Attack Illegal Immigration the Humane, Effective Way--at the Workplace : Unscrupulous employers who hire undocumented workers have an unfair advantage. Assembly Bill 2404 would prevent that.

Californians are becoming increasingly frustrated with their government’s inability to control the flow of illegal immigration into California.

With 30% of the nation’s illegal immigrants within our borders, California has borne a disproportionate share of the nation’s immigration burden.

Certainly, governmental services have been strained. The poor economy and shrinking local and state tax revenues have exacerbated the problems and heightened frustrations. No doubt, that’s why a recent Field poll revealed that three out of four Californians considered illegal immigration a “very serious problem” adversely affecting the state.

But while our economy may be poor, horrific economic conditions elsewhere in the world make it attractive for some to sacrifice everything to come to California--even if it means working for subminimum wages in subhuman conditions.

The availability of low-paying, hazardous and “under-the-table” jobs is the magnet drawing illegal immigrants to California. Although data is scarce on California’s undocumented population, a 1992 U.S. Department of Justice survey of 6,193 immigrants found that 94% of those who immigrated did so in search of a job.

Unfortunately, there are substantial incentives to hiring undocumented workers. As a result, some Californians are quick to reach out to undocumented workers to fill certain positions.

These workers do not demand minimum wages, a safe workplace, Workers’ Compensation or other basic benefits. Consequently, law-abiding employers are at a huge disadvantage when trying to compete, particularly those in hazardous or labor-intensive industries.

It’s apparent that, until we reduce the availability of employment for those illegally migrating to California, we will fail in our efforts to stem the tide of illegal immigration to this state.

I submitted a bill (AB 2404) in the last session to strike at the heart of this problem. It was carried over and on Tuesday, the Assembly Public Safety Committee approved it by a 6-0 vote with two abstentions. It now goes to the Assembly’s Ways and Means Committee, where I hope it will be approved within the next month.

The measure provides for civil and criminal sanctions for employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers. First offenses would be subject to fines. Subsequent convictions would result in the seizure of business assets and criminal penalties.

The provisions for asset forfeiture would be similar to those currently used by law enforcement to combat drug-trafficking, with a few important distinctions.

First, an employer’s property could be forfeited only after the defendant is found guilty in a court of law.

Secondly, asset forfeiture would apply only to repeat offenders--employers who had previously been convicted of knowingly hiring undocumented workers.

Thirdly, to target enforcement on the most egregious abusers, the provisions of AB 2404 would apply only to employers of five or more employees.

This measure has ignited a firestorm of discussion. Criticisms come largely from those who are unfamiliar with the protections in the bill for legitimate employers. This bill requires employers to do nothing more than is already required under federal law. Indeed, legitimate businesses recognize they are at a competitive disadvantage to those who do not pay lawful wages and provide safe workplaces.

Most businesses view AB 2404, quite correctly, as a way to level the “playing field,” to coerce all businesses to play by the rules, and to penalize those businesses that profit by breaking the law--as well as to fund further investigations and prosecutions.

While federal employer sanctions currently exist, embodied in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), past experience has made it clear that those federal sanctions are weak, compounded by a lack of committed resources to enforce the law. As a result, there has been little impact on the continued practice of hiring undocumented workers.

Although IRCA substantially increased the enforcement budget of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the number of investigations staff accounted for only 15% of INS’ total enforcement budget. A 1991 study by the Rand Corporation and the Urban Institute indicated that in INS’ Los Angeles district office, there were 2.2 employer-sanctions staffers per 10,000 employers in 1989.

One very valid concern that has been raised in discussions on this measure is the possibility that tougher employer sanctions will lead to increased racial discrimination in employment.

Indeed, a 1990 General Accounting Office study concluded that IRCA’s federal employer sanctions had caused widespread discrimination against job applicants who looked or sounded foreign.

It is true the federal government’s response to these statistics has been abysmal. INS’ Office of Special Counsel, created to handle those cases, currently has a staff of only 17 to handle IRCA-related discrimination cases nationwide.

To address this disparity, AB 2404 would designate a portion of forfeited assets to public agencies to investigate and prosecute employment-discrimination cases.

In addition, a portion of the proceeds would go to counties to help defray the costs of providing social services, and to fund further enforcement of the law.

A tamper-proof identification card establishing legal residency, such as a tamper-proof Social Security card issued after verification of legal residency, also would allay an employer’s fear that he or she may unwittingly hire an undocumented worker. I am exploring the possibility of including in AB 2404 provisions for a tamper-proof identification card.

There can be no doubt that social service programs are impacted by the wave of illegal immigrants, once they are here. But there has been an unwillingness by government to tackle the reason illegal immigrants journey here: to work.

Most of the proposals to address the illegal immigration problem in this state do not recognize this fundamental fact. There have been proposals to deny emergency health care to undocumented immigrants, and to remove children of undocumented immigrants from public schools. Many of these proposals are shortsighted and some, just plain mean-spirited.

Those who have sacrificed everything are not likely to return to their country of origin merely because their children are removed from school. It is far more likely those children will instead be pressed into the same shady employment scheme as their parents, despite state and federal child labor laws.

Just as likely, the children will simply grow up in California, uneducated and without hope of education, resulting in a significant impact on public safety and a long-term cost to taxpayers.

I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw recently, which read: “Think Education Is Expensive?--Try Ignorance.” What have we saved in tax dollars if we must quadruple law enforcement and prison budgets to compensate for this shortsighted saving in public education?

Targeting employers who flagrantly violate the laws against hiring undocumented workers is the only fair, humane and workable solution to the problem of illegal immigration in this state. After all, why should unscrupulous employers enjoy the fruits of illegal labor, at the expense of every other Californian?