Comptroller General 

of the United States 

B-125051 

November 15. 1988 

The President of the Senate and the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives 

This is the second of three annual GAO reports required by Section 101(a) of the Immigration 

Reform and Control Act of 1986. The act prohibits employers from knowingly hiring 

unauthorized workers. Noncompliance can result in penalties (sanctions). 

The act requires us to review the implementation and enforcement of employer sanctions for 

the purpose of determining if such provisions (1) have been carried out satisfactorily, 

(2) have caused a pattern of discrimination against U.S. citizens or other eligible workers, 

and (3) have caused an unnecessary regulatory burden on employers, Since the act has not 

yet been fully implemented, this report presents information on actions to date. In addition, 

we discuss several methodological problems that may preclude us from making conclusive 

determinations on these matters in our next report. 

Copies of this report are being sent to the Attorney General; the Secretary, Department of 

Labor; the Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; the Chairman, U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other 

interested parties. 

This report was prepared under the direction of Arnold P. Jones, Senior Associate Director. 

Other major contributors are listed in appendix V. 

Charles A. Bowsher 

Comptroller General 

of the United States 
Executive Summary 

Purpose Congress passed a law in 1986 to penalize employers who hire any alien 

not authorized to work. The law requires GAO to issue three annual 

reports to Congress on its implementation and establishes procedures 

for Congress to repeal provisions of the law if GAO’S third report finds a 

“widespread pattern” of discrimination caused “solely” by the law. This 

is the second report. (See pp. 10 and 16.) 

Background In recent years the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has 

been arresting aliens who were working in the country illegally. However, federal law did not provide penalties for employers who knowingly hired unauthorized aliens. (See p. 10.) 

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (1) contains civil and 

criminal penalties for employers of unauthorized aliens and (2) requires 

all employers in the Nation to complete an employment eligibility verification form (I-9) for each new employee. The law authorizes INS and 

Department of Labor officials to inspect 1-9s. (See p. 11.) 

Because of concern that employers-to avoid being sanctioned-would 

not hire “foreign-looking or -sounding” U.S. citizens or legal aliens, Congress added a provision prohibiting employers with four or more 

employees from discriminating on the basis of a person’s national origin 

or citizenship status. (See p. 12.) 

The law requires that each of GAO’S annual reports review the implementation and enforcement of the employer sanctions law for the purpose of 

determining whether (1) the law has been carried out satisfactorily, 

(2) a pattern of discrimination has resulted against authorized workers, 

and (3) an unnecessary regulatory burden has been created for employers Congress also asked GAO to determine if the antidiscrimination provision creates an unreasonable burden for employers. 

During the second year GAO (1) reviewed federal agencies’ implementation of the law, (2) reviewed discrimination complaints filed with federal agencies as well as data from state agencies and groups 

representing aliens, and (3) surveyed employers to obtain their views on 

the law’s effects. Survey results were used to approximate the employer 

population but have certain limitations. (See pp. 16 and 83.) 

Page 2 GAO/GGD-8916 Employer Sanctions 
Executive Summary 

Results in Brief eating employers while increasing enforcement is satisfactory. ms could, 

however, improve its efforts to determine employer compliance. 

The second-year data show the following: 

l Some employers did not understand the law’s antidiscrimination provision, and the provision has not resulted in an unreasonable burden on 

employers. 

. About one of every six employers in GAO'S survey who were aware of 

the law may have begun or increased the practice of (1) asking only 

foreign-looking persons for work authorization documents or (2) hiring 

only US. citizens. But this does not establish that the law has caused a 

pattern of discrimination because the survey responses do not adequately tell why employers may have taken these actions nor the 

number of authorized workers that may have been affected. This information does, however, indicate a need for more public education and 

further investigation. 

. The number of discrimination charges filed, to date, does not establish a 

pattern of discrimination. 

. Information is insufficient to determine if the employer sanction provision has caused an unnecessary regulatory burden on employers. 

Principal Findings 

Employer Education Needs During the second year INS continued to educate employers while 

to Continue increasing enforcement. On the basis of the employer survey, GAO estimates that about 22 percent were not aware the law was passed. For 

those aware of the law, as many as 20 percent did not clearly understand the law’s major provisions. (See pp. 22 and 46.) 

Enforcement Actions Consistent with the law, INS has phased in its enforcement activities. 

The number of employer violations for employing unauthorized aliens 

was 452 and about 4,700 for not completing l-ss, as of September 1, 

1988. GAO'S survey estimates show that about half of the 1.9 million 

employers who were aware of the law and hired at least 1 employee had 

not completed all the required 1-9s. (See pp. 26 and 27.) 

Page 3 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Executive Summary 

Opportunities to Improve GAO also identified three areas where INS and/or Labor could improve 

Enforcement their methods for determining employer compliance with the I-9 

requirement. 

l Although unauthorized aliens’ use of counterfeit documents could 

undermine the law’s success, INS does not systematically analyze data on 

their use. On the basis of GAO’S analysis of INS records in 5 cities, 435 (or 

39 percent) of the 1,107 employed unauthorized aliens used or were suspected of using counterfeit documents. (See p. 30.) 

. When INS inspects I-9s, it notifies employers in advance of the inspection 

and considers them in compliance with the I-9 requirements if, after completing its review, all required forms are completed. This may require 

more than one INS visit. INS does not distinguish between employers who 

voluntarily comply with the act before receiving an INS notice of inspection and those who are brought into compliance as a result of INS’ visits. 

If employers’ initial compliance levels were recorded, INS could use this 

data to better allocate its inspection resources where most noncompliance occurs. (See p. 30.) 

. When GAO observed INS and Labor inspecting employers’ I-%, they did 

not consistently review the employer’s payroll records to verify that 

there were no other employees hired who required an I-9. Without verifying to some extent the number of employees hired after the law, INS 

and Labor cannot fully determine employer compliance. (See pp. 28 and 

34.) 

No Pattern of 

Discrimination 

The data on discrimination does not establish (1) a pattern of discrimination caused by employer sanctions or (2) an unreasonable burden on 

employers. (See p. 60.) 

The Office of Special Counsel in the Department of Justice-responsible 

under the law for prosecuting discrimination charges-had received 286 

charges as of September 1988, of which 89 had been closed. (See p. 40.) 

As of September 1988, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-the agency that administers Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 prohibiting national origin discrimination-had received 148 

charges related to the new immigration law. Of these, 64 were still in 

process as of September 1988, and 84 were closed. Fifty-four charges 

were filed with both agencies, and additional charges have been filed 

with state and local agencies. (See p. 43.) 

Page 4 GAOKXXMB-16 Employer Sanctions 
-. 

Executive Summary 

On the basis of GAO’S employer survey, of the 3.3 million who were 

aware of the law, about 528,000 (or 16 percent) had begun or increased 

the practice of (1) asking only foreign-looking persons for work authorization documents or (2) hiring only U.S. citizens. For example, GAO estimates that in California about 53,000 employers began to ask only 

foreign-looking or -sounding job applicants to present work authorization documents. 

The survey responses, however, did not adequately address the number 

of authorized workers who were fired, not hired, or otherwise affected 

by the reported practices. Thus, the survey responses should not be construed to mean that the law has caused a pattern of discrimination. Nevertheless, policymakers should be concerned about the reported 

practices and federal agencies should provide the public more information about the act. (See pp. 46 and 60.) 

Recommendations To better determine employer compliance levels and allocate enforcement resources, GAO recommends that the Attorney General direct the 

Commissioner, INS, to (1) collect information on the extent unauthorized 

aliens used counterfeit documents to be hired; (2) measure employers’ 

voluntary I-9 compliance level; and (3) along with the Secretary of 

Labor, use employer records, when needed, to verify that 1-9s have been 

prepared for all new employees. (See p. 38.) 

GAO recommends that the Attorney General direct the Special Counsel, 

in coordination with other agencies, to develop a plan and budget to better educate the public about the law’s antidiscrimination provision. (See 

p. 61.) 

Agency Comments GAO discussed the contents of the report with officials from INS, Office of 

Special Counsel, Department of Labor, and the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission. They concurred with the report, and their 

comments have been included where appropriate. 

Page 6 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Contents 

Executive Summary 2 

Chapter 1 10 

Introduction The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 11 

Chapter 2 16 

Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Chapter 3 22 

Implementing 

Employer Sanctions 

Chapter 4 

Discrimination and 

Employer Sanctions 

INS Employer Education Efforts Continue 

INS Enforcement Actions 

Employer Survey Compliance Results 

Opportunities to Enhance INS Enforcement 

DOL Keeds to Expand Inspections 

Limited Scope of Labor Law Protections Could Affect 

Employer Sanctions 

Conclusions 

Recommendations 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

OSC and EEOC Investigate IRCA-Related Discrimination 

Charges 

Employer Survey May Show Unfair Employment 

22 

26 

27 

28 

34 

35 

37 

38 

38 

39 

40 

46 

Practices 

Other Organizations Providing Discrimination Data 53 

Antidiscrimination Burden on Employers 59 

State Employment Service Placement Rates 59 

Conclusions 60 

Recommendation 61 

Agency Comments 61 

- 

Chapter 5 62 

Employer Sanctions’ costs 

Burden on Employers ~~;“:~~“,” 

62 

66 

70 

Page 6 GAO/GGD%BlG Employer Sanctions 
-- 

Contenta 

Appendixes Appendix I: Fiscal Year 1987, 1988, and 1989 INS 

Budgets for Employer Sanctions 

Appendix II: Survey of Employer Views of the 1986 

Immigration Reform and Control Act 

Appendix III: Statistical Data for Employer Survey 

Appendix IV: Survey of State/Local Human Rights 

Agencies on Unfair Immigration-Related Employment 

Practices 

Appendix V: Major Contributors to This Report 

Tables Table 3.1: INS Enforcement Actions, November 6, 1986, to 

September 1, 1988 

Table 4.1: Summary of OSC Charges 

Table 4.2: Summary of EEOC Charges 

Table 4.3: Employer Responses to Unfair Employment 

Practices by State 

Table 4.4: Employer Responses to Unfair Employment 

Practices by Industry 

Table 4.5: Employer Responses to Unfair Employment 

Practices by Number of Employees 

Table 4.6: State and Local IRCA-Related Charges 

Table 4.7: Chicago MALDEF Cases, April 1987 to August 

1988 

Table 4.8: Puerto Rican Job Referral Data in New York 

City 

Table 5.1: Time Employers Took to Complete I-9 

Table 5.2: Number of 1-9s Prepared 

Table 5.3: Start-Up Costs 

Table 5.4: Nonimmigrant Visa Violation Rates (By 

Country) 

Table 111.1: Sampling Plan 

Table 111.2: Employer Questionnaire Disposition by State 

Table 111.3: Sampling Errors Greater Than 5 Percent 

Table 111.4: Comparison of Numbers of Employers in 

High/Low Alien Population States and High/Low 

Alien Population Industries By Data Source 

Table 111.5: Comparison of the Universe of Employers by 

Industry 

Table 111.6: Employer Universe for Selected Figures 

Figures Figure 1.1: INS Apprehensions at U.S. Borders 

72 

73 

83 

94 

99 

26 

40 

44 

49 

50 

51 

55 

57 

60 

63 

64 

64 

69 

83 

85 

90 

91 

92 

93 

10 

Page 7 GAO :GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Contents 

Figure 3.1: Employers by Size of Business That Are 

Aware of and Understand Sanctions 

Figure 3.2: INS Visits as a Factor Related to Employers’ I9 Compliance 

25 

28 

Figure 3.3: Types of Counterfeit and Fraudulent 

Documents Found on Employed Illegal Aliens 

Figure 4.1: Employers Using Unfair Hiring Policies/ 

Practices 

32 

48 

Figure 4.2: Employers’ Lack of Understanding of IRCA 

May Influence Unfair Hiring Policies/Practices 

Figure 4.3: INS Visits May Influence Unfair Hiring 

Policies/Practices 

52 

53 

Figure 5.1: Border Patrol Linewatch Apprehensions 

Measured by lo-Hour Shifts 

68 

Abbreviations 

DOJ Department of Justice 

DOL Department of Labor 

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

EsA-91 Employment Eligibility Verification Record Keeping 

Requirements Form 

GAP 

I-9 

INS 

IRCA 

LAW 

MALDEF 

NLRA 

OFCCP 

OMB 

OSC 

SBA 

SSA 

SSN 

WHD 

Fair Labor Standards Act 

General Administrative Plan 

Employment Eligibility Verification Form 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 

Legally Authorized Worker Program 

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 

National Labor Relations Act 

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 

Office of Management and Budget 

Office of Special Counsel 

Small Business Administration 

Social Security Administration 

Social Security Account Number 

Wage and Hour Division 

Page 8 GAO/GGD8916 Employer Sanctions 
Page 9 GAO/GGD8916 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

During the past 15 years Congress has been increasingly concerned over 

the inability to control the illegal flow of aliens across our borders and 

the economic consequences of aliens who are not authorized to work 

taking jobs away from authorized workers.’ However, some researchers 

believe that the presence of unauthorized aliens has aided the U.S. economy.2 Figure 1.1 shows the number of aliens the Immigration and Naturalization Service (I&S) apprehended at U.S. borders as they tried to 

enter the country illegally. 

Figure 1.1: INS Apprehensions at U.S. 

Borders 

1.75 Number of Apprehensions (Millions) 

1.50 

1.25 

0.25 

1960 1965 

Fiscal Year 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1986 1987 

Source: INS 

After a series of hearings in the 1980s the Immigration Reform and 

Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) became law on November 6, 1986. The act 

requires that we issue three annual reports on its implementation beginning with November 1987. We issued our first report on November 5, 

1987 (Immigration Reform: Status of Implementing Employer Sanctions 

Aliens: Limited Research Suggests Illegal Aliens May Displace Native Workers (GAO/ 

86-9BR. Apr. 21. 1986). 

%ee. for example. .Julian Simon. How Do Immigrants i\ffect I:s Economically’?, published by the 

Center for Imnugration Policy and Refugee Assistance of Georgetown I’niversity (1985); and The 

1986 Economic Report of the President. 

- 

Page 10 GAO ,‘GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

After One Year, G~O~z~-88-14). More information about the act’s purpose 

and objectives are contained in that report. 

The Immigration 

Reform and Control 

Act of 1986 

IRCA affects each of the Nation’s estimated 7 million employers and the 

estimated 67.5 million people hired annually.3 Specifically, the act’s 

employer sanction provision makes it unlawful to knowingly hire, 

recruit, or refer for a fee aliens who are not authorized to work in the 

United States; requires those who hire and recruit or refer for a fee to 

verify both the identity and the employment eligibility of hired individuals; and prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin 

and citizenship status. Prior to IRCA, federal law did not provide penalties for employers who knowingly hired unauthorized workers. Also, 

IRCA established a new enforcement unit-the Office of the Special 

Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OK)- 

within the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute complaints alleging 

national origin and citizenship status discrimination. It further authorized the Attorney General to designate administrative law judges to 

hear discrimination and employer sanctions cases. 

Unlawful Employment 

Practices 

The law states that it is unlawful to knowingly hire or recruit or refer 

for a fee for employment any alien not authorized to work in the United 

States or to hire any person (including U.S. citizens) without verifying 

the person’s legal employment status. It is also unlawful to knowingly 

continue to employ an alien who is or has become unauthorized to work 

or to knowingly obtain the services of an unauthorized alien through a 

contract. Noncompliance can result, depending on the violation, in civil 

and criminal penalties. However, the law permits employers to continue 

to employ unauthorized aliens hired before November 6, 1986, without 

being sanctioned (i.e., “grandfathered” aliens). rn-s can deport 

grandfathered aliens who are in the country illegally. 

IRCA places certain responsibilities on employers when hiring employees. 

Generally, for employees hired after November 6, 1986, IRCA requires 

employers to verify the employee’s identity and eligibility to work in the 

United States. Employers must complete the Employment Eligibility 

3The number of employers is based on Internal Revenue Service data on organizations filing tax 

returns. The estimate of people hired annually is based on a study by Malcolm Cohen. Employer 

Sewice Potential (Institute of Industrial and Labor Relativns: Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1979). 

Page 11 GAO/GGDW-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Verification Form (Form I-9) for each employee, certifying that documents used to verify identity and eligibility were reviewed. Job applicants may use a number of documents to establish employment 

eligibility, some of which IKS issues. INS is responsible for inspecting the 

forms for compliance with the act’s requirements. The Department of 

Labor (DOL)! in conjunction with its other duties, also inspects the forms. 

Timetable for Employer The law and implementing regulations establish timetables for enforceVerification Requirements ment of the law and related penalties. The implementation is generally 

divided into three phases: a 6-month education period, a l-year period 

during which citations were issued to first-time violators, followed by 

full enforcement of sanctions against those who violate the law.4 When 

KS imposes a penalty, it issues a Notice of Intent to Fine. 

Unlawful Discrimination The new immigration law also prohibits discrimination because Congress was concerned that employers-to avoid being sanctioned-would 

not hire “foreign-looking or -sounding” U.S. citizens or legal aliens. 

Under this law, employers with four or more employees may not discriminate against any authorized worker in hiring, discharging, recruiting, or referring for a fee because of that individual’s national origin or, 

in the case of a citizen or intending (prospective) citizen, because of his 

or her citizenship status. 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the remedies against discrimination it provides remain in effect. Title VII prohibits discrimination against anyone on the basis of national origin in hiring, discharging, 

recruiting, assigning, compensating, and other terms and conditions of 

employment. Charges of national origin discrimination against employers with 15 or more employees are generally to be filed with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 

Under the new immigration law, charges of national origin discrimination against employers with 4 through 14 employees and charges of citizenship status discrimination against employers with 4 or more 

employees are to be filed with osc. 

4Agrlculturr employer5 arc generally exempt until December 1. 1988. with respect to their seasonal 

agriculturr employees. 

Page 12 G.40 ,‘GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

After investigating the charge, osc may file a complaint with an administrative law judge. The administrative law judge will conduct a hearing 

and issue a decision. 

Although IRCA’S antidiscrimination provision was intended to be distinct 

from, and a complement to, the provisions of title VII, there are some 

incidents over which EEOC and osc both may have jurisdiction. Such incidents would involve allegations of both citizenship status and national 

origin discrimination against employers having 15 or more employees. 

IRCA, however, prohibits charging parties from filing charges of discrimination based on national origin arising from the same set of facts with 

both EEOC and 0% A charging party is thus forced to select an agency 

with which to file. If the charging party selects an agency without 

authority over the complaint or for which no remedy is available (see p. 

41) the charging party may not be able to make a second filing with the 

appropriate agency before the statute of limitations has run out. In 

order to avoid having such a situation prevent a charging party from 

exercising his/her rights, EEOC and osc signed an interim agreement in 

April 1988 that designated each other as agents for purposes of complying with the statute of limitations deadline. 

Employers found to have engaged in unfair immigration-related employment practices under the new immigration law will be ordered to stop 

the prohibited practice and will be subject to certain legal remedies. 

They may be ordered to (1) hire, with or without back pay, individuals 

directly injured by the discrimination; (2) pay a fine; and (3) keep certain records regarding the hiring of applicants and employees. If the 

judge decides that the losing party’s claim had no reasonable basis in 

law or fact, the judge may require the losing party to pay the prevailing 

parties’ (other than the United States) reasonable attorney fees. 

INS Responsible for The implementation of employer sanctions is the responsibility of INS’ 

Enforcement of Employer enforcement components.5 According to an INS official, as of August 1, 

Sanctions 1988, INS had 1,347 investigators on duty in its headquarters, 4 regional 

offices, and 33 districts. Investigators do various types of investigations 

in addition to employer sanctions, such as those involving fraud and 

apprehending deportable criminal aliens. 

6Employer sanctions are generally carried out by INS investigators and Border Patrol agents. 

Throughout this report “investigators” refers to both Border Patrol agents and INS investigators 

Page 13 GAO/GGDSS-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

In addition to carrying out its responsibility of apprehending persons 

illegally crossing our Nation’s borders, the Border Patrol also enforces 

employer sanctions. IM received 135 additional Border Patrol positions 

to investigate employers, inspect I-9 forms, and help to educate employers about the law’s requirements. 

INS’ employer sanctions budget for fiscal years 1988 and 1989 was about 

$60 million and $63 million, respectively, or about 7 percent of its 

budget in both years. INS’ fiscal year 1989 budget provides about 1,237 

positions for employer sanctions, or 8 percent of its total positions (see 

app. I for INS’ employer sanctions budgets). 

According to INS officials, 60 percent of the enforcement resources for 

employer sanctions will be directed at employers who are suspected of 

employing unauthorized aliens. The remaining 40 percent will be 

devoted to a program to randomly select employers nationwide for I-9 

compliance inspections. According to IKS, this program-the General 

Administrative Plan (GAP)-has five objectives: (1) detect I-9 form violations, (2) identify employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens, 

(3) promote compliance, (4) monitor the level of I-9 form compliance 

among various employment sectors, and (5) help plan future enforcement efforts. Half of GAP inspections will be employers randomly 

selected from employment sectors that have proven in the past to 

employ significant numbers of unauthorized aliens, on the basis of local 

INS management determination. According to INS, the other half of GAP 

inspections will be employers randomly selected from all employment 

sectors and geographical areas to ensure fairness and balance in enforcing the law. 

Two Labor Offices Inspect 

Employers’ Records 

In conjunction with other duties, the two offices within DOL that are 

responsible for inspecting employers’ I-9 forms are components of the 

Employment Standards Administration: (1) the Wage and Hour Division 

(WHD) and (2) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 

(OFCCP). During their investigations, they review 1-9s. 

WHD administers and enforces a wide range of laws that establish standards for wages and working conditions, These laws cover virtually all 

private sector employment. From September 1, 1987, to August 31, 

1988, WHD had inspected 1-9s at 28,420 employers. 

The OFCCP administers a number of statutes, including Executive Order 

11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the 

Page 14 GAO/GGDW-16 Employer Sanctions 
chapter 1 

Iutroduction 

basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. From September 1, 

1987, to July 31, 1988, OFCCP had inspected I-as at 2,364 employers. 

