ILLEGAL ALIENS

Significant Obstacles to

Reducing Unauthorized

Alien Employment Exist

Statement of Richard M. Stana

Associate Director, Administration of Justice Issues

General Government Division

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on

Immigration and Claims, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Thursday July 1, 1999

GAO/T-GGD-99-105

Statement 

ILLEGAL ALIENS: Significant Obstacles to

Reducing Unauthorized Alien Employment

Exist

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD-99-105

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Immigration and

Naturalization Service’s (INS) enforcement of workplace immigration

laws. My statement will outline the results presented in our recently

completed report, Illegal Aliens: Significant Obstacles to Reducing

Unauthorized Alien Employment Exist (GAO/GGD-99-33, April 2, 1999).

One of the primary magnets attracting illegal aliens to the United States is

jobs. Immigration experts believe that as long as opportunities for

employment exist, the incentive to enter the United States illegally will

persist, and efforts at the U.S. borders to prevent illegal entry will be

undermined. Therefore, these experts believe that reducing the availability

of employment for illegal aliens should be an integral part of a

comprehensive strategy to reduce illegal immigration.

In this statement, I make the following points:

• Significant numbers of aliens unauthorized to work in the United States

have used fraudulent documents to circumvent the employment

verification process designed to prevent employers from hiring them,

thereby undermining the effectiveness of the process. Employers seeking

to comply with the law can be deceived by fraudulent documents, while

those seeking “cheap labor” can intentionally hire unauthorized aliens

under the guise of having complied with the employment verification

requirements.

• INS has taken steps to improve the employment verification process, yet

considerable obstacles remain.

• INS and the Department of Labor’s immigration-related worksite

enforcement efforts have been limited, and INS’ employer investigation

efforts have produced modest results.

• INS is changing its approach to worksite enforcement, but it is too early to

gauge its success.

We made recommendations in our report that are shown at the end of this

statement.
ILLEGAL ALIENS: Significant Obstacles to Reducing Unauthorized Alien Employment Exist

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-99-105

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 19861 made it illegal

for employers knowingly to hire unauthorized aliens. IRCA requires

employers to comply with an employment verification process intended to

provide them with a means to avoid hiring unauthorized aliens. The

process requires newly hired employees to present a document or

documents that establish their identity and eligibility to work. Employers

are to review the document or documents that an employee presents and

complete an Employment Eligibility Form, INS Form I-9. On the form,

employers are to certify that they have reviewed the documents and that

the documents appear genuine and relate to the individual. Employers are

expected to judge whether the documents are obviously fraudulent.

IRCA also provides for penalties or sanctions, such as fines, against

employers who do not complete the verification process or who knowingly

hire unauthorized aliens. INS, under its worksite enforcement program,

and to a limited degree, Labor, are responsible for checking employer

compliance with IRCA’s verification requirements.

IRCA also prohibits employers with four or more employees from

discriminating against authorized workers. The Department of Justice’s

Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment

Practices (OSC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

share responsibility for investigating complaints alleging immigrationrelated discrimination.

IRCA’s employment verification process is easily thwarted by fraud. Large

numbers of unauthorized aliens have used fraudulent documents to

circumvent the employment verification process. For example, data from

INS’ employer sanctions database showed that, over the 20-month period

from October 1996 through May 1998, INS identified about 50,000

unauthorized aliens who had used 78,000 fraudulent documents to obtain

employment. About 60 percent of the fraudulent documents used were

INS documents; most of the rest were Social Security cards.

 Large-scale counterfeiting has made employment eligibility documents

widely available. For example, in November 1998 in Los Angeles, INS

seized nearly 2 million fraudulent documents, such as counterfeit INS

permanent resident cards and Social Security documents. These

documents were headed for distribution points around the country. In its

 

1

 P.L. 99-603, 8 U.S.C. 1324a et seq.

Background

Fraudulent Documents

Have Undermined

Effectiveness of INS’

Employment

Verification Process
ILLEGAL ALIENS: Significant Obstacles to Reducing Unauthorized Alien Employment Exist

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD-99-105

1997 report to Congress,2 the Commission on Immigration Reform

reiterated its 1994 conclusion that the single most important step that

could be taken to reduce unlawful migration was the development of a

more effective system for verifying an employee’s authorization to work.

