Enforcement and Employment Verification

Immigration enforcement is an extremely important national priority.  Effective control of our nation’s borders is essential to our national security.  The regulation and control of those who enter the country, along with the prosecution of those who violate immigration laws once they are here, is fundamental to our integrity as a nation of laws. 

Today, our government is faced with the dilemma of enforcing a set of laws that no longer match the needs and demands of a 21^st century society and economy.  The job of reforming our immigration laws rests with the U.S. Congress, which to date has been unable to agree on a comprehensive plan for reform. The result is that an estimated 5.1% of our nation’s workforce is undocumented.  And undocumented workers comprise an even higher percentage of the workforce in particular sectors of the economy such as agriculture, hospitality, and food production. Read more...

Published On: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 | Download File

Arizona’s infamous anti-immigrant law, SB 1070, has spawned many imitators.  In a growing number of state houses around the country, bills have been passed or introduced which—like SB 1070—create new state immigration crimes and expand the power of police to enforce immigration laws.  State legislators who are thinking of jumping on the SB 1070 bandwagon, however, would be wise to consider the costs of such legislation.  SB 1070-style laws impose unfunded mandates on the police, jails, and courts; drive away workers, taxpayers, and consumers upon whom the state economy depends; and invite costly lawsuits and tourist boycotts.  These are economic consequences which few states can afford at a time of gaping budget deficits. Read more...

Published On: Wed, Jan 19, 2011 | Download File

By Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia

On June 30, 2010, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Morton, issued a memo to the agency that reflected the Obama administration’s oft repeated intent to focus removal efforts on serious offenders.  Morton noted:

In light of the large number of administrative violations the agency is charged with addressing and the limited enforcement resources the agency has available, ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal resources to ensure that the removals the agency does conduct promote the agency's highest enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.  

Coupled with last year’s announcement that ICE would not engage in the kind of major worksite raids that became common during the Bush administration, the “Morton Memo” potentially marks a new phase in the enforcement of immigration law.  Moreover, the memo gives us insight into the Obama administration’s approach to prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement.

A close reading of the Morton Memo reveals, however, that it is likely to be subject to multiple interpretations, offering some guidance but little clarity for handling the hundreds of thousands of decisions made annually by ICE agents regarding the arrest, detention, and removal of individual immigrants.  This report explains the key provisions of the Morton Memo, points out its strengths and weaknesses, and offers recommendations for additional guidance that should be issued to fulfill the promise of reform suggested in the memo itself. Read more...

Published On: Wed, Dec 01, 2010 | Download File

As part of its strategy to gain support for comprehensive immigration reform, the administration has continually touted its enforcement accomplishments.  In fact, over the last two years, the Obama administration has committed itself to a full-court press to demonstrate how committed the administration is to removing criminals and others who remain in the country without proper documentation.  They have continued to use the enforcement programs of the previous administration, including partnering with state and local law enforcement agencies to identify, detain, and deport immigrants.  However, in doing so, they have lost the ability to fully control their own enforcement priorities and enforcement outcomes, and the results have demonstrated that the state and local partners are not necessarily committed to the same priorities. Read more...

Published On: Tue, Nov 09, 2010 | Download File