This commentary is by Michael Moon, who retired as Deputy Chief Patrol Agent at El Paso in 2005.  He was involved in the employer sanctions efforts from its inception in 1987, in the El Paso sector. (572 words)

Based on my experiences directly in the Employer Sanctions program when it began, one of the things that I think is very important is infrastructure.  The entire concept of employer sanctions back in the 1980’s was a unique attempt to gain control of illegal immigration by attacking the lure of employment to come here.  However, while the whole program was ambitious in its intent, it only began with a skeleton infrastructure and with limited abilities to handle this new approach.  It soon became obvious that it was doomed to failure.  The promised infrastructure never developed and planned abilities to enforce the law across the board in every town or city in the nation were never carried out.

Anytime new programs are introduced, it is crucial to design them around the capabilities of your enforcement community, or to ensure that you create new resources dedicated to carry out that enforcement action.

The second item I want to comment on is the fact that employers were able to abuse the system, even in an area with sufficient enforcement capabilities.  Let me explain my comment.  I spent several years in employer sanctions so my comments are based on experience.  When I worked several cases concerning garment manufacturing, most companies in this area had the majority of their positions held by illegal aliens.  When I would go to review the I-9, the company would present a list of workers and supporting documentation.  They may present a list of up 200 to 300 employees that may or may not be legal.  However, if some suspicion were present and I checked with the Texas Workforce Commission, their list for that particular company may reflect only 150 employees.  This made it obvious that not only was the company using illegal workers; they were not paying workman's compensation taxes on the illegal employees.  Another situation I remember involved a farmer that had seven or eight children, each of which had a social security number.  He had assigned the social security numbers of his children to his illegal help so that when he withheld social security taxes from the workers at payroll time, the credit went to his children.  I know these comments are probably basic in nature, but I have often found that the very basic issues are the ones ignored. 

The system had so many loopholes in it, that it also created the ability and incentive for the employer to be dishonest as well.  If these incentives and advantages are not removed from the employer, the incentive for the illegal to continue to seek employment here will remain.

One other point I would like to make is that the punishment or fine for using illegal employees was not in proportion to the business.  As an example Walmart had five illegals assembling bicycles here in El Paso.  These same five were apprehended on two separate occasions.  The fine levied against Walmart was $10,000, which ended up being mitigated to around $3,000.  When a corporation with such huge assets is not hit in proportionally in the pocket book, it is considered just more overhead and part of the cost of doing business.  The benefits of using illegal workers far outweighs the penalty.