INS has undertaken several initiatives to improve the employment

verification process, but it faces significant obstacles. First, as mandated

in the 1996 Act, INS is testing pilot programs in which employers

electronically verify an employee’s eligibility to work. However, INS has

had difficulty in meeting its goal for enrolling employers in the pilot

programs. Although INS originally expected to enroll 16,000 employers by

the end of fiscal year 1999, only 2,500 were participating as of November

1998. According to various officials we spoke with, some employers are

reluctant to participate in the pilots because of concern that participation

may have a negative economic impact on their businesses. According to

these officials, employers in some industries believe that, in the current

tight labor market, they would not have enough authorized workers

applying for jobs if they participated in a verification pilot. The employers

reportedly fear that they could be put at a competitive disadvantage

because employees rejected by the verification system might go to work

for competitors who are not enrolled in a pilot.

Another reason for low participation in the pilot program could be that

some employers are not aware of the pilots. Other federal and state

agencies, such as Labor and state labor agencies, have contact with

employers who might be interested in INS’ pilot programs. While they did

not have a formal role in informing employers about the pilots and

generally did not do so, the Labor and state labor officials we talked to said

they would be willing to inform employers about the INS pilots.

Second, INS has made little progress in reducing the number of documents

that employers can accept to determine employment eligibility. Having a

smaller number of acceptable documents would make the process more

secure and reduce employer confusion. In February 1998, INS issued

proposed regulations to reduce the number of documents that could be

used from 27 to 14. However, as of February 1999, 27 documents could

still be used, and INS did not know when the proposed regulations would

be finalized.

 

2

 Becoming an American: Immigration and Immigrant Policy (U.S. Commission on Immigration

Reform, September 1997).

INS Is Taking Steps to

Improve Verification

Process, Yet

Considerable

Obstacles Remain
ILLEGAL ALIENS: Significant Obstacles to Reducing Unauthorized Alien Employment Exist

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-99-105

Lastly, INS has begun issuing new documents with increased security

features, which it hopes will make it easier for employers to verify the

documents’ authenticity. However, in addition to these INS documents,

aliens can show employers various other documents that authorize them

to work. Other widely used documents, such as the Social Security card,

do not have the security features of the INS documents. Therefore,

unauthorized aliens seeking employment can circumvent the improved

security features of INS documents by simply presenting fraudulent nonINS documents—such as counterfeit Social Security cards—to employers.

Since no verification system is foolproof, enforcing IRCA’s employer

sanctions provisions will always be important. INS has devoted a

relatively small percentage of its enforcement resources to worksite

enforcement, about 2 percent a year since 1994. In fiscal year 1998, INS

completed about 6,500 employer investigations, which equated to about 3

percent of the country’s estimated number of employers of unauthorized

aliens. To best use its limited worksite enforcement staff, INS has

attempted to target specific industries that historically have had a high

probability of violations. Yet, 43 percent of the investigations INS opened

in 1998 were not in the targeted industries.

To bolster its worksite enforcement efforts, INS in 1992 entered into an

agreement with Labor that called for the agencies to work together in

identifying employers suspected of hiring unauthorized workers. However,

Labor has generally limited its assistance to INS to a review of employers’

compliance with the employment verification paperwork requirements.

Labor believes that delving into immigration-related worksite enforcement

matters, such as the immigration status of workers, could hamper its own

mission of enforcing worker protection laws. That is, unauthorized

workers, fearing possible removal by INS, could be discouraged from

complaining about labor standards violations. About 70 percent of all

Labor investigations are based upon complaints; Labor initiates only about

30 percent. Under a new agreement with INS effective November 1998,

Labor’s role in this area has been reduced. To avoid discouraging

unauthorized workers from complaining, Labor is no longer to review

employer compliance with the employment verification procedures in

investigations stemming from complaints. Labor is only to review

employer compliance in Labor-initiated investigations.

INS and Labor

Enforcement Efforts

Have Been Limited
ILLEGAL ALIENS: Significant Obstacles to Reducing Unauthorized Alien Employment Exist

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD-99-105

A major goal of INS’ worksite program was to investigate employers INS

believed intentionally hired illegal workers, including prosecuting some

employers for criminal violations of immigration law. However, 83 percent

of the investigations INS completed during the period we reviewed

resulted in no employer sanctions. In fact, INS found nearly half of the

9,600 employers INS investigated to be in compliance with the employment

verification procedures. INS initiated criminal proceedings in only about 2

percent of the investigations.

