Top
Stories

Featured Article Getting Minorities to Buy In on Retirement February 13, 2012
Featured Article State Law Favored Over Feds in Overtime Case February 12, 2012
Featured Article Adopting a Social Media Mind-Set February 12, 2012
Featured Article Social Media and Collaboration Tools February 12, 2012
Featured Article Arbitration Pact Barring Class Lawsuits Violates NLRA February 12, 2012
Featured Article The Last Word: Backyard Retirement Plan February 11, 2012
Featured Article State Public Sector Retirement Plan Roundup February 10, 2012
Featured Article States Taking a Hard Look at Pensions February 10, 2012
Featured Article Wisconsin's Tough Choice February 10, 2012
Featured Article Small Employers Exploring Health Care Exchange Options February 8, 2012
Featured Article Tech Talk February 8, 2012

Latest News

DHS Issues Supplemental ‘No-Match’ Rule, Pushes Enforcement

Under the regulation, companies would have to clear up ‘no-match’ discrepancies within 93 days or fire employees in question. A no-match letter could serve as evidence that a company violated immigration law.

  • October 23, 2008
  • Comments (0)

While companies cope with financial market gyrations and a slowing economy, they have to keep an eye on immigration law.

In the latest move, the Department of Homeland Security took what it hopes is a decisive step toward forcing companies to act when employee names and Social Security numbers on tax forms don’t match information in the Social Security database.

On Thursday, October 23, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced a final supplemental rule that he said would answer most of the questions posed by a federal judge in Northern California who put an injunction on the original regulation. Chertoff is confident it will go into effect.

Under the regulation, companies would have to clear up “no-match” discrepancies within 93 days or fire employees in question. A no-match letter could serve as evidence that a company violated immigration law.

The judge issued a preliminary injunction because of objections raised in a suit by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several unions. They might try to block the supplemental rule too.

The regulation, which was first proposed in June 2006, gives companies a road map—and protection—for responding to a no-match letter, according to Chertoff. About 4 percent of approximately 250 million wage reports annually don’t correspond to the Social Security database.

“An employer cannot put his or her head in the sand,” Chertoff told reporters. “This is an anti-ostrich regulation.”

Elena Park, head of the immigration practice at Cozen O’Connor in Philadelphia, calls equating Social Security numbers with immigration status misguided because the database is rife with errors.

“The correlation is very weak,” Park said. “The [safe harbor] benefit does not outweigh the cost.”

Another employment lawyer said that companies will not be burdened.

“Employers fundamentally want to obey the law and be good citizens,” said Eric Bord, a partner at Morgan Lewis & Bockius in Washington.

But Bord does not support another tool that Chertoff praises—E-Verify, an electronic employee verification system that checks I-9 information against Social Security and DHS databases. A regulation that would make E-Verify mandatory for federal contractors is nearing completion.

So far, about 90,000 employers have voluntarily signed up. The Society for Human Resource Management and other business groups criticize E-Verify as inaccurate, inefficient and incapable of handling all U.S. employers.

The system was set to expire in November. Congress approved funding until early March. It could be interpreted as financing for one year, Chertoff said.

Although there is much opposition to E-Verify in Congress, it will probably be extended further next year, according to Bord.

“Neither Congress nor the new White House will want to bite off the whole immigration reform/immigration enforcement debate in its first two months,” Bord said.

DHS is trying to build support for comprehensive immigration reform by enforcing existing laws to reduce illegal immigration, according to Chertoff. In fiscal year 2008, the agency made a record 5,173 administrative and 1,101 criminal arrests in work-site raids.

“We have upheld our end of the bargain,” Chertoff said. “We have enforced the law and we have seen positive results.”

—Mark Schoeff Jr.

Workforce Management's online news feed is now available via Twitter

Leave A Comment

Guidelines: Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content you post.

Daily Q&A

What Can We Do When an Employee Has Exhausted the Leave-of-Absence Time Allowed by Our Workers' Comp Policy?

We have an employee who has been on workers' compensation for two years now—the claim is grandfathered under our old policy, but it's since changed. Now, when injured employees are on workers' compensation, they receive two-thirds of their pay and must use sick days and vacation to cover the remaining one-third. May we begin requiring the injured employee to use personal time?

—Sick About This, benefits coordinator, mining/oil/gas, Illinois

Read Answer

Stay Connected

Join our community for unlimited access to the latest tips, news and information in the HR world.

HR Jobs

View All Job Listings

Search