We're nowhere close to comprehensive immigration reform legislation but changes are coming sooner rather than later to the practices that employers use to verify the legal status of workers. And no one knows yet exactly what those changes will look like.
Currently The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is lead watchdog in policing workers' legal status. But the DHS lacks the authority to force an employer to clear up any matching discrepancies between a new worker's social security number and information in the database that houses those numbers -- and companies are confused about requirements in resolving no match letters they receive from the DHS.
Some states in which illegal immigration is a particularly big hot potato are clamping down on employers that fail to take the issue seriously. Confusion abounds because some state laws conflict with each other.
These proactive states require employers to use the web-based system maintained by the DHS; legislation is pending in many more states to require companies to use the voluntary system. Rep. Heath Shuler's (R-NC) SAVE act, which has won support from 140 House lawmakers, according to The Dallas News, would make use of the system mandatory.
Critics of the current web-based system say it isn't foolproof (skeptics say it can't detect stolen identity) and are looking for a more stringent solution. Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX) introduced a bill that would reduce the DHS's role as the policeman of employment status and instead would put the burden of proof of work eligibility on employees themselves. New workers would be required to go to a firm that contracts with the federal government to run an identity check. Employers could opt into the new program and the government's current voluntary Internet-based system would be eliminated.
Proponents of both bills argue that theirs is the smartest approach. But some big business groups have come out for Johnson's plan, which would lighten employers' administrative burdens. Stay tuned -- legislation could be voted on this year.
Links:
[1] http://businessfinancemag.com/blog/brannen-brief-1212