7-Eleven Raids Portend 24-7 ICE Enforcement
This week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) served a hundred 7-Eleven stores nationwide with notices of inspection and detained twenty-one undocumented workers. ICE will require the 7-Eleven stores to produce documents showing 7-Eleven required work authorizations from their employees.
January 19, 2018 at 12:32 PM
4 minute read
This week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) served a hundred 7-Eleven stores nationwide with notices of inspection and detained twenty-one undocumented workers. ICE will require the 7-Eleven stores to produce documents showing 7-Eleven required work authorizations from their employees. The 7-Eleven action comes a few days after the Trump administration announced that they are ending a humanitarian program, known as Temporary Protected Status, for approximately 200,000 El Salvadorans who have been allowed to live and work in the United States legally since devastating earthquakes hit their country in 2001.
The action against 7-Eleven stems from a four-year old case against a 7-Eleven franchisee in New York. While the action this week may have been a surprise to some, the Trump administration's commitment to immigration enforcement shouldn't be. Last year, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a new directive on immigration enforcement which focused on re-entry and entry prosecutions and mentioned 8 U.S.C. §1324, which addresses smuggling and harboring, the core statute used for worksite enforcement cases.
ICE's worksite enforcement program focuses on criminal prosecution of employers of undocumented workers, particularly companies who utilize unauthorized workers as a business model, mistreat workers, engage in identity fraud, human trafficking, or smuggling, or participate in other criminal conduct. Prosecutors use the smuggling and harboring statute for worksite enforcement cases, which can impose significant jail time for employers, depending on the number of unauthorized workers. And the smuggling and harboring statutes have a lower standard of proof—instead of requiring knowledge, recklessness is sufficient. The smuggling and harboring statutes also provide for asset forfeiture, which creates a significant incentive for ICE to prosecute the cases. The reinstatement of the worksite enforcement program means that employers of undocumented workers can face serious consequences, both in terms of potential fines and jail time.
Sessions' 2017 directive made it clear that immigration enforcement (including worksite enforcement) would become one of the U.S. Department of Justice's priorities. And it did. As Corporate Counsel predicted following the election, the Trump administration is making good on Trump's campaign promises to expand immigration enforcement, which has already seen a 40 percent increase in deportation arrests across the nation.
Top ICE officials have warned that the 7-Eleven action is the first of many and should send a strong message to U.S. employers that they will be held accountable for hiring unauthorized workers. Companies should take a proactive approach to increased worksite enforcement. Here are three steps to get started:
- Companies should ensure they have effective policies and procedures in place to deal with immigration compliance. The company's hiring process should include clear procedures on immigration screening to ensure compliance with immigration requirements. The government offers the E-Verify program to assist companies with immigration compliance screening of potential employees.
- After implementing policies and procedures, companies should educate employees on expectations of the compliance program. Companies should identify employees whose job description includes handling immigration issues (e.g., HR management) and provide training on the immigration process, potential issues, and appropriate responses.
- Monitoring is essential to program effectiveness. Companies should develop a plan for responding to compliance failures and conduct audits to ensure employees follow the rules. For example, the company could audit I-9 forms (the forms that employers are required to use to collect information on employment eligibility) for technical and procedural errors and adequate documentation. Companies should also make sure employees know how to confidentially report suspected unauthorized employment practices through a helpline or some other reporting mechanism.
A company's immigration compliance program will vary depending on the company's size and business environment. Addressing compliance and immigration enforcement will help address issues proactively and minimize exposure in the event of a compliance failure.
Ryan McConnell and Stephanie Bustamante are lawyers at R. McConnell Group—a compliance boutique law firm in Houston, Texas. McConnell is a former assistant U.S. Attorney in Houston who has taught criminal procedure and corporate compliance at the University of Houston Law Center. He also prosecuted a number of significant worksite cases while an AUSA resulting in millions of dollars in fines and criminal charges against individuals. Bustamante's work at the firm focuses on risk and compliance issues in addition to assisting clients with responding to compliance failures. Send column ideas to [email protected]. Follow the firm on Twitter @RMcConnellGroup.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District
- 2SoundCloud GC Takes Legal Reins of Condé Nast at Tumultuous Time
- 3When Dealing With Child Abuse Cases, Attorneys Need to Know How Children Perceive Time
- 4Like a Life Raft: Ben Brafman Reflects on Nearly 50 Years as a Defense Attorney
- 5HSF Partner Removed Over ‘Deeply Offensive’ Tweets
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250