Posted by Angelo A. Paparelli on May 29, 2011

10 Immigration Predictions: The Foreseeable Consequences of the Supreme Court's Arizona E-Verify Decision

elephants.jpgThe U.S. Supreme Court freed a herd of immigration "elephants [hiding] in a mousehole" on May 26. That's when five Justices used a four-word exception to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) -- an act which, among its extensive provisions, banned the employment of foreign citizens whom the employer knows lack work permission -- to trample the immigration landscape. The majority ruled, based on the exception, that IRCA is not the final or sole word on the extent of punishment for unauthorized employment. 

Relying on an IRCA exception for "licensing and similar laws," the 5-3 majority decided that Arizona may use the threat to revoke a business license as a means to punish AZ employers for the unauthorized hiring of foreigners and to require all the state's public and private employers to enroll in the Feds' E-Verify online work-clearance database. 

Among the dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged the use of this squib of an IRCA exception as a means for the majority to undermine the "carefully constructed [and] uniform federal scheme for determining [unauthorized employment]." She cited an earlier case which observed that Congress "does not . . . hide elephants in mouseholes." (Ironically and perhaps poetically just, all of the Justices in the majority had been appointed by presidents of the Republican party, whose avatar is the pachyderm.)

What does the decision, U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, mean for large and small employers?  Here are my predictions (I welcome any comments or critiques below or on my Twitter page): 

1.  Expect that mandatory E-Verify will spread to more states. As shown in this link, states are all over the map on their divergent requirements concerning E-Verify. Some -- like AZ, SC and MS -- require it of all employers.  Others limit it to public entities and state contractors.  The Supreme Court's decision essentially green lights the states to regulate facets of immigration compliance that fall within traditional state police powers. The only requirement is that the state law find a connection to the broad police power over licensing. In essence, what was largely an exclusively federal domain, will now expand -- with the Court's blessing -- into the inner workings of most businesses. Expect state and city micro-management of immigration to the Nth degree. 

2.  Expect some states to require E-Verify use as to current workers. As many states rush to enact laws mandating E-Verify, it would not be surprising if one or more extend its scope.  Except for certain federal contractors and subs, E-Verify may not now be used to verify the work eligibility of current employees.  While the extension of E-Verify at the state level to current workers would technically violate the terms of the E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding that employers must sign, such a stretch would not be a surprise.  Consider Utah's recent legislation which adopted a guest worker program notwithstanding that -- at least until the Whiting decision -- the authorization to grant work permission had been seen as exclusively a federal power. Note as well that Florida's governor has issued an executive order expressly encouraging the state's employers to use E-Verify to check the work status of current employees.

3.  Expect higher rates of discrimination claims.  The dissenters in Whiting predict that employers will follow the path of seemingly least resistance by becoming hyper-vigilant in inspecting job applicants' documents of identity and work eligibility while finding subtle or overt ways to resist hiring persons who look or sound foreign or demanding to see specific documents or more documents than legally required.  Although the majority noted that such discriminatory acts are already prohibited at the federal level, the likelihood is that the immigration agency charged with antidiscrimination prosecution and enforcement will be understaffed and short on resources to deal with the anticipated flood of complaints of unfair or illegal practices.    

4.  Expect more court battles over the extraterritorial reach of state immigration laws.  What happens when poorly phrased state immigration laws come into contact with multi-state employers? Must a multi-state employer use E-Verify only as to its AZ new hires, or does AZ's E-Verify law require that company to use the online system as to new employees nationwide? What will courts decide if a company chartered in AZ loses its license to do business in that state, and as a result, is disqualified to maintain its licenses to engage in business in other states?  These are but a few of the foreseeable claims likely to congest the state and federal courts as state immigration laws proliferate after Whiting.

5.  Expect a public backlash over state enforcement of the immigration laws.  The devastating tornadoes in Missouri and Alabama likely caused the loss or destruction of many U.S. citizens' documents of identity and work permission. When such citizens try to pick up their lives by moving to other states (where mandatory E-verify is in force), how will they prove their right to work?  Such citizens are not likely to go gently or quietly into the good night. They will scream to high heaven, and the media will listen and publicize their complaints.  Other citizens, though not facing the effects of natural calamities, will likewise be erroneously rejected by E-Verify, as the National Immigration Law Center predicted last April in testimony before Congress. They too will rise in protest if denied employment to which they are entitled with jobs already hard enough to find in the current economy.  