At the completion of their employer visits, WHD and OFCCP officials forward the results of the I-9 inspections to INS district offices on an 

Employment Eligibility Verification Record Keeping Requirements Form 

(a-91). The form includes such information as apparent compliance or 

noncompliance with the I-9 requirements, apparent unfair employment 

practice, and possible employment of unauthorized workers. For fiscal 

year 1989, Congress appropriated $5 million for DOL to make I-9 compliance inspections and authorized 91 positions. 

Page 15 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 2 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

IRCA requires that we issue an annual report on the employer sanctions 

provision each November for 3 years. Specifically, the act requires us to 

describe the results of our review of the implementation of employer 

sanctions for the purpose of determining whether such provision has 

(1) been carried out satisfactorily, (2) caused a widespread pattern of 

discrimination, and (3) created an unnecessary regulatory burden. The 

act also says that if we find that employer sanctions have caused a 

widespread pattern of discrimination, Congress can expedite the repeal 

of the employer sanctions provision if it concurs with our conclusions.1 

In addition, if we determine and report that no significant discrimination 

has resulted from employer sanctions or that an unreasonable burden 

has been created for employers, Congress can repeal the antidiscrimination provision using the same expedited procedures. According to Chairman Rodino, House Judiciary Committee, the congressional conferees 

added this repeal provision because of concern that persons would 

abuse the new legal authority in IRCA and file lawsuits to harass employers They were also concerned that the discrimination penalties in IRCA 

could create an unreasonable burden. 

IRCA’S legislative history does not provide guidance on the meaning of 

such terms as “widespread pattern of discrimination,” “unnecessary 

regulatory burden,” and “unreasonable burden.” Without such guidance, we analyzed the available data to help us draw conclusions that 

could address these questions. However, data limitations, partly related 

to the act’s newness, and methodological problems caused us to qualify 

our answers to the mandated questions. These problems probably will 

persist into the third report, causing us to qualify those results too. 

With respect to discriminatory hiring practices, not enough time has 

passed for us to obtain the results of many of the charges filed with OS, 

EEOC, or others (e.g., state and local agencies). Information regarding the 

regulatory burden on employers from their preparation and retention of 

the 1-9s is still being developed. Therefore, any conclusion needs to recognize that later experience may differ from early reports. Also, methodological problems exist in determining if employer sanctions caused a 

pattern of discrimination. 

Until full enforcement of employer sanctions has been underway for 

some time, employers may have little reason to fear being sanctioned. 

‘Congress established procedures to expedite the repeal of employer sanctions (sec. 101) and/or the 

antidiscrimination (sec. 102) provlslons. On the basis of the conclusions in our third report, these 

sections could be repealed if Congress enacted a joint resolution within 30 days of our report, stating 

in substance that it approves our findings. 

Page 16 GAO/GGDB9-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 2 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodolom 

After enforcement is increased, we still may not be able to determine if 

any discrimination that occurs was caused “solely” by employers’ fear 

of sanctions. The Chief Administrative Hearing Officer in DOJ as well as 

officials from EEOC, OSC, and DOL said that judges’ decisions on cases of 

discrimination normally do not specify what caused the discriminatory 

act. We may, therefore, not be able to use judges’ decisions in specific 

cases to determine whether sanctions caused discrimination. 

Determining the extent of discrimination caused by sanctions is also difficult (i.e., widespread pattern of discrimination versus no significant 

discrimination). There is no data on the number of persons who applied 

for the estimated 67.5 million jobs filled in a given year who were not 

hired because of employers’ fear of sanctions. Without this information, 

we may not be able to determine what is a “widespread pattern” of discrimination versus “no significant” discrimination. 

IRCA’S discrimination provision increases from about 13 to 48 percent the 

portion of the Nation’s employers subject to federal antidiscrimination 

laws2 This increase could, by itself, result in an increase in the number 

of discrimination cases. 

Our ability to answer the questions may be affected by several issues. 

First, changes in alien employment and flow may be caused by factors 

other than employer sanctions, which we may not be able to account for 

in our analysis. Second, some necessary data to address the three questions may not exist. For example, the extent of discrimination is not 

known since persons who are discriminated against because of employer 

sanctions may decide for various reasons not to file a charge with a federal or state agency. EEOC officials believe many acts of discrimination 

may not be reported because of the victim’s reluctance to come forward 

and file an official charge. Therefore, our estimate of IRcz-related discrimination may be less than has actually occurred. Third, the 3 years 

provided in IRC~ for us to report on the law’s impact may not be sufficient. For example, government officials in two countries believed that it 

took 3 or more years before employer sanctions laws became a deterrent 

to employment of illegal aliens.:’ 

‘This is based on data from a private marketing semlce. which identified about 6 milhon employers 

in the Nation. 

?nformation on the Enforcement of Laws Regardmg Employment of Ahens m Selected Countries 

(GAO!GGD-W-86. Aug. 31. 1982) and Illegal Aliens: Information on Selected Countries’ I;mploymrnt 

Prohibition Laws (GAO/GGD86-17BR. Ott 28. 1985 ). 

Page 17 GAO ‘GGD-8%16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 2 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Our evaluation of IRCA consisted of three major tasks: 

l We gathered and analyzed data on the three mandated questions from 

the various federal agencies-lxs, DOL, osc, EEOC, the Small Business 

Administration (sBA)-and nonfederal state and local agencies. We did 

our work at these agencies mainly in Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, 

Miami, and New York City, where we believe the law could have a disproportionate effect because of the large number of resident aliens. 

These cities are referred to as “high alien population cities.” In addition, 

we did work at the headquarters of various agencies in Washington, 

D.C., and visited IKS offices in El Paso, Texas, and Baltimore, Maryland. 

l We developed indicators of the illegal flow of aliens into the country and 

the employment levels of unauthorized aliens. To identify and refine our 

list of indicators, we (1) reviewed past GAO, INS, Bureau of the Census, 

and EEOC reports; (2) obtained comments from officials with INS, osc, as 

well as advocacy groups; (3) met with public interest groups; (4) participated in an immigration seminar with employers; and (5) asked experts 

with experience in immigration issues to critique our indicators. 

. We developed a questionnaire on the act’s implementation to send to a 

stratified random sample of U.S. employers in late 1987. The results are 

intended to provide data relevant to the three questions. 

We surveyed employers anonymously to gather information on their 

(1) understanding of the law, (2) employment practices, and (3) costs to 

comply with the 1-g form requirements. To help ensure an adequate 

response rate to our survey, we deliberately avoided explicit questions 

about illegal activities by employers. For example, we consciously did 

not ask employers if they discriminated against authorized workers 

because of employer sanctions. 

We used a private commercial firm’s September 1987 list of over 6 million employers to take our sample. We took a stratified random sample 

of 5,998 employers. A total of 1,956 were subtracted from the original 

employer sample because they were out of business (1,714), or had no 

employees (242). The adjusted sample was 4,042. A total of 3,169 usable 

responses were received, for a response rate of 78 percent. Our final 

estimates indicate that our results project to a universe of about 4.2 million employers out of the firm’s list of 6 million employers. The universe 

was stratified by state and industry. California, Florida, Illinois New 

York, and Texas were classified as “high alien population states.” All 

other states were grouped in a separate sixth strata. Construction, farming, food processing, garment, and hotel/restaurant were classified as 

Page 18 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 2 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

“high alien population industries.” All other industries were grouped in 

a separate sixth strata. 

The first mailing was done in November 1987, with two subsequent 

mailings in early 1988. Follow-up phone calls were made to 

nonrespondents in April 1988. Data collection was closed off in May 

1988. The sampling plan was designed so that we could be 95-percent 

certain that the results would not be more than +- 10 percent different if 

a different group of employers had been selected for our sample. Survey 

results were used to approximate the employer population, but they 

have certain limitations. (See app. III for a full discussion of sample 

selection and sampling errors.) The questionnaire results are presented 

in appendix II. The analysis is based on weighted data, calculated as the 

ratio of the universe divided by the sample for each strata. 

IRCA also requires the President to issue reports related to employer 

sanctions, some of which relate to the three questions we will address. 

We plan to review and analyze the reports related to our review and use 

the data in doing our work next year. As of October 1,1988, no such 

reports had been issued. 

To determine the extent that unauthorized aliens were hired after IRCA 

by using counterfeit or fraudulent documents in preparing the i-9, we 

reviewed all available INS employer case files in the five high alien population cities for the period September 1987 through April 1988. For Los 

Angeles the period was October 1987 through April 1988. Specifically, 

we determined the number of unauthorized aliens INS had apprehended 

at work who had been hired after IRCA and, of those, how many IM 

reported as having provided counterfeit or fraudulent documents to the 

employers. We did not review every employer case file at these locations 

because some of the files were being used by INS officials and were 

therefore not readily available or could not be located. In addition! we 

do not know if our results are representative of all employers or unauthorized aliens in the cities visited. 

To observe how INS and DOL officials were carrying out their responsibilities, we accompanied them on 10 1 employer i-9 inspections (5 1 with INS 

and 50 with DOL). During our visits we observed their review of 

employer 1-9s and other employer records. These 101 employer visits 

consisted of 20 visits in 4 of our 5 high alien population cities and 21 in 

the fifth city. Generally, in each city, 10 of the visits were with ISS and 

10 with DOL. Of the 10 DOL visits in each city, 7 were generally with WHD 

officials and 3 were with OFCCP officials. We did not select randomly the 

Page 19 GAO;GGDW-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 2 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

employers whom we visited. The purpose of our visit was to determine 

the approach used by INS and WL in doing their reviews. INS and DOL 

officials notified us of planned visits, and we selected those that were 

from a cross-section of industries. Thus, our results are not projectable 

to all employers whom INS and DOL visited in the five cities. 

To identify what INS actions, if any, were taken to follow up on DOL 

information it received about employers who may not be in compliance 

with IRCA, we reviewed the DOL forms (EsA-91s) received and retained by 

INS’ offices in our five high alien population cities. The Form EsA-91 is 

used by DOL to summarize the results of its inspection of employers’ I-9 

forms. 

To determine if implementing the law is resulting in a pattern of employment discrimination, we (1) interviewed officials at KS, DOJ, EEOC, state 

employment service offices in the five states included in our review, and 

public interest groups and (2) obtained and analyzed data on discrimination related to national origin and citizenship status. We reviewed available discrimination data to determine if the antidiscrimination provision 

created an unreasonable burden for employers from persons filing lawsuits to harass employers. 

To determine if EEOC was accurately identifying IRCA-related national 

origin discrimination charges it receives, we reviewed about 800 

national origin charges filed with EEOC’S district offices in our five high 

alien population cities since the passage of IRCA to February 29, 1988. 

For each charge reviewed, we read the allegation against the employer 

and made a judgment on whether the employer’s hiring or firing decision was IRcA-related or sanction-related. This judgment could change, 

however, depending on additional evidence developed. EEOC identified 

38 cases as IRCA-related in our 5 cities and we found 3 additional charges 

that could be IRCA-related. We did not review those charges that EEOC 

(1) had referred to another agency for investigation and (2) could not 

locate. We reviewed only charges where the person was not hired or was 

fired. 

To determine which osc charges were related to the implementation of 

employer sanctions, we reviewed all national origin and/or citizenship 

status charges filed with the osc from IRCA’S enactment to May 2, 1988. 

In addition, to determine if the charge filed at osc was sanction-related, 

we read the complaint file and made a judgment on whether the 

employer’s action to fire or not hire the complainant was sanctionrelated. This judgment could change, however, depending on additional 

Page 20 GAOXGDSS-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 2 

Objectives, Scope., and Methodology 

evidence developed. An example of what appears to be a potential 

sanction-related charge would be if an employer, after November 6, 

1986, started a policy to hire only U.S. citizens. An example of a charge 

that does not appear to be sanction-related would involve an employer 

whose policy to hire only citizens was started years before IRCA’S 

enactment. 

We sent a questionnaire to all 104 state and city human rights agencies 

that have formal work-sharing agreements with EEOC. The purpose of 

the questionnaire was to determine their awareness of IRCA’S antidiscrimination provision and whether the laws the agencies enforce provide similar protection. The questionnaires were sent in July 1988 with 

a follow-up in late August. A total of 81 were returned, for a response 

rate of 78 percent. The results of this survey are shown in appendix IV. 

Data sources, such as state employment agencies, categorize job applicants into racial or ethnic groups (e.g., Blacks, Whites, etc.). To determine if employers are not hiring job applicants who may appear 

“foreign-looking” to avoid sanctions, we selected two groups for analysis that we believe have a greater likelihood of being discriminated 

against-Hispanics and Asians. 

While both the public and private sectors are required to comply with 

the employer sanctions provision of IRCA, we did not review IRCA'S 

effects on federal, state, or local government employment practices. 

Rather, we decided to focus on the private sector where we believe, on 

the basis of reviewing immigration literature, that most unauthorized 

aliens are employed. 

Due to time constraints and given the numerous data sources reviewed, 

we did not verify the data provided. Our work was done between 

November 1987 and October 1988 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. We also included data from our first 

report-Immigration Reform: Status of Implementing Employer Sanctions After One Year (GAO/GGD 88-14, Nov. 5, 1987). 

Page 2 I GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

INS and DOL continue to make satisfactory progress in implementing the 

law. INS’ strategy to increase employers’ awareness and understanding 

of the law is necessary to help achieve a high level of voluntary compliance. Of the 4.2 million employers in our survey population, we estimate 

about 900,000 (or 22 percent) were not aware of the law. In addition, we 

estimate from 60,000 to 300,000 employers did not clearly understand 

one or more of IRCA’S major provisions. We estimate that of the 1.9 million employers who were aware of the law and hired one or more 

employees, at least 958,000 (or 50 percent) had not completed all 

required I-9 forms. 

INS increased its efforts to enforce employer sanctions. As of September 

1, 1988, INS had issued 3 11 notices of intent to fine employers for 

employing unauthorized aliens or not completing 1-9s. The fines totalled 

about $1.6 million. 

During our review, we identified several ways INS could improve its 

implementation of employer sanctions and the methods it uses to measure and increase employers’ compliance. Specifically, INS is not (1) consistently verifying that all required r-9 forms have been provided by 

employers, (2) analyzing data on unauthorized aliens’ use of counterfeit 

or fraudulent documents to complete l-as, and (3) measuring employers’ 

voluntary compliance at the beginning of inspections. 

We also identified an emerging issue related to employer compensation 

for unauthorized aliens. There have been reports of some employers 

lowering the wages of these aliens to offset the adverse effects of 

employer sanction fines. For some of these employers, this practice may 

not be illegal. 

INS Employer 

Education Efforts 

Continue 

One of the major elements of INS’ implementation strategy is to educate 

employers about the law’s requirements to gain their cooperation and 

provide a foundation for further enforcement action, if warranted. 

Between June 1, 1987, and June 1, 1988, INS devoted 50 percent of its 

investigative resources to educational activities, which resulted in over 

1 million employer contacts to explain IRCA. INS also mailed an Employer 

Handbook explaining the law to over 7 million employers and completed 

a national media campaign to educate employers. 

IKS collected information from about 650,000 of its employer educational 

contacts between June 1987 and May 1988. The data showed that 64 

percent of the employers contacted by INS were aware of IRCA, 40 percent 

Page 22 GAO/GGDBS-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

of the employers had received the INS Employer Handbook, and over 99 

percent of the employers expressed their willingness to comply with the 

law. As a result of its visits, INS made over 241,000 employers aware of 

IRCA and provided handbooks to about 400,000 employers who had not 

received them. 

In June 1988, INS reduced the resources dedicated to its educational 

efforts from 50 to 25 percent and set a new goal of contacting 500,000 

additional employers by June 1989. According to INS officials, as of September 1, 1988, INS had (1) contacted over 124,000 employers; (2) implemented a program to help employers find legally authorized workers; 

and (3) concluded its national media campaign, which was carried out 

by the Justice Group.’ According to the INS Justice Group project director, INS spent over $2.5 million to explain employer sanctions. 

LAW Program In July 1988, INS implemented a Legally Authorized Worker Program 

(LAW) in all 50 states to help employers find authorized workers for jobs 

formerly held by unauthorized aliens. According to INS, it has been 

standard procedure, since July 1988, to provide employers with information on sources of legal labor during all educational visits and GAP 

inspections. The INS staff visit employers and encourage them to fill job 

openings by contacting such organizations as the local state employment 

service office. In addition, INS will visit those employers who have been 

fined for violations of the act to provide them with an opportunity to 

voluntarily participate in the program. 

As of May 31, 1988, INS had initiated 11 LAW projects, of which 6 had 

been completed, 3 were ongoing, and 2 were cancelled. The program has 

had mixed results, For example, a furniture manufacturer in California 

who had traditionally employed unauthorized aliens began hiring authorized workers after working with INS and the state employment service. 

In another example, a major poultry processor filled about 38 positions 

by advertising with the California Employment Development Department. However the LAW program has also had some difficulty. For example, INS cancelled two LAW projects involving garment industry 

employers in Xew York and Los Angeles because employers were 

opposed to raising wages. 

‘The Justice Group is a consortium of companies awarded a contract for a media campaign about 

IRCA. 

Page 23 G.40 GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

Education Increases According to our survey, about 3.3 million (or 78 percent) of the 

Employers’ Understanding Nation’s 4.2 million employers in our population are aware of IRCA’S 

sanction provision. Generally, we found (1) the employers who had been 

visited by INS to identify unauthorized aliens had a greater level of 

awareness and understanding of the law than those employers who had 

not and (2) employers with less than 10 employees were least aware of 

and least understood IRCA’S sanction provision. Similar results were contained in a report prepared for INS. 

INS plans to contract with a commercial firm for a list of names of new 

employers and will mail them copies of its handbook. In addition, 

according to an INS official, INS plans to place special emphasis on educating small and new employers. 

We estimate that about 900,000 employers of the 4.2 million in our population (or 22 percent) were not aware of IRCA’S employer sanction provision. For the 1.7 million employers who indicated they were aware of 

and reviewed information on IRCA, from 51 to 87 percent said their 

understanding of specific hiring or verification requirements was generally or very clear. For example, we estimated that 84 percent were clear 

about IRCA’S requirement to complete an I-9. Fifty-six percent of the 

employers were clear about DOL’S responsibility to review 1-9s. 

According to our survey, over 430,000 employers who were aware of 

the law said that their organizations’ familiarity with IRCA had increased 

because of INS’ education campaign (e.g., meetings with businesses and 

trade associations and IKS announcements in newspapers, on the radio, 

and on television). Similarly, of those 3.3 million employers aware of the 

law, about 1 million, or 33 percent, said they reviewed INS’ Employer 

Handbook. Of those employers who used the handbook, over 900,000, or 

90 percent, said they clearly understood the I-9 verification requirement, 

compared to over 500,000, or 82 percent, who said they understood the 

l-9 process but did not use the handbook. Furthermore, employers who 

were clear about IRCA’S requirements cited INS as the most useful source 

of information as compared with newspapers, radio, television, trade 

associations, unions, and attorneys. 

In addition, our survey showed the smaller the employer the less often 

they said they were aware of the sanction provision and the less they 

understood they could be sanctioned (see fig. 3.1). 

Page 24 GAO/GGWH-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

Figure 3.1: Employers by Size of 

Business That Are Aware of and 

Understand Sanctions 100 Percent 

60 

Are Aware of 

Sanctions 

Understand 

They Can Be 

Sanctioned 

Employers by Size of Business 

1 1 1-9 employees 

~ 1 O-50 employees 

51 or more employees 

Note: Numbers used to generate this figure can be found in table 111.6. 

Source: GAO Employer Survey, Spring 1988. 

In addition, a NuStats, Inc. study2 of 494 small employers done in Texas 

and California during December 1987 and January 1988 also showed 

many employers needed education on the law. Specifically, the study 

showed that (1) 56 percent reported knowing “just a few details” about 

IRCA, (2) employers with six or more employees reported having more 

knowledge than those with less than six, and (3) 61 percent had not seen 

the Employer Handbook. 

‘NuStats, Inc. did the study for the Justice Group. Fifty-three percent of the surveyed employers had 

zero to five employees, while the rest had six or more. 

Page 26 GAO/GGD-89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

INS Enforcement 

Actions 

INS’ enforcement actions are summarized in table 3.1. 

Table 3.1: INS Enforcement Actions, 

November 6,1986, to September 1,1988 Assessed amount 

Action Number ldollarsl 

Citations 2,322 n/a 

Warning notices 

Fines= 

Violations 

530 n/a 

311 $1,553,850 

knowing or continuinq employment 452 

paperwork 4,724 

Hearing requested 

pending 

completed 

65 $406,950 

61 $376,700 

4 $30.250 

aOne fine may Involve multtple vbolatlons 

Source INS. 

The 3 11 notices of intent to fine in table 3.1 include 95 fines for 

“paperwork only” violations where employers refused to comply with 

the I-9 form requirement or where other factors existed. INS’ Office of 

General Counsel established an employer sanctions unit to monitor, 

review, and litigate cases and address related issues. According to the 

unit head, in practice, IM frequently negotiates with the employer the 

amount of the fine in exchange for the employer’s agreement to cease its 

illegal activities. 

On June 1, 1988, IRCA’S l-year citation period ended and INS’ full enforcement of employer sanctions began. In a memorandum dated May 26, 

1988, the Commissioner described INS’ employer sanctions policy. 

According to ES, this policy has been implemented as follows: 

l GAP program to inspect employers selected at random has been implemented nationwide. 

l Citations are no longer issued for first violations. 

l Warning notices may be issued for first violations if the employer has 

not received an educational visit or GAP inspection and no egregious factors are present. 

l Fines may be issued for violations either after an educational visit or 

GAP inspection or, in the case of an egregious violation, on the basis of 

the first contact. 

Page 26 GAO/GGD8%16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

l Notices of intent to fine solely for violations of the paperwork requirements may be issued in the following circumstances: (1) the paperwork 

violations are egregious, such as willful failure to complete 1-9s for new 

hires following a documented educational contact; (2) the paperwork 

violations relate to substantive violations, e.g., a “knowing” violation 

cannot be proved, but the apprehension of unauthorized workers at the 

workplace is involved; and (3) INS agrees to a paperwork fine pursuant 

to a plea agreement, and the employer admits in writing to the violation 

and agrees to future compliance. 

