Immigration Mission Creep and the Flawed H-1B Report on Fraud and Abuse

There is a troubling development in the land of immigration. The lessons of history have been forgotten. The immigration bureaucrats, immigration enforcement officials, and collusive politicians have been engaged in mischief, and a gullible media swallow the Kool-Aid. The public is then misled. What's behind these bold assertions?

For the full story, see the long version of an article (Immigration Risks Imperil the New Government) that I co-authored with Ted Chiappari, pulished on October 27 by the New York Law Journal. For a summary, read my rant below:

  • Before 9/11, when the old Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) lived dysfunctionally within the Department of Justice, many knowledgeable observers decried the inherent contradiction of asking a single agency to perform inherently contradictory functions: (1) to adjudicate requests for immigration benefits; and (2) to serve as a police agency that enforces the immigration laws, punishes fraud and other crimes, and deports people.
  • With the enactment of the Homeland Securty Act (HSA), Congress showed that it had heard the cries of the critics. HSA abolished INS and separated the immigration agency into distinct units: (1) one unit would perform the immigration adjudicative, benefit-conferring function; and (2) two other units would serve as the immigration cops. The adjudicator of benefits is now USCIS. The immigration police are now divided into border police (Customs and Border Protection) and interior police (ICE or Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
  • It didn't take long after HSA's passage for mission creep to begin, hand in hand with its kissing cousin, mission neglect. USCIS initiated a fraud detection unit to ferret out benefit fraud.
  • This unit, now known as the Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) division, has many of the earmarks of a police agency in that it investigates immigration crimes and builds cases for prosecution. These are tasks that ICE should be doing, but that unit is too busy with high profile raids to be bothered with investigating what apparently is viewed as penny ante immigration fraud.
  • Even though the HSA says that USCIS should focus on the sole task of approving or denying requests for visa petitions, green cards and citizenship, FDNS and Congressional opponents of immigration impose on the agency this extra-legal crime detection role.
  • Aside from the mission neglect of ICE and USCIS, what's worse is that USCIS funds FDNS's operations through user fees paid by U.S. businesses and individuals seeking immigration benefits. This is simply unjust because these users get no benefit from FDNS; rather they suffer the detriment of delayed immigration-benefits adjudications by a distracted agency.
  • This succession of outrageous developments is now surpassed by an even more galling affront to fairness and justice. FDNS has recently released its Report on H-1B Fraud and Abuse, finding a 20% rate of fraud and abuse in H-1B cases. The report is found on the home page of Senator Chuck Grassley who uses it to promote pet legislation that will add new unneeded and burdensome restrictions on the H-1B and the similarly beleaguered L-1 visa categories.
  • As our article shows, the report lacks statistical validity: Based on an absurdly small sample size of 246 (0.2%) out of the 96, 827 H-1B petitions filed between October 1, 2005 and March 31, 2006, the USCIS Office of Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) found 51 cases of fraud and abuse (33 cases of fraud [13.4%] and 18 cases of “technical violations” found to constitute “abuse” [7.3%]).The statistical significance, if any, of the findings from this survey, and the extrapolations from these findings, should be taken with large chunks of salt.The survey’s findings of a 20% combined fraud and technical violation rate is subject to a margin of error of plus or minus 5%. The USCIS excluded from the sample population prospective H-1B workers still residing abroad and excused the site-visit component of the research in unspecified “extenuating circumstances” with unstated frequency.

    The report states that it drew a “random” sample of 246 cases, but mere randomness does not establish lack of bias. There is no indication of how randomness was determined and the samples were chosen.

    The survey report notes that USCIS selected the Chi-Square distribution approach to theoretical probability distribution and used a 95% significance test. This means that USCIS picked a significance level of 5%. There is no indication why a 5% level rather than a lower level was chosen. Would the test fail to be significant at a less than 5% significance level? The significance level is subjective and is chosen based on the seriousness of the issue at hand. For instance, a 1% significance level on a murder trial might be chosen because it is serious and a 5% significance level on something less serious. The survey does not discuss the importance or “seriousness” of the H-1B visa category to U.S. employers and the nation’s economy.

    Moreover, the report does not say whether the USCIS picked the significance level before or after it knew the results. The significance level must be chosen before the analysis is done, not after.Given these uncertainties and concerns, the next Administration, Congress and DHS should be slow to draw conclusions and extrapolate patterns of fraud or abuse from this study without confirming whether the survey results and methodology would satisfy neutral experts in statistics and probability.

    In pursuing H-1B violations, FDNS is not only traipsing into ICE's domain. FDNS also steps on the toes of the Department of Labor (DOL), as our article notes:

    More than 80% of the asserted violations involved DOL regulations found at 20 CFR § 655.805. A supermajority of the 51 H-1B violations found in the BCA Report involved:

    (1) employment at a location not listed on the LCA (55%),

    (2) the failure to pay the prevailing wage (27%),

    (3) the duties the H-1B employee performed were other than those listed on the LCA (12%), and

    (4) the H-1B worker paid the petition filing fee statutorily imposed on the employer (6%).

    (Note that the percentage numbers exceed 100% because some petitions revealed more than one category of violation.)

    So what comes next? I predict that USCIS will use the report to arrogate more extra-legal police powers to FDNS. Large H-1B employers will claim all the fraud and abuse are perpetrated by small employers. USCIS will make it harder for small H-1B employers to receive petition approvals, just as they are now doing with small L-1 petitioning businesses. Prodded by Lou Dobbs and his ilk, Congress will push for more restrictive legislation further imperiling employment-based immigration. America will lose the economic revitalization that business immigration can produce.

