Thread: Crackdown coming on bogus papers

Crackdown coming on bogus papers
Sunday, June 25, 2006
BRENT HUNSBERGER
The Oregonian
For decades, undocumented workers and the employers who hire them have enjoyed a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" arrangement that has benefited all sides.

Immigrants have used easy-to-get fake work documents to obtain mostly low-wage jobs that have nonetheless supported -- even elevated -- their families here and abroad.

"The prevalence of forged documents is so great out there today that anybody who wants one can get one," said Larry Hellie, who owns the human resources consulting firm HHRC2 in Vancouver.

Employers from a widening array of industries have hired workers without looking into their legal status, allowing them to cut labor costs and product prices. The employers typically accepted the required work documents at face value, despite suspecting that at least some weren't authentic.

"I don't knowingly hire illegal aliens, but I can see how people might," said Jack Wrench, owner of Rapid Roofing Systems in Portland. "If I had to call in every Social Security number and driver's license, I don't know what I might find."

Immigration reform has taken center stage in this, an election year, and sweeping remedies considered by Congress recently triggered a wave of worker protests nationwide. In moves that symbolize, at the least, a growing cultural rift over immigrants and immigration, President Bush ordered National Guard troops to the Mexican border to watch for would-be undocumented workers attempting to cross.

It's unclear whether Congress will ultimately vote to make radical alterations to the immigration system, but it might not matter. Change, it seems, is already at hand.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has already stepped up workplace raids in some parts of the country, and employers and workers in Oregon and elsewhere say they are feeling increasingly pressured to pay closer attention to workers' status. The days of "don't ask, don't tell," in other words, appear to be numbered.

For employers, the looming changes probably mean a greater role in enforcing the nation's immigration laws and, perhaps, a higher risk of penalties for hiring undocumented workers. For workers, it could mean more scrutiny, bureaucratic headaches and, critics say, unjust and discriminatory job losses, even for immigrant workers here legally.

Consumers could feel the changes, too, in the form of higher costs for everything from a hotel room to landscaping.

"There's just so much going on right now," said Dan Larsson, an immigration attorney in Bend. "It's going to cost society money, no question about it."

An imperfect system

Rising costs are one unintentional consequence of the increased emphasis on immigration controls. Another: legal workers unwittingly caught up in the tougher enforcement efforts.

Angelina, for example, was cooking meals for passengers at a Portland International Airport restaurant last summer when her manager told her the federal government had sent a letter suggesting she might not be in the country legally. The woman, who asked not to be identified, said she was told she had eight days to clear up the matter or she could be fired.

Angelina, who came from Mexico in 1986 and carries a valid temporary work permit from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said she was scared and confused. How could the same agency that granted her a work permit now be questioning her right to be in the country at all?

"For me it felt like a desperate situation," said the single mother from Gresham. "I have to provide everything as far as rent and bills and all the necessities. And I felt in danger."

Angelina's story illustrates just one way innocent workers get ensnared in a work verification system that federal authorities, employers and worker advocates can agree is far from ideal.

With the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, Congress required employers to document a worker's eligibility by asking them to prove they had legal standing. Workers could use Social Security cards, birth certificates, driver's licenses or a host of other documents -- up to two dozen in all. Employers kept track of the documents in forms known as I-9s in case Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents came around.

That system quickly fell prey to widespread document fraud and identity theft by workers, disregard by employers, conflicting legal requirements and little or no enforcement by federal agents. Federal law requires that employers accept documents that look reasonably valid, without verifying their authenticity with the government.

In fact, if the employer inquires too deeply into how workers obtained a document, it could be accused of violating anti-discrimination laws for singling out people based on how they look or in what country they were born. Yet if the company employs illegal immigrants, it faces potential fines following an audit or workplace raid.

"It's been a real conundrum for employers," said Paula Barran, an attorney at Barran Liebman in Portland, which represents employers, including The Oregonian. "And there's not a whole lot of helpful instructional material out there. We've been sort of making up rules of thumb."

Better, many employers figured, to err on the side of not asking too many questions. And the downsides have been minimal.

According to a report last year from the Government Accountability Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, then known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, spent 9 percent of its time enforcing workplace immigration laws in 1999, a figure that slipped to 4 percent by 2003.

Federal sanctions and fines employers face for hiring undocumented workers remain low -- between $110 and $11,000 per worker, depending on the severity, with six months' prison for frequent offenders.

Julie L. Myers, assistant secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that "egregious violators of the law considered (the penalties) just a cost of doing business."

Workers open to abuse

Increasingly, the Social Security Administration has tried to crack down on document fraud by sending employers "no-match" letters. The agency issues the letters when it finds a Social Security number on a W-2 form that appears invalid or linked to someone else.

But the letters have stirred controversy and confusion. Some employers find the letters unhelpful.

"We ignore them," said Don Hauenstein, controller at Teufel Nursery Inc., a Portland landscaping company that employs dozens of seasonal workers. "We have tremendous turnover. Those employees are long gone by the time we get those letters."

Worker advocates say employers have used the no-match letters to get rid of immigrant workers before they qualify for fringe benefits or in retaliation for filing a wage claim or workplace safety complaint.

One undocumented worker from Gresham, who gave her name only as Maria, said she bought a fake Social Security card and resident visa for $200 when she moved to Portland five years ago. At one point, the documents helped her work for nearly a year as a housekeeper at a Portland assisted living center, she said.

