That is a real increase in the size and the potency of the sanctions and the number of sanctions we’re bringing against people who are deliberately violating our laws against employing illegal aliens.

 In October of just this past year, last month, Richard Rosenbaum, the former president of a nationwide cleaning service, pled guilty to harboring illegal aliens and conspiring to defraud the United States. He will pay restitution to the United States in an amount expected to exceed $16 million. And he will also agree to forfeit bank accounts and currency totaling more than $1.1 million for knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Bottom line: The days of treating employers who violate these laws by giving them the equivalent of a corporate parking ticket -- those days are gone. It’s now felonies, jail time, fines and forfeitures.

Giving employers the tools.

Now, I want to be clear: I don’t think most employers want to violate the law. I think the vast majority of employers really do want to comply with the law. But we’ve got to give them the tools to do the job and to make sure that they are in compliance. This is not all about sticks. There have got to be some carrots as well that help people do the right thing. And that means a couple of things: facilitating illegal immigration by finding ways to improve that process, and also facilitating the process of determining that you have a legal workforce by giving employers easy-to-use and accurate tools that will allow them to verify that when they hire someone, that person has a lawful right to work in the United States. 

Enhanced E-Verify 

One major element of our strategy is E-Verify. E-Verify, formerly known as Basic Pilot, is a web-based system administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It allows employers to electronically check whether a worker is authorized to work in our country. The basic version of this is to compare the name and the Social Security number to make sure they’re accurate and that they match. An enhanced version we’re currently putting online allows you to actually compare a picture of the person online, based on something we have in our federal files -- and hopefully, eventually, pictures in driver’s license files -- to compare that picture with the person who’s actually standing before you as the applicant. That would allow us to take E-Verify from simply a name-checking system to actually an identity-checking system.

 E-Verify’s popularity is growing. More than 24,000 companies were enrolled at the end of the fiscal year, but today that number is over 30,000. In terms of usage, more than 3.2 million new hires have been processed through E-Verify, and usage is growing by about 83 percent annually. Why? Because it’s an easy tool to use. In more than 90 percent of cases, you get a response within seconds that clears a person. And even when there are discrepancies, most of them can be resolved within a very short period of time.

We do obviously want to work to make sure that we are as close to a hundred percent accurate as possible. For that reason, we have a monitoring and compliance unit to make sure that employers are using the system properly. We also have increased our outreach to employers to make sure everybody understands how the system works, and to make sure nobody abuses the system to discriminate or unfairly target people within certain ethnic groups.

 Status of Social Security No-Match Data

Now there’s another tool we’d like to use to help employers identify when there’s a problem with their workforce. And that is the ability to use Social Security No-Match data. Earlier this year, we issued a regulation that would make clear to employers what they should do when they get a letter from the Social Security Administration that says to them there’s a discrepancy or a mismatch between a name and a Social Security number that you have filed on behalf of an employee.

Sometimes there’s an innocent explanation for that mismatch, which is that somebody has simply provided incorrect data to Social Security. In that case, of course it’s very much to the benefit of the employee to correct that innocent mistake so they don’t find themselves in 30 years expecting to get Social Security benefits that never arrive. 

But there are also times -- and frankly, a lot of times -- when that mismatch reflects the fact that the name and the number aren’t real, or they don’t match because someone is using a false name or a false number in order to work illegally. And in that circumstance, there isn’t simply a matter of cleaning up a discrepancy, but the employers should know the steps that they ought to take in order to make sure that they do not continue to hire or employ that illegal worker in their workforce.

What this regulation is designed to do is to create a very clear set of guidances and a clear safe harbor so employers know what to do when they get a No-Match letter, and then can take the appropriate steps either to correct a mistake, or to make sure that they discharge someone who is working illegally, based on the fact that they don’t have a legal work authorization. The simple point is this: You can’t simply stick your head in the sand.

 Temporary Injunction Prevents the Match Initiative.

