Opinion ID: 766394
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of 1324 to Employers

Text: 18 Section1324 of Title 8of the United States Code, entitled Bringing in and harboring certain aliens, prescribes a prison term of up to five years and/or a fine in accordance with Title 18 of the Code, see 18 U.S.C. 3571(b)(3) (1994) (for an individual convicted of a felony, up to $250,000), for [a]ny person who, 19 knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien. 20 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(i)(A)(iii) (1994); see also id. 1324(a)(1)(B)(i) (Supp. III 1997) (effective September 30, 1996, increasing to 10 years the maximum prison term if the harboring in violation of 1324(a)(i)(A)(iii) was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain). Where there is such knowledge or reckless disregard of the alien's unlawful status, 1324(a)(i)(A)(iii) encompasses a defendant's conduct tending substantially to facilitate [the] alien's remaining in the United States illegally. United States v. Lopez, 521 F.2d 437, 441 (2d Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted) (construing predecessor section, see 8U.S.C. 1324(a)(3) (1970) (reaching any person who willfully or knowingly conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection ... any [illegal] alien)), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 995 (1975). In Lopez, we concluded that the defendant's conduct, which included providing illegal aliens with housing, transportation, and sham marriage ceremonies, and assisting them in obtaining employment, was meant to facilitate the continued unlawful presence of the aliens in the United States, which amounts to harboring. 521 F.2d at 441. 21 Section 1324a of Title 8, which Kim contends is the only section under which he could properly be prosecuted, is entitled Unlawful employment of aliens. Section 1324a imposes on an employer the obligations to refrain from knowingly employing an alien who is unauthorized to work in the United States, see 8U.S.C. 1324a(a), and to verify, under penalty of perjury, that before hiring a given individual the employer examined identification documents such as a passport or resident alien card and concluded that those documents reasonably appeared to be genuine, see id. 1324a(b)(1). Section 1324a authorizes the government to, inter alia, prosecute employers who have engaged in a pattern or practice of such violations; the criminal sanctions prescribed by 1324a, other than injunctions, are limited to fines of up to $3,000 per alien and/or imprisonment for not more than six months for the entire unlawful pattern or practice. See id. 1324a(f). 22 Although Kim contends that, as an employer, he could properly be prosecuted only under 1324a and hence subject only to the lesser penalties prescribed by that section rather than those found in 1324, we reject his contention for two principal reasons. First, 1324, on its face, does not restrict the persons within its reach. It applies to [a]ny person who, inter alia, knowingly harbors an illegal alien. Thus, while 1324 and 1324a plainly are not coextensive, given that 1324a applies only to employers and imposes documentation verification requirements that are not found in 1324, 1324 appears on its face to reach some of the conduct covered by 1324a. As a general matter, the fact that Congress has enacted two sections encompassing similar conduct but prescribing different penalties does not compel a conclusion that one statute was meant to limit, repeal, or affect enforcement of the other. Statutes may overlap or enjoy a partial redundancy, United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 118 (1979), and yet be fully capable of coexisting, id. at 122. We see nothing in the language of these two sections to preclude their coexistence. 23 Second, the evolution of 1324(a)(i)(A)(iii) to its present form makes clear that Congress intended it to cover employers. Both 1324a and the current version of 1324(a)(i)(A)(iii) were adopted in 1986 as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), see Pub. L. No. 99-603, 101, 112(a), 100 Stat. 3359, 3360-74, 3381-82 (1986). IRCA was a major immigration reform initiative designed to deter aliens from entering [the United States] illegally. H.R. Rep. No. 99-682(I), at 46 (1986) (House Report), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5650. Describing [e]mployment [a]s the magnet that attracts aliens here illegally, the House Report stated that the purpose of the legislation was 24 to close the back door on illegal immigration so that the front door on legal immigration may remain open. The principal means of closing the back door, or curtailing future illegal immigration, is through employer sanctions. 25 .... Employers will be deterred by the penalties in this legislation from hiring unauthorized aliens and this, in turn, will deter aliens from entering illegally or violating their status in search of employment. 26 Id. See also NLRB v. A.P.R.A. Fuel Oil Buyers Group, Inc., 134 F.3d 50, 55-56 (2d Cir. 1997); Montero v. INS, 124 F.3d 381, 384 (2d Cir. 1997). IRCA introduced 1324a, a new section directed toward that goal, targeting only employers. 27 IRCA also expanded the scope of 1324, allowing it too to reach employers. Prior to the passage of IRCA, 1324(a), which was enacted in 1952 and remained unchanged until 1986, prohibited a person from, inter alia, willfully or knowingly conceal[ing], harbor[ing], or shield[ing] from detection, or attempt[ing] to conceal, harbor, or shield [an illegally present alien] from detection, 8U.S.C. 1324(a)(3) (1982); but that pre-1986 version of 1324 also contained a proviso stating that for the purposes of this section, employment (including the usual and normal practices incident to employment) shall not be deemed to constitute harboring. 8U.S.C. 1324(a) (1982) (emphasis added). Thus, prior to IRCA, routine employment practices in hiring illegal aliens were expressly excluded from 1324's prohibition against harboring. In 112(a) of IRCA, Congress amended 1324 to eliminate that exclusion. The legislative history expressly confirms that, in order to modify the existing law and expand the scope of activities proscribed, House Report at 65, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5669 (discussing 112 of the bill), the amendment to 1324 was included to eliminate [the] proviso[] which prevents employment from being considered as harboring an alien, id. at 94, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5698 (discussing 112 of the bill). 28 Thus, after the 1986 amendment, 1324 no longer excluded employment from the prohibition against harboring. The present version of 1324, which is sufficiently broad on its face to encompass the knowing or reckless harboring of illegal aliens by employers, was plainly intended to have that breadth. 29 The fact that employers are also targeted by 1324a provides no support for Kim's contention that he should have been prosecuted under 1324a, for when an act violates more than one criminal statute, the Government may prosecute under either so long as it does not discriminate against any class of defendants. United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. at 123-24. [A] defendant has no constitutional right to elect which of two applicable federal statutes shall be the basis of his indictment and prosecution. Id. at 125; see United States v. Zyskind, 118 F.3d 113, 118 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1300 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 813 (1991). Kim has not shown discrimination here. Thus, while the government could have elected to prosecute Kim under 1324a, the fact that it chose to pursue him under 1324 provides him no basis for complaint. 30