But when it came time for her to qualify for health insurance and other benefits, the employer produced a no-match letter from the Social Security Administration. She suspected that the employer had received the letter earlier, but held it until just before benefits would have kicked in. She quit and has since taken jobs picking strawberries and cleaning houses.

"Employers really like the situation at this moment," said Devin Bernard, a community outreach worker at Catholic Charities' El Programa Hispano in Portland. "They can hire people at miserable wages. And if they don't want to keep them, they get rid of them."

Pilot program problems

In the case of Angelina, the worker here legally, she was caught up in a voluntary government program designed to protect employers and curb illegal immigration.

A decade ago, Congress created the Basic Pilot Program, an automated way for employers to check a worker's employment eligibility. The voluntary program has drawn praise from most of the 9,000 participating employers, 112 of which are in Oregon. Congress is considering making the program mandatory in its immigration reforms.

But workers such as Angelina --and even congressional investigators -- say the system still contains imperfections that could harm even legal workers if it's rolled out nationwide. Her employer participated in the program, which generated the mistaken impression that she might be here illegally.

Carmen Sweeney, an immigration caseworker with Catholic Charities in Portland, said she spent two weeks trying to clear up the matter on Angelina's behalf, faxing the work permit and making phone calls to Homeland Security and Angelina's employer.

"It was a bit of a hassle, for sure," Sweeney said.

Ultimately, the government corrected the error. But Angelina is convinced other immigrants who don't seek free or low-cost assistance might not be so lucky.

"Without the help of someone or an attorney or someone who understands the case, I feel like I would've been fired," Angelina said.

Gerri Ratliff, chief of the verification division within Homeland Security, conceded that the pilot program isn't perfect. But she said the agency is moving to gain access to more accurate and up-to-date information and has asked Bush for 180 new positions to oversee the program.

"We're just doing simple, common-sense things that will improve the system and address the issues," Ratliff said.

Changes ahead

Even if Congress doesn't expand the Basic Pilot Program, immigrants and employers face other changes that have already affected -- and will continue to affect -- how they interact.

Work site enforcement has become a bigger priority, federal officials say. Immigration and Customs Enforcement earlier this year launched a strategy to crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. Though most raids have occurred outside Oregon, the agency made a nationwide splash in late April by arresting 1,187 alleged undocumented workers and some managers at IFCO Systems, including 21 workers at its Portland pallet-making factory.

The agency also has asked the Bush administration for money for more than 200 new agents devoted to work site enforcement.

Even without raids, the government plans to review worker documents more often. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced proposed new rules to clarify how employers should proceed when they get a "no-match" letter from a federal agency about a worker.

The proposal would give the workers 60 days to clear up any discrepancies in their documents or produce new ones. If a worker fails to come through, the employer could fire him or her without fear of being sued for discrimination. The department is accepting public comments on the proposed rules.

For now, workers and employers will have to toil in some uncertainty, knowing that the days of a wink and a nod are waning.

"Some of this is in flux," said Hellie, the human resource consultant. "It's just like walking through a minefield. You're never quite sure if you're taking the best path you can, but you're likely to step in something."

Brent Hunsberger: 503-221-8359; brenthunsberger@news.oregonian.com; www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/atwork



©2006 The Oregonian

Sad thing is that we most likely know of this woman, we think she lives in our complex directly. So here the government readily admits they know there is widespread fraud, but yet all this time they have done nothing about it all.

Here employers and illegals are interviewed, with really no fear for prosecution!!!

The Social Security Administration has a website on which you can register to do several things:

1. File your company W-2s online

2. Check SS numbers online


Any employer who has access to a computer can register on this website and then check a SSN in a matter of minutes.

I'm tired of listening to employers who say they didn't know. I'm an accountant who handles payroll for several small companies. The information for the SSA website comes in a brochure with the payroll tax report that every employer has to file every quarter. Why is this hard?

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

The Social Security Administration has a website on which you can register to do several things

Hi CheyenneWoman,

Do you have an exact link on that? Or is it for employers only?
Thanks
Coto

I only wish it were so....I have come to believe that they are ALL liars! I am sick of the dog and pony shows that treat us like idiots. We are enraged and we are going to stay enraged until something is done!

just a cost of doing business."

So if paying fines and cheating taxes along with exploitation is "a cost of doing business" in order to have cheap labor,
why can`t they use what they pay on fines to pay US Citizens?

This lady had a temporary work permit for 20 years? I'd like to know how that works? This situation is totally out of hand! I live in a small community in the midwest and we are getting flooded with illegals. There are a lot more of them here than they say, if there was only 11-12 million they would not be in my area.

Originally Posted by sawdust

This lady had a temporary work permit for 20 years? I'd like to know how that works?

Hi Sawdust,
May I take a wild guess?
Forgery

I think they are considered resident aliens. My husband works with a guy that has been here about that long too, and he says he is a resident alien.

Originally Posted by Coto

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

The Social Security Administration has a website on which you can register to do several things

Hi CheyenneWoman,

Do you have an exact link on that? Or is it for employers only?
Thanks
Coto

Here is the link:

https://s044a90.ssa.gov/acu/BSOIRESEAI/bsoInit.html

You do have to go through a registration process. I do believe it's supposed to be for employers, but I can't see any reason why an individual couldn't do it.

Let me know if it works for you.

Rising costs are one unintentional consequence of the increased emphasis on immigration controls.

A good percentage of "rising costs" will be INTENTIONAL, imho.