6.  Expect some states to back away from immigration enforcement and instead seek federal waivers for immigration benefits. Just yesterday, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, perhaps signalling a trend in the opposite direction, expressed his opposition to an AZ-style immigration enforcement bill, noting that it would be "divisive" and bad for business.  As noted above and at length in this blog before, Utah has passed legislation creating a guest worker visa program (that will require a Federal waiver).   

7.  Expect that states will seek more snitch visas or favorable discretion for stool pigeons from the federal government.  The "S" visa category (what we in the trade call the Snitch Visa) allows any state or local law enforcement official to seek special immigration benefits, including a work permit, to allow a foreign citizen to participate as a witness in a criminal prosecution.  Federal immigration authorities can also exercise prosecutorial discretion and grant work permission at the request of a state or local police agency or prosecutor.  In states where immigration policing is a high priority, just as with the justly maligned Secure Communities program, criminal prosecutions under state immigration laws will likely generate requests for special privileges and leniency to foreign workers who agree to rat out alleged immigration violations of their employers.

8. Expect a battle royal in Congress over mandatory federal E-Verify. The business and pro-immigrant communities will not take lying down the likely GOP push to make E-Verify mandatory for all employers nationally.  While this push, if enacted, would take the wind out of the states' sails, opposition to the move would point to the persistently high rates of false positives and negatives in E-Verify and the budget busting consequences of a national mandate.  

9. Expect busier days ahead for immigration lawyers.  Notwithstanding that the demand for H-1B visas this year has been underwhelming, lawyers practicing immigration law have reason to be hopeful that business will pick up.  The already mind-boggling complexity of federal immigration law will become more complicated, perhaps by a factor of 50, as the states get into the act. This quantum leap doesn't take into account the cities and regional governments that may have politicians, even now, planning a Barletta-like push for fame and higher office by espousing "mouse-that-roared" immigration ordinances.

10.  Expect that Congress or the President will act. Before we reach the point of proliferating and conflicting 50-state and countless-municipal "solutions" to America's dysfunctional immigration laws, this blogger -- always a glass-half-full type -- envisions that statesman-like behavior or public outcries will cause action at the federal level to end the nonsense. Businesses cannot function, and lawfully-authorized American citizens and residents cannot find jobs, if we balkanize our immigration polcies. I say, fingers crossed, that cooler heads will prevail. 

Posted by Angelo A. Paparelli on April 24, 2011

Demystifying Immigration Myths

A trip abroad, as I took recently for a speaking gig, often allows intellectual curiosity to gallivant more freely.  It also provides opportunities to question accepted truths or cause germinating notions to blossom into convincing arguments, especially if serendipity or divine providence creates chance meetings with strangers.  These thoughts crystallized after my return as I read Peggy Noonan’s op-ed piece in the April 23-24 Wall St. Journal, “What the World Sees in America.”  She wrote: 

[There] are . . . reasons for a new skepticism about America’s just role and responsibilities in the world in 2011.  One has to do with the burly, muscular, traditional but at this point not fully thought-through American assumption that our culture is not only superior to most, but is certainly better in all ways than the cultures of those we seek to conquer.  We have always felt pride in our nation’s ways, and pride isn’t all bad.  But conceit is, and it’s possible we’ve grown as conceited as we’ve become culturally careless.

Which brings me to the point of this post. I need to debunk a curious and obscure creation of the federal courts, a particularly perverse form of "American Exceptionalism” (itself, a distasteful term which I must flavor with a boulder’s worth of granulated salt to get it down the gullet).  The construct of the federal courts that I’m about to describe rests on tottering and false assumptions.  These are (a) that administrative agencies, in particular, federal immigration agencies, possess superior expertise in interpreting the enacted laws which they administer, and (b) that therefore courts should abdicate responsibility for interpreting these laws and defer to the agencies’ presumably learned prowess in the art of statutory interpretation. 

