[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       IMMIGRATION HORROR STORIES

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] 
introduced the Comprehensive Immigration and Asylum Reform Act of 1994 
this morning, and made a lengthy statement with regard to the 
appropriateness and timeliness of that legislation which would address 
fraud and other inconsistencies in our immigration laws.
  I am very pleased to see that the Senator who has worked so hard in 
this area and who is so knowledgeable on this subject has seen fit to 
lay his legislation down.
  My statement this morning concerns the horror stories associated with 
some of the policies covering immigration. I think it is fair to say 
that a majority of my colleagues would agree that the legislative 
intent clearly is not being carried out with regard to the enforcement 
of regulatory mandates.
  Let me share with you this morning, Mr. President, the story of a 
constituent of mine who was fined $15,000 last Tuesday for violating 
the immigration laws by routinely asking new employees for 
identification to prove that they were authorized to work in the United 
States. We are all aware of the concerns associated with illegal 
immigrants coming into this country to work. By law, the burden is on 
the employer to address this concern by requiring employees to provide 
identification.
  This company agreed to pay a civil penalty and change its practices 
in response to a lawsuit that was filed by the Justice Department's 
Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment 
Practices.
  The suit accused the company in my State of asking new employees for 
a picture identification card and Social Security card to prove that 
they were authorized to work in this country.
  I am sure the President would agree this morning that those two 
documents would be what a reasonable businessman would consider 
adequate identification to verify employment eligibility. But the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 says that while employers 
must examine documents presented by new employees to verify eligibility 
for employment the employers cannot specify which of the various 
legally acceptable documents an employee must present.
  Now, Justice Department Special Counsel, Mr. William Ho-Gonzalez, is 
quoted as saying that, ``This case points out how even well-intentioned 
employers may run afoul of the law if they do not pay sufficient 
attention to the requirements of the employment authorization 
verification program.'' Furthermore, the spokesperson for the Justice 
Department said, ``Taking short cuts in this area will invariably lead 
to trouble.''
  Mind you, the law requires employers to verify the identity and 
employment eligibility of anyone they hire, and the documents that this 
company requested would allow them to make this verification. But the 
Justice Department took the position that the law was technically 
violated because the company specifically asked for these documents.
  Ironically, even though the Internal Revenue Service requires 
employees to have a Social Security number to be paid, the Justice 
Department took the position that a job application that requests an 
employee to show a Social Security card violated the immigration laws.
  Mr. President, this particular employer is seasonal, employs many 
immigrant workers, and obviously is very conscious of the law against 
hiring illegal aliens.
  I am told that the reason the Government was able to extract this 
$15,000 payment was that the law under which they would prosecute 
mandates a fine. Mandates a fine, Mr. President, for each employment 
application, each one. It does not matter whether the violation was 
intentional or unintentional, nor does it matter to the Justice 
Department whether harm was done. Thus, the Government is given an 
inordinate amount of leverage and employers are placed at an extreme 
economic disadvantage.
  Mr. President, let me share a few more horrible details of this 
story. The Justice Department admitted that there was no evidence of 
discrimination or of anyone who was denied employment in violation of 
the law. So, no one was hurt. Furthermore, the INS reviewed the company 
employee files and documents on at least three occasions during the 
past 3 years, and during that time they did not object to the company's 
job application.
  The company voluntarily and immediately changed its application once 
the Justice Department's interpretation was known, but the Justice 
Department went ahead and filed a lawsuit anyway--despite the fact that 
it could not identify a single victim of the process or the practice.
  The Justice Department's position in the litigation was that each 
application the company handed out constituted a separate violation for 
which it could be fined from $100 to $1,000. The Justice Department 
told the company that their exposure was at least $350,000. The company 
settled because the Justice Department refused to dismiss the lawsuit 
unless the company paid a $15,000 civil fine.
  The company paid the amount simply to avoid the expense of further 
litigation which would have amounted to a lawyer's full employment act. 
Again, there was no ruling that the company violated any discrimination 
law. There were no individuals harmed by the company's job application 
form. The fact that Mr. Ho-Gonzalez chose to publicize this settlement 
proves the entire exercise was undertaken for just one purpose--to send 
a message to all those employers out there, and I hope they are 
listening and watching, that the Justice Department is indeed focusing 
its resources on unwary employers.
  So, Mr. President, I would encourage my colleagues, as we look at 
immigration reforms such as Senator Simpson's bill, to recognize the 
absurd effect of some of the laws that are passed here, and the 
inconsistent manner in which the laws are enforced. I think the story 
that I have related today is a classic case of where the legislative 
intent, which was to say that we wanted to make sure that illegal 
aliens are not being hired, was twisted to the point that the Justice 
Department has taken the unintended step of suggesting that an employer 
that asks for reasonable identification to satisfy himself that he is 
not dealing with an illegal alien will be prosecuted.
  I find this an extraordinary extension of logic, but that is not 
unusual around here.
  I thank the Chair. I wish the President a good day, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator from New York, Mr. 
Moynihan, is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska leaves the floor, may I say I listened with attention to his 
remarks and they are very convincing.
  There ought to be a rule. There are rules but they ought to be 
followed for purposes of enforcement of the law and not harassment of 
individual employers.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from New York for his comments and 
observation. I totally agree.

                          ____________________