“Let Me In, Immigration Man”

I have spent the past several months immersed in the world of a single government form.  This form has given birth to a multi-million dollar cottage industry of human resource advisors, software compliance systems, legal advisory services and training courses.  The official government handbook that explains the proper use of the form is itself 69 pages, and it still doesn’t adequately explain every situation that could conceivably occur when completing the form.  (The manual for explaining the E Verify process is another 97 pages of rules and exceptions, by the way.)  I speak, of course, about every HR professional’s favorite bane of existence – USCIS Form I-9 (formerly DHS Form I-9 which was formerly INS Form I-9). 

 

For those blessed by ignorance of the form, USCIS Form I-9 is completed by newly hired employees to verify eligibility to work in the United States.  Work eligibility is verified by the employer viewing original identity and work authorization documents from the new employee.  For example, an unexpired US Passport can accomplish both goals - identity and work authorization.  Some employees present a photo driver’s license (identity) and a Social Security card (work authorization).  Second to border checkpoints, this is the front line of the battle against illegal immigration.  Government audits of these forms in on the rise, and businesses are scrambling to keep up.  If you are still with me, I have a more interesting observation to make.

I ran across this quote in an article, since I spend an inordinate amount of time reading about this stuff:

“In the past two years, the Obama administration has significantly changed the direction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s worksite efforts,” Kevin Lashus, an attorney with Greenberg Traurig in Austin, Texas, told SHRM Online. “The Bush administration was interested in taking the highest numbers of unauthorized workers into custody during any time frame. The Obama administration, on the other hand, is interested in targeting the employers that hired them.”

Two approaches from two administrations to accomplish the same objective of reducing the number of the undocumented in this country.  This sounded to me much like the differing approaches to drug enforcement.  The question is always do you lock up the users to reduce demand, or lock up the dealers and reduce supply?  In the immigration debate, it sounds like the Bush approach was to reduce supply; Obama’s approach is to eliminate demand.  On a more cynical note, the Bush approach was designed to create scarier photo ops for Fox & Friends; the Obama approach is designed to quietly dry up employment opportunities for the undocumented.

Reducing demand clearly seems to work.  Illegal immigration is down the past few years (if you believe the stats, which is another post for another day), and that makes sense.  When unemployment is high, there are fewer jobs.  Fewer jobs means less incentive to come to the states and drink from its fountain of plenty.  It is not clear that Obama’s new focus caused the reductions as much as underlying economic conditions and generalized xenophobia have reduce the numbers coming here.  If the financial incentive to come to America is gone, the problem won’t be eliminated, but it should be significantly reduced to a manageable level.

The market forces that my friends on the Right trumpet as the solution to all that ails us are being allowed to work by this administration, and for that, I am certain they are being called anti-business.  If employers stop hiring all undocumented workers, the incentive to come to America will drop dramatically.  You can round up illegal aliens all day long, but American businesses want the most labor for the lowest price.  That’s the power of the marketplace, right?  If you ignore the employer side, demand will remain high, and the problem will never be solved.  Whether or not you believe that employers should be tasked with verifying employment eligibility in the first place is a different question.  At least since 1986, that’s the way it’s done.

And before you send me a nasty gram – I am calling for a diversified approach, not all one method of enforcement at the expense of another.

“Let Me In, Immigration Man”.  Crosby, Stills and Nash penned these words 40 years ago, and the topic of immigration still remains at the forefront of domestic politics and culture, primarily because those in power would prefer to have the issue as a battering ram against their opposition.  Resolution would rob each side of an effective wedge, and Lord knows we need a good wedge to spice up the 2012 election cycle.  Reagan worked with the Left to “solve” this issue once, in 1986, but that solution involved amnesty, the dirty little secret of the Reagan legacy.  I am sure my conservatives friends will explain to me why following Reagan’s lead on this would be wrong now. 

 

There is a solution.  We just need serious adults to agree on one imperfect, but better, solution.  In the meantime, when someone says “It’s jobs, jobs, jobs”, think about the I-9 form.  It is the gift that keeps on giving.  While its’ enforcement drives undocumented workers out of jobs, it is also creating high paying, technical jobs right here at home – figuring out how to complete the one page form without going to jail or drowning in fines.