There has been a flurry of legislative activity regarding immigration policy in the last few months. Here are summaries of some of the more important bills introduced this spring:

H.R. 2064 (5/31/2011) . To amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to allow employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of an employee from the time of application for employment. See the full text here.

.  .  .

H.R. 1741: Secure Visas Act (5/25/2011) . Legislation would give the Secretary of Homeland Security .exclusive authority to issue regulations, establish policy, and administer and enforce the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) and all other immigration or nationality laws relating to the functions of consular officers of the United States in connection with the granting and refusal of a visa.. See the full text here.

.  .  .

H.R. 1933 (5/23/2011) . Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify the requirements for admission of nonimmigrant nurses in health professional shortage areas.

Section 1. Requirements for admission of nonimmigrant nurses in health professional shortage areas.

(a) Extension of Period of Authorized Admission- Section 212(m)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(m)(3)) is amended to read as follows:

.(3) The initial period of authorized admission as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c) shall be 3 years, and may be extended once for an additional 3-year period…

(b) Number of Visas- Section 212(m)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(m)(4)) is amended by striking .500.. and inserting .300…

See the full text here.

.  .  .

H.R. 1842: Dream Act of 2011 (5/11/2011) . Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to cancel the removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence on a conditional basis, an alien who: (1) entered the United States on or before his or her 15th birthday and has been present in the United States for at least five years immediately preceding this Act’s enactment, (2) is a person of good moral character, (3) is not inadmissible under specified grounds of the Immigration and Nationality Act, (4) has been admitted to an institution of higher education (IHE) in the United States or has earned a high school diploma or general education development certificate in the United States, and (5) was age 32 or younger on the date of this Act’s enactment. See the full text here.

.  .  .

H.R. 1796: Reuniting Families Act (5/6/2011) . Comprehensive legislation amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to establish the fiscal year worldwide level of employment-based immigrants at 140,000 plus: (1) the previous year’s unused visas, and (2) the number of unused visas from FY1992-FY2011. Establishes the fiscal year worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants at 480,000 plus: (1) the previous year’s unused visas, and (2) the number of unused visas from FY1992-FY2011. The proposed changes are extensive, and you can view the complete summary here.

.  .  .

H.R. 1764 (5/5/2011) . Legislation prohibits the use of community oriented policing services funds in contravention of provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that restrict a government entity or official from preventing any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the responsible federal immigration agency information regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status. See the full text here.

.  .  .

H.R.1698: 10k Run for the Border Act (5/3/2011) . “amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to greatly increase penalties for employing illegal aliens.” The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement on June 1. In brief, the bill includes the following proposed changes:

Section 274A(e)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(e)(4)(A)) is amended as follows:

(1) in clause (i), by striking ‘$250 and not more than $2,000′ and inserting ‘$10,000 and not more than $80,000′;

(2) in clause (ii), by striking ‘$2,000 and not more than $5,000′ and inserting ‘$80,000 and not more than $200,000′; and

(3) in clause (iii), by striking ‘$3,000 and not more than $10,000′ and inserting ‘$120,000 and not more than $1,600,000′.

See the full text here.

.  .  .

We will keep a watchful eye on these legislative proposals and let you know if and when they are finalized. In the meantime, please contact us if you have any questions about how the proposed changes could impact your business.

Employment eligibility compliance is serious business for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While the agency can.t police every business every day, it sends strong messages whenever it uncovers companies in violation of immigration laws.

Take Howard Industries, for example. The privately held Mississippi manufacturer recently pled guilty to conspiracy to violate immigration laws and agreed to pay a $2.5 million fine, that largest in state history, after initially denying allegations it had knowingly hired workers without authorization.

In August 2008, the company was raided, and nearly 600 workers, believed to be undocumented at the time, were arrested. The company attempted to wipe its hands clean by saying a human resources manager was single-handedly responsible for the negligence and violations. When the dust eventually settled, the HR manager was handed a 25-count indictment for conspiracy and employee verification fraud and the company was held liable.

This case created headlines in the immigration law world because it magnified the importance of corporate responsibility, whether or not leadership is aware of illegal practices. ICE has made it extremely clear that employers and their officers/executives could be held liable and face criminal charges for I-9 compliance failures, particularly as it pertains to unauthorized workers. In the case of Howard Industries, the example was made that regardless of who knew about the HR manager.s negligence, the company was ultimately responsible for being compliant. The hand-slap was significant due to the size of the company, the nature of the crime and the number of employees involved.

Which begs the question for all corporate leaders: Are your immigrant hiring practices in compliance with ICE? Not knowing is not acceptable and could be putting your company at a significant risk. If you have any questions about your company.s I-9 compliance, it would be prudent to review every step of your hiring process. It is critically important that senior management has a clear understanding of the company risk in the event even one employee is negligent. Taking steps today to understand and document practices, as well as educating all HR employees about immigration hiring compliance, could prevent your business from facing criminal prosecution and millions in fines.

Our law firm regularly conducts in-house audits to verify I-9, worksite compliance issues and employer obligations. Please contact us if you have any questions about your company.s immigration law compliance practices.