The Senate's immigration proposal would make employers largely
responsible for enforcing immigration laws. It includes intrusive
workplace enforcement measures that would prove both costly and
burdensome for businesses and would force a bureaucratic nightmare
on employers and employees. Rather than increase the regulatory
burden on businesses and workers, Congress should emulate the
private sector's solution to similar problems. To ensure that
companies hire only legal immigrants, Congress should require them
to post surety bonds backed by an insurance company guaranteeing
that their employees are legally allowed to work in America. In
addition, to ensure that temporary guest workers leave after their
visas expire, Congress should require them to post a bond when they
enter the United States.
Surety Bonds a Better Solution
Rather than forcing every worker to obtain federal approval
before he or she can take a job, Congress should look to a more
effective private sector solution to ensure that companies do not
hire illegal immigrants. Before undertaking construction projects,
most contractors obtain a surety bond with an insurance company.
The insurance company guarantees the customer that the project will
be completed according to the contract. If the contractor fails to
meet the agreed upon terms, the insurance company compensates the
customer for the loss. The insurance company then recoups the cost
of the payments from the contractor or, if the contractor has gone
bankrupt, covers it itself.
Because the insurance company is ultimately liable if the
contractor defaults and cannot pay, insurance companies thoroughly
investigate contractors before they post bonds for them. They
examine the companies' reputations, references, financial strength,
experience, and equipment to ensure that they can do the job. They
charge less reliable companies higher premiums to post a bond and
refuse to post bonds for firms that they believe are unlikely to
meet their obligations.
Congress should institute a similar procedure to ensure that
private businesses do not hire illegal immigrants. Instead of
instituting an expensive and burdensome government intrusion into
corporate employment practices, Congress could simply require
businesses to obtain a surety bond stating that they are not hiring
illegal immigrants.
More Efficient and Effective
Private insurers would find the most efficient and effective
means of verifying that employers are not hiring illegal
immigrants. Because insurers would lose money if they posted a bond
for a company that was later found to employ illegal immigrants,
they would have the incentive to thoroughly investigate firms'
hiring practices before posting bonds and continually improve their
investigative methods. Surety bonds would put the same profit
motive that encourages businesses to hire illegal immigrants at
work finding new and better ways of ensuring that employers obey
the law. In this way, surety bonds would be far more effective than
any inflexible government workplace enforcement measures.
Surety bonds would also ensure that only those employers most
likely to hire illegal immigrants, such as construction companies,
pay the highest premiums and face the most rigorous investigations
before obtaining a bond. Firms less likely to employ illegal
immigrants, such as software engineering companies, would face a
lighter burden. This is far better than forcing every employer and
every new business to endure an expensive and time-consuming
verification procedure for each new employee.
Bonds for Temporary Workers
Employers who hire seasonal or truly temporary workers face one
additional hurdle in addition to those faced by employers who
maintain a full-time, resident work force: Temporary workers
sometimes choose to remain in the United States rather than return
to their home countries. A guest worker program would fail if those
registered to work in the United States for a specified time
violated their temporary work visas and became part of the vast
population of undocumented immigrants. A straightforward solution
to this problem would be to require guest workers or their
employers to post sponsorship bonds before they can begin their
employment.[1]
An effective guest worker program could be organized around the
following four elements:
- Exit Bonds: Bonds could be used to validate a migrant's
entry into the U.S. labor market or to begin employers' searches
for temporary migrant workers. In the first instance, an immigrant
worker could enter the U.S. to find temporary work only after
posting a bond that assures his duty to return to his home country
after a specified period of time. In the second instance, companies
could buy a number of bonds and then find workers to match to the
bonds. In either case, the value of the bond would be repaid when
the immigrant lawfully returned to his or her home country.
- Sponsorship: Each guest worker would need to find a
sponsoring employer within a month of entering the country.
Employers would need to verify that the worker they were thinking
about sponsoring was eligible to work in the United States. If a
worker lost his or her sponsor, the law would give the worker a
month to find another sponsor. A sponsorship program uses a market
approach of supply and demand rather than bureaucratic regulation
to determine the size of the temporary immigrant workforce.
- Benefits: Sponsors would provide medical, disability,
and other insurance to migrant employees to ensure that temporary
workers do not depend on public services.
- Identification and Exit: Sponsored employees would have
to be biometrically identified and catalogued at the border, carry
identification with them while in the U.S., and return home when
their visas expire or forfeit their bonds.
Tie Value of Bond to Cost of Illegal
Immigrants
The value of the surety bonds should be large enough to
discourage employers from hiring illegal immigrants. It should also
be small enough not to discourage firms from hiring workers out of
the fear that accidentally hiring an illegal immigrant could
bankrupt the business. It consequently seems reasonable to tie the
value of the surety bond to the net cost that taxpayers bear for
each new illegal immigrant.
According to one estimate, it costs taxpayers $5,258 to provide
general services to each immigrant household without a high school
diploma, because services like roads, police protection, public
safety, and other administrative government services expand as the
population grows.[2] Illegal immigrants may also use other
government programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, the Earned
Income Tax Credit, or housing assistance. Congress should require
companies to obtain a bond to cover the cost of a year's worth of
services and any public assistance money spent on an illegal
immigrant, less the withholding taxes the employer collected over
the past year.
For example, suppose the government found that a construction
company had hired one illegal immigrant, and that the immigrant had
not collected any government aid over the past year and had paid
$1,000 in taxes. The company's insurer would owe $4,258, which is a
year's worth of services at $5,258, less the money the immigrant
and his employer had contributed toward the cost of those services
in taxes. If the immigrant had also used $10,000 worth of food
stamps and government subsidized medical care during that time, the
insurer would owe $14,258.
This would also ensure that insurers and employers focus their
resources on catching the immigrants who would be the greatest
drains on taxpayers and the economy. Employers would face the
largest fines for hiring immigrants who contribute the least to
society, and most of their verification efforts would be focused on
identifying these immigrants.
Conclusion
Intrusive workplace enforcement measures would add an expensive
layer of regulation to the burdens that American businesses already
face. Congress should reject this approach and instead require
companies to obtain a surety bond stating that they have not hired
illegal immigrants. Likewise, sponsorship bonds put a greater
emphasis and reliance on market mechanisms than on central planners
in Washington.
Using bonds in these creative ways would harness the innovative
energies of the private sector to find the most efficient ways of
verifying that a company's workforce is legal. This would also
ensure that companies unlikely to hire illegal immigrants would not
face the same burden as those more likely to do so. The bond would
be the amount of the cost to taxpayers of the immigrants staying
illegally in the country, less any taxes paid, ensuring that most
enforcement resources are devoted to finding the immigrants who are
the greatest drain to taxpayers.
William W. Beach is
Director of, and James Sherk is Bradley
Fellow in Labor Policy in, the Center for Data Analysis at The
Heritage Foundation
[1] For a detailed description of this
approach, see Tim Kane, Ph.D., and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., "The
Real Problem with Immigration...and the Real Solution," Heritage
Foundation Backgrounder No. 1913, March 2, 2006, at www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg1913.cfm,
and Tim Kane, Ph.D., "Sponsorship: The Key to a Temporary Worker
Program," Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 1022,
February 27, 2007, at www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/em1022.cfm.
[2] Robert Rector, Christine Kim, and Shanea
Watkins, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S.
Taxpayer," Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 12, April
4, 2007, Chart 2, at www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/sr12.cfm.