The Commissioner’s memorandum (1) increased the available investigative resources for employer sanctions enforcement and (2) confirmed 

the delegation of authority to approve notices of intent to fine to INS’ 

four regional offices, which occurred April 15, 1988. Each regional 

office was authorized to further delegate approval of notices to the districts and sectors. During the initial months of sanctions implementation all notices required approval from INS headquarters. 

Employer Survey 

Compliance Results 

On the basis of our survey, we estimate that about 50 percent of the 1.9 

million employers who are aware of the law and hired at least 1 

employee between November 1, 1986, and October 31, 1987, completed 

an I-9 form for each employee hired as the law required. However, over 

235,000 (or 12 percent) had completed some but not all required 1-9s and 

over 723,000 (or 38 percent) had not completed any 1-9s for the employees they had hired. Further, according to our survey, those employers 

who were not in compliance more frequently did not 

. have an adequate supply of I-9 forms, 

l believe they could be sanctioned, 

l clearly understand the I-9 verification requirement, 

l expect an INS visit, or 

9 find it easy to locate authorized workers. 

As shown in figure 3.2, our survey also indicates a relationship between 

INS enforcement actions and employers’ compliance with the I-9 requirements. However, the survey did not identify whether the INS visit 

occurred before or after the act was passed. 

Page 27 GAO/GGDSS-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

Figure 3.2: INS Visits as a Factor Related 

to Employers’ l-9 Compliance 

100 Percent of Employers in Compliance 

60 

80 

Visited Not 

..- by INS Vlsited 

by INS 

Note: Numbers used to generate this figure can be found in table III 6. 

Source: GAO Employer Survey, Spring 1988. 

Opportunities to 

Enhance INS 

Enforcement 

INS has made good progress in planning and carrying out its enforcement 

responsibilities related to IRCL While we recognize that INS is still in the 

process of implementing IRMA, more could be done to (1) better verify 

that all required 1-9 forms have been provided by employers during 

inspections, (2) analyze data on aliens’ use of counterfeit or fraudulent 

documents in completing an I-9, and (3) measure employers’ voluntary 

compliance. With respect to fraudulent Social Security Account Numbers (ssn-), the Social Security Administration (SSA) has a pilot project for 

employers to validate Social Security numbers. 

Need to Verify Employer- IRCA generally requires every employer to complete an I-9 for each 

Provided 1-9s employee hired after November 6, 1986, or be subject to a fine for not 

doing so. INS’ Employer Sanctions Field Manual requires investigators to 

Page 28 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

review the employer-provided 1-s forms. However, it is left to the investigator’s discretion to determine whether or not to review additional documentation to verify that an I-9 has been prepared for all employees who 

require one. 

During 31 of the 51 INS l-9 inspections we observed, IT’S investigators 

attempted to verify that the employer did provide all the required 1-9s. 

Verification included reviewing other employer documents, such as payroll records, to ensure that the employer completed an l-9 for each 

employee who required one. In the other 20 inspections, either (1) investigators reviewed only those 1-9s offered to them by the employer, or 

(2) the employer did not provide any 1-9s. In either situation, the investigators could not be assured that the employer had all the required 1-9s. 

Investigator verification that all 1-9s had been presented varied significantly among INS districts. For example, in 1 of the 11 I-9 inspections we 

observed in the Dallas District, the investigators attempted to use 

employer records to verify that all 1-9s had been prepared. Conversely, 

in the New York District, investigators attempted verification in all 10 

of the inspections we observed. In July 1988, the Los Angeles District 

began requesting a list of all employees hired after November 6, 1986, 

when informing the employers of INS’ impending inspection. 

During our 51 observations with INS investigators, the review of 1-9s was 

completed in a few hours, generally depending on the number of 1-9s provided by the employer. On the basis of our observations, when the INS 

investigator examined employer records, it did not take significantly 

longer. However, in some cases the investigators had to return to examine additional employer records. 

By reviewing only those 1-9s presented by the employer, the investigator 

cannot determine whether the employer has prepared an I-9 for all 

employees who require one. For example, during an inspection we 

observed, INS investigators reviewed additional documentation and 

found that the employer had hired more people for whom the employer 

had not prepared or presented an 1-s. 

If the investigator does not know how many employees the employer 

actually hired after November 6, 1986, there is no assurance that an 

employer has presented all of the required 1-9s and thus employer compliance cannot be determined. We recognize that investigators need discretion in determining whether or not to review additional 

documentation. For example, reviewing additional documentation may 

Page 29 GAO :GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

be time-consuming at large employers. In such cases, sampling payroll 

records rather than attempting loo-percent verification would be appropriate. However, INS has not provided explicit guidance on the use of 

this discretion; the types of records that should be reviewed; and the 

methods (e.g., when to use sampling) that should be used to do such a 

review. 

Improvements Needed to 

Determine Voluntary 

Employer Compliance 

With over 7 million employers and about 635 INS investigators devoted 

to sanctions, voluntary compliance with IRCA is critical to its success. To 

date, indicators of voluntary compliance have ranged from 95 percent, 

on the basis of INS’ GAP inspection results, to about 50 percent on the 

basis of our survey results, and 42 percent for DOL inspection results. 

INS’ compliance rate is higher than our survey results because INS counts 

as in compliance both employers who voluntarily comply with IRCA 

before receiving INS’ notice of inspection, and those who are brought into 

compliance because of INS’ visits. Our review in four INS locations 

showed that investigators do not determine employers’ compliance on 

the basis of an initial review of the employer’s records. Rather, compliance is measured after INS completes its review. For example, an 

employer who has not properly completed all required 1-9s may require 

more than one IKS visit until the 1-9s are accurate and complete. A Los 

Angeles District official estimated that about 40 percent of employers 

would be in compliance if the determination was based on an initial 

review as compared to the 80 percent being reported after INS completes 

its review. 

By distinguishing between the employers who are complying before INS’ 

inspection and those who are brought into compliance as a result of an 

inspection, INS can more reliably measure voluntary compliance and 

evaluate the results of additional inspections. As discussed in chapter 1, 

GAP is intended to provide a profile of employer voluntary compliance so 

that INS can plan future enforcement efforts (e.g., the location, size, and 

industry to select for inspections). However, recording employer compliance only at the end of the inspection may overstate compliance levels 

and thus distort future enforcement efforts. 

INS Needs to Measure IKS does not systematically analyze data on the extent to which unauFraudulent Document Use thorized aliens are using counterfeit or fraudulent documents to obtain 

employment. We reported in March 1988 that aliens’ use of such documents represents a potential threat to the integrity of IRCA’S employment 

Page 30 GAO%GD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

verification (I-9) system.3 We found that about 39 percent of employed 

unauthorized aliens identified by INS who were hired after IRCA had 

used, or were suspected of using, such documents to complete the I-9. 

After we discussed the results with INS officials, they agreed more had 

to be done to determine the extent of the problem. 

Various INS officials said that the use of these documents to meet the I-9 

requirements poses a real threat to enforcing the employer sanctions 

provision of IRCA because the employer generally cannot be fined if the 

documents appear genuine. At an INS Western Region employer sanctions conference in May 1988, a regional INS official said that the use of 

such documents is “the one greatest obstacle” that must be overcome. 

He further said that if INS cannot overcome it, the sanctions program 

will have “real problems.” According to a representative from the 

Livermore California Border Patrol Sector, the biggest problem the sector faces is aliens’ use of such documents. The representative said that 

at one employer all of the I-9 forms reviewed during the inspection 

“looked clean,” but half had been completed by unauthorized aliens who 

used such documents. Further, a Los Angeles District representative 

said that at one employer, 385 of 450 employees had used such documents to circumvent the I-9 process. 

INS records identified 1,107 unauthorized aliens who were hired after 

IRCA in our 5 high alien population cities between September 1, 1987, and 

April 30, 1988. The data in IKS files showed that 435 (or 39 percent) had 

provided, or were suspected of providing, counterfeit or fraudulent documents4 to support an I-9 form. The remaining 672 (or 61 percent) did 

not complete 1-9s. For at least 2 11 of these 435 aliens (or 49 percent), INS 

could not establish that the employers knew of the aliens’ unauthorized 

status and thus could not be sanctioned under IRCA for employing unauthorized aliens. 

The most prevalent counterfeit and fraudulent documents used by the 

unauthorized aliens were the Social Security card and the IKS alien registration card (see fig. 3.3). For example, IKS records showed an alien 

entered the United States illegally at the Mexican border in January 

1988, purchased a counterfeit alien registration card and a Social Security card for $50, and was hired in New York in February 1988 by a light 

%migration Control: A New Role for the Social Security Card (GAO/HRD 88-4. Mar. 16. 1988) 

4A counterfeit document is one that is illegally manufactured, such as a fake Social Security card. A 

fraudulent document is a genuine document that is illegally used (e.g.. an alien using another person’s 

valid Social Security card) with or without alterations. 

Page 31 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

industry manufacturer. An alien in Chicago, who claimed U.S. citizenship, had used a valid Illinois driver’s license and a valid Social Security 

card to complete the 1-s. In addition, the alien presented a counterfeit INS 

work authorization document showing a pending permanent residency 

application. Some employers provided comments about fraudulent documents when responding to our survey. For example, one said that there 

is no way to differentiate “between false papers and good papers.” 

Another said that “. . . the current requirements . . . almost encourage 

cheating.” 

Figure 3.3: Types of Counterfeit and 

Fraudulent Documents Found on 

Employed Illegal Aliens 

/ tzkr Documents 

7 4% INS Work Authorization Document 

7% 

Drivers License 

Social Security Card 

> Alien Registration Card 

Note: N=265 

Source: INS 

During our 51 employer visits with INS, the investigators made no effort 

on 20 inspections to check with other information sources to determine 

the validity of the documents used to complete l-as. However, they did 

Page 32 GAO/GGDSB16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

on 31 visits. INS instructions require its inspectors to investigate the use 

of counterfeit or fraudulent documents when warranted by the evidence. Had INS done this routinely, the number of aliens found to have 

used these documents may have been greater. How frequently INS 

checked the validity of the documents varied by INS district. For example, in Dallas INS checked for such documents in 3 of 11 inspections we 

observed, but INS investigators in New York checked in 8 of 10 

inspections. 

The Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies of the University of California at 

San Diego reported in June 1988 that aliens were using fraudulent documents to find work. The study was based on 100 immigrant-dependent 

firms and 420 employees of these firms in southern California. The 

study reported that 39 percent of the unauthorized alien employees 

interviewed admitted that they had purchased or used fake documents 

to gain employment. Fifty-seven percent knew that they were subject to 

penalties under IRCA for showing such documents to an employer. 

After discussing with INS officials the preliminary results of our review 

of aliens’ use of counterfeit and fraudulent documents, they agreed 

more had to be done to determine the extent and nature of the problem. 

Specifically, INS headquarters’ enforcement officials took the following 

actions: 

l INS issued a 2-page checklist to its field agents for use during compliance 

inspections. The checklist asks the agent to record whether there is evidence of use of counterfeit or fraudulently obtained documents. 

l INS began making changes to its management information systems to 

permit more monitoring of counterfeit or fraudulent document use. 

l INS expanded the scope of its fiscal year 1989 priority to detect and 

deter fraud to include more emphasis on employment document fraud 

(as opposed to entitlement and other fraud). 

The President’s reporting requirement under section 402 of IRCA requires 

annual reports on the adequacy of the employment verification system. 

If INS collects data on the use of such documents to gain employment, it 

could be used to help meet this reporting requirement. 

SSA’s Verification Project SSA completed a pilot project to determine the feasibility of a telephone 

verification system for use by employers. The project’s goals were to 

(1) evaluate ways to more effectively control the issuance of SSNS and 

Page 33 GAO,~GGDW-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

their use in the workplace and (2) reduce the incidence of earnings 

reported by employers for their employees under incorrect ssh:s. 

Participation in the project, which began January 20, 1987, and ended 

June 30, 1988, was voluntary and available to about 70,000 employers 

in the Dallas, El Paso, and Corpus Christi, Texas areas. The verification 

unit responded to inquiries of employers who provided the employee’s 

name, SSN, and date of birth. An SSA employee checked the database to 

verify that SSA records showed that the number was issued to the person 

named and with that date of birth. If the information provided did not 

agree with SSA’S record, the employer was advised to tell the prospective 

employee to contact an SsA office for resolution. 

Through June 30,1988, employers had made about 20,000 calls to verify about 35,000 SSNS of prospective employees. SSA was able to verify 

about 81 percent of the ssn-s provided. A name mismatch was the primary reason the unit could not verify the SSNS. Other reasons included 

the date of birth differed, the number provided was invalid, or the individual was not authorized to work. 

Employers in high-turnover industries-including construction companies, building trades, temporary employment agencies, and food service 

companies-were the most likely to contact SSA to verify employee SSNs. 

The project provided some assurance to employers who participated 

that the SSN card presented by a prospective employee is valid and the 

individual who presents it is the legal owner. This verification could 

reduce the number of individuals using (1) fraudulent cards with invalid 

numbers, (2) nonwork or restricted SSN cards, and (3) cards belonging to 

children or other persons where the age entered differs significantly 

from that of the bearer of the card. 

DOL Needs to Expand In September 1987, DOL began inspecting employers’ 1-9s and as of 

Inspections August 31, 1988, completed 30,784 I-9 inspections5 The results of these 

inspections show that 42 percent of the employers visited were complying with IRC4’s recordkeeping requirements. As with INS’ 1-s inspections, 

‘Every DOL emplover visit does not result in an inspection of the employer’s I-9 forms in part 

because DOL must provide the employer with a 3-day notice of the I-9 inspection. If the DOL inspectors cannot provide the notice, or the employer dues not waive his right to such a notice, then no 

inspection is done. For example, 2,155 visits did not result in I-9 inspections because the employer did 

not receive the required S-day notice. DOL has drafted a change to its existing notification letter to 

include a reference to the I-9 inspection. This should reduce the number of visits that exclude I-9 

inspections. 

Page 34 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

DOL inspection procedures do not assure that employers have prepared 

all the required 1-9s. As a result, DOL cannot assure itself that employers 

are in compliance. 

~0~‘s instructions include the following: (1) inspect all 1-9s when there 

are less than 25 new hires and sample the 1-9s when there are 25 or more 

new hires (e.g., for establishments with more than 250 new hires, every 

10th form will be inspected); (2) compare the information on the I-9 with 

any documents attached to the form; and (3) inspect the 1-9s for their 

proper completion and retention. 

We accompanied DOL inspectors on 50 employer visits and observed the 

I-9 inspection. We observed that the inspectors did not routinely check 

payroll or similar records to ensure that the employer had completed an 

I-9 for all employees who required one. In 23 of the 50 inspections we 

observed, DOL inspectors attempted to verify that the employer had completed all required 1-9s. In the other 27 inspections, the inspectors 

reviewed only the 1-9s presented to him by the employer. These inspections consist of making a visual inspection and reporting to INS on the 

results of that inspection. 

According to DOL officials, its inspectors are to refer to payroll records to 

ensure that all required 1-9s have been prepared. They said that DOL will 

clarify its procedures to its inspectors. 

Limited Scope of 

Labor LA’1W 

Protections Could 

Affect Employer 

Sanctions 

According to our survey, we estimate that 108,000 (or 3 percent) of the 

4.2 million employers in our population suspected that they employed 

unauthorized aliens just prior to November 7, 1986. Ninety-four percent 

of these employers were located in our five high alien population states. 

There have been reports that employers of unauthorized aliens 

decreased their wages to compensate for the costs of an INS sanction. For 

example, the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights testified before a New York State Assembly task force in h’ovember 1987 

that some employers began to take a percentage from the weekly salaries of unauthorized aliens, supposedly to develop a fund to pay for 

potential employer sanctions.” In addition, 20 unauthorized alien families in Texas complained in an August 30, 1988, letter that their 

employer is requiring them to pay “an extra fee to build a fund of 

‘New York State Assemblv Task Force on New Americans One Year linder IRCA: The Impact of 

Employer Sanctions in Kek York. November 2, 1987. 

Page 35 GAO&GD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

$2000.00 in order to pay the fine if the INS finds out we work.” In 

responding to our questionnaire, 180 employers said they employed 

unauthorized aliens. While not projectable, 12 employers said that they 

decreased wages of their unauthorized alien employees to compensate 

for the costs associated with employer sanctions. 

Some of these employers cannot be prosecuted for this practice because 

they are not covered under federal labor or employment discrimination 

laws. However, according to INS, this practice may be illegal under a provision of IRCA that prohibits employers from requiring a bond or indemnity from an individual against liability under the new law. Violations of 

that provision may result in a $1,000 fine for each individual who was 

required to pay the indemnity and an order to make restitution. Practices that may reflect an informal arrangement or scheme related to 

indemnification include kickbacks or suspicious or irregular contract 

employment arrangements. Thus, according to INS, employers who 

engage in such practices face heavier penalties than would accrue solely 

for knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens. 

EEOC officials said that an employer who (1) decreases the wages of an 

unauthorized alien to offset the costs of an INS sanction or (2) pays an 

unauthorized alien less than a legal worker for the same job could only 

be charged with national origin discrimination under Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, if the practice (or practices) has the purpose or 

effect of discriminating on the basis of national origin. However, we estimate that about half of the Eation’s employers of unauthorized aliens 

would not be covered under title VII because they have less than 15 

employees. 

DOL officials said that an employer could not be prosecuted for violating 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) unless the aliens’ wages were 

decreased below the federal minimum wage of $3.35 per hour. For 

example, Labor officials said an employer who paid unauthorized aliens 

$4 per hour and legal workers $6 per hour for the same job could not be 

prosecuted under FISA. 

osc said that employers reducing unauthorized aliens’ wages also could 

not be prosecuted under IRCA'S discrimination provision because IRCA 

(1) excludes from coverage unauthorized aliens and (2) applies to only 

employers’ hiring and firing actions, not to working conditions. 

Congress wanted strong enforcement of the laws that protect the working conditions of unauthorized aliens. IRCA'S legislative history shows the 

Page 36 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

employer sanction provision was not intended to undermine or limit the 

existing protections for unauthorized workers in various labor laws such 

as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In addition, the Supreme 

Court ruled that unauthorized aliens are entitled to the protections of 

the NLRA. (Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, (467 U.S. 883 (1984)). EEOC said that 

unauthorized aliens’ working conditions are protected under Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act. 

Under IRCA, employers cannot be sanctioned for continuing to employ 

unauthorized aliens hired before November 7, 1986 (i.e., grandfathered 

aliens). No other employer in the Nation can hire these grandfathered 

aliens without being subject to the sanction provision. Thus, some 

employers of grandfathered aliens may reduce aliens’ wages knowing 

the alien probably would not (1) leave to find another job, or (2) report 

the employer to a federal agency for fear of being deported. 

Conclusions INS’ overall strategy and approach of continuing to educate employers 

and enforcing IRCA is satisfactory. Our employer survey supports INS’ 

decision to (1) continue its educational efforts and (2) increase its 

emphasis on enforcement. INS’ policy of allocating the majority of available sanction resources to identifying employers of unauthorized aliens 

also seems reasonable. 

While we believe INS' overall strategy, including GAP, is satisfactory, we 

believe INS needs to improve its implementation of the law in the following three areas: 

l INS’ procedures do not require its investigators to review employer 

records to assure that employers have prepared all the required 1-9s. 

However, some investigators, on their own, do routinely examine 

employers’ records to determine if all required I-9 forms have been prepared. As a result of not requiring its investigators to verify that all 

required I-as have been prepared, INS has no assurance that at the time 

of its visit, an employer is in compliance with IRCZ. On the basis of our 

observation, the additional verification would not take much time. 

. INS’ current GAP procedures to measure compliance at the end of an 

inspection overstate the level of employers’ voluntary compliance with 

IRCA’S I-9 requirement. In using the GAP results to allocate enforcement 

resources, we believe INS should measure employer compliance at the 

time INS makes its initial visit. 

. We found aliens’ use of counterfeit or fraudulent documents in our five 

high alien population cities is a threat to IRCA’s employment verification 

Page 37 GAO,‘GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 3 

Implementing Employer Sanctions 

system. The INS initiatives to determine the extent of the problem could 

be improved. For example, ms does not systematically identify and record the types of counterfeit or fraudulent documents aliens present 

when completing the I-9. Although we found the Social Security card was 

the document used most frequently by aliens, the documents used in 

other cities may be different. By collecting comparable data nationwide 

on the type and extent of such documents used by unauthorized aliens, 

INS can identify any changes needed to the verification system. 

DOL expects its inspectors to review payroll records to assure themselves 

that employers have prepared all the required I-as. However, our review 

showed that this is not always being done. 

Recommendations We recommend that the Attorney General direct the Commissioner of INS 

to 

l revise the guidance to INS investigators to require them to follow reasonable steps to determine if all required 1-a forms have been prepared, such 

as requesting employer payroll records; 

l modify GAP to measure compliance at the beginning of the inspection; 

and 

. begin systematically evaluating data on the extent unauthorized aliens 

are using counterfeit or fraudulent documents to complete the l-9 form, 

including the types of documents used. 

We also recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct the WHD and 

OFCCP to ensure reasonable steps are taken to determine if all required 

1-9s have been prepared, such as reviewing employer records. 

Agency Comments and In discussing the report with us, INS concurred with the report’s recomOur Evaluation mendations. DOL said that its inspectors should refer to payroll records 

to ensure that all required 1-9s have been prepared. They said that DOL 

will clarify its procedures to its inspectors. In our opinion, DOL'S proposed action, if properly implemented, should address our 

recommendation. 

Page 38 GAO/GGD-8916 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer Sanctions 

There were 286 discrimination charges filed with 0%~ as of September 

19, 1988, and 148 discrimination charges related to IRCA filed with and 

investigated by EEOC as of September 15, 1988. Of these charges, 54 

were filed with both agencies. osc and EEOC are working on developing a 

memorandum of understanding to minimize duplicative investigation 

where charges involve both national origin and citizenship status discrimination. EEOC officials said that the memorandum should also ensure 

that all IRc&related charges are properly referred. In addition, EEOC 

identified 15 IRCA-related charges filed with state and local human rights 

agencies. Other organizations have developed discrimination data. 

On the basis of the employer survey responses, we estimate that since 

IRCA was passed in November 1986, 528,000 of the 3.3 million employers 

(or 16 percent) who said they were aware of the law began or increased 

employment policies or practices that may not be permitted under the 

law. For example, they initiated a policy of hiring only U.S. citizens and 

thereby were not complying with IRCA’S policy to also hire aliens authorized to work. 