INS officials attributed these modest results to various factors. They said

that the widespread use of fraudulent documents made it difficult for INS

to prove that an employer knowingly hired an unauthorized alien. In

addition, they said that INS’ requirement that its district offices’ worksite

programs meet various numerical goals, such as identifying a certain

number of unauthorized aliens, may have placed an undue focus on

arresting unauthorized aliens, thereby undermining INS’ overall goal to

target employers suspected of intentionally hiring unauthorized aliens.

For the closed cases we reviewed, INS collected about $2.5 million in

penalties, about one-half of the $4.9 million employers had been ordered to

pay. INS did not collect the balance for various reasons, including that the

employer went out of business or went bankrupt.

INS is in the process of changing its approach to worksite enforcement.

INS developed a strategy for enforcing the immigration laws in the interior

of the United States with five strategic priorities. Two of the priorities

involve worksite enforcement. One calls for INS to pursue criminal

investigations of employers who are flagrant or grave violators. However,

the strategy does not describe the criteria INS will use to open

investigations on such employers, such as defining a “flagrant or grave

violation.” Although INS’ previous worksite program goal was similar, 83

percent of its investigations resulted in no employer sanctions. Another

priority calls for INS to “block and remove employers’ access to

unauthorized workers.” The INS official responsible for drafting the

strategy told us that INS plans to build relationships with employers to

create an effective deterrent to illegal immigration. By educating

employers whom INS has found to have unknowingly hired unauthorized

aliens, INS expects that such employers will be better able to comply with

IRCA. This, in turn, would enable INS to focus its limited worksite

enforcement resources on employers suspected of criminal activities.

However, at the time of our review, INS had not specified how much staff

it planned to devote to the worksite enforcement priorities.

INS Worksite

Investigation Efforts

Produced Modest

Results

INS Is Changing Its

Approach to Worksite

Enforcement
ILLEGAL ALIENS: Significant Obstacles to Reducing Unauthorized Alien Employment Exist

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD-99-105

INS faces significant obstacles to reducing unauthorized alien

employment. Significant numbers of unauthorized aliens can still obtain

employment because IRCA’s employment verification process can be

easily thwarted by fraud. Employers who want to hire only authorized

workers can be deceived by unauthorized aliens’ use of fraudulent

documents. Other employers who seek “cheap labor” can intentionally

hire unauthorized aliens under the guise of having complied with the

employment verification requirements. Generally, employers of

unauthorized aliens have faced little likelihood that INS would (1)

investigate them, (2) prove that they knowingly hired unauthorized aliens,

(3) collect fines, or (4) criminally prosecute them. Further, Labor’s efforts

to identify employers suspected of hiring unauthorized aliens have been

limited and are to be even more limited in the future.

Because enforcement measures can only go so far, we believe INS is going

in the right direction by testing electronic verification procedures,

proposing to reduce the number of employment eligibility documents, and

making INS documents more tamper-resistant to try to improve the

verification process. However, obstacles such as reluctance on the part of

some employers to participate in electronic verification pilot programs and

lack of knowledge about them, have hampered INS’ ability to improve the

process. Electronic verification can be effective with employers in

industries with a history of reliance on unauthorized aliens only to the

extent that they use it. Therefore, inducing such employers to participate

in the electronic verification pilots is important.

INS’ new interior enforcement strategy lacks criteria for opening

investigations on employers suspected of criminal violations. Having clear

criteria is important if INS is to focus its limited staff to achieve its

enforcement goals. Since INS is just beginning its new worksite

enforcement strategy, it is too soon to know how the proposed changes

will be implemented or to assess their impact on the employment of

unauthorized workers.

Our report recommended that the INS Commissioner

• as part of the outreach program for INS’ pilot verification programs, seek

assistance from federal and state agencies, such as the Department of

Labor and state labor agencies, in disseminating information to employers

about the programs; and

• in implementing the interior enforcement strategy, clarify the criteria for

opening investigations of employers suspected of criminal activities.

Conclusions and

Recommendations
ILLEGAL ALIENS: Significant Obstacles to Reducing Unauthorized Alien Employment Exist

Page 7 GAO/T-GGD-99-105

This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased

to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may

have.

Contact and Acknowledgement

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Richard

M. Stana at (202) 512-8777. Individuals making key contributions to this

testimony included Evi L. Rezmovic, Michael P. Dino, Tom Jessor, and

Nancy K. Kawahara.
Page 8 GAO/T-GGD-99-105
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional

copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address,

accompanied by a check or money order made out to the

Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and

MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more

copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax

number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony.

To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past

30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A

recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these

lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(183631)