Now, the bad news is this regulation is not in effect. It’s been suspended because it’s been blocked by a temporary injunction issued by a federal district court in California. That court responded to a lawsuit filed by a number of groups -- advocacy groups as well as business groups -- who were opposed to the idea of putting this No-Match regulation into effect. We’re currently seeing what we can do to address the concerns that the judge entered in order to see whether we can get the injunction lifted, and then go forward with this regulation, which, as I’ve said, is temporarily suspended.

But I do want to make it clear that litigation such as the effort to block the No-Match rule or the effort to block building fence, is precisely the reason why it’s been so difficult over the last 30 years to get control of the border. The problems that my predecessors had in dealing with illegal immigration, at least in part, were based on the fact that there were lots of hurdles that were put in place to prevent people from using some of the tools that we’re trying to use now in order to get control of the border.                                          

Employers Opposed. No "Silent Amnesty."

 I know that some employers resist these rules because they’re concerned about the impact it’s going to have on their own workforce. When we got comments -- at the time we put the No-Match regulation out for public comment, at least one business group was quite candid in saying that if this regulation went into effect, some businesses, which have workforces largely built on illegal workers, would be forced to discharge those workers.  

And I understand that enforcing the laws is now going to have an economic impact on some industries. That’s why we continue to urge Congress to address this by making sure that the law is reformed. But until Congress acts, we have the law that is on the books. And I and everybody else in my agency is sworn to uphold that law.

We are not going to have a silent amnesty. We’re not going to deal with the economic issues by closing our eyes to a law violation. We’re going to try to do the very best we can to improve the law in a way to make it easier to hire lawful workers. But at the end of the day, if people are hiring illegals, we’re going to do everything we can with the tools we have to make sure that we react strongly and aggressively and in a tough manner against that violation of the law.

As another example of our approach, in Illinois recently, the state legislature passed a law that effectively prohibits employers from using this E-Verify system I’ve just described -- even if they want to do it voluntarily. We went to court. We are suing to get that rule overturned. 
 

My commitment is very simply this: I want to work to make sure we improve the law. We stand ready to work with Congress when Congress is ready to take up intelligent, sensible, comprehensive immigration reform. But while we have the laws on the books, we’re going to enforce them. We’re going to enforce them vigorously. We’re going to keep faith with the American people. And my commitment to the American people is this: I will fight every lawsuit, I will deal with every procedural roadblock, I will use every tool the law allows to continue to press forward in enforcing the laws. We will not give up. We will not lose our resolve. We will not lose our energy. We’re going to continue to work as hard as we can and overcome any roadblock that the law allows us to overcome to complete the job of getting control of the border, and to move forward on really turning the tide of this issue of illegal immigration, which is so much on the minds of the American people.

 Need More Legal Workers to Come to America

But a final critical piece of this is to deal with a very real economic need, which is currently being filled by illegals. And that means finding a way to make it easier to get legal workers to come into this country, particularly legal temporary workers, to meet the legitimate needs of our workforce and a growing economy.

 As I said earlier, the vast majority of people entering our country illegally are doing so to work. And let’s be honest -- Americans are employing them. American companies are employing the illegals to do work because they can’t find Americans to do that work. So if we are going to need to bring workers in to fill a growing labor gap, we have to find a way to do it lawfully, a way that promotes rather than compromises our national security, and a way that gives us visibility to the people who come in.

Some of this will require enactments by Congress. But there are some things we can do in the regulatory process. No sector of the American economy is in more need of illegal flow of foreign workers than agriculture, where we have traditionally relied upon foreign workers to do a great deal of the seasonal agricultural work.

 H-2A VISA Program

One key program that has the potential to fill the need for seasonal agricultural workers is the H-2A visa program. That program, however, has not been used as widely as it can be, because it has been cumbersome, and it has been difficult, and it has therefore become unappealing to some employers. But working with the Department of Labor, DHS has completed a comprehensive review of the regulations implementing the H-2A program so that we can look for ways to improve the program, even as we continue to hope that Congress addresses the problem more comprehensively.