However, the results of the survey cannot be relied on to show if the law 

has caused a pattern of discrimination because the responses to the survey questions cannot be verified or further refined so as to indicate the 

extent and impact of the practices. For example, we do not know the 

number of persons authorized to work who were not hired or were fired 

by these employers or who were otherwise affected by the reported 

practices. Therefore, the survey results may only be used to indicate 

that unfair employment practices may be occurring. In discussing our 

survey results, OX and INS officials agreed that more needs to be done to 

explain IRCA’S antidiscrimination provision to the public. EEOC officials 

also recognized the need for additional education. 

We surveyed 104 state and local agencies that enforce discrimination 

laws in their respective jurisdictions. Of the 81 who responded to our 

questionnaire, 19 said that they were generally unfamiliar with IRCA’S 

antidiscrimination provision. Furthermore, 44 had not received information about OSC’S forms used in filing a charge. The Special Counsel recognizes that osc needs to disseminate more information about IRCA’S 

antidiscrimination provision. 

We do not believe that discrimination charges and survey results, to 

date, show a pattern of discrimination. In addition, we do not believe 

that responding to the cases filed with osc and EEOC, including their 

duplicated efforts in 54 cases, is an unreasonable burden for employers. 

Page 39 GAO/GGD89-16 Employs-r Sanctions 
chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer Sanctions 

We have devised an indicator to test whether employers’ fear of sanctions may cause discrimination. We compared the state employment service job placement rates of Hispanics and Asians before and after IRCA 

with the placement rates for other ethnic groups in an effort to determine if differences occurred. 

OSC and EEOC osc is responsible for enforcing IRCA’S antidiscrimination provision. EEOC 

Investigate IRCA- is responsible for enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 

its ban on national origin discrimination. Together they have received 

Related Discrimination 434 IRCA-related discrimination charges. Of these, 54 charges were filed 

Charges with both agencies. Both osc and EEOC recognize that increased education about IRCA is needed, which should include a coordinated effort by 

all concerned federal agencies, including I%, osc, DOL, and EEOC. However, osc had limited funds available to explain the antidiscrimination 

provision of IRMA to the public. 

OSC Activities Not all 08~‘s discrimination charges appear to be related to employer 

sanctions. OSC’S funding level has remained about the same for fiscal 

years 1988 and 1989. However, its operating budget has decreased 

about 12 percent. 

As of September 19, 1988, osc had received 286’ discrimination charges. 

(See table 4.1.) 

Classification of charge Number 

Closeda 59 

Settlement reached 30 

More informatlon needed 69 

Under Investigation 120 

Filed with administrative law iudaeb 8 

Total 266 

‘OSC lacked junsdlctlon, determlned charge unfounded, or had InsuffIcIent data to mvestlgate charge. 

SIX charges have been flied directly with an admlmstratlve law judge by the injured party 

bOne charge has been presented to the judge, and seven are awaitlng a hearing. One of the seven has 

also been flied with an admlnlstratlve law judge by a third party 

Source: OSC 

‘Fifty-four of these charges were also filed with EEOC. 

Page 40 GA0,XXD-W16 Employer Sanction 
Chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer Sanctions 

In addition, as of September 1988, osc had filed pattern and practice of 

discrimination charges against three employers with an administrative 

law judge. 

As of October 1988, the administrative law judge had rendered one 

discrimination-related decision. In this decision (Romo v. Todd Corporation), the judge ruled that the employee failed to qualify as a protected 

individual under IRCA’S citizenship status discrimination provision.2 Consequently, while the judge said that the employee was wrongfully fired, 

he found in favor of the employer because the charging party was not 

covered under IRCA. 

Because charges filed with osc may not be the result of employer sanctions? all charges cannot be used in deciding whether a pattern of discrimination caused by the sanctions exists, Thus, we reviewed all 119 

charges filed with osc as of May 2, 1988, to determine those that appear 

to be employer sanctions-related. Of these 119 charges, 62 involved persons who were fired, 48 involved persons who were not hired, and the 

remaining 9 charges related to other issues. Of these 119 charges, 68 

were filed by the injured party. In addition, osc investigated 12 charges 

against airline companies, 

The 119 charges fall within three categories. We determined that 19 did 

not appear to be related to employer sanctions (section 101 of IRCA), 66 

appeared to be related to employer sanctions, and in 34 cases we were 

unable to determine whether the charge was related to employer sanctions because of insufficient information. Additional evidence could 

result in our reclassifying some charges. An example of a charge covered under IRCA’S discrimination provision that does not appear to be 

related to employer sanctions was an allegation by a newly legalized 

worker that an employer fired him because the employer preferred to 

employ only unauthorized aliens. Charges we considered to be employer 

sanctions-related usually included information in the allegation directly 

related to the I-9 process. For example, an employer allegedly would not 

accept the work authorization documents provided by the employee. 

Of the 66 charges that appeared to be related to sanctions, 33 of the 

charges alleged that an employer refused to accept authorized work documents Of these same 66 employer sanctions-related charges, 34 are 

20SC had initially determined that it did not have jurisdiction in this case. Due to a procedural 

change, OSC intervened after the charging party filed a complaint directly with the administrative 

law judge. 

Page 41 GAO/GGD-WlG Employer !Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer Sanctions 

still under investigation and 32 were closed. Of the 32 closed cases, 9 

were closed because there was no reason to believe the charge was true, 

14 were closed with settlement, and 9 were closed because osc lacked 

jurisdiction. In most of the settled cases, the employer did not admit any 

wrongdoing but agreed to hire, rehire, or otherwise change hiring policies. Of those charges that included settlement payments, we identified 

11 charges where employers paid a total of $35,660 to employees as 

compensation. 

In addition to investigating and litigating charges, osc sent letters to 301 

employers who required U.S. citizenship in their job advertisements in 

five major city newspapers. osc found some of these employers were 

defense contractors who, for security reasons, are required to hire only 

US. citizens for some positions. However, many others misunderstood 

the provision in IRCA to mean they could have such a policy. 

osc’s letters to employers explained the law and asked them to justify 

why the advertisements required U.S. citizenship status. Of the 213 

responses to OSC’S letter as of September 19, 1988, osc decided that 135 

of the employers’ policies were justified. Another 41 said that they did 

not realize they were doing anything wrong and promised to correct the 

problem; osc is considering investigating the remaining 37 cases. An osc 

official said a second letter will be sent to those employers who did not 

respond to the first letter. 

OSC Education Initiatives osc has taken several initiatives in fiscal years 1987 and 1988 to educate 

the public about IRCA'S antidiscrimination provision, even though specific funding was not provided for this purpose. These include (1) mailing about 5,000 information packets to various agencies; (2) developing 

a handbook (Your Job and Your Rights), in conjunction with INS, to be 

distributed to employees, employers, and other interested organizations 

and individuals; (3) making about 100 presentations before attorney and 

employer associations and other groups; (4) assisting in the development 

of a television video; and (5) airing radio advertisements. According to 

an osc official, the advertisements, which INS paid for because osc lacked 

funds, generated many telephone mquiries. osc is also coordinating with 

IKS and DOL to distribute information on IRC4'S antidiscrimination provision to employees and employers. In discussing this issue with us, the 

Special Counsel recognized a need to educate the public but said osc has 

limited resources to do it. He also recognized that agencies such as EEOC, 

m's, and DOL could assist in educating the public but that there should be 

a coordinated education plan. 

Page 42 GAO.‘GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer Sanctions 

OSC Caseload and Funding Initially, osc estimated in April 1988 that 180, 250, and 300 charges will 

be filed in fiscal year 1988, 1989, and 1990, respectively. As of September 19, 1988, it exceeded its fiscal year 1988 initial estimate of 180 by 

106 charges (or 59 percent). In discussing osc’s future workload with us, 

officials recognized that their initial estimates were too low. In September 1988, osc revised its projections to 290,500, and 700 for the 3 fiscal 

years. 

osc’s fiscal year 1988 operating budget was $2.345 million ($2.044 million for fiscal year 1988 and a $301,000 carryover from fiscal year 

1987). For fiscal year 1989, osc requested $3.369 million and 14 additional positions-a requested funding increase of $1.024 million, or 44 

percent. The President’s fiscal year 1989 budget request for OX was 

$2.795 million and included funding for seven additional positions-an 

increase of $450,000, or about 19 percent. According to osc, the President’s budget request would enable the office to pursue some additional 

independent investigations, but it did not represent adequate staffing 

for the anticipated workload. On the basis of recent congressional 

appropriations, osc estimates its fiscal year 1989 budget is $2.064 million, or about what it received the previous year. According to osc, this 

represents a 12-percent decline from its fiscal year 1988 operating 

budget of $2.345 million. 

During fiscal years 1987 and 1988, osc staff increased from 5 to 24 legal 

and administrative staff. As of the end of October 1988, osc had 29 

staff. As of September 19, 1988, the average caseload per attorney was 

about 20 with a range of 10 to 35 charges. According to the Special 

Counsel, the average workload per attorney should be from 12 to 14 

charges, and more than 14 charges will negatively affect the quality of 

the investigations. According to the Special Counsel, OSC’S first obligation under the law is to investigate and litigate charges; if budget limitations occur, efforts to educate employers would be one of the first to be 

reduced. He also said that if the workload increases dramatically, osc’s 

fiscal year 1989 budget could preclude osc from meeting its primary 

mission of investigating employers charged with discrimination. 

Charges Filed With EEOC As discussed in chapter 1, EEOC handles national origin discrimination 

charges filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. As of September 15, 

1988, EEOC had received 148 charges for IRCA-related investigations.3 

(See table 4.2.) 

3Fifty-four charges were also filed with OSC. 

Page 43 GAO/GGD-W16 Employer !Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer Sanctions 

Table 4.2: Summary of EEOC Charges 

Classification of charae Number 

No discrimination found 26 

Settlement reacheda 36 

Withdrawn by charging party 12 

Lacked jurisdictions 7 

Under investiaation or beina processed 64 

Administratively closedb 

Total 

3 

148 

% 23 cases, benefits were given to the mdlvidual 

bAt the request of the chargmg partles. EEOC notified employers of the chargmg partles’ right to sue 

Source: EEOC. 

Similar to osc charges, not all Em national origin charges are related to 

the implementation of employer sanctions. We reviewed 38 rRC4-related 

charges that were in our 5 high alien population cities. Of these, we classified 14 charges as appearing to be employer sanctions-related, and 7 

charges as not appearing to be employer sanctions-related. We were not 

able to classify the remaining 17 charges. As with the 0s~ charges, our 

determination could change on the basis of additional evidence. 

One of the IRCA-related cases was filed by an unauthorized alien. The 

person was fired from his job and had filed a charge with EEOC under 

title VII. EEOC found no cause to believe the person had been discriminated against. EEOC has taken the position that title VII (as opposed to 

IRCA) protects undocumented workers from discrimination based on 

race, color, sex, national origin, or religion. The Commission, however, 

has not yet determined the remedies available to such workers under 

title VII. 

In commenting on the draft report, EEOC officials said that it receives no 

funds and has no enforcement responsibilities under IRCA. However, the 

Commission has taken several initiatives since the law was passed to 

educate its staff, other human rights and fair employment agencies, and 

the public about the antidiscrimination provision in IRCA and its relationship to title VII. EEOC officials have participated in numerous outreach 

efforts, including radio programs and speeches to employer and civil 

rights groups and to the National and American Bar Associations. EEOC 

headquarters also initiated a conference for human rights agencies that, 

in part, addressed the antidiscrimination provision of IRCA and a nationwide teleconference seminar that included a discussion of the antidiscrimination provision. Headquarters staff also actively participated in 

Page 44 GAO/GGD8916 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer Sanctions 

an interagency task force organized to assist INS in conducting a public 

information campaign on IRCA. In addition, EEOC has issued two policy 

guidance memoranda concerning IRCA, answered many telephone 

requests for information, and will soon be issuing brochures for employers and employees that provide information about discrimination under 

both IRMA and title VII. EEOC field offices have also been involved in various outreach and education efforts. Field staff have distributed 

brochures and other information to the public and to state fair employment agencies. Field staff have also participated in more than 80 conferences and panel discussions and in several radio and television 

programs. EEOC estimates that these field activities have reached over 

400,000 people. 

Overlap of Charges IRCA requires that there be no overlap of charges between EEOC and DOJ 

on charges of unfair immigration-related employment practices based on 

national origin that arise from the same set of facts unless the charge is 

dismissed as being outside the scope of the particular agency’s jurisdiction.4 Of the 434 charges filed with osc and EEOC, 54 charges are being 

investigated by both agencies. According to osc and EEOC officials, both 

agencies may need to investigate the charge if it involves national origin 

and citizenship status discrimination. 

When a charging party alleges discrimination based on citizenship status 

and national origin and the employer has 15 or more employees, the 

charge can be investigated by both osc and EEOC. ox can investigate the 

charge that the employer discriminated against the individual because 

of citizenship status, and EEOC can investigate the charge that the 

employer discriminated against the individual because of national origin. This situation occurs because EEOC does not have jurisdiction over 

citizenship status discrimination charges, and osc generally does not 

have jurisdiction for national origin charges against employers with 15 

or more employees. A limited memorandum of understanding, signed in 

April 1988, makes each agency the agent of the other for the purpose of 

the receipt of charges and satisfaction of the time limits for filing 

charges. 

According to EEOC officials, a final memorandum of understanding 

between osc and EEOC is needed to establish procedures for ensuring the 

4The administrative law judge’s decision for the first administrative hearing on an IRCA discrimination charge ruled that the overlap provision (see p. 41) applies only to national origin and does not 

preclude a charging party from filing under title VII for national origin and IRCA for citizenship 

(Romo v. Todd Corporation). 

Page 45 GAO/GGD-W16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer Sanctions 

referral of all IRcA-related charges or portions of charges to the appropriate agency. A memorandum of understanding is also needed to provide for the coordination of investigations when a charge is properly 

filed before both 0s~ and EEOC to ensure that there is no overlap in the 

processing of such charges. EEOC believes that EEOC and osc staff need 

detailed procedures to assist them in processing IRCA-related charges. 

Therefore, EEOC is currently in the process of developing a detailed memorandum of understanding with guidelines for establishing specific procedures for the referral of relevant charges to the appropriate agency, 

and for the coordination of investigations that concern the same set of 

facts. Negotiations concerning the agreement are continuing. Although 

both agencies’ staffs have coordinated on some investigations, 16 

employers said to ox that they had to respond to EEOC and ox separately regarding the same charges. 

Employer Survey May Our survey showed that two major provisions in the law associated with 

Show Unfair discrimination were not clearly understood. Of the estimated 1.7 million 

employers who were aware of and reviewed information on the law, we 

Employment Practices estimate that 332,000, or 20 percent, were unclear about the authority 

to hire a U.S. citizen rather than an authorized alien when both are 

equally qualified, and 248,000, or 15 percent, were unclear about the 

penalties for employers who discriminate. 

In addition to identifying problems in understanding the law, our survey 

results also indicated that since November 1986 an estimated 528,000, 

or 16 percent, of the 3.3 million employers who were aware of the law 

reported beginning or increasing policies or practices that may not be 

permitted under the law. Specifically, employers said they (1) asked 

only foreign-looking or -sounding job applicants to present work authorization documents, (2) asked only current workers who were foreignlooking or -sounding to present work authorization documents, and 

(3) began a new policy to hire only U.S. citizens. 

Unfair hiring practices were generally not related to employers’ state, 

industry, or business size but were generally related to employers’ 

knowledge of IRCA'S I-9 verification requirements and previous INS visits. 

Further, those employers who responded that they had fired 

grandfathered employees for not having work authorization documents 

were located in the five high alien population states. 

Page 46 GAO/GGD-8816 Employer !Sanction~ 
chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer Sanctions 

The number of respondents who said they began or increased these 

unfair practices because of employer sanctions is too small to be projected to the population of U.S. employers. Most of the respondents, 

however, indicated that they began or increased the unfair practice 

because of sanctions. Of the 161 respondents who said they began to ask 

only foreign-looking or -sounding job applicants to present work authorization documents, 136 (or 85 percent) said they did so because of sanctions. Of the 178 respondents who said they began to ask only foreignlooking or -sounding employees for documents, 152 (or 85 percent) said 

they began or increased this practice primarily because of sanctions. 

Similarly, of the 169 respondents who said they began a policy to hire 

only U.S. citizens, 151 (or 89 percent) said they did so primarily because 

of sanctions. (See figure 4.1.) 

On the basis of our survey, no consistent pattern of unfair hiring practices 

exists between the five high alien population states and industries and 

other states and industries, as shown in table 4.3 and table 4.4. Similarly, 

there is no consistent pattern of unfair employment practices by number 

of employees, as shown in table 4.5. 

Page 47 GAO/GGD8916 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer !hnctiom 

Figure 4.1: Employers Using Unfair Hiring 

Policies/Practices 

10 Percent 

Unfair PollclWPractlcee 

I] using unfair policies/practices 

using such policies/practices because of employer sanctions 

Note: N=3,169 

Source: GAO Employer Survey, Spring 1966. 

Page 48 GAO/GGD-&W16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer Sanctions 

Table 4.3: Employer Responses to Unfair Employment Practices by State 

Type of unfair employment practice CA FL 

Employers by states 

TX NY IL Other 

Screen job applicants selectively 

Universe 

ResDondenWb 

519,000 216,000 369,000 252,000 197,000 1,316,OOO 

53,000 29,000 16,000 30,000 20,000 66,000 

Percentage 10 13 4 12 10 5 

Screen current workers selectively 

Universe 506.000 211.000 369.000 249.000 196.000 1.316.000 

ResDondentsa~C 78,000 201000 16,000 251000 22,000 82.000 

Percentage 15 9 4 10 11 6 

Hire only U.S. citizens 

Universe 

ResDondentsa 73,000 23,000 38,000 13,000 22,000 110,000 

515.000 212.000 352.000 249.000 195.000 1304.000 

Percentage 14 11 11 5 11 8 

aThese are estrmates. 

bThese employers responded that they began or Increased askrng only forergn-looking or soundrng job 

appltcants to prove they were authorized workers 

‘These employers responded that they began or Increased examrntng work authorization documents of 

only forergn-lookrng or soundrng current workers 

Source GAO Employer Survey, Spring 1988 

Page 49 GAO/GGD-8!+16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

IXschhation and Employer Sa.nctions 

Table 4.4: Employer Responses to Unfair Employment Practices by Industry 

Employers by industry 

Food 

Type of unfair employment practice Construction Farming 

Hotel/ 

processing Garment restaurant Other 

Screen job applicants selectively 

Universe 208,000 39,000 9,000 8,000 92,000 2,513,OOO 

RespondentzF 12,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 12,000 183,000 

Percent 6 13 11 13 13 7 

Screen current workers selectively 

Universe 212,000 39,000 9,000 8,000 90,000 2,489,OOO 

Respondents? 18,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 10,000 208,000 

Percent 8 13 11 13 11 8 

Hire only U.S. citizens 

Universe 207,000 38,000 9,000 8,000 90,000 2,477,OOO 

Respondent9 27,000 3,000 1,000 1,000 9,000 239,000 

Percent 13 8 11 11 10 10 

aThese are estimates 

bThese employers responded that they began or increased asklng only foreIgn-looklng or -sounding Job 

applicants to prove they were authorized workers 

‘These employers responded that they began or increased examining work authonzatlon documents of 

only foreign-looking or -sounding current workers 

Source GAO Employer Survey, Spring 1988 

Page 60 GA0,GGD-W16 Employer Sanctions 
chapter 4 

Diacrimlnatloi~ and Employer Sanctions 

Table 4.5: Employer Responses to Unfair 

Employment Practices by Number of Type of unfair employment Number of employees 

Employees practice l-3. 4-9 10-50 51 or more 

Screen job applicants 

selectively 

Universe 743,000 825,000 825,000 314,000 

Respondentsb,c 41,000 69,000 89,000 6,000 

Percent 6 8 11 2 

Screen current workers 

selectively 

Universe 742,000 809,000 821,000 313,000 

Respondentsb,* 45,000 65,000 100,000 22,000 

Percent 6 8 12 7 

Hire onlv U.S. citizen S 

Untverse 736,000 807,000 812,000 308,000 

Respondentsb 64,000 106,000 73,000 27,000 

Percent 9 13 9 9 

aThese employees are not covered by RCA’s antldlscnmmatron provrsron 

bThese are estimates. 

CThese employers responded that they began or increased askrng only forergn-lookrng or -sounding lob 

applrcants to prove they were authorized workers 

*These employers responded that they began or Increased examining work authorization documents of 

only foreign-looktng or soundrng current workers 

Source GAO Employer Survey, Spring 1988 

Employers who expressed a lack of clarity about the 1-a verification 

requirements more frequently reported asking only foreign-looking or 

-sounding job applicants and current workers for work authorization 

documents. (See fig. 4.2.) Also, employers who responded that INS had 

visited them to determine employment of unauthorized aliens more frequently asked only foreign-looking job applicants and current workers 

for work authorization documents than those not visited by INS. (See fig. 

4.3.) 

INS officials, in commenting on the report, said that the survey did not 

identify whether the INS visit occurred before or after the act was 

passed. Therefore, employers visited prior to IRCA may not have been 

informed about the verification process when completing the questionnaire. 

In addition, although these figures are not projectable to our universe, 

134 employers who responded to our survey said they fired workers 

because they lacked proper work authorization documents. Of the 134, 

Page 6 1 GAO/GGDW-16 Employer Sanctions 
chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer Sanctions 

Figure 4.2: Employers’ Lack of 

Understanding of IRCA May Influence 

Unfair Hiring Policies/Practices Percent 

Unfair Hiring Policies/Practices 

1 1 unclear about verification requirements 

clear about verification requirements 

Note: Numbers used to generate this figure can be found in table III.6 

Source: GAO Employers Survey, Spring 1988. 