(Before challenging the courts’ concoction, I note my displeasure with the conceit – pun intended – of American Exceptionalism, most often a proxy for undeserved arrogance or fact-free opinion.  Yes, in times past we have shown ourselves to be a great nation, as, for example, the Marshall Plan, created by our forbears, that saved Europe after World War II – a laurel on which today’s younger Americans undeservedly rest – or the Civil Rights Movement, which planted seeds that allowed a biracial American to become the nation’s president.  Also a feature more of the past than the present is America’s tradition as a welcoming nation of immigrants, a form of Exceptionalism that I unhesitatingly extol.) 

The high- (or, in my view, low-) water mark for judicial deference to presumed administrative-agency expertise is the Supreme Court’s Brand X decision, an aptly titled case for TV viewers of 1960s-era commercials who know that the name refers to a decidedly inferior product. Brand X held that the federal courts must yield to an administrative agency’s legal interpretation if the words of a statute are ambiguous.  As Carl Sandburg taught, the words of statutes, when read by trained legal and judicial minds, virtually always can be interpreted as ambiguous.  Thus, the courts are under orders to let the agencies call the shots. 

So, do immigration agents in the Departments of State, Labor, Homeland Security and Justice really possess special expertise, greater than the courts, in divining the elusive intent of Congress whenever our federal legislature has passed immigration laws?  My 30-plus years as an immigration lawyer compel me to shout a “NO” answer. 

Alfred-E-Newman.jpg

Here’s why. America’s immigration agencies are silos, each spewing forth legal assertions from their prescribed parcels of the expansive turf that is the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  The Labor Department (DOL) may claim arguable expertise with immigration-related laws protecting the wages and working conditions of American and foreign workers, but it (like the other agencies, as I’ve noted in a prior post) has an axe to grind, rather than a mandate of blind justice in administering immigration laws.  DOL deserves no presumption of expertise about the multiple forms of statutory eligibility needed to procure immigration benefits (the domain of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] within the Department of Homeland Security [DHS]) or to obtain immigrant or nonimmigrant visas (the province of the State Department operating under a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] with DHS).  The converse is also true, as USCIS readily admits. 

Similarly, two DHS police units – Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – are charged, respectively, with removing or excluding foreigners who have violated or are likely to break the immigration laws.  Strangely, however, these federal cops play a comparatively small role in declaring which activities fall within or outside the statutorily complex principles of lawful “immigration status” and valid employment authorization.  These instead are functions that USCIS (more or less) discharges concurrently with a variety of Justice Department units (the Executive Office of Immigration Review, comprised of the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, along with the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer and the Office of Special Counsel for Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices [OSC]). 

As post-9/11 “connect-the-dots” studies and Congressional hearings have taught us, and as most immigration lawyers already knew, the several federal immigration bureaucracies tend to protect their turf, and often distrust and positively dislike and disrespect their counterparts in sister agencies.  Worse yet, they typically prefer a cloistered existence rather than one that reaches out across the Executive Branch in patriotic efforts to harmonize and declare in unison a reliable set of interpretations of America’s immigration laws and policies. 

Lately, seasoned immigration observers have noticed a kind of Hatfields-and-McCoys détente in which interagency MOUs proliferate (as illustrated by the DOL-DHS MOU, the USCIS-OSC MOU, the DHS-State Department MOU and the impossible-to-exit and falsely promoted ICE Secure Communities MOU). Close readings of these MOUs reflect a desire by the various agencies to seek reciprocal non-molestation pacts and avoid tripping over one another, or to gull state and local authorities, rather than to provide harmony and transparency in the interpretation of the immigration laws. 

These types of governmental MOUs were never mentioned in my high school civics class, or in any course I took on administrative law.  They are an affront to Congressional power and a testament to legislative lassitude over immigration.  Such bureaucratic faux-contracts, when coupled with the fawning deference ordered by the Supremes in Brand X, resemble more a French farce about institutional asylees who assume governmental roles a la the 1966 film King of Hearts, than a just, reliable and orderly exercise of federal power in the immigration sphere.  As Peggy Noonan concluded in her op-ed: 

The whole world is . . . judging what it sees [of America], and likely, in some serious ways, finding us wanting.

And being human, they may be judging us with a small, extra edge of harshness for judging them and looking down on them. 

We have work to do at home, on our culture and in our country.