I’m therefore pleased to say that this week (last week) the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security will send to the Office of Management and Budget a series of proposed regulations that will improve and remove some of the current limitations on U.S. employers’ ability to utilize the H-2A program. These sets of proposed rules will provide farmers with a more orderly and timely flow of legal workers, while continuing to protect the rights of laborers and promoting legal and secure methods for determining who is coming into the country. The proposed rules will also provide better ways to ensure the integrity of the program.

This kind of regulatory change is what I would call a win-win. It’s a win for the agricultural employers, by giving them an opportunity to take care of their business needs within the law rather than outside the law. It’s also good for people outside the country, who are really looking for nothing more than to do work that will put bread on the tables of their families back home. And if we can give them a legal way to get that work, many of them will choose to take that legal way as opposed to trying to sneak across the border, and at a minimum, violating the law, if not putting their life and limb in jeopardy.

 In addition to the regulation, which of course has to await OMB clearance, the Department of Labor is also issuing today a Guidance Letter to State Workforce Agencies that administer some elements of the H-2A program. Again, this Guidance Letter will help clarify the responsibility of the State Workforce Agencies with regard to this H-2A program, so that we can ensure consistent application of the program nationwide, which will also make it more efficient.

And for those of you who are not familiar with what these agencies do, State Workforce Agencies post an employer’s job vacancies in the state employment system, and they refer U.S. workers for jobs that need to be filled. And so they play an important role in regulating the flow of workers for, for example, job sectors like agriculture. 

The Guidance Letter that is going out from the Department of Labor will clarify a number of issues, including the following:

That employers whose operations cross state lines can file one consolidated job order that’ll be circulated in multiple states. That of course is more efficient for the employers; it streamlines and makes the process more attractive. 

That State Workforce Agencies will first direct applicants to unfilled positions before referring them to temporary jobs that have already begun. That will address the problem that sometimes arises when employers feel they’re caught in a revolving door, in which they hire someone to do a job at one point, and then someone else is referred and they have to fire the first employee.

And also the Guidance Letter will direct that the Department of Labor will not consider workers to be qualified or eligible to be referred for work unless a State Workforce Agency certifies that it has checked the legal status of the worker before referring a worker to an employer. This is designed to deal with the rather remarkable situation that sometimes occurs where you have a temporary worker on a job, a State Workforce Agency refers another worker, displacing the legal temporary worker, and then it turns out that the referred worker is an illegal worker who is in the country in violation of the law. The simple cure for that is to have the State Workforce Agency get on E-Verify and check the status of the referred worker before they send the worker in to displace a legal, temporary worker.

 Some of these seem like pretty simple, straightforward, common-sense things. That’s a good thing. We do like to promote common sense. And it’s a reflection of the President’s commitment and the administration’s commitment to do everything we can within the existing law to give employers a way to satisfy economic needs that complies with the law rather than violates the law.

Conclusion

The bottom line before I take questions is this: Immigration is a source of strength for this country. And this agency, as well as the other agencies of this administration, are committed to promoting and enhancing the opportunities for lawful immigration that is good for this country, that supports our economic needs, and that also constructs a process that gives us visibility and confidence that we know who is coming into the country. 

At the same time, illegal immigration poses not only a challenge to the rule of law, but at least in some cases a challenge to our security and our public safety. And there, we are committed to making continued progress, recognizing it’s not -- Rome wasn’t built in a day, and we’re not going to turn this problem around in a day, but we’re committed to continuing to make substantial, measurable progress to strengthen the border and make sure that the law against illegal immigration is enforced.

In the end, I ask Congress to come back to the table and talk about a way we might resolve this problem comprehensively and in an enduring fashion, so that we can leave our children a legacy of a well-regulated border and a sound economy. In the meantime, my commitment is this: we will enforce the laws as they are on the books, we will not close our eyes to law-breaking, and we will continue to devote all of the energy of the Department of Homeland Security to overcoming any obstacles that prevent us from making sure that the rule of law remains our lodestar in the area of immigration.