35 employers said that the fired workers were hired prior to November 

7, 1986. We believe these employers’ firings may have been illegal 

because IRCA exempted all employers from the I-9 work authorization 

requirements for its employees hired before November 7, 1986. As a 

result, IRCA did not provide employers with a legal basis to fire these 

employees. While these firings may be illegal, we do not know how 

many of the fired grandfathered employees were authorized workers 

and thus covered by the antidiscrimination provision. As a result, this 

data by itself may not be used as evidence of a pattern of discrimination. In commenting on the report, an INS official said the employer survey did not determine whether the employer required work 

authorization prior to IRCA. According to osc officials, unauthorized 

Page 62 GAO/GGD-8~16 Employer !Sanctiona 
Chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer !Sanctions 

Piaure 4.3: INS Visits May influence 

Ulfair Hiring Policies/Practices 

25 Percent 

Unfair Hiring Policies/Practices 

El INS had visited 

INS had not visited 

Note: Numbers used to generate this figure can be found in table Ill.6 

Source: GAO Employer Survey, Spring 1968. 

employees, including those who are grandfathered, are not subject to 

protection under IRCA’S discrimination provision. 

Other Organizations 

Providing 

Discrimination Data 

In addition to data collected by CBC and EEOC and our survey, other federal, state, and local agencies and private organizations have provided 

IRCA-related discrimination data. These include DOL, INS, state and local 

human rights agencies, and public interest groups that assist 

immigrants. 

Page 53 GAO/GGD-89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer !hnctions 

DOL When DOL inspects employers’ I-9 forms, it looks for evidence of “disparate treatment” and reports it to INS. INS is to report the suspected disparate treatment to osc. In our review of 4,130 I?.%%91 forms at INS’ district 

offices in our 5 high alien population cities, we found that DOL marked 3 

forms “disparate treatment” and INS had not forwarded them to 06~. 

INS INS officials have taken, or are planning, several actions to educate the 

public as well as its own officials about IRC4’S antidiscrimination provision. These actions include 

. providing a description of IRCA’S antidiscrimination provision in over 7 

million handbooks distributed to employers; 

l sending an antidiscrimination message in INS information packages distributed to 12,000 colleges and universities nationwide; 

l sending a half million copies of an osc and INS pamphlet, Your Job and 

Your Rights, to INS, EEOC, and DOL offices, as well as other interested 

organizations; 

l sending a memorandum to all INS employees that contained information 

on IRCA’S antidiscrimination provision and the “800” phone number for 

osc; and 

l making and distributing public service announcements to English and 

Spanish language radio and television stations in 36 markets nationally. 

For fiscal year 1987, INS spent about $60,000 to educate the public and 

its staff about IRCA’S antidiscrimination provision. 

In August 1988, we discussed with INS officials the preliminary results 

of our employer survey, which suggested that some employers may be 

engaging in unfair employment practices. In response, INS officials said 

that greater emphasis needs to be placed on educating the public on the 

antidiscrimination provision. INS is taking or has taken several actions. 

These actions include the following: 

. It developed an employer handout with osc on antidiscrimination for 

distribution in the course of employer education efforts (e.g., GAP and 

b0L inspections). 

. It developed a videotape presentation on discrimination to be reviewed 

by all INS employees who come into contact with the public, including 

sanctions enforcement personnel. 

l It is developing material on the antidiscrimination provision for incorporation into speeches given by INS personnel on employer sanctions. 

Page 64 GAO/GGDl!W16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer Sanctions 

According to INS officials, INS is working with osc and DOL to develop a 

comprehensive education program. 

State and Local Hum 

Rights Agencies 

.an We surveyed 104 state and local human rights agencies that enforce 

state and local antidiscrimination laws to determine the extent to which 

they were aware of IRCA’S antidiscrimination provision. Of the 81 who 

responded, 30 indicated that they were greatly or very greatly familiar 

with the antidiscrimination provision in IRC4 but 7 said they had little or 

no familiarity. Thirty-seven indicated that they did not have OSC’S 

address, and 42 did not have osc’s 800 telephone number. Forty-four did 

not have the osc form to file a citizenship status discrimination charge. 

Six reported that they referred a complaint to osc. Fifty-nine agencies 

said they had received information about IRCA'S antidiscrimination provision from EEOC. 

Thirty-four said that IRCA'S provision, authorizing an employer to hire a 

U.S. citizen rather than an authorized alien when both are equally qualified, could conflict with their antidiscrimination laws. For example, one 

respondent said that “if this is done consistently, without a defensible 

legitimate business necessity...it would have an adverse impact on qualified foreign-born applicants.” 

In addition to the survey, five EEOC district offices reported 15 IRCArelated charges had been filed with state and local agencies. (See table 

4.6.) 

Table 4.6: State and Local RCA-Related 

Charges Agencies Number 

New York State Division of Human Riahts 10 

Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission 1 

California Department of Fair Employment and Housing 

CorDus Christi Human Riahts Aoencv, Texas 

2 

1 

Ohio Cd Rqhts Commtssion 1 

Total 15 

Source: EEOC 

Center for Immigrants 

Rights 

The Center for Immigrants Rights, located in New York City, operates 

an employer sanctions telephone line to collect complaints of IRCArelated discrimination and abuse. From June 1988 to August 1988, the 

Center reported that it received 18 calls from workers who said that 

Page 66 GAO/GGLN3916 Employer !hnctions 
Chapter 4 

Dhcrhination and Employer Sanctions 

they were authorized to work but were fired or not hired because 

(1) employers refused to accept work documents other than INS alien 

registration cards or U.S. passports or (2) workers had lost their immigration papers and had no other acceptable proof of work eligibility. 

The Center also received 45 calls dealing with workplace abuses, such as 

nonpayment of full wages and firing of grandfathered workers. We did 

not verify the actual complaints. The Center believes that reported incidents of discrimination and abuse understate the discrimination problem 

because workers (1) have not been educated about their rights, (2) do 

not recognize discrimination, (3) do not know where to seek assistance 

when employers discriminate, or (4) are too frightened to complain. 

Mexican American Legal 

Defense and Educational 

Fund 

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) is 

a nongovernmental organization that, among other things, provides legal 

assistance to Mexican Americans and other Hispanics involved in 

employment discrimination suits or complaints. In conjunction with the 

American Civil Liberties Union and a Los Angeles based coalition concerned with immigration reform, they received 194 complaints about 

IRCA-related employment practices between November 1986 and September 1988. In 148 cases the workers had work authorization, but 46 

workers did not. In addition, 100 workers had been working for their 

employers before IRCA was enacted. 

The type of employers’ action included: 

l penalizing employees for previous use of false documents or aliases, 

l requiring work documents of grandfathered individuals who were not 

authorized to work, 

l accusing employees of using fraudulent documents that were valid, and 

. favoring U.S. citizens over noncitizens. 

According to the project report, in 73 of the cases the employers 

demanded more documents than the law requires or requested specific 

documents that the law does not permit. The analysis also cited 

instances where IN actions may have worsened the problem. For example, in some cases legitimate INS documents with typographical errors 

caused the employer to suspect forgery. In other cases, there were 

lengthy delays in replacing lost or stolen immigration documents. 

Fifty-four of the cases were filed with CBC, EEOC, state or local antidiscrimination agencies, unions, or other organizations. The report also 

emphasized that as with all discrimination, the number of reported 

Page 66 GAO/GGD-W16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

Discrlminatlon and Employer !Sanctions 

cases probably represents only a small fraction of the total number of 

incidents. It stressed that this is especially likely with IRCA-related discrimination, given the newness of the law and the lack of widespread 

publicity about its antidiscrimination provision. 

In addition to the 194 cases in Los Angeles, MALDEF’S Chicago office provided data on 58 discrimination charges filed there from April 1987 to 

August 1988. (See table 4.7.) 

Table 4.7: Chicago MALDEF Cases, April 

1987 to August 1988 Type of complaint Number 

Employees fired 27 

Persons not hired, su.sDended, or threatened with dismissal 12 

Employees lost seniority 6 

Employer requested more documentation than law requires 3 

Other employment practices 10 

Total 58 

Source: MALDEF 

Chicago Commission on 

Human Relations 

The City of Chicago authorized the Chicago Commission on Human Relations to act as a clearinghouse for IRCA discrimination complaints. Since 

formation of the Commission, its staff have undertaken an information 

and outreach program. It mailed a detailed description of the Commission’s service and purpose to more than 200 ethnic and community organizations. The Commission has also contacted more than 350 Chicago 

employers to inform them of their rights, duties, and obligations pursuant to IRCA. As of July 31, 1988, the Commission had received 122 

alleged IRMA discrimination-related complaints. Those complaints 

involved 

27 dismissed grandfathered employees, 

22 cases of employers refusing to accept work authorization documents, 

22 legalization applicants who lost seniority benefits and/or wages, 

24 legalization applicants who resigned because of employer 

harassment, 

18 Mexican-origin people who were asked for documentation while 

others were not, 

1 white male who was hired over an equally qualified MexicanAmerican citizen, and 

8 persons who were not hired because they were not U.S. citizens. 

Page 57 GAO/GGIM9-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer Sanctions 

Of the 122 alleged discrimination charges, the Commission resolved 63, 

had 13 under investigation, and referred 46 to other agencies. INS officials said that the I-9 verification process applies to all new employees. 

State of Illinois The Illinois General Assembly made the Illinois Department of Human 

Rights and the Human Rights Commission responsible for gathering and 

reporting to GAO information on IRCA-related discrimination. The Department and the Commission held three public hearings between July 1, 

1987, and June 30, 1988. As a result, they reported that charges of discrimination based on individuals’ national origin have increased because 

of IRCA. Eight IRCA-related discrimination charges had been filed with the 

Department as of August 31,1988. They said that this number does not 

represent the true scope of the unlawful discrimination problems that 

IRCA has caused. Many immigrants, who have been subjected to discrimination, fear the government and are reluctant to come forward to seek 

relief. 

New York State Assembly The New York State Assembly Task Force on New Americans, in conTask Force junction with several community organizations,5 sponsored a public 

hearing on November 2, 1987, to assess the effects of employer sanctions in the State of New York on employers and employees, immigrants 

and U.S. citizens, and unauthorized and legal residents. During the hearing, several advocacy groups and individuals gave testimonial evidence 

on the following: 

l Sanctions are leading to the intimidation and unnecessary firing of 

unauthorized workers hired before IRCA. 

l Fear of sanctions can lead to discrimination against legal immigrants. 

Employer ignorance of acceptable documents for proof of legal status is 

creating hardships for legal immigrants. 

l U.S. citizens, especially Puerto Ricans in the New York City area, are 

suffering discrimination due to employer sanctions. According to the 

testimony, many employers do not know that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens and are unaware of what documents are acceptable as proof of 

citizenship. 

l Employer sanctions have made employers fearful of assisting current 

and past undocumented employees with their legalization applications. 

‘These organizations included the Center for Immigrants Rights, Inc., the Asian American Legal 

Defense and Education Fund, and the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrants Rights. 

Page 68 GAO/GGDW-16 Employer !Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer Sanctions 

l INS had not done an adequate job of educating employers about IRCA’S 

sanction and the antidiscrimination provisions. 

The hearing report did not discuss the actions, if any, taken by the individuals to file their complaints with a government agency. 

Antidiscrimination IRCA’S antidiscrimination provision provides protection to employees 

Burden on Employers against possible national origin or citizenship status discrimination that may occur with respect to hiring, referral, recruitment, or discharge. 

However, according to Chairman Rodino, the congressional conferees 

were apprehensive that the provision might be used as a tool to harass 

employers. Therefore, Congress included a provision for awarding attorneys’ fees if the losing party’s argument “is without reasonable foundation in law or fact.” This particular language was intended to discourage 

law suits to harass employers. As of October 1988, one case has been 

adjudicated (Romo v. Todd Corporation). 

State Employment 

Service Placement 

Rates 

Employment service placement rates in four high alien population states 

that had comparable data before and after IRCA did not change significantly for Hispanics and/or Asians in relationship to other ethnic 

groups6 In addition, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s Department of 

Labor and Human Resources refers Puerto Rican job applicants to 

employers and has offices in Chicago, Cleveland, Kew York, and Philadelphia. Table 4.8 shows job referral data provided by a Commonwealth 

official for Puerto Ricans in New York City. Data for fiscal years 1987 

and 1988 do not show a decrease in the placement rate compared to preIRCA years. However, because we are looking at aggregate information, 

the data may not detect minor changes and are not adjusted to account 

for changes in Kew York’s economy. Therefore, the data may not identify discriminatory practices. 

6A pu’ew York State employment service official stated that comparable data on placements before 

and after IRCA were not available. As a result, we did not include Kew York State employment service data in our analysis. 

Page 59 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

Discrimination and Employer !Sanctions 

Table 4.8: Puerto Rican Job Referral Data 

in New York City Number of Puerto Ricans 

Employed 

July to June Referred Number Percent 

Fiscal year 

1984 

1985 

2,159 1,219 56 

2,186 1.262 58 

1986 2,482 1,344 54 

1987 3,200 1,910 60 

1988 3,739 2,175 58 

Totals 13.788 7.910 57 

Source: Commonwealth of Puerto RICO’S Department of Labor and Human Resources 

Conclusions To date, the charges filed with osc and EEOC and data on IRcA-related 

discrimination do not show the law has caused a pattern of discrimination. While our survey shows that about one of every six employers surveyed apparently has begun or increased unfair employment practices, 

the survey cannot be relied on to determine if IRCA caused a pattern of 

discrimination. It does not show the number of authorized workers who 

were fired or not hired or were otherwise affected by the reported practices. Nevertheless, policymakers should be concerned about employers 

who may have begun or increased these unfair practices. For our third 

annual report, we will continue to analyze the available data to determine if the law caused a pattern of discrimination. However, the methodological problems discussed above and in chapter 2 may preclude us 

from determining whether such a pattern exists. 

Our survey results showed that employers, who were aware of the law, 

were unclear about the (1) authority to hire a U.S. citizen rather than an 

authorized alien when both are equally qualified (about 332,000) and 

(2) discrimination penalties under IRCA (about 248,000). In addition, 

information provided by private organizations indicates that authorized 

workers may not understand IRCA’S antidiscrimination provision. As INS 

significantly increases enforcement of sanctions, it is important that the 

public receive the necessary information to avoid discriminatory 

practices. 

To help assure the Nation’s employers do not react to IX-S’ increased 

enforcement of sanctions by concurrently increasing discrimination, we 

believe that a more coordinated federal effort is needed to educate the 

Page 60 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 4 

Diacriminationa.ndJXmployerSanctio~ 

public about IRCA'S antidiscrimination provision. If this is done, employers may be less likely to engage in unfair employment practices, and persons discriminated against should know about osc and the legal 

remedies in IRCA. In discussing our preliminary survey findings of unfair 

employment practices with INS, DOL, osc, and EEOC officials, they agreed 

more needs to be done to explain IReA's antidiscrimination provision to 

the public. While the actions INS and osc have taken to date in response 

to our survey should help, we believe a more comprehensive multiagency educational effort is needed. 

In our opinion, the 434 cases filed with osc and EEOC, including their 

duplicated efforts in 54 cases and the 1 adjudicated case, are not an 

unreasonable burden for employers. 

Recommendation We recommend that the Attorney General direct the Special Counsel to 

develop, in conjunction with other federal agencies, including EEOC, INS, 

and DOL, a coordinated strategy to educate the public about IRCA'S 

antidiscrimination provision and develop a plan for carrying out the 

strategy, including a budget. osc should submit this information to the 

Director of OMB for consideration during the federal budget process 

because no specific appropriation exists for education and more than 

one agency is involved. 

Agency Comments osc agreed with our recommendation and it, along with INS, EEOC, and 

DOL, recognized the need for continued education. 

Page 61 GAO/GGD-W-16 Employer Sanctiona 
Chapter 5 

Employer Sanctions’ Burden on Employers 

Congress was concerned about the regulatory burden the law placed on 

the Nation’s estimated 7 million employers to complete I-9 forms for all 

new employees. The law requires us to report on our review of the 

implementation of the employer sanction provision for the purpose of 

determining, among other things, whether the regulatory burden created 

by this provision is “unnecessary.” 

To determine if the burden resulting from completing I-9 forms is unnecessary, we (1) identified employers’ costs to complete the 1-g forms and 

(2) developed indicators of the law’s effectiveness in decreasing the 

employment of unauthorized aliens and/or illegal migration to the 

United States. 

In principle, the burden resulting from employer sanctions (e.g., preparation of an I-9) may not be necessary if it could be proven conclusively 

that the law has not significantly decreased the employment of unauthorized aliens and/or their flow into the United States below what the 

levels would have been without the law.’ For example, if the same 

number of unauthorized aliens find jobs through use of counterfeit or 

fraudulent documents as they would without the I-9 requirement, then 

the burden of preparing the 1-g would be unnecessary. Although it is 

unlikely that we will find conclusive evidence, we continue to monitor 

the employment and flow of unauthorized aliens before and after IRCA 

using two indicators: (1) INS’ alien apprehension rate and (2) employers’ 

reliance on authorized workers.2 

costs 

Our questionnaire results provide data on the time employers take to 

complete the I-9, number of 1-9s prepared, and their start-up costs associated with implementing the law. INS estimated employers’ annual costs 

to obtain, complete, and store 1-9s at $182 million,3 of which $169 million 

was for personnel costs to prepare the I-9. Our estimate of employers’ 

personnel costs to complete the 1-9s is comparable to n’s estimates. 

‘Six countries and Hong Kong reported that if they had not enacted employer sanction laws, the 

problem of aliens working illegally would be greater than it was. Illegal Aliens: Information on 

Selected Countries’ Employment Prohibition Laws (GAO/GGD-&17BR, Oct. 28. 1985). 

‘The unauthorized alien population indicator in our first report has been deleted because there was 

insufficient data to measure changes after IRC4. 

3SBA developed a $675 million cost estimate for the recordkeeping requirements of a similar immigration bill in 1985. The difference between SBA’s and INS‘ cost estimates is due to different assumptions about the hourly cost to complete a form. SB.4 used $40 per hour versus INS $10 per hour. 

Page 62 GAO iGGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 5 

Employer Sanctions’ Burden on Employers 

Table 5.1 shows the time employers, who were aware of the law and had 

employees, estimated to complete an I-9. 

Table 5.1: Time Employers Took to 

Complete l-9 

Minutes 

Less than 10 

Percent of 

employers 

51 

At least 10 but less than 20 31 

At least 20 but less than 30 6 

At least 30 but less than 40 

40 or more 

1 

2 

Do not know 9 

Total 100 

Note- Percent based on an estimated 1 5 mtlllon employers responding to the survey questlon 

Source: GAO Employer Survey, Spring 1988 

INS estimated that employers would take an average of 15 minutes to 

complete an I-9. If KS had used our response data to estimate the cost to 

complete the I-9, the costs would have been about the same-$152 million using our response data compared to $150 million using INS’ estimate-for 89 percent of the employers who could estimate the time to 

complete the I-9 and who took less than 40 minutes. To calculate our 

estimate we used (1) the high end of the time range rounded to the nearest 10 (e.g., 10 minutes for those employers who estimated their time to 

complete the I-9 at from 1 to less than 10 minutes) and (2) the estimated 

new hires to be 67.5 million who are required to have 18s. Also, we 

assumed that the employers hired the 67.5 million people in the same 

distribution as the time it took employers to complete the I-9 (e.g., 51 

percent of the employers who took less than 10 minutes to complete the 

I-9 also hired 51 percent of the 67.5 million people). We multiplied the 

time to complete the 1-9s by the number of new employees for each interval. We used $10 per hour to calculate the total cost for preparing the I9s for 89 percent of the 67.5 million new employees. Eleven percent did 

not respond or took more than 40 minutes to complete the I-9, and therefore we could not estimate the time. 

Table 5.2 shows the number of 1-9s employers prepared to comply with 

IRCA for those employers who were aware of the law and had employees. 

Page 63 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
chapter 5 

Employer Sanctions’ Burden on Employers 

Table 5.2: Number of l-98 Prepared 

Number of l-98 oreDared 

Percent of 

emPloyersa 

5orless 46 

6- 1n 19 

11-20 14 

21-50 14 

51 or more 

Total 

8 

100 

Note:Percent based on an estrmated 1 4 mrllron employers respondrng to thus survey question 

aTotal exceeds 100 percent due to rounding 

Source: GAO Employer Survey, Spring 1988 

On the basis of our survey, we estimated that 82 percent of the 3.1 million employers had no start-up costs. However, table 5.3 shows the 

start-up costs of those who incurred them. 

Table 5.3: Start-Up Costs 

Dollars 

less than 50 

51to 100 

101 to 200 

201to500 

more than 500 

Total 

Percent of 

employers 

24 

16 

16 

22 

22 

100 

Note:Percent based on an estrmated 300,000 employers respondrng to thus survey questron. 

Source, GAO Employee Survey, Spring 1988 

As shown in table 5.2, almost half of the employers said that they prepared less than six 1-9s. As shown in table 5.3, 56 percent of the employers who had start-up costs said their start-up costs were less than $20 1. 

Start-up costs include paying overtime, purchasing equipment such as 

filing cabinets, and hiring consultants. 

Employers Complain On the basis of our survey, 44 percent of the estimated 3.1 million 

About Regulatory Burden employers said it was easy to find authorized workers since the law was 

passed, while 4 percent said it was difficult. Some of the employers 

expressed concern that compliance with the law is a burden and/or the 

law has affected the labor supply. The following are examples of 

employer views provided in their survey responses: 

Page 64 GAO/GGD8916 Employer Sanctions 
chapter 6 

Employer Sanctions’ Burden on Employers 

“Most employers are struggling to find new employees to replace the illegal employees that they had fired or laid off.” 

“Compliance [with the law] is no big thing, but when added to all the other requirements an employer has to adhere to, the burden is getting heavy!” 

- 

“I resent being forced to be an unpaid immigration agent of the U.S. Government.” 

“This law is illogical and very burdensome. It seems to me that the employer 

requirements of having every new hire fill out an I-9 is stupid. If the government 

cannot do its job, to keep illegal aliens out of the country, why force business to do 

its job?” 

“Employers are far too overloaded with government reports, etc. to be Immigration 

Agents as well.” 

“Industry as a whole and this company has been adversely influenced since the 

labor pool has shrunk due to the restrictions imposed under this law. Thus, capacity 

utilization of plant is only some 75% and wages demanded by qualified personnel 

have increased some 15%. Unfortunately, the consumer has to pay for these added 

costs.” 

