself, to put an employer on notice that its employees may not be work authorized;

(2) DHS exceeded its authority (and encroached on the authority of the Department of Justice) by interpreting anti-discrimination provisions in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA); and

(3) DHS violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act by not conducting a regulatory flexibility analysis.

How has DHS attempted to address the court’s objections?
On March 21, 2008, DHS released a supplemental proposed rule designed to address the court’s concerns. DHS is hoping that the court will overturn the preliminary injunction and allow the agency to implement the proposed rule. The agency is also continuing to appeal the court’s order. The agency is providing 30 days for comments.

In the proposed rule, DHS first addressed the court’s concern that that agency had failed to provide a detailed analysis explaining the agency’s new position that no match letters are an indicator of unauthorized status.

DHS first cites a number of sources indicating that Social Security numbers are being used to gain employment authorization by people unauthorized to work. It included quotes from the 1997 report of the US Commission on Immigration Reform and also cites reports issued by the Government Accountability Office and the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration.

It also notes that the industries most affected by the rule have admitted that much of their workforce is unauthorized and millions of employees have used false numbers. Finally, the agency cites to public and private studies confirming that a sizeable portion of employees identified by no-match letters are working illegally in the United States.

DHS cites two other justifications for the law. First, many employers fail to respond to no-match letters because they fear being accused of violating anti-discrimination rules if they react inappropriately to them. The no-match rule would provide protection from such liability if the employer follows the requirements of the regulation.

Second, many US citizens and aliens would benefit by being notified of problems in the Social Security database and being able to get proper credit for their earnings. US citizens would also benefit, according to DHS, by seeing an expansion of employment opportunities as a result of unauthorized employees being terminated for not providing a valid Social Security number.

DHS then describes in the rule a series of rulings and opinions by the agency that it believes show the agency has had a consistent position on no-match letters. But the agency states that even if it concedes that it is taking a new position, it meets the requirement to show a reasoned analysis justifying the chance in policy.

In this case, it states that the “most basic justification for issuance of this rule – and for the “change” in policy found by the district court – is to eliminate ambiguity regarding an employer’s responsibilities upon receipt of a no match letter. Absent this rule, employers have been taking very different positions based on DHS’ ambiguous statements.

DHS also defends the rule by pointing out that only employers with more than 10 employees identified with no-matches get SSA no-match letters and only if the percentage of no-matches exceeds .5% of the employer’s work force.

With regard to the question of usurping the Justice Department’s anti-discrimination enforcement authority, DHS insists that its rule does not interfere with “the authority of DOJ to enforce anti-discrimination provisions of the INA or adjudicate notices of intent to fine employers.”

It also specifically rescinded statements from the August 2007 rule’s preamble describing employers’ obligations under anti-discrimination law or discussing the potential for anti-discrimination liability. That includes the statement “employers who follow the safe harbor procedures…will not be found to have violated unlawful discrimination.”

With respect to the regulatory flexibility analysis, DHS takes the position that the rule is a voluntary safe harbor rather than a mandate. Hence, the rule does not require a showing that employers will not be significantly impacted economically.

However, the agency claims it is going to comply with the judge’s ruling by providing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). They have provided a very cursory summary of the analysis in the proposed regulation, but DHS says it will provide a full analysis in the docket of the rulemaking.

DHS claims that it has been stymied to some extent in providing a highly specific analysis because the Social Security Administration has denied its request for the names and addresses of the companies already identified by SSA in its preparation to release no-match letters pursuant to the August 2007 regulation.

SSA reminded DHS that this disclosure would actually be illegal under taxpayer privacy laws. SSA did, however, provide more general information including a table showing the distribution of employers slated to receive no match letters in 2006. DHS estimates it will cost employers anywhere from $3,009 to $33,759 depending on the size of the employer and the percentage of current no-match employees assumed to be unauthorized. DHS does not believe these costs constitute a “significant economic impact.”

DHS notes that the costs associated with losing an employee as a result of the rule are due to the Immigration and Nationality Act itself and not the new rule. However, the agency does not mention “false positives” where employees authorized to work are incorrectly identified in a no match letter.

The agency did not account for costs associated with losing employees not being able to resolve problems within 90 days, something that critics fear will become common as hundreds of thousands of people attempt to resolve problems at the same time under the new rule.

DHS did site the following costs: labor cost for human resource personnel, ce
rtain training costs, legal services and lost productivity.

Did DHS mention any changes to the August 2007 rule in its proposed rulemaking?
DHS only announced two relatively minor changes. First, DHS changed the rule require that employers “promptly” notify affected employees after they are unable to resolve a mismatch through internal checks. Employers would now be given five business days to notify employees.
Second, DHS makes clear that employees hired before November 1, 1986 are not covered by the no-match rule since these workers are not subject to IRCA.

Source: The Immigration Portal, www.ilc.com

Filed Under: News Tagged With: immigration reform

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

About the Chair

  • About the Chairholder
  • Donors
  • Contacts

Advisory Commitee

  • Overview
  • Permanent Seats
  • Rotating Seats
  • Ex-Officio Members
  • Members Emeritus
  • Early History of the Ellison Chair

Multimedia

  • Webinars
  • Distinguished Lecture Series

Conferences/Workshops

  • Executive Academy for Growth & Leadership (EAGL)
View Charlie Hall's profile on LinkedIn
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service
Texas A&M University System Member
  • Compact with Texans
  • Privacy and Security
  • Accessibility Policy
  • State Link Policy
  • Statewide Search
  • Veterans Benefits
  • Military Families
  • Risk, Fraud & Misconduct Hotline
  • Texas Homeland Security
  • Texas Veteran's Portal
  • Equal Opportunity
  • Open Records/Public Information