    Or maybe, Congress will engage in oversight and insist that USCIS, ICE and DOL each do their distinct jobs, and not engage in mission-creep and mission-neglect. Or an outraged public can put Congress's feet to the fire and demand that all immigration laws be honored, especially the ones that restrict agency behavior, not merely those that apply foreign citizens. One can only hope.

--------

Malign Neglect: Plumbing the Silence on Immigration

The final presidential debate is now history. An allegedly unlicensed (illegal?) plumber nicknamed Joe (whose real name is Sam) received top billing, having been mentioned over 25 times in the 90-minute encounter. Less than a week ago debate moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS, hinted that immigration -- a topic missing in action in the first two presidential debates and the lone Palin-Biden debate -- at long last would be the subject of a probing question:
If I could pose one question, let's just say on immigration and say, 'Gentlemen, what are we going to do about immigration? You can build that fence, but you're still going to have 10 million illegal immigrants in this country. What are you going to do with 'em? Talk with me about that for 10 minutes.'
Alas, the only reference to immigration came when McCain accused Obama of airing ads that "misportray[ed]" his position on immigration. Why are the candidates addressing immigration only in slime-tossing ads aired on Spanish-language programs? "Why are the candidates "dissin'" immigration? According to a recent Zogby/Inter-American Dialogue survey, the white-hot political heat of the anti-legalization crowd seems to have turned to a warm glow in favor of a path to citizenship with some sting:
Sixty-seven percent [of likely voters] would support a path to citizenship for immigrants in the U.S. illegally if they pay taxes, pay a penalty and learn English -- 80% of Democrats, 57% of Republicans and 62% of political independents agree with this new path to citizenship. More than half (54%) said the same for immigrants who were brought to the U.S. by their parents before their 16th birthday. Most (53%) also support expanding temporary worker programs for migrants as a way to fill jobs that are not being taken by American workers.
The silence is even more puzzling given the size of the likely Latino vote in four battleground states (Florida,Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada) and immigration reform among the top four issues for Latino voters, many of whom remain undecided. In the few days remaining to the election, maybe Joe (er, Sam) the plumber can unclog the silent gunk, and persuade his newfound friends, Sens. Obama and McCain, to come clean on immigration. --------

Out-Bidening Biden: Pelosi's Impolitic Immigration "Insights"

Sen. Barack Obama recently chided his running mate, Joe Biden, for engaging in "rhetorical flourishes" after the Delaware Democrat predicted that hostile foreign elements would test the mettle of a President Obama in the first six months of his term. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, should receive a similar upbraiding for the ill-considered remarks she made to the Associated Press on the future of comprehensive immigration reform:

Pelosi . . . said Congress would have to tackle the politically sticky job of overhauling immigration laws in the new Congress, after a bipartisan measure collapsed last year. The estimated 12 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally 'are part of the U.S. economy. We cannot send them all home, and we cannot send them all to jail, so we have to address it,' Pelosi said. Any solution would have to be bipartisan, she said, so it may require sacrificing some of Democrats' past priorities, such as giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. 'Maybe there never is a path to citizenship if you came here illegally,' Pelosi said. 'I would hope that there could be, but maybe there isn't.'

Obama supporters and media pundits have been scratching their head and wondering aloud, "What could Joe Biden have been thinking?" Supporters of comprehensive immigration reform ask the same question about Pelosi's unilateral elimination of an important human aspiration (even before an election outcome she hopes will be a Democratic mandate for reform).

Why did Speaker Pelosi, before votes are even counted, throw the undocumented under the bus of a supposed Republican blowback against a path to legal status? What if the Republican minority in the house sinks to inconseqential proportions and a filibuster-proof Democratically-controlled Senate is elected?

The first rule of negotiation is never to bid against yourself. Why in this pre-election phase, should she preemptively dash the hopes of the undocumented to be granted equality of civil rights (notwithstanding their violations of noncriminal immigration law provisions, but only after their debt to society is repaid through payment of fines and back taxes)? Has she forgotten the discrimination visited upon her Italian ancestors when they were a despised underclass in an earlier xenophobic era? America must not tarnish our heritage as a nation of immigrants by enacting laws creating a permanent lower-caste population of off-the-path human beings.

Will the Champion of Change rebuke Speaker Pelosi's Audacity of No-Hope?

Veep Debate: The Sounds of Silence on Immigration

As political theatre, the Vice Presidential debate was so-so entertaining but sorely lacking on a critical issue of public policy. There was a "shout out" to third graders and a salute to the Joe Sixpacks and Hockey Moms of America from Gov. Palin, a politician who seems never to have uttered the word "immigration" from Wasilla to Anchorage to the lower-48 states' campaign trail. There was plenty of kitchen-table talk and the debunking of Sen. McCain's maverick moniker by Sen. Biden. But where were the candidates on the issue that immigration policy wonks and much of the public want aired? Where was Gwen Ifill, usually a class act journalist, who never asked about immigration reform?

Our country needs sunlight on immigration. Our citizens need to hear how the undocumented children and teens brought across the border by their struggling parents can be allowed to contribute to society rather than face a a fast track to the subterranean economy and street-gang membership. Our country needs an alternative to showboating ICE raids and wedge-issue politics.

Ironically, of all the pressing problems that need fixing, none could be accomplished so inexpensively as immigration reform. Budget-busting issues like health-care, tax cuts for folks earning less than $250,000 (as Obama-Biden support) or for all (as McCain-Palin propose), infrastructure refurbishment and green energy initiatives -- all are threatened by the Wall Street bailout (just sweetened to $850 million in order to tease out more House votes). Comprehensive immigration reform, on the other hand, will be funded by user fees and the payment of fines and taxes as the admission ticket for unauthorized immigrants yearning to get on the path to legal status. Humane solutions and fiscal responsibility can go hand in hand with immigration reform - if only we'd just talk about it.

--------