“While we understand that the laws’ intent is to protect authorized workers and 

avoid discrimination toward authorized workers, we seldom even have an applicant 

that is questionable. This law, in our area, is just another thorn in the side to small 

business. If you keep this up we’ll all have to work for the government.” 

“I think it is unrealistic for this law to require the employer to have I-9 forms filled 

out and then expect the employer to pay to get the forms. If you want the information then you should make the forms available at no charge.” 

“If I, as an employer, am required to have forms completed, it should be easy for me 

to get forms. It isn’t.” 

“I have one major problem with the law and that is the nature of the documentation 

required. We are a small city in a rural area. Many of our potential employees do 

not drive. Therefore, they do not have driver’s license[s]. Most are women, therefore 

few have military cards. I’m turning away 50% of applicants because of this and 

terminating another 10% within 24 hours because they fail to produce it as promised. Something else has to be made available to citizens-you’re penalizing them.” 

In contrast to these employer complaints, INS finds the I-9 form requirement can be a valuable enforcement tool in locating unauthorized aliens 

and their employers. For example, according to an INS official in Los 

Angeles, information about aliens gained during an I-9 inspection can be 

Page 66 GAO/GGD43916 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 5 

Employer Sanctions’ Burden on Employers 

used in court to prove probable cause for a judge to issue a search warrant. Once the warrant is issued, INS can examine the employers’ payroll 

records and interview the suspected unauthorized workers. 

Effectiveness It is too soon to tell whether the requirement in IRCA for employers to 

complete the 1-g form will reduce unauthorized alien employment or 

migration. As discussed in chapter 3, 22 percent of the Nation’s employers surveyed in late 1987 and early 1988 did not know the law was 

passed in 1986. Of those employers who did know, about 50 percent 

were not completing all required I-9 forms. In addition, for those employers in our review who INS visited in five high alien population cities, 61 

percent of the unauthorized alien employees hired after IRCA did not 

complete 1-s forms. The remaining 39 percent of unauthorized aliens 

hired after IRCA provided, or were suspected of providing, counterfeit or 

fraudulent documents to complete I-9 forms. 

We cannot determine from IKS’ records the number of unauthorized 

aliens who were not hired as a result of the I-9 requirement. However, if 

the 1-s form does deter unauthorized aliens from finding work or entering the country illegally, our two indicators of employer sanctions’ effectiveness should show (1) a decrease in INS’ alien apprehension rate and 

(2) a decrease in employers’ reliance on unauthorized workers. However, 

as discussed below, so far the indicators are inconclusive. Even if more 

employers begin complying with the I-9 requirement in 1989, it is 

unlikely that we will be able to determine the impact on illegal immigration and employment in our third and final report to Congress, 

Potential Indicators of 

Employer Sanctions 

Effectiveness 

As part of our analysis of regulatory burden, we are monitoring the 

extent to which employer sanctions appear to be achieving Congress’ 

objective of reducing unauthorized alien employment and migration to 

the United States. We selected two indicators of the law’s effectiveness 

in addressing this objective: 

l the rate that INS apprehends unauthorized aliens per work hour and 

l employers’ reliance on legal labor sources rather than unauthorized 

alien labor.4 

41n our first report we used data on employers’ use of public employment agencies as an indicator of 

authorized employment. It has been deleted from this report because not all states are opting to prepare 1-9s for employers. 

Page 66 GAO ~GGD-fJ916 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 5 

Employer Sanctions’ Burden on Employers 

INS Apprehensions 

Caution should be exercised in using these indicators because measuring 

them is difficult, and changes may be influenced by factors other than 

employer sanctions. As a result, it may not be possible to attribute 

changes solely to IRCA. For example, economic or political conditions in 

other countries could affect the flow of aliens into the United States. 

Accordingly, changes in the indicators can only be used as a rough gauge 

of employer sanctions’ effectiveness. 

This year, we continued measuring changes related to INS’ apprehensions 

in two ways. 

1. If employer sanctions are effective in reducing job opportunities for 

unauthorized aliens, fewer aliens will attempt to enter the country illegally to search for work. One measure of the flow of aliens attempting to 

enter the country is Border Patrol “linewatch” alien apprehensions measured by lo-hour shifts. Linewatch is an INS Border Patrol operation in 

which its agents set up surveillance on major crossing points at or near 

the border to apprehend aliens who illegally enter the country. 

Figure 5.1 shows INS Border Patrol linewatch apprehensions measured 

by lo-hour shifts for the fiscal years 1983 to 1988. The data show that 

alien apprehensions per 1 O-hour shift decreased after the passage of 

IRCA. 

2. If employer sanctions are effective in reducing the number of aliens 

employed illegally, then the number of aliens INS arrests who are working illegally should decrease. INS data indicate the number of aliens 

arrested, who were employed illegally, has decreased per investigator 

hour since the passage of IRCA in November 1986. 

In our survey, most employers (69 percent) said they had no basis to 

judge whether or not employer sanctions have been effective. However, 

about 8 percent of the employers surveyed who were aware of the law 

said employer sanctions have been effective to a great or very great 

extent in reducing the number of working unauthorized aliens. After we 

survey employers again in 1989, we plan to determine whether this percentage increased and include the results in our third annual report. 

Reliance on Authorized Workers We measured changes in employers’ reliance on authorized workers in 

three ways. 

Page 67 GAO/GGDSS-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 5 

Employer Sanctions’ Burden on Employers 

Apprehensions Measured by lo-Hour 

Shifts 5.0 Apprehensions 

3.0 

2.5 r 

1983 1904 1985 1986 

I 

1987 1988 

Fiscal Year 

Note: FY 1988 represents 9 months of data 

Source: INS. 

1. If employer sanctions are effective in reducing the number of aliens 

employed illegally, then the percent of nonimmigrants (visitors) who 

receive visas to enter the country each year but subsequently become 

illegally employed might decrease. For example, if employers verify the 

employment eligibility for all new employees, fewer visitors should find 

illegal employment and overstay (violate) their visas. 

Table 5.4 represents estimated visa violation rates for October through 

March during the years 1984 to 1987 for five countries.5 The countries 

were selected on the basis of having a high number of estimated visa 

violations. 

6This g-month period was selected because, according to an INS official, visa violations occur more 

frequently during the summer months and a g-month period better reflects the changes in estimated 

violations 

Page 68 GAO/GGD-W-16 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 5 

Employer Sanctions’ Burden on Employers 

Table 5.4: Nonimmigrant Visa Violation 

Rates (By Country) 

Country 

Canada 

Years 

1984 

1985 

Estimated visa 

Arrivals violations Percent 

29,302 5,559 19 

31,538 5,130 16 

Haiti 

1986 26,867 3,329 12 

1987 25,594 3,197 13 

1984 31,919 3.938 12 

1985 32,061 4,480 14 

1986 33,647 5,884 18 

1987 35,478 5,554 16 

Mexico 1984 292,301 20.766 7 

1985 384,407 9,022 2 

1986 347,769 14,661 4 

1987 340,434 15,381 5 

Philippines 1984 42,239 6,015 14 

1985 46,408 5,769 12 

1986 49,175 7.118 15 

1987 52,091 6,398 12 

Polanda 1984 13,114 4,261 33 

1985 22,721 9,438 42 

1986 25,917 10,649 41 

1987 27,757 8.836 32 

aNontmmlgrants from Poland were permltted to remain In the country temporarlly for humanltarlan or 

other reasons 

Source, INS. 

2. SSA issues special nonwork Social Security cards to legal alien nonimmigrants who are not authorized to work but who need the number for 

other reasons (e.g., to open a bank account). If employer sanctions are 

effective, we believe the percentage of nonwork cards with wages 

reported to SSA by employers should decrease after IRCA. SSA data show 

that about half of the nonwork cards issued since 1974 had wages 

earned and reported to SSA for calendar years 1982 to 1986. 

3. In our March 1988 report,6 we found that a large supply of unauthorized alien labor may depress wages for legal workers. If sanctions are 

effective and this downward wage pressure is relieved because employers hire only authorized workers, we believe wages for these jobs in high 

alien population states and industries could increase as employers 

attempt to recruit legal workers to fill the vacated jobs. This assumes 

‘Ilk@ Aliens: Influence of Illegal Workers on Wages and Working Conditions of Legal Workers 

(GAO/l%MD-88-13BR,Mar. 10,1988). 

Page 69 GAO/GGD8916 Employer Sanctions 
Chapter 5 

Employer Sanctions’ Burden on Employers 

that this effect is not offset by wage declines for grandfathered aliens or 

business declines. 

Our 1988 survey results indicate that since November 1986 about 

180,000 of the 2.9 million employers (or 6 percent) increased wages to 

attract authorized workers. Of these, we estimate about 40,000 employers increased wages because of employer sanctions, and nearly all of 

these (97 percent) were in our five high alien population states. 

In our final report we will try to compare the percentage of employers 

surveyed in 1988 with those surveyed in 1989 who said IRCA’S sanction 

provision caused them to increase wages to attract legal workers. 

Conclusions Two years after IRC4 there is insufficient data for us to determine if the 

implementation of sanctions has created an unnecessary regulatory burden for employers. While our survey indicates the direct cost of the law 

to employers may be about the same as INS originally estimated, the 

impact of the law on reducing illegal immigration and employment, as 

measured by our indicators of sanctions’ effectiveness, is uncertain. 

Even if more employers begin to comply with the I-9 requirements, unauthorized aliens may continue to find jobs through use of counterfeit or 

fraudulent documents, as discussed in chapter 3. Aliens’ use of such documents is a development that could undermine the employer sanctions 

program and make the I-9 system in IRCA an “unnecessary” burden for 

employers. 

We believe that the ultimate answer to whether the burden imposed on 

employers is unnecessary is the extent to which the employer requirements imposed by the law are accompanied by, and contribute to, a 

desired reduction in unauthorized alien employment and illegal immigration. Unfortunately, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to 

conclusively establish such a cause/effect relationship. Further, even if 

no progress is realized, the employer requirements may still be a necessary part of a revised strategy. 

Page 70 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Page 71 GA0,GGD-W16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix I 

Fiscal Year 1987,1988, and 1989 INS Budgets 

for Employer Sanctions 

Dollars in thousands 

1987 1988 1989 

FTE” Amount FTEa Amount FTEO Amount 

14 $3,049 81 $4,661 135 $6.184 

50 15.325 450 20.142 500 19.721 

INS office 

Border Patrol 

Investigations 

Anti-Smuggling 4 773 34 1,805 38 1,970 

Detentron and Deportation 24 4,977 218 12,293 242 13,169 

Training 1 330 7 391 8 428 

Data and Communicatrons 0 4,236 2 6,099 2 5,519 

lnformatron and Records 13 1,939 86 2.546 96 2.352 

Intelligence 

Constructron and 

Engineering 

Legal Proceedings 

Executrve Direction 

Adminrstratrve Servrces 

Totals 

aFuII-tlme eqwalent posItIons 

Source INS 

2 119 7 264 8 289 

0 196 0 3,012 0 3,012 

17 1,905 153 7,214 170 8,315 

3 240 6 378 7 413 

4 500 28 936 31 1,192 

132 $33,669 1,072 $59,741 1,237 $62,564 

Page 72 GAO,&GDSS-16 Employer Sanctions 
&ndix II 

Survey of Employer Views of the 1986 

Immigration Reform and Control Act 

United States General Accounting Office 

Survey of Employer Views 

of the 1986 Immigration 

Reform and Control Act 

Instructiona Gloswy 

The U S General Accountmg Office. an agency of the Congress, 

IS conductmg a 3.b ear review of the lmmlgration Reform and Control Authorized Alien A person born m a foreign countr? who has 1 

ACT of 1986 The purpose of this surwy IS to gather mformauon from documents authonzmg employment m the Cmted States 

employers on 1) rhelr understandmg of the law, 2) the Immlgratlon 

and Naturahzatmn Serwe’s (ISS) efforts to implement the law Employer Sanctions M0m.a~ fines or ,ncarCerat,o”S for ( 

3) emplcyer hlrmg practices, and 4) their costs to comply wth the employers who knowngly hlred unauthorwed ahens after , 

law’s verification requirements November 6. 1986. 

Thin questionnaire is anonymow There 1s nothmg m this form Employment Verification Requirements For all employees 

that can identify how you or any other orgamzat,on responded and 

hlred after Novemwr 6. 1986 employers are requred to examme 

no enforrement actmn can be taken against your organlzatlon has- documents that show the person 1s authorized to work m the 

ed on your responses. In order to ensure privacy, we ask that you 

Umted States and complete a federal form I-9 iEmployment 

separately return the enclosed postcard mdlcahng that you have comEhflblhty Verification) 

pleted your quest,onnalre We need these cards returned so that we 

can follow-up wth those who do not respond to our first malhng I Form 1-S (Employment Eligibility Verifkntion The federal I 

Your part,c,patmn IO this survey 1s voluntary, but 11 IS very lmpor I 

form that employers must complete for all employees hired after 

tant that you provide us wth the requested informatIon WIthout Xovember 6. 1986 The form ldentlfes the documents the 

your frank and honest answers we cannot prowde mennmgful employer exammed to show the person 1s authorued tc work Both 

mformation to Congress / tie employer and the employee must sign the form 

The questionnaxe should be answered by the head of the Unauthorized alien (ille~l alien) A persor born :n a foreigo 

orgamzatmn or designee m consultation wth ke! stafffam~har wth 

country who does not have documents a”thor,zmg emp:o>men: 

the organzation’s accountmg and personnel practws Most of the I” the Cmted States , 

questions can be easily answered by checkmg boxes or filhng !n 

blanks. The questionnure should take about 20 mmutes to complete 

Space has been pronded at the end of the questmnnare for an> 

addltlonal comments you might want to make. If needed, addItIona 

pages may be attached If you have any questions. please call 

Al Stapleton ar (202) 357 IO94 

Please return the completed questwuxure m the enclosed prc 

addressed envelope withm IO days of receipt Also. do not forget 

to mad back the postcard Da not return the post card m the envelope 

wth the questwnnalre In the event the envelope 1s mlspiaced. our 

return address is 

U.S. General Accounting Offke 

Mr. Al Stapleton 

441 G Street. h’.W.. Room 3660 

Washington. D.C. 20548 

Thank you fnr your help 

NOTE: All results presented in this survey are estimated. 

Page 73 GAO,%GD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix II 

Survey of Employer Views of the 1966 

Immigration Reform and Control Act 

I. Background 

1. In which state 3r territory is your organization 

located? 

CA 621,000 151 

FL 303 ,oao 7% 

IL 297.000 7% 

I501 

NY 419,oDo 10% 

TX 445.000 11% 

Other 2.108,000 501 

TOTAL 4.193.000 

2. Which of the following best describes what kind of 

organization th15 157 (CHECK ONE.) 

ICATEGORIES COLLAPSED I*) INTO A NEW CATEGORY, 

“OTHER. ” I 

I. I* I Ccnnwnications and utilities 

2. I I co”str”ctlon ES 340,000 

3. I* I Durable manufacturing 

4. I I Farming IAgriculture) I.51 63,000 

5. I* I Finance, insurance, or real estate 

6. I I Fmd Processing .31 12,000 

1. I* I Fwestry end f,shing 

8. I I Garment (Apparel) .31 11,cclo 

9. 1 I Hotel or Restaurant 3.5% 145,000 

10. l* I Mining 

11. If I Non-durable manufacturing other than 

garrhsnt 

12. I* I Retell trade other than restsurant 

13. 10 1 Services other th.s” hotel 

14. I’ 1 Transportation 

15. I* I Wholesale trade 

16. I* I Other ~Please specify) 

OTHER 861 3,622,DOO 

TOT& 4.193.000 

3. The number of persons your organization employs 

may vary during the year. nowever, in an averege 

Week, how ma”” employeas. both full-time and 

part-time. does your organization have working 

+or it? (ENTER NUW3ER.j 

N=3,914,000 1-9 persons employed 65% 

IO-50 persons employed 27% 

51 + persons employed 9% 

4. Approximately how many of your current m~ployees, 

both full-time and part-time. fdl I Into the 

foliowlng categories? (THE ;OTAL SHOULD EQUAL 

YWR ORGANIZATION’S TOTAL NUWER OF EM’LOYEES.) 

I. Black (Non-Hispanic) 241 N=3,941 ,000 

2. Hispanic 261 N=3,953,000 

3. Asian or Pacific 

Islander 12s N=3.926,000 

4. herican Indian 51 N=3.906.000 

5. Yhlte (Non-Hispanic) 92s N=4.038,000 

6. Other (specify) 31 N=3,850,000 

TOTAL 

5. About how many new employees (do not include 

recal Is from Iayofisl did your organization 

hire frm November 1986 through October ,987? 

(ENTER NUFBER. IF NONE. ENTER “0”. ) 

o- I, 1986 - 

Moba 31. IS%?) 

N’4,015.000 0 new employees 381 

I-4 “.¶W employees 38% 

5-9 new employees 91 

10-20 new employees 9% 

21 + new employees 11 

6. Has the Immigration end Naturalization Service 

ever visIted your organtzation to determine if 

your organization employed unauthorized aliens? 

ICHECK ONE. 1 

I. I 1 Yes 3s 

2.1 IN0 911 

3. I I Don’t know 61 

N=4,160,000 

! 

Page 74 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix II 

Survey of Employer Views of the 1986 

Immigration Reform and Control Act 

7. hrbng the next 12 mnths. does your organization 

exp~+ to be the subject of an INS inspection +a 

determine if your organization eWOvS 

unauthorized aliens? (CHEC% ONE.1 

I. [ I Definitely ye* .21 N=4,005,000 

2. I 1 Probably yes 21 

3. I I ““certsin 9% 

4. L 1 Probably no 305 

5. 1 I Definitely no 281 

---_--------- 

6. I I No b.%!s to judge 30% 

8. Prior to November 7, 1986, it *as not illegal to 

hire unauthorized aliens. Just prior to November 

7, 1986, did your organization suspect that it was 

employing any persons believed to be unauthorized 

ai iens? (CHECK ONE.1 

q 

1. I 1 Definitely yes 

3 

2. I I Probably yes It 

(CNTIIIUE TO 

WESTIW 9.1 

2% 3.1 I Lhcertain 

+ 

4. I I Probably no 

92 (SLIP TO 

5. I 

3% 6.1 1 No basis 1 

I Definitely no QlESTlaY IO.) 

_____--__--- 

to judge 

N=4.152,000 

9. Just prior to November 7, 1966, approximately 

rhat percentage of your organization’s total work 

force was made up O+ persons you believed to be 

unauthorized aliens? C IF NONE, ENTER “0”. 1 

N=l05,000 5-91 of workforce 71 

10-14s Of .orkforce :0s 

15-19s Of workforce 41 

20-25; of workforce 151 

261 + 31 mrktorce 281 

10. Since November 1, 1986, has your organization had 

any xmpl.in+s filed against it which allege 

mpioyment dixrimtnation on the basis O+ 

netional origin or citizenship? (CHECK ONE.) 

I. I 1 Yes 1% N=4,133,000 

2. I I NO 98.21 

3. ; I Don’t kwa* II 

II. Implemen+ation 

II. Prior to receiving this questionnaire, was your 

organization aware that a new immigration law was 

passed in November 1986 calling for penalties 

Isanctions) against employers who knowingly hire 

unauthorized aliens? (Cl+ECK ONE.1 

1. I I Yes (OMTIISE TO QTSTICN 12.) 781 

2. i I NC ISCIP TO QIESTICU 32.) 22s 

N=4,153,000 

12. Based on the intormation available to you at the 

present time, do you believe that your 

organization can w cannot be penalized 

(sanctioned) by INS for hiring an employee without 

completing I proper Employment Verification Fcrm 

U-9)? (CHECK ONE.) 

59% 1. I I My organization can 

II 

(SIP TO 

be sanctioned by INS QlESTIcN 14.) 

141 2. I I My organization cannot 

-7 

((PITIWE TO 

be sanctioned by INS QuESTIon 13.1 

27% 3. I I Don’t know - (SIP TO OllESTlCN 14.) 

N-3,217,000 

13. Why do you believe that your organization cannot 

be Sanctioned by INS? (PLFASE EXPLAIN.1 

l4. lihich 01 the following sources of information 

about the employer sanctions provisions of the 

1986 Imigration Reform and Control hct, if any. 

has your organizatton reviewed? IaEa ML THAT 

WFIY.) 

201 I. I 1 Imigration Reform and 

con+-0 / Act 

141 2. I I INS regulattons on 

mployer sanctions N=3.212,300 

331 3. I 1 INS’ Handbook for 

Emp lovers 

121 4. I 1 Other (Please specify) I 

_-____-__________--_----- 

451 5. I I None of th- abcwe (SXIP TO QIESTI‘,, 16) 

Page 75 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix II 

Survey of Employer Views of the 1986 

Immigration Refom and Control Act 

15. Based on the information your organlzetion has reviewed, how clear or unclear are each of the following 

employer sanctions provisions1 tCHEC% ONE BOX IN EACH ROY.) 

3. 

violations by employers 

4. 

5. Length of time employers must retain 

the 1-9 Form N=l ,693.OOO 

6. Exemptions for employees hired before 

November 7. 1986 N=1.6%,000 

1. Penalties for employers (with four or 

1113~b employees) who discriminate 

N=1,6%,000 

681 11s 151 61 

73s 10s 111 6S 

611 151 1% 9s 

a. Authority to hire a U.S. citizen 

rather than an authorized alien when 

both are equally qualified 

N-l ,695,DOO 

51s ItIS 20s 13s 

9. Review of I-9’s by Department of Labor 

Inspectors during their standard 

On-site field visit to your 56s 

crganlzation N=1,700,000 

NOTE: Numbers differ due to MISSING DATA and NON-RESPONSE 

1% 14s 17s 

SKIPPED = 1,448,ODO 

Page 76 GAO/GGD-8916 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix ll 

Survey of Employer Views of the 1986 

Immigration Reform and Control Act 

16. How useful. if at all, has each of the following sources been in providing information about the employer 

sanctions Drovlsions of the new law? (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROY.) 

I Of lIttIe 

VWY Generally kderately Surawhat a no 

useful useful useful useful usefulnes’ 

YWRCES (11 (2) (3) (41 15) 

1. llnnigratlon and Naturalization 

Service N’2,899,000 301 71 221 

2. Newspaper or neaa magazine N=2,974,000 35s I I 15s 321 

3. Radio Y=2,867,000 20s I I 13% 41a 

4. Television N=2,919,000 

5. Business. trade association, or union 

meetings or publications N=2,857,000 

6. Attwney retained by the company 

N=2,716,000 

271 131 391 

251 9s 31% 

121 3a 241 

7. Other (Please specify) 

711 

I I 

8% 215 

N=262,000 

NOTE: Numbers differ due to non-responses and missing data. 

No basis 

to judge 

(6) 

Page 77 GAO/GGDs916 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix II 

Survey of Employer Views of the 1986 

Immigration Reform and Control Act 

17. This question addresses actions/activities your organization may or may not have taken since November 7. 

1986. For each action/activity. please lndlcate la) whether OT not your organizetim has started cf 

i"cressed that action/activity since Mzwmb-sr 7, 1986 and if yes. please Indicate (b) whether or not the 

actlon/sctlvity was started cr increased primsrlly as a response to the employer sanctions provisions of the 

1986 imnigration law. If you answered "no" in part A, there Is no need to answer part 8. 

I. Use of state employment services to find job applicants 

5. Decreased rages of unauthorized alien workers to 

cmpensate for costs associated with employer 1001 7% 271 

smctions, e.g., fines and paperwork 2.884,ooO 9,000 3,m 

6. Asked only job applicants rho lmked and/or sounded 

foreign to prove they wwe authorized to work in the 93% 711 

Unl ted States 2,656,ooO 214.000 

7. Exanined documents of only those current workers who 

lcoksd and/or sounded foreign to assure they were 92% 9% 

authorized to work in the United States 2,604,000 243,000 

8. Ccqied docunents provided by new employees az. 69s 31% 

evidence of their authorization to work in the U.S. 1,971,Ooo 68O.OW 

9. Contacted INS to verify that the person hired is 981 2z 

authorized to wrk in the U.S. 2.783.000 63,OOO 

10. Begen * new policy to hire only U.S. citizens 901 10% 

2,549.ooo 280.000 

OllER 

171 831 

30,000 146.000 

19s 81% 

37,Ow 161,000 

121 BBS 

95,ow 667,000 

231 7 IS 

12,Ow 39,000 

121 881 

27,ooO 191.300 

11. Actively considered moving or have nmved aI I or part 100% 42% 58s 

Of your organization to another country 2,850.000 - 7,m 1o.wo 

12. Increased the price of your product/service to your 921 8s SOS 20s 

custmrs 2,613,OoO 221,000 156,000 38,ooo 

13. Other IPlease specify, 94s 61 461 551 

327.000 21,000 II,300 3,000 

NOTE: Due to rounding. percentages may "3+ sum to iO0. 

Page 78 GAO/GGDSS-16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix II 

Survey of Employer Views of the 1996 

Immigration Reform and Control Act 

18. The new imigration law prohibits emplovrnent 20. Since the employer sanctions provisions took 

dlscriminatlon on the basis of nstional wigin or effect. how easy w difficult has It been for your 

citizenship status fcf ~plov~~s Of 4 Or mOre organization to find enough U.S. citizens or 

persons. Which of the following actions, if any, authorized aliens to fill job openings? (CHECK 

h.ss your organization taken to avoid being sued CNE.1 

under this ner law? (CIECX KL THAT MVLY.1 N=3,149,000 

I. I 

I. L I Does not apply--organization employs 

fewer than 4 persons. 2. I 

1 11: easv -+ 441 

311 N=3,161.000 

_______-______---------- 3. I 1 Neither easy na ditflcult 17: 

2. I I Hired legal counsel to explain/clarify 4. I 

your organization's responsibilities 

under the new lmnigratlon law. 5. i 1 16::i111:ic> 4s 

3s N-3,162,000 ------------ 

3. I I Tralned personnel Involved in recruiting 6. I I No basis to judge 351 

and interviewing job applicants on the 

provisions of the new inmigration law. 21. In your opinion. to what extent, if at all, hare 

15% N=3,162,000 the employer sanctions provisions Of the new 

immigration law been effective in reducing the 

4. L I Used state employment services to screen number of allens working without proper work 

job applicants. authorization documents in your industry? (CHEM 

6) N=3,162,OCC ONE.) 

N=3,156,000 

5. I I Asked all Job applicants to prove they 1. I I TO 0 very great extent 

are authorized to work in the United 

states. 2. I I To a great extent Ll-8s 

381 N=3,162,000 

3. I I To .s mderste extent 

6. I I Other (Plesse specify) 

4. I 1 TO sane extent 

51 N=3,162,000 

5. I 

---3 ,:: 

I To ,itt,e or no extent 

7. I 1 None of the above _____-----_-- 

231 N=3,159,000 6. I I No basis to judge 69% 

19. The INS has conducted a capsign to educate I I I. Employment Practices 

employers about the employer sanctions provisions 

of the 1986 lrrrnigratlon law. To do this, INS 22. INS requires that Its form l-9 be canpleted by the 

held meetings in cities across the country and employer for each ner enplovee. Does your 

made announcements in the nerspape,, on TV, and m-gsnIrat1on have a supply of thus form on hand? 

on the radio. To what extent, if any. has vow ICHECX ONE.) 

organization's frmi Iisritv with the lmnigration 

iaw increased due to INS education efforts? I. I 1 Yes 531 N=3,138,M)O 

(CHECK ONE.1 

N=3,113,000 2.1 IN0 371 

1. I I very great extent 

2. I 

) Grea+ ex+e"+ -7 I41 23. s* [ I Don't knor 'OS 

As of the date you are completing this 

questionnaire. approximately how many l-9 forms 

3. I 1 Hoderate extent 171 has your organization completed? CENTER NULBER. 

4. I 

5. I 

1 :;,Ix,..,.,,k 38% IF NmE' ENTE:l::l, XlP TD WESTloll 28.1 

-______________ 0 tom* 551 IO-20 forms 9% N=2,984,000 

6. I 1 NO knowledge of INS campaign 315 l-4 fcrln5 18s 21-50 forms 65 

5-9 forms 91 50 + forms 41 

Page 79 GAO/GGD8916 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix II 

Survey of Employer Views of the 1986 

Immigration Reform and Control Act 

24. Does your organization have a completed 1-9 form 

for every employee still on the organization's 

payroll hired after Novanber 6. 19861 (CHECK 

ONE.) 

N=1,474,000 

1. I I Yes (SLIP TU OJESTICN 26.) B6s 

2. I I No (aNrIl.E To aEsTlol25.) 10s 

3. I 1 Can't know (SCIP TO QESTION 26.1 41 

25. For which of the following types of anployees 

does your organization not canplste an l-9 form? 

(QLQ( KL THAT APPLY.)- 

1. I I Persons believed to be authorized to 

work 37s N-135.000 

2. I 1 Persons believed to be unauthorized to 

work es N=132.000 

3. I 1 Orgsnirat1on does not exanine documents 

nor conplete an l-9 form for anyone. 

11s N-132,000 

4. I I Other (Please specify) 

50s N-132.000 

26. Overall, how clear or unclear is the l-9 form? 

(CIiEC% WE.) 

N=1,467,000 

I. I 

2. I : $:::I:‘,,.., 83s 

3. I 1 nwglnal Iy Clear 

4. I I Generally unclear 

5. I 1 very uncleer Pgs 4s 

-_-___________ 

6. f I No basis to judge 41 

27. Approximately how long does it take your 

organization to canplete the l-9 form for a new 

hire? (CHECK THE MOST APPROPRIATE BOX.) 

N-1,471,000 

1. I 1 Less than 10 minutes 51% 

2. I I At least 10 minutes but less than 

20 minutes 311 

3. I I At least 20 minutes but less than 

30 minutes 6% 

4. I 1 At least 30 minutes but less than 

40 minutes 1s 

5. I I 40 minutes or more 2s 

------------------------ 

6. I I Oon't know 9% 

28. Since November 7, 1986, has your organization 

fired or laid off any workers because they did not 

have proper ark authorizntlon documents? (CHECK 

ONE.1 

N=3,150,000 

1. I 1 Yes ICUdTltW TO OJESTIO( 29.) 2s 

2.1 INO 

--I 

%S 

(StIP TO QESTICU 30.1 

3. I I Don’t knoll 2s 

29. Ware any of the workers rho were fired ot laid off 

employed by yw before Nove"!ber 7, 1986? (CHEO( 

ONE.) 

N-73.000 

1. [ 1 Yes 24s 

2.1 IN0 70s 

3. I I Don't know 61 

Page 80 GAO/GGDSB16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix II 

Survey of Employer Views of the 1986 

Immigration Reform and Control Act 

IV. Cost to Conply With Regulations 

30. Which of the following start-up costs “We 

Incurred by your wganlzatlon to canply with the 

1966 imnigration law’s employnant verification 

requirements? COSZX &L TMT -I.) 

1. I I Overtimt 4% N=3,095,OM) 

2. I 1 Used outside consultants (WAS, lawyers, 

accountants. canputer firms, etc.) 

61 N=3,095,000 

3. 1 1 Hired additional employws (clerks, 

lawyers. personnel otficlals. etc.) 

I$ N=J,O95,000 

4. I I Purchased/revised computer software 

and/or harduare 

IS N=J,095,000 

5. I I Purchased filing cabinet(s) to store 

required forms 

21 N=3,092,000 

6. I I Other (Please specify) 

ES N=3,092,000 

1. I 1 No start-up costs (SIP TO @XSTlOl 32.) 

625 N-3.095,000 

31. Please estimate your organization’s total 1987 

start-up costs tor caplylng with the 1986 

lmnigration lw’s employment verification 

requirensnts7 (ENTER AKWNT. IF NONE. ENTER 

“0”. 1 

N2445.000 

I 

SO 261 

$1 - S500 581 

1501 - 55OCo 141 

15001 + 2% 

Page 81 GAO/GGD-W-16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix II 

Survey of Employer Views of the 1986 

Immigration Reform and Control Act 

PLEASE - TO IETUW TIE RM’LElED OUESTIOIHAIRE IN THE EICLOSEO 

R(E-AmfEssED D4vELcFE. KU), PLEASE IWUW YOUR POSTCMD. 

TWJR You FOR Yas KLP. 

W;D/kBH/l I-87 

I 

L 

Page 82 GAO/GGDW-16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix III 

Statistical Data for Employer Survey 

As part of our review of the implementation of IRCA, we wanted to determine the perceived effects of the new law on U.S. employers. To accomplish this, we mailed a questionnaire to a stratified random sample of 

employers to gather information on their (1) understanding of the law, 

(2) employment practices, and (3) costs to comply with the I-9 form 

requirements. Our sample was selected from a private marketing service’s database. We selected our sample from the database as it was constituted on September 15, 1987. On that date, the database contained 

over 6 million employers. 

Several other databases exist that provide information about businesses 

in the United States, such as those compiled by the Internal Revenue 

Service, U.S. Census Bureau, and SBA. We chose the marketing service 

for the following reasons. 

. The data were purported to be more frequently updated and therefore 

provided more current information than the other databases. 

l The database identified each business location with an address, phone 

number, and the name of a business contact. 

l The database could be accessed with minimal administrative effort compared to the other databases. 

To draw our sample, we first stratified the universe of employers into a 

36-cell matrix. The stratification was a mix of the high alien population 

states (California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois contain 

approximately 80 percent of the alien population) and all other (low 

alien) states; and of high alien population industries (agriculture, restaurants and hotels, construction, garment, and food processing) and all 

other (low alien) industries. (See table 111.1.) 

Table 111.1: Sampling Plan 

Industries 

Agriculture 

Restaurant/hotel 

ConstructIon 

Garment 

Food processing 

Other 

Totals 

States 

CA FL TX NY IL Other Total 

137 135 136 133 136 139 816 

137 137 137 151 137 123 822 

- 

133 136 136 137 135 137 814 

134 130 128 136 126 135 789 

134 126 129 129 128 136 782 

137 - 137 135 137 135 1,294 1,975 

812 801 801 823 797 1,964 5,998 

Page 83 GAO /GGD-89.16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix III 

Statistical Data for Employer Survey 

Due to technical difficulties and related issues concerning their proprietary rights, we agreed to have the private marketing service draw the 

sample and certify that the sample selection procedure it used was a 

random one. We did not verify the procedure the private marketing service used. 

We based our cell sample sizes on a confidence level of 95 percent & 10 

percent. Generally, this resulted in required sample sizes of between 90 

and 100 employers per cell. We over-sampled in each cell by approximately 30 percent due to the fact that any mail survey will experience 

some degree of nonresponse and because we felt it important to maintain the lo-percent error level. The 30 percent represented our best 

judgment as to the percentage of nonrespondents we could expect for 

this type of mail instrument. The resulting cell sizes for our sample were 

generally between 126 and 137 employers. (See table 111.2.) Because of 

the size of the universe for other industries and states, we deliberately 

oversampled (779) in this category in case a more detailed analysis of 

the responses from this group was necessary. 

In addition to the sample employers drawn for the 36-cell matrix, we 

had the marketing service draw an additional random sample of 500 

employers from the universe of approximately 6,000,OOO. We had originally intended this sample to be used for test purposes. However, we 

subsequently decided that the test was not necessary. Since the 500 

employers had been randomly selected, we included them in our mailout to the sample of employers. The practical effect of including them 

was to raise the sample sizes in our matrix, especially in the other industries and states category. 

We initially mailed our questionnaire to 5,998 employers across the 

country in November 1987. We did follow-up mailings in January 1988 

and March 1988. Finally, we tried to telephone all nonrespondents in 

April of 1988. 

Of the 5,998 questionnaires mailed, 3,230 completed questionnaires 

were returned. We dropped 1,956 questionnaires from our sample: 1,714 

were returned to us because the addressee could not be located, and 242 

were dropped because they said they had no employees. Our adjusted 

sample (subtracting the number whom we considered to be no longer in 

business and the number who indicated they had no employees from the 

original sample) was 4,042. Of the 3,230 questionnaires received, 61 

were excluded because, when projected, the estimates for the number of 

Page 84 GAO/GGKHW16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix III 

Statistical Data for Employer Survey 

employees in each respondent’s company exceeded Census Bureau estimates of the number of employees in an industry in a given state, or 1 

million. In these instances, we assumed that these employers provided 

the number of employees in the entire company rather than the number 

employed at that location. Given the number of completed and usable 

questionnaires returned (3,169), this provided us with a response rate of 

78 percent. See table III.2 for details. 

Table 111.2: Employer Questionnaire Disposition by State 

States 

Industry CA FL TX 

Agriculture 

Universe 17,000 7,000 11,000 

NY IL Other Total 

6,000 6,000 114,000 162,060 

Adjusted 

universea 

Proiected 

14,000 4,000 7,000 4,000 5,000 77,000 111,000 

-,----- 

unlverseb 

Sample 

out of 

bwness 

6,000 2,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 49,000 63,000 

137 135 136 133 136 139 816 

23 50 47 36 29 33 218 

No 

employees 

Adjusted 

sample 

Total 

questionnaires 

Unusable 

questtonnalres 

Total 

usable 

questionnairesC 

Response 

rated 

2 4 8 8 6 12 40 

112 81 81 89 101 94 558 

49 34 34 38 35 60 250 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

49 34 34 38 35 60 250 

44% 42% 42% 43% 35% 64% 45% 

Restaurant 

and hotel 

Unwerse 

Adlusted 

41,000 19,000 20,000 28,000 17,000 234,000 359,000 

unherse 27,000 11.000 12.000 1 7,000 11,000 150,000 224,000 

Projected 

universe 

Sample 

15,000 

137 

8,000 7,000 10,000 7,000 99.000 

137 137 151 137 123 

out of 

bustness 45 53 55 57 47 41 

No 

- 

145.000 

822 

298 

employees 3 2 1 2 1 3 12 

(continued) 

Page 86 GAO/GGl%SCl6 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix Ill 

Statistical Data for Employer Survey 

Industry 

Adjusted 

sample 

CA FL 

89 82 

States 

TX 

81 

NY 

92 

IL 

89 

Other 

79 

Total 

512 

Total 

auestionnaires 49 56 48 55 52 53 313 

Unusable 

questionnaires 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 

usable 

questionnaires 49 56 48 55 52 52 312 

Response 

rate 55% 68% 59% 60% 57% 66% 61% 

Construction 

Universe 66,000 41,000 50,000 39.000 31,000 461,000 687,000 

Adjusted 

universe 38,000 25,000 31.000 25.000 19.000 273.000 423.000 

Projected 

unwerse 

Sample 

out of 

business 

32,000 14,000 15,000 17,000 13,000 249,000 340,000 

133 136 136 137 135 137 814 

42 50 49 40 46 49 276 

No 

emolovees 13 3 2 8 4 7 37 , 

Adjusted 

sample 78 83 85 89 85 81 501 

Total 

questionnaires 65 48 40 62 55 74 344 

Unusable 

questionnaires 

Total 

usable 

questionnaires 

Response 

rate 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

65 48 40 62 55 74 344 

83% 58% 47% 70% 65% 91% 69% 

GarmenP 

Unwerse 

Adjusted 

universe 

5,600 1,800 1,500 8,600 1,100 20,100 39,000 

3,385 1,205 1,043 5.375 821 13.996 26.000 

Projected 

unwerse 

Sample 

1,470 560 288 2.205 180 6,258 11,000 

134 130 128 136 126 135 789 

out of 

business 50 42 39 48 30 39 248 

No 

employees 3 1 0 3 2 2 11 

(continued) 

Page 86 GAO,‘GGIMS-16 Employer Sanctions 
-- 

Appendix III 

Statistical Data for Employer Survey 

States 

Industry CA FL TX NY IL Other Total 

Adjusted 

sample 81 87 89 85 94 94 530 

Total 

questionnaires 35 40 24 35 20 42 196 

Unusable 

questionnaires 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 

usable 

questlonnalres 35 40 24 35 20 42 196 

Response 

rate 43% 46% 27% 41% 21% 45% 37% 

Food 

processing0 

Universe 3,500 1,100 1,900 1,900 1,400 17,900 28,000 

Adjusted 

universe 2,821 882 1,340 1,443 1,225 14,346 22,000 

Protected 

uni;erse 1,196 432 810 660 770 7,656 12,000 

Sample 134 126 129 129 128 136 782 

out of 

business 24 24 37 31 16 26 158 

No 

employees 2 1 1 0 0 1 5 

Adlusted 

sample 108 101 91 98 112 109 619 

Total 

questionnaires 46 48 54 44 71 59 322 

Unusable 

questionnaires 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 

Total 

usable 

questionnaires 46 48 54 44 70 58 320 

Response 

rate' 43% 48% 59% 45% 63% 53% 52% 

Low Alien 

Industries 

Universe 554,000 240,000 351,000 376,000 218,000 3,045,ooo 4,784,OOO 

Adiusted 

unherse 344000 158,000 208,000 233,000 118,000 2,205,OOO 3,270,OOO 

Projected 

universe 566,000 279,000 419,000 386,000 275,000 3,697,OOO 3,622,OOO 

Sample 137 137 135 137 135 1,294 1,975 

out of 

business 40 41 40 40 47 308 516 

No 

employees 12 6 15 12 15 49 109 

(continued) 

Page 87 GAO/GGD-SS-16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix III 

Statistical Data for Employer Survey 

Industry 

Adjusted 

sample 

CA 

85 

FL 

90 

States 

TX 

80 

NY 

85 

IL 

73 

Other 

937 

Total 

1.350 

Total 

questionnaires 

Unusable 

questionnaires 

150 160 165 145 173 756 1,549 

IO 1 4 4 2 35 56 

Total 

usable 

questionnaires 

Response 

rate 

Totals 

Unrverse 

Adjusted 

unrverse 

Projected 

universe 

Sample 

out of 

business 

140 159 161 141 171 721 1,493 

165% 177% 201% 166% 234% 77% 111% 

686,000 310,000 437,000 459,000 274,000 3.893.000 6.059.000 

467,000 203,000 276,000 300,000 191,000 2,763,OOO 4,083,OOO 

621,000 303,000 445,000 419,000 297,000 2,108,OOO 4,193,ooo 

812 801 801 823 797 1,964 5,998 

224 260 267 252 215 496 1.714 

No 

employees 

Unrdentified 

with no 

employees’ 

Total 

number 

deleted 

Adjusted 

sample 

Questionnarres 

recerved 

Unidentified 

questionnaires 

Total 

received 

Unadjusted 

Response 

rate 

Unusable 

questronnaires 

35 17 27 33 28 74 214 

. . . . . . 28’ 

553 524 

394 386 

. . 

394 386 

49% 48% 

10 1 

507 538 

365 379 

. . 

365 379 

46% 46% 

4 4 

554 1,394 

406 1,044 

. . 

406 1,044 

51% 53% 

3 37 

4,042 

2,974 

256’ 

3,230 

54% 

59 

(continued) 

Page 88 GAOiGGDBS-16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix lIl 

Statistical Data for Employer Survey 

Industry CA FL TX NY IL Other Total 

Unidentifted 

and 

unusable . . . . . . 2' 

Total 

unusable 

Total 

usable 

questionnaires 

10 1 4 4 3 37 61 

384 385 361 375 403 1,007 3,169 

Response 

rate 69% 73% 71% 70% 73% 72% 78% 

aThe adjusted universe reflects the adjustment made to the universe on the basis of the proportron of 

employers in the sample who are either out of business or have no employees Adjusted Sample/Sample x Unrverse = Adjusted Unrverse 

bThe projected untverse IS based on the werghted data 

‘The total usable questronnarres are those employers who are stall In busrness. have at least one 

employee, and have provided the number of employees at work In therr specrfic location. We excluded 

respondents who we believe provrded rnformatron based on therr entrre (natronwrde) company rather 

than on the single unrt to which the questronnarre was addressed, srnce the,sample was drawn on the 

bass of specrfrc locatrons rather than natronwrde companies 

dThe Response Rate = Total Usable Ouestronnarres/Adjusted Sample 

eBecause of the size of the response rate, only the totals were rounded to the nearest thousand 

f’ Unrdenttfred” respondents are those who did not tndtcate a state and/or industry on the questronnarre 

Sampling Errors To interpret survey results, all sample surveys are subject to sample 

error, i.e., the extent to which the results may differ from what would 

be obtained if the whole population had received and returned the questionnaire. The size of the sampling errors depends largely on the number 

of respondents. Sampling errors for analyses done in this report are plus 

or minus 5 percent or less, except as presented in table 111.3. 

Page 89 GAO/GGD-89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix II3 

Statistical Data for Employer Survey 

Table 111.3: Sampling Errors Greater Than 

5 Percent Maximum 

sampling error Unweighted Weighted 

Question/crosstabulatiorV (percent) responses responses 

Question 1 7.Ab 7 475 528,000 

Question 17 Bc 9 328 368,000 

Question 31 8 440 445,000 

aFor complete wording of each questlon. refer to the Employer Survey, appendix II 

bThts was a variable created to look at all those who had answered QuestIons 17 6A, and/or 17 7A, and/ 

or 17.lOA wlthout duplrcatton 

‘This was a vanable created to look at all those who had answered Questrons 17 6B and/or 17 78. and/ 

or 17 108 wlthout duplrcatron 

Nor-sampling Errors In addition to sampling errors, the practical difficulties of conducting 

any survey may introduce other sources of error into the study. 

The questionnaires were anonymous1 in order to increase the likelihood 

that employers would respond and that their responses would be honest. 

This was an issue of particular importance because answers to certain 

questions indicate they had engaged in practices that might not be legal. 

There were, however, some consequences of this strategy. 

Potentially, the most serious consequence associated with the anonymity of the questionnaire was the threat posed to our ability to weight the 

data and, therefore, project the results to the universe of employers. 

Specifically, respondents identified their industry differently from the 

identification made by the marketing firm. In other words, some respondents “migrated” from one strata to another. The result was that we had 

over loo-percent response rates in the category non-alien, or “other” 

industries. Consequently, these responses were weighted more heavily 

than they would have been had they been identified in their original 

strata. 

As a result, we generally report the results using two strata, rather than 

six, for each dimension. That is, we either report for the Kation as a 

whole; for states with high alien populations (California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas); or all other states with low alien populations. We made the same distinctions by industries: high alien 

population industries (agriculture, restaurant and hotel, construction, 

‘Employers were requested to separately return a post card acknowledging that they responded to 

our questionnaire. While this enabled us to determine the nonrespondents, we have no way to associate employers with their questionnaires. 

Page 90 GAO/GGD-89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix Ill 

Statistid Data for Employer Survey 

garment, and food processing) and all other (low alien) industries. A 

comparison of our survey estimates of those populations and those of 

the marketing service and Bureau of Census can be found in table 111.4. 

Table 111.4: Comparison of Numbers of 

Employers in High/Low Alien Population Data Source 

States and High/Low Alien Population 

GAO survey 

Marketing Service* 1985 Censusb estimates 

Industries by Data Source States 

Hugh alien 

population states 2,185,900 (35%) 2,069,672 (36%) 2,086,OOO (50%) 

Low alien 

population states 3,892,600 (65%) 3,631,813 ( 64%) 2,108,OOO (50%) 

Totals 6,058,500 (100%) 5,701,485 (100%) 4,194,ooo (100%) 

Industries 

High alien 

population 

industries 1.274,900 (21%) 990,284 (17%) 571,000 ( 14%) 

Low alien 

population 

Industries 4,783,600 ( 79%) 4,711,201 ( 83%) 3,622,OOO ( 86%) 

Totals 6,058,500 (100%) 5,701,485 (100%) 4,193,ooo (100%) 

Note- “High alien populatron states” are the five states rdentifred by the INS as havrng the largest populatron of akens Calrfornia, Florida, Texas New York, and lllrnors All other states have been defined as 

“low alien populatron states ” ‘Hugh alren populatron Industries” are those classrfred by INS as those 

employing the largest number of alrens agriculture, restaurant/hotel. constructron, garment. and food 

processrng All other tndustnes have been classrfred as “Low alren populatron tndustries 

aMarketrng servrces database, September 15. 1987 

bCounty Busrness Patterns-United States. 1985 Washrngton. DC Bureau of the Census, November 

1987, pp 1-2 

These numbers are quite close across the strata. However, if you compare the universe of employers by industry, from the marketing service, 

the 1985 Census, and our survey, a clearly observable difference in the 

estimates exists. (See table 111.5.) This reinforces our decision to report 

by high/low alien population industry, rather than by the original six 

strata. 

Page 91 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix III 

Statistical Data for Employer Survey 

Table 111.5: Comparison of the Universe 

of Employers by industry Data Source 

Mirek;tineg GAO survey 

Industry . a 1985 Censusb estimates 

Aanculture 161.900 63,700 63.000 

Restaurant/ hotel 359,400 399,340 145,000 

Construction 667,200 476,217 340,000 

Garment 38,700 29,458 11,000 

Food Drocessina 27.700 21.569 12.000 

Low alien Dowlation lndustnes 4,783,600 4,711,201 3,622,OOO 

Totals 8,058,500 5,701,485 4,193,ooo 

aMarketlng service database, September 15, 1987. 

bCounty Bwness Patterns-Unlted States, 1985 Washington, DC Bureau of the Census, November 

1987, pp l-2. 

In order to help determine the seriousness of the migration problem, we 

compared both weighted and unweighted data to see if there were differences in response patterns in those strata that appeared to be most 

vulnerable. Overall, we found that there were generally differences of 

less than 5 percent in weighted and unweighted response differences on 

both frequencies and cross tabulations. Response differences appeared 

to be most sensitive to differences caused by the weights for questions 

with a very small number of respondents. In these instances, the differences only ranged from 3 to 12 percent. Thus, we have reported the 

findings numerically for instances where the migration differences 

apparently had relatively little effect and qualitatively in other 

instances, but we are not able to “reconstitute” the original sample. In 

any event, the combination of low to moderate item response rates and 

migration means the precision actually achieved, while we cannot estimate it exactly, could be notably lower than the g&percent confidence 

with a lo-percent error we had planned for. 

Projected Responses for 

Selected Figures 

Table III.6 provides the projected employer universes used in the figures 

listed. 

Page 92 GAO/GGD-8916 Employer Sanctions 
-- 

Appendix III 

Statistical Data for Employer Survey 

Table 111.6: Employer Universe for 

Selected Figures Figure Estimated 

number Column number 

3.1 l-9 Employees/Are Aware of Sanctions 2,500,OOO 

l-9 Employees/Understand They Can be Sanctioned 1600,000 

lo-50 Emolovees/Are Aware of Sanctions 1 .ooo.ooo 

3.2 

lo-50 Employees/Understand They Can be Sanctioned 890,000 

51+ Employees/Are Aware of Sanctions 345,000 

51+ Employees/Understand They Can be Sanctioned 325,090 

Emolovers visited bv INS 76.000 

4.2 

Employers not visited by INS 

Screen Applicants Selectively: 

Employers unclear about verification requirements 

Employers clear about verification requirements 

Screen Current Workers Selectrvely: 

1,700,000 

86,000 

1,400,000 

4.3 

Employers unclear about verification requrrements 

Employers clear about verification requirements 

Screen Applicants Selectively. 

INS had visited 

INS had not visited 

Screen Current Workers Selectively: 

INS had visited 

86,000 

1,300,000 

87,000 

2,600,OOO 

87.000 

INS had not visrted 2,600,OOO 

Page 93 GAO/GGD-W-16 Employer Sanctiona 
Appendix IV 

Survey of State/Local Human Rights Agencies 

on Unfair Immigration-Related 

Employment Practices 

U.S. GENERAL ACCWNTING OFFICE 

SURVEY OF STATE/LOCAL HUMAN RIGHTS AGENCIES 

ON UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EWLOYKNT PRACTICES 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), an 

agency of Congress responsible for evaluating federal 

programs, is conducting a review of the lranigration 

Reform and Control Act (IRCAI. The purpose of this 

survey is to gather information from human rights 

agencies on their awareness of employment-related 

discrimination coverage under the federal Iaw and to 

identity whether there are other laws at their levels 

of government which provide similar coverage. 

Pm+ / 4sks questions pertaining to your 

wganization’s awsreness of IRC4. Part II asks 

questions pertaining to your agency’s discrimination 

laws which deal with national origin employment 

discrimination, or discrimination based solely on a 

person’s nationality. Part I I / asks questions 

pertaining to your agency’s discrimination 1~s that 

address employment discrimination related to a 

person’s citizenship status, separate from nntion.3 

origin. (PLEASE BE SURE TO NOTE THE DISTINCTION 

BETWEEN QUESTIONS IN PARTS I1 4ND I I I.) P.r+ I” 

concerns IRCA snd your jurisdiction’s Ia*. Part V 

44s ebout your organization. Space is provided in 

Part VI for any conments you may have. 

The questionnaire should be answered by the head 

of the organization or designee in consultation with 

key Staff tani Iiar with your organization’s 

processing of discriminstion charges. Your responses 

nil I be treated contiden+ielIy. They wi I, be 

combined with others and used only 1’1 sumnary tocm in 

0°C report. Most of the questions can be easily 

answered by checking boxes or tilling in blanks. The 

questionnaire should take about IO minutes +a 

canp I etc. Space has been provided I+ the end of the 

questionnaire for any additional ccmnents you might 

r.mt to make. If needed, additional pages may be 

attached. It you have questions, please cal I 

Ms. Linda Yatson at (2021 357-1019. 

I 

Please return the ccmpieted questionnazre in the 

enclosed pre-addressed envelope within 10 days of 

- 

receipt. In the .3ven+ the envelope is mispldced, our 

LetUrn address is.: 

U.S. General Accounting Ott,ce 

General Government Division 

Ms. Linda Watson 

441 i Street, NW ROOK 3660 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

P4RT I. THE IMIIGRATIW REFORM AND CCNTROC ACT 

1 IRCA; 

BACXGROUND 

In November 1986, a federal inmigration iaw *as 

passed, the Immigration Reform and Control Act 

CIRCA). It includes specific provistons to protect 

individuals agalnst employment discrimination in 

hiring and tiring based on national origin and 

citizenship status. The Office of Special Counsel 

for Imnigration-Related Unfair Employnrtnt WaCtlCes 

IOSC) in the Department of Justice handies IRCA 

employment discrimination charges. 

I. Prior to receivang this questionnaire, how 

tanlliar, it at all. were you with IRCA’s 

ellDloymtn+ discrimlnstion provisions? ( MEC% 

CUE.1 

(5) 

I. I III Very greatly taniliar 

4. 1 121 Sanerhat tami I iar 1 

I 321 Moderately familiar WESTION 2.1 

2. I 191 Greatly tmiliar 

iCONTINUE TO 

3. 

5. 1 71 ~ittie or no fan Iiarity (SKIP TO 

PART 11, PAGE 2.) 

Id=81 

Thank you for your help. 

Page 94 GAO/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix IV 

Survey of State/Local Human RichAgencies on Unfair Immigration-Related 

Employment Practices 

2. From which of the following sources, if any. 

have You received infwmation/sssistance about 

IRCA’s discrimination provisions7 lCHEC% YES OR 

No FOR EACH SWRCE. 1 

SOURCE Yes No 

-- 

(1) (2) 

1. Office of Special Counsel 

for Imnigratlon-Related 

Unfair Employment Practices 

(OSC), DepwWnt of Justice 

N=64 

2. lmnigration and Naturalization 

Service I INS) 

N=64 

3. Equal Employment Opportunity 

191 451 16) 

361 281 (7) 

4. Has your organization referred any individuals 

or c.x.es to the Office of Special Counsel? 

(CHECK ONE.) 

N=75 (19) 

1. I 61 Yes 

2. I 661 NO 

3. I 31 Don’t know 

PW?TS 1, AND II, ASK FOR INFORMATIOH ABOUT 

YOUR AGENCY’S DISCRIMINATION LAWS WHICH ARE 

MLICABLE TO YOUR ORGANIZATION. 

Carmission (EEOC) I 591 I 131 (8) PART II. YOUR AGENCY’S NATIONAL CRIGIN EW’LOYMENT 

N=72 DISCRIMINATION LAYS 

4. State office (specify) 

I 151 [ 391 (9) National origin discrimination refers to 

N’54 discriminatory actions taken by an employer as 8 

5. City office (specify) result of one’s n*tional origin. (FOR CITIZENSHIP 

I 71 I 431 !lO) STATUS EWLOYMNT DISCRIMINATION. SEE PART III, 

N=50 PAGE 3.1 

6. County office (specIfyI 

21 

291 

491 (111 

301 (12) 

N=51 

7. Radio, TV announcenants 

N=59 

8. Other (specify) 

N=28 281 

3. Which of the following types of information/ 

assistance. if any. has your organization 

received regarding IRCA’s discrimination 

provisions? (CHECK YES OR NO FOR EACH ITEM. 1 

- 1 IlSl 

5. Does the jurisdiction (state, county, or City) 

under which your organization operates have a 

law which prohibits national origin enploymant 

discrimination? (CHECK ONE.) 

(20) 

I. ! 811 Yes (CONTINUE TO QUESTICW 6.1 

2. 

3. 

N=81 

INFDRn*TiCN/ASSISTANCE Yes NO 

-- 

II, (2) 6. 15 this law 0 state, county, or city Iar? 

1. OSC’S to, ,-tree 1800) 

telephone number N=64 

2. OSC’s address N=65 

221 [ 421 (14) 

281 1 371 (15) 

3. OSC charge forms 

CRT-37 (Jul. 87) N=66 221 I 441 (16) 

4. Training to counsa 

individuals about protections 

under IRCA N=67 [ 141 I 531 (171 

5. Other ispecify) 

(CHECX ONE. 1 

N=74 

I. I 401 state IaN 

(21 I 

2. I 71 County I.* 

3. L 271 City law 

7. Does your organization have responsibility for 

investigating national origin employment 

discrimination charges? ICHECK ONE.1 

(22) 

I. I 811 Yes (CONTINUE TO WESTION 8.1 

I 171 I - I (181 

2. I I No (XIP TO PART III, PAGE 3.1 

I N=81 

Page 96 GAO,/GGD89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix IV 

Survey of State/Local Human RichAgencies on Unfair Immigration-Related 

Employment Practlcee 

0. In order for this law to be applicable under 

your organization’s jurisdiction. what is the 

minimum number of employees the employer must 

have? (ENTER NU43ER. IF NONE, ENTER “0.“) 

( 23-24 ) 

Nunber of employees for law to apply: 0 - 15 

(minImum) 

9. Does your organization generally investigate and 

process national origin employrent discrimination charges received or do You generally 

forward. without investigation, some or all of 

these Cases to another agency7 (CHECK ONE.) 

(251 

N-00 

2. I 31 Keep about half 

about half 3 

(SKIP TO 

WESTION Il.) 

the cases/refer 

3. [ 01 Forward, without Investigation, 

mxt or all the cases (U*(TINUE 

TO OUESTIDN 10.1 

10. If you forward. without investigation. mast or 

III of your ccses. to what organization do you 

forward them? (ENTER NAME OF ORGANIZATION AND 

ADDRESS. I (26) 

Il. Aqproximstely how many national origin 

employment discrimination charges vere filed 

directly with Your organization in fiscal year 

19877 (ENTER N-R. IF NONE, ENTER “0” A&D 

%IP TO PART Ill.1 

127-30) 

Charges filed: Average = 67 

Median = 13 

N=ll 

12. Of those charges (In Question 11 1, about how 

lMny were related to employers’ hiring or firing 

practices? (ENTER NUMBERS. IF NONE, ENTER “0.” 

IF YOU DON’T KEEP RECORDS IN THIS FORMAT, CHECK 

“N/A.“) 

N/A 

Number of I CHECK 

charges CR BOX ) 

Average=9 

1. Hiring Medtan=2 L I (31-35) 

N-49 

Average=30 

2. Firing Medi an=5 I I 136-40 1 

N=50 

‘ART III. YOUR AGENCY’S CITIZENSHIP STATUS 

EWLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAWS 

Ye are defining employment discrimination due to 

:itizenship status as discriminatory actions taken by 

m employer based solely on an individual’s 

mnigrat1on status. An exaple of citizenship status 

#mployfwnt discrimlnatlon is when an employer has a 

*3licy to hire only applicants who are U.S. citizens 

‘egsrdless of theindividual’s national origin, 

loving the effect of discrimination against 

IOn-Citizens. (FOR NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION, 

EE PART II, PAGE 2.1 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

3 

Does the jurisdiction under which your 

organization Operates (the state. county, and/or 

city1 hove a law prohibiting citizenship status 

anploynent discrimination when national origin 

is not a factor? (#HECK ONE.1 

(41) 

1. l 71 Yes (CONTINUE TO QUESTION 14.) 

2. 

Does your organization have responsibility for 

investigating citizen*hip status employment 

discrimination charges? (WECX ONE.) 

(42) 

1. I 71 Yes ICONTINUE TO QUESTION 15.) 

2. I 01 No lY(lP TO PART 1”. p.4, 

N=7 

In Order for this law to be applicable under 

your organization’s jurisdiction. what is the 

minimum number of eanployws the employer nut 

have? IENTER NUMBER. IF NONE, ENTER “0.“) 

(43-44) 

N=7 

Number of employees for law to apply: 0 - 15 

(minimum) 

DOBS your organization generally investigate and 

process citizen stattis employment discrimination 

charges recslved or do you generally forward, 

without investigation. scmm or all of these 

cases to mlottb3r agency? (CHEW ONE.1 

(451 

I. I 61 Keepmostor 

al I the cases 

?‘ 

(sI(IP TO 

2. I 01 Keep about half QUESTION 18.1 

the cases/refer 

about half 

3. [ 01 Forward, without investigation, 

frost or all the cases (CONTINUE 

N=6 TO WESTION 17.1 

Page 96 GAO/GGD-W16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix IV 

Survey of State/Local Human mts 

Agencies on Unfair Immigration-Related 

Employment Practices 

17. If you forward, without Investigation, m3s.t or 

all of your cases. to what organization do you 

forward them7 (ENTER NAN OF ORGANIZATION AND 

ADDRESS.) 

(46) 

18. Approximately how many cltizenshlp status 

employment discrimination charges were filed 

directly with your organization in fiscal year 

19677 (ENTER NUWER. IF NONE, ENTER “0” AND 

SKIP TO PART I”.) 

(47-50) 

Charges filed: Total=6 

N=7 

19. Of those charges (in Question 181, about how 

many were related to employers’ hiring or firing 

practices7 (ENTER NUWERS. IF NONE, ENTER “0.” 

IF YOU DON’T KEEP RECORDS IN THIS FCRMAT, CHECX 

“N/A.“) 

N/A 

Number of (CHEW 

charges CR BOX I 

~ - 

I. Hiring Total=! I I 151-54) 

N-1 

2. Firing Total=1 I 1 156-59) 

N=, 

PART I”. IRCA AH) YOUR JURISDICTION’S LAY 

Ue are Interested in finding out how your laws 

canpare with IRCA. 

20. Under IRCA, if an employer IS trying to decide 

between two individuals to fill o specific job, 

and both are equally qualified for the job, the 

employer may give preference in hiring to the 

U.S. citizen. 

If, in this situation the employer hired the 

U.S. Citizen, could this constitute a violation 

of any law which your organization investigates 

OT enforces? (CHECK ONE.) 

N=77 (621 

1. I 91 Definitely yes 

I CONT I NUE TO 

2. I 251 Probably yes iI- OUESTICW 21.1 

3. I 211 “ncertal” 

4. I I81 Probably no 

4 

ISKIP TO 

QUESTION 22.) 

5. I 41 Definitely no 4 

‘1. Please explain the circumstances under which 

this would constitute a violation under your 

Ima. 

(62 I 

22. Are aliens rho are not authorized to work in the 

U.S. covered by your jurisdiction’s law against 

an employer’s discriminatory hiring/firing 

practices? (CHEQ( ONE BOX IN EACH ROW. IF YOUR 

JURISDICTION DOES NOT HAVE A NATIONAL ORIGIN OR 

CITIZENSHIP STATUS LAW, CHEC% COLUHY 4, “NOT 

WPLICABLE.“) 

Don't 

YOUR JURISDICTION’S Yes NO lcnor N/A 

LAWS (1) (2) 01 (41 

I. National origin 

+4=79 47 17 13 2 

2. Citizenship status 

N=79 3 3 2 71 

(63 I 

(64) 

Page 97 GAO/GGD+W16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix IV 

Survey of State/Local Human Rights 

Agencies on Unfair Immigration-Related 

Employment Practices 

PART v. YOUR ORGANIZATION PART VI. COCMNTS 

Finally, we muId like to find out sanething 

about the approximate sire of your organiratlon and 

the person who filled out this questionnaire. 

25. If you have any comments regarding any previous 

questions, please use the space provided below. 

If necessary, additional sheets may be attached. 

170) 

23. Approximately, how many charges Of 

discrimination were filed directly with your 

organization in fiscal year 1987? CENTER 

NUMBER. INCLUDE ALL CHARGES, SUCH AS SEX, AGE, 

EWLOYMNT ETC. I 

(65-69) 

Total charges: Aver age=8 10 

Median’271 

N=78 

24. Please provide the following information in case 

we need to contact you for any follow-up 

qu.3stons. Please remember that you responses 

wil I be confidential. 

Name: 

Organization: 

I 

Page 98 GAO,&GD-89-16 Employer Sanctions 
Appendix V 

Major Contributors to This Report 

General Government Arnold P. Jones, Senior Associate Director, (202) 275-8389 

James M. Blume, Group Director 

Alan M. Stapleton, Project Director 

D.C. 

- 

C. Jay Jennings, Deputy Project Manager 

Linda R. Watson, Deputy Project Manager 

Eleanor L. Johnson, Social Science Analyst 

Atlanta Regional Mario L. Artesiano, Regional Manager Representative 

Office 

Dallas Regional Office Arthur L. Nisle, Regional Manager Representative 

Chicago Regional Harriet Drummings, Regional Manager Representative 

Office 

Los Angeles Regional Michael P. Dino, Regional Manager Representative 

Office 

New York Regional John D. Carrera, Regional Manager Representative 

Office 

*:.s. G.F.0. 19FP-241-lt4:F@74i 

(183561) Page 99 GAO/GGDW-16